下载完整pdf文档
2021 United Nations Development Programme GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Copy Editor: Barbara Hall Design and Cover Image: Vilmar Luiz Copyright © UNDP University of Pittsburgh 2021 All rights reserved. United Nations Development Programme One United Nations Plaza New York, NY 10017 USA The views expressed in this publication are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the United Nations, including UNDP, or the UN Member States. UNDP is the leading United Nations organization fighting to end the injustice of poverty, inequality, and climate change. Working with our broad network of experts and partners in 170 countries, we help nations to build integrated, lasting solutions for people and planet. Learn more at undp.org or follow at @UNDP. General disclaimers The designations employed and the presentation of the material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. Dotted and dashed lines on maps represent approximate border lines for which there may not yet be full agreement. The findings, analysis, and recommendations of this Report, as with previous Reports, do not represent the official position of the UNDP or of any of the UN Member States that are part of its Executive Board. They are also not necessarily endorsed by those mentioned in the acknowledgments or cited. TABLE OF CONTENTS Acronyms and Abbreviations 5 Acknowledgements 6 Foreword from University of Pittsburgh 8 Foreword from UNDP 10 Executive Summary 12 1. Gender Equality in Public Administration: An Introduction 19 What does gender equality in public administration entail? 20 Gender equality in public administration: why now? 21 UNDP’s Gender Equality in Public Administration initiative 22 Report methodology and overview 24 2. Women’s Participation in Public Administration: Key Trends 26 The world is inching towards gender parity among civil servants, but progress is uneven across countries 27 Women’s participation in public administration varies across and within world regions 29 Countries that face greater economic and structural challenges have lower levels of women in public administration 32 Women’s concentration in part-time work 34 Women’s participation in public administration at the subnational level 35 Building gender equality in public administration: challenges and opportunities 37 3. Glass Ceilings: Challenges to Gender-Inclusive Decision-Making in Public Administration 43 Gender-inclusive decision-making in public administration: what is it and why does it matter? 44 Progress towards gender parity in decision-making in public administration worldwide: the state of the field 47 Gender parity by level of decision-making 47 Leadership as the domain of men: public administration vs. politics 54 Armed conflict and women in decision-making positions 56 Challenges and opportunities 58 4. Glass Walls: Sectoral Differences in Gender Inclusion 64 Why do glass walls matter? 65 Where in public administration do women work? An overall picture 67 Policy areas historically dominated by men: Defence, foreign affairs and finance 70 Women’s participation in ministries of environmental protection 73 Opportunities and challenges 75 5. Gender-Inclusive Public Administration and COVID-19 79 Gender and COVID-19 80 Women’s leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic 80 The health sector: women on the front lines and men at the helm 86 Gender-sensitive public policy responses to COVID-19 87 Challenges and opportunities: public administrations building back better 89 Why looking at intersectionality matters 93 6. Intersectionalities: A New Frontier 93 Intersections of gender with disability 95 Intersections of gender with race, ethnicity and indigeneity 98 Intersections of gender with age 101 Opportunities and challenges 103 7. Recommendations 107 Promote positive synergies with the broader gender equality agenda 108 Strengthen constitutional, legislative and policy frameworks 109 Support institutional change within public administration 110 Strengthen commitment to data availability to track progress on women in decision-making in public service, SDG 16 and the 2030 Agenda 117 Leverage partnerships and convening power to build strong global, regional and national partnerships for organizational change and gender equality 117 References 121 Glossary 146 Appendix A: 2021 Global GEPA Report Methodology 148 Appendix B: Data Availability 165 Appendix C: Measures of Women’s Participation and Decision-Making in Public Administration 172 ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS CEDAW EIGE GBV Gen-PaCS GEPA GIRL IPU ISCO LGBT LPA NDC NTLI OECD PAR PBSO PDET RBLAC ROAR SDG STEM TSMs UNDP UNDPPA VNR WHO Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women European Institute of Gender Equality Gender-based violence Gender Parity in Civil Service Gender Equality in Public Administration Gender Inequality Research Lab (University of Pittsburgh) Inter-Parliamentary Union International Standard Classification of Occupations Lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender Local public administration Nationally determined contribution National Transformational Leadership Institute Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Public Administration Reform Peacebuilding Support Office Programas de Desarrollo con Enfoque Territorial (Development Programs with Territorial Approach) Regional Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean Results-Oriented Annual Reporting Sustainable Development Goal Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths Temporary special measures United Nations Development Programme United Nations Department of Political and Peacebuilding Affairs Voluntary National Review World Health Organization GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Publication of the report took place under the leadership of Raquel Lagunas, Director of the Gender Team (UNDP), Dr. Müge Finkel (GIRL), Dr. Melanie M. Hughes (GIRL), with the support of Sarah Lister, Head of Governance. The report was co-authored by Dr. Müge Finkel (GIRL), Dr. Melanie M. Hughes (GIRL) and Joanna Hill (UNDP). The report was prepared as part of the second phase of the United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) global initiative on Gender Equality in Public Administration (GEPA). It is a joint effort of the Gender Team and Democratic Governance Group at UNDP and the Gender Inequality Research Lab (GIRL) at the University of Pittsburgh. Research contributions and extensive review were provided by Alexandra Wilde from UNDP. Research coordination and contributions were provided by Brianna Howell, I Younan An, Natalia Duarte Mayorga and Ihrar Muhammadi from Gender Inequality Research Lab (University of Pittsburgh) (GIRL). Formative feedback and inputs were provided by Aparna Basnyat, Marie Laberge and Mariana Neves from the UNDP Oslo Governance Centre. Comments were given by Verania Chao, Ciara Daniels, Ann Cathrin Pedersen and Tim Scott from Nature, Climate and Energy teams, and by Sundus Abass, Fati Abdou Sawani Alou, Lisette Albrechtsen, Aidai Arstanbekova, Juhie Bhatia, Valentina Bianchini, Anou Borrey, Cat Botto, Gigi Bregadze, Lalla Aicha Cheikh, Anjalee Dabee, Chifarai Dube, Barbora Galvankova, Habte Gebregziabher, Amita Gill, Marta Alvarez Gonzalez, Irina Goryunova, Frances Guy, Josephine Kanakin, Binda Magar, Magdalena Kondas, Merewalesi Laveti, Pelle Lutken, Margaret Mathiang, Koh Miyaoi, Nelly Mwaka, Jacqueline Nzoyihera, Sean O’Connell, Cynthia Oliech, Awa Peters, Stefano Pettinato, Khulangoo Purevjav, Noella Richard, Alla Skvortova, Yenny Widjaja, Changhee Yoo, and Jessica Zimerman at UNDP. The report presents findings from a six-year collaborative effort between the UNDP and the University of Pittsburgh that enabled the creation of the Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) database, regional reports, academic research, and desk reviews. Substantive comments and inputs were received from UNDP colleagues in regional bureaus and country offices. The Report also benefited from the valuable insights, advice, and support from representatives of national and subnational governments, academia, members of non-governmental organizations, and women’s networks and caucuses contacted for GEPA case studies and this report. 6 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Drs. Finkel and Hughes would like to thank the following institutions at the University of Pittsburgh that graciously supported the Gender Inequality Research Lab since its inception: the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs (GSPIA), the Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences, the Global Studies Center (GSC), the European Studies Centre (ESC), the Ford Institute for Human Security, the University Honors College, and the Offices of the Chancellor and Provost. Special thanks go to Diane Cohen and Taylor Seybolt. Beyond the University of Pittsburgh, Drs. Finkel and Hughes are indebted to a number of collaborators and supporters of their research on gender equality in public administration, including Ronelle Brandt, Nicolas Galvis Ramirez, Caroline Howard Grøn, Cassandra Pagan-Araujo, Andrea Piñeros-Lòpez, and Isabelle Schmidt. They are grateful to UNDP colleagues who have been instrumental to building the partnership between the University of Pittsburgh and UNDP, especially Jairo Acuña-Alfaro, José Cruz-Osorio, Ciara Lee, and Pelle Lutken. Finally, Drs. Finkel and Hughes thank UNDP’s regional hubs and regional gender advisers, Frances Guy, Odette Kabaya, Guillermina Martin, Koh Miyaoi and Bharati Sadasivam, who graciously hosted their students as junior research assistants for the past six years, along with their current collaborators in UNDP’s Gender Team, the UNDP Oslo Governance Centre, and UN Women. This report would not have been possible without many student researchers at the University of Pittsburgh who contributed to the GEPA initiative over the last six years, including: Tahirih Annis-Christy, Moska Akhgar, Francesca Baisden, Anna Baer, Elisabeth Benfield, BeLinda Berry, Shelby Clark, Kayla Conforti, Raymond (Mac) Cunningham, Leah DeHoet, Brittany Duncan, Leila Fadel, Sara Fox, Natalia Goodnow, Brooke Gwin, Megan Harris, Rhea Henry, Miranda Hogsett, Rebecca Holland, Macy Holloway, Summer Hunter-Kysor, Kanoko Kamata, Caroline Kimbro, Mike Kuncio, Daniel Jacobson, Katrina Lenhart, Rachel Licina, Alexandra Long, Leslie Marshall, Alexis McMaster, Samantha Monks, Juliana Monteiro Bernardino, Yejui Nan, Dao Nguyen, Michelle Ozaeta, Yuge Park, Kathryn Pataki, Samantha Plummer, Sha Qiu, Sarah Sandrian, Katherine Schaeffer, Julie Shuff, Samantha Sinn, Katelyn Sives, Priyanka Srinivasa, Noelle Spencer, Yiyang Sun, Veronica Trimmino Marroquin, Tiffany Tse, Andrew Tuznik, Rachel Vinciguerra, Brittany Weaver, Calli White, Candence Wills, Moshe Wolf, Mallory Womble, Xuyue (Olivia) Xu, Yichang Xu, Ziyi Yang, Tongyu Yi, Shuwen Zhang, Weikun (Amadea) Zhang, and Yimiao Zhou. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 7 FOREWORD O ver the past several decades, the University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) has risen to the ranks of the top universities in the world by building exceptional research and academic programmes that prepare students for productive and meaningful lives. As we remain determined to build on strengths and confront challenges to hone our unique identity as a top university deeply engaged with the world beyond our campus, at Pitt, we focus on three strategic priorities: partnering for impact to guide our engagements with private, public, government and international partners on strategic initiatives; harnessing information to transform the scale and impact of our activities in pursuit of grand challenges; and shaping our culture to become more diverse and interconnected, agile in our decision-making, engaged as a community, and innovative to achieve impactful results. It gives me great pleasure and pride, therefore, to recognize this report as an exemplary effort embodying all three of these institutional commitments by marshalling our academic excellence in collaboration with the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) to understand, analyse and produce impactful solutions towards achieving gender equality in public institutions globally. This Global Report on Gender Equality in Public Administration (GEPA) 2021 demonstrates that pioneering academic research can drive real and impactful change in improving lives and enhancing governance, that outstanding educational experiences can be built on purposeful and strategic partnerships, and that commitments to diversity and inclusion can be realized within scholarship as well through the application of that scholarship to real-world policy decisions. The Gender Inequality Research Lab (GIRL) at Pitt is built on these premises. Founded in 2017 as an interdisciplinary research forum for scholars and practitioners to collaborate on policy-relevant research on gender inequality, GIRL at Pitt has continued a much-valued partnership between the University of Pittsburgh and the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). Through this partnership our faculty have been able to connect our students with policymakers around the world, and have created opportunities not only of learning but also doing, contributing, and impacting. Through this partnership they have built a new global dataset, Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS), housing publicly available statistics from 170 countries that will ignite scholarly research and produce evidence-based policy solutions towards greater gender equality, diversity and inclusion in public institutions around the world. 8 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION This report demonstrates the great strides that have been achieved since the beginning of this collaboration six years ago. It also shows gaps that we still need to address. We not only need a global commitment to higher quality data, but also commitment to make our policies evidence-based. We need to employ academic curiosity and energy to ask important policy questions and help answer them with vigour and the high standards we hold ourselves to in our scholarship. At Pitt, we are proud to be part of this collaborative effort and grateful to our UNDP partners and their expertise for opening this global landscape to explorations by our students and faculty. The success of this collaboration needs to be measured in terms of accomplishment and impact. Through these metrics, this report finds, with no uncertain terms, that together we are making a difference. Ann Cudd Provost and Senior Vice Chancellor University of Pittsburgh GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 9 FOREWORD W omen are nearly twice as likely than men to lose their jobs during the COVID-19 pandemic while 59 percent of women report spending more time on unpaid domestic work.1 In 2021, 47 million more women could be pushed into extreme poverty.2 Women and girls have also faced a shadow pandemic in the form of gender-based violence that spiked in spiked by up to 40 percent in some countries.3 And a digital gender gap is leaving many women unprepared for the future.4 Yet, the development emergency prompted by COVID-19 is also a chance for the world to press the “re-set button” to ensure that women’s leadership shapes the choices being made today – pivotal decisions that will affect the wellbeing of people and planet for generations to come. In addition to the recognised importance of women’s equal representation in politics, research shows that when women take leadership roles in public administrations, governments are more responsive and more accountable.5 Moreover, the quality of public services delivered is significantly improved while trust and public confidence in state organisations is also boosted. Yet deep-seated historic, cultural, and socio-economic obstacles still prevent women from taking their seat at the decision-making table to ensure that resources and power are more equitably distributed. To better understand if and why these barriers remain in place – and how we can break them down – the United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) innovative Gender Equality in Public Administration initiative is launching its latest Gender Equality in Public Administration (GEPA) report in collaboration with the University of Pittsburgh. This new GEPA global report, the second of its kind, provides in-depth data and analysis of the challenges and opportunities for women’s equal participation and decision-making in public administrations. Amongst a range of findings, it shows that women are still hitting a glass ceiling – they continue to be underrepresented at decision-making levels across the globe. This report finds that on average, women constitute 46 1 https://www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/future-of-work/covid-19-and-gender-equality-countering-the-regressive-effects and https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2021/3/speech-ed-phumzile-opening-remarks-csw65 2 https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2021/3/speech-ed-phumzile-opening-remarks-csw65 3 https://www.unhcr.org/en-us/news/stories/2020/11/5fbd2e774/gender-based-violence-rise-during-lockdowns.html 4 https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2021/3/speech-ed-phumzile-opening-remarks-csw65 5 Research reviewed in the report, including for example, McKinsey & Company and United Nations Development Programme. 2017. Gender Diversity in the State: A Development Accelerator?; Riccucci, Norma M., and Gregg G. Van Ryzin. 2016. “Representative Bureaucracy: A Lever to Enhance Social Equity, Coproduction, and Democracy.” Public Administration Review 77(1):21–30; and UNDP. 2014. Gender Equality in Public Administration. New York, NY: UNDP. 10 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION percent of public administrators worldwide, yet they occupy just 31 percent of top leadership positions. And women constitute a meagre 23 percent of public administrators in fragile and conflict-affected countries. A worrying trend from this analysis comes to light: as the level of decision-making power and influence increases, women’s numbers decline. Such insights are being leveraged by UNDP and a range of actors, including governments, public administrations, United Nations agencies, academia, and women’s organisations, to implement measures to increase women’s representation in public administrations. Beyond public administrations, a core tenet of UNDP’s work is amplifying women’s voices and promoting women’s participation and leadership in other crucial spaces including parliaments, the judiciary, the private sector, and civil society. With UNDP’s support, some 209 different measures – from electoral quotas to gender-smart business policies – were put in place globally in 2020. And in 2021, this much is clear: to build forward better from the COVID-19 crisis and to get progress towards the Sustainable Development Goals back on track, we cannot simply return to the world we had before. We must do things differently. That means finally shattering the barriers that hold women and girls back so that they can play a full role in shaping that greener, more inclusive, and more sustainable future. Achim Steiner Administrator, United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 11 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY G lobal commitments to gender equality in public life are not new. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) in 1979 and the Beijing Platform for Action in 1995 have called for the equal participation of women and men in public life, decision-making and policy formation, and have urged governments to take action to close gender gaps. Equality and diversity at all levels and in all sectors of public administration improves government function, makes governments more responsive and accountable to diverse public interests, enhances the quality of services delivered, and increases trust and confidence in public organizations. Public administration is responsible for shaping, translating and implementing public policy, and providing public services to its citizens. Public administrators provide input on policies as they are crafted, decide how to structure essential government operations, and influence the substance and quality of service delivery. Ensuring that public administration is representative of its population means that a country’s citizenry is broadly engaged in these important functions. Gender equality is at the core of an inclusive and accountable public administration. As half of every country’s population, women have the right to equal employment in their governments across all levels, sectors and positions. Often the largest single employer, public administration must assume the responsibility to mainstream gender equality. Public administration has the potential to model inclusive institutions, where women and men equally participate and lead, and to accelerate development for all. The COVID-19 pandemic and its effects on populations, governments and economies, particularly in exacerbating gender inequalities, underscore the importance of inclusive public administration that addresses the needs of women and girls, especially those facing multiple forms of discrimination. More than before, governments are being judged and evaluated for the effectiveness and responsiveness of their services during an unprecedented public health crisis. COVID-19’s effects are not gender-neutral, and it is crucial that governments respond to the needs, rights and expectations of women and girls. Women must therefore have a seat at the table when governments are crafting their policy responses. Policies need to be gender-responsive and recognize women’s right to be decision makers. Despite global commitments, across the world, however, gender equality in public administration has been more an aspiration than a reality. Historically, patriarchal cultures and practices have undermined gender 12 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION equality in public administration. While women are well-represented in public administration in many countries, they remain significantly outnumbered by men in leadership and decision-making positions. Furthermore, a lack of data and measures to assess gender equality in public administration have hampered progress towards evidence-based policy change. Facing these challenges at a global level, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) spearheaded the global Gender Equality in Public Administration (GEPA) initiative in 2011. The GEPA initiative aims to: • support women’s empowerment and expanded participation and leadership in public institutions; • contribute to the availability of up-to-date information on gender equality in public administration and of evidence and analysis to facilitate informed policy and decision-making. The initiative first produced 13 case studies and a global report in 2014, setting a baseline for what is known about gender equality in public administration around the world and generating a set of recommendations to spur change. Progress towards gender equality in public administration requires high-quality and up-to-date data on gender equality in the civil service around the world. This effort is being advanced by the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, which calls for “women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic and public life” and “responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels” through Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 5 and 16. Global indicator SDG16.7.1b will enable the collection and dissemination of data to evaluate progress towards gender parity in participation and representation in public administration, including in leadership. Report methodology This report provides a new global stocktaking of progress towards gender equality in public administration worldwide. It is an outcome of a six-year collaboration between UNDP and the Gender Inequality Research Lab (GIRL) at the University of Pittsburgh (Pitt) on the GEPA initiative. The analysis of gender equality in public administration draws upon Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS), a new global cross-national dataset of publicly available data and statistics on public administration. Publicly available statistics are complemented by data provided directly to UNDP or to GIRL at the University of Pittsburgh in support of the GEPA initiative and spans 170 countries. The Gen-PaCS dataset includes publicly available statistics published by countries. Data availability varies by measure: the share of women in public administration is the most widely reported, whereas intersectional data (e.g. data disaggregated by gender and age, or gender and disability) is less often reported. Decision-making statistics also vary widely, and these variations are considered in the report. Data availability also varies over time. Throughout the report, current figures on women’s participation in public administration use the most recent year of data available beginning in 2015. Because countries report statistics in different years, changes over time in a statistic reflect both differences in the sample of countries included and changes within countries over time. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 13 Parity – equal numbers of women and men employed and leading in public administration – is an important indicator of progress on gender equality. This single measure does not capture the whole of gender equality, which is the greater goal in public institutions. Neither does this measure acknowledge the intersectional needs of women, including; those with disabilities; racial and ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples; and those who face discrimination based on their sexual orientation, gender identity and/or age. Where possible, the report complements quantitative assessments of progress towards gender parity with qualitative assessments of policies, practices and institutional culture. It also highlights UNDP initiatives, such as the Gender Equality Seal for Public Institutions, and regional assessments. Key findings • Around the world, on average, gender parity among civil servants is within reach. Using the most recent data available in each country, women’s participation in public administration globally averages 46 percent. • There is substantial variation across countries and regions. The lowest share of women in public administration in the world is at 6 percent and the highest at 77 percent. Less than one third (32 percent) of countries are at or near gender parity. Women are numerically overrepresented in 28 percent of countries and remain underrepresented in 39 percent of countries. • Women’s participation in public administration in fragile and conflict-affected countries averages just 23 percent, less than half of the same figure in all other countries. One potential explanation is that conflict increases the physical and personal insecurities of government workers, which could drive sharp declines in women civil service workers in conflict-affected areas. • Women around the world continue to be underrepresented in decision-making levels. Women are 38 percent of managers and 31 percent of top leaders. Overall, these averages reveal a familiar pattern: as the level of decision-making power and influence increases, women’s numbers decline. Unless addressed directly, ‘glass ceilings’ will continue to prevent women from advancing to the highest levels of leadership. • Women remain concentrated in some policy areas and starkly underrepresented in others. While women’s numbers are highest in ministries focused on women’s issues, health and education, they are underrepresented in 15 of the 20 policy areas, with Public Works and Transportation reporting the lowest share of women. These ‘glass walls’ are likely limiting women’s influence on policymaking and their ability to effect change overall. • Progress towards gender parity is evident in three high-profile policy areas traditionally considered the domain of men: ministries of defence, foreign affairs and finance. Globally, women average 41 percent of finance ministries, 40 percent of foreign affairs ministries, and 36 percent of defence ministries. Between 2010 and 2020, women’s average share of positions increased by 11 percentage points in ministries of defence, 6 in foreign affairs, and 10 in finance. Still, sizeable gender gaps in these high-profile areas remain in some countries, particularly in defence ministries. 14 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION • In most parts of the world, women’s participation in environmental protection ministries remains low. Women’s participation in ministries of environmental protection averages 33 percent globally – among the lowest of the 20 policy areas included in this report. Parity in decision-making in environmental protection is exceptionally rare. Over time, there is little evidence that countries are making substantial progress towards gender parity in environmental protection ministries. • Worldwide, women play a limited role in health policy decision-making, including on taskforces charged with responding to COVID-19 pandemic. Health ministries and agencies are playing an outsized role in the current climate, and women are 58 percent of employees in health ministries. But only 31 percent of ministers of health, and 34 percent of the broader set of decision-making positions in health ministries around the world are women. Women average 27 percent of COVID-19 task force positions and make up of only 18 percent of taskforce leadership. Only 6 percent of COVID-19 task forces are at or near gender parity, and 11 percent consist exclusively of men. • COVID-19 falls into a paradox that has defined other recent public health crises. On the one hand, a handful of high-profile women have been visible and acclaimed leaders; on the other hand, women and gender are often conspicuously invisible from government strategy, policy, practice and public discourse around the crisis response. The UNDP-UN Women COVID-19 Global Gender Response Tracker showed that as of September 2020, only one in eight countries had measures in place to protect women against the social and economic impacts of the pandemic. • COVID-19 can also become a means to catapult public institutions from ‘business-as-usual’ into ‘building back better’ by making them more representative of the societies they serve. When public institutions become more gender-inclusive and diverse at the highest decision-making levels, they also become more representative of the societies they serve, and more democratic, pertinent and efficient in the policies they produce. • Gender equality is more than parity between women and men. Women and men must reflect the diversity of the publics they represent. For public institutions to become more representative of the publics they serve, they must include representation from women who face varying forms of exclusion and marginalization, including; those with disabilities; racial and ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples; and those who face discrimination based on their sexual orientation, gender identity and/or age. Reimagining and redesigning more inclusive and diverse public administrations are only possible by collecting and processing data and statistics in ways that acknowledge the diversity of public administration employees and decision makers. • Although still not universally available, gender-disaggregated public administration data are now more available, accessible and of higher quality than ever before. The progress over the past ten years is indicative of what can be achieved, and why this is necessary. National measurement and reporting against global indicator SDG16.7.1b on representation in public administration aims to further improve the availability and quality of sex-disaggregated data. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 15 Policy recommendations The report provides five sets of recommendations to advance gender equality in public administration: 1. Promote synergies with the broader gender equality agenda. • Develop national gender equality plans with concrete mechanisms for implementation and accountability. Support efforts to track budget allocations for gender equality, including in public administration, and to strengthen national oversight, monitoring, evaluation and accountability. • Develop evidence-based correlation between gender equality in public administration, inclusive institutions and quality public policy outcomes for all. Raise awareness of the importance of women’s equal participation and decision-making in public administration. • Support women’s education and preparedness for civil service careers, with a focus on young women. Promote equal education of girls and boys, young women and men, at primary, secondary and tertiary levels. • Contribute to women’s visibility and gender equality in traditional and social media. Showcase examples of successful and inspiring women in public administration. 2. Strengthen constitutional, legislative and policy frameworks. • Harmonize laws and national action plans governing public administration with the Beijing Platform for Action’s commitments. This includes gender balance in public administration to advance women’s full participation in public life and decision-making. • Ensure that provisions that promote gender equality are included in drafting processes in constitutional reviews. Legislation and policy must be grounded in international norms and standards, including CEDAW. A constitutional framework can tackle power asymmetries in society and can lead the way to concrete national legislation for quota laws in public administration. • Develop gender equality laws to uphold gender equality as a national priority. Mainstream gender equality throughout legislation, including laws on equal pay for work of the same value, and laws on sexual harassment and prevention of gender-based violence. • Consider quotas across public bodies and temporary special measures (TSMs). This includes targeted recruitment, hiring and promotion, in line with Article 4 of CEDAW. TSMs in public administration build a pipeline of qualified women candidates to move into decision-making. • Create a national gender budget and national gender equality plan. Involve the national gender machinery with other ministries to implement commitments to gender equality in public administration. 3. Support institutional change within public administration. • Re-imagine the public administration post-COVID-19 to position gender equality as central. Harness the opportunity for public policy institutions to build back more gender-responsive societies, economies 16 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION and governments. Develop innovative public policies for gender equality, such as counting unpaid care in national accounting systems, universal social and care services, transforming social norms through fiscal policies (e.g. parental leave, taxation benefits, public transfers) and reforming the segregation of the labour market. • Incorporate women’s voices, needs and rights into pandemic recovery planning and decision-making to ensure more gender-responsive policies. Governments must ensure equal participation in decision-making institutions as a pre-condition to democracy and development. • Challenge and reform the overall workplace culture in public administration. Ensure commitment to gender equality by ‘walking the talk’. Public administration should model a gender-responsive senior management culture. • Penalize sexism and harassment in institutional cultures. These are major barriers to gender equality in public administration. Make the workplace a safe, respectful space for all and set out clear processes for reporting sexism and harassment, including online harassment. • Promote work-life balance for women and men. This can affirm gender equality in the workplace and transform the culture of senior management into one that is gender-inclusive. Introduce work-life policies for women and men that recognize and value the care roles women undertake disproportionately while supporting efforts to redistribute care work. Flexible working arrangements must be accompanied by other measures, such as state-led provision of affordable child-care and supporting shifts in social norms towards a more equal division of labour at home. • Implement inclusive and transparent human resources policies. These include gender-responsive recruitment and selection procedures, such as recruitment targets, gender-balanced recruitment and promotions panels, gender training for recruitment managers and targeted outreach to women. • Reform performance evaluation processes to ensure that women’s careers are not held back by gender discrimination. Include gender-responsive goals in managerial performance criteria. • Support capacity-building for managers and all employees on gender-responsive practices. This includes training to address gender biases for all. • Invest in leadership training and professional development of women public administration employees to address the gender gap in senior management levels. • Break down glass walls to ensure women’s participation at all levels of decision-making across different line ministries. This is particularly important where complex policy challenges such as the nature-climate crisis require a diverse set of decision-making bodies. • Invest in capacity-building and technical assistance for gender mainstreaming specifically in sectors dominated by men, such as the energy, mining, environment and climate change. • Build capacity on gender mainstreaming across public administration. Strengthen the capacity of civil servants on gender mainstreaming and COVID-19 and crisis response. • Implement initiatives such as the UNDP Gender Equality Seal for Public Institutions that support organizations to ‘walk the talk.’ • Track GEPA good practices to inform policy and programming. UNDP will continue to build a database of UNDP Country Offices’ support to GEPA programmes. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 17 4. Strengthen commitment to data availability to track progress on women in decision making in public service, SDG 16 and Agenda 2030. • Commit to investments in quality data collection (and the availability of data) on gender parity in public administration to support evidence-based policy and programming. Both the Gen-PaCS database and country-level efforts aim to strengthen data collection systems for reporting on SDG 16.7.1b. This supports tracking achievement of Target 16.7 of SDG 16 that aims to ensure “responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.” • Support Member States’ commitment to carry out Voluntary National Reviews (VNRs). Collect and analyse intersectional data on the inequalities faced by women in participation and leadership in public administration and develop solutions to achieve the SDGs. 5. Leverage partnerships and convening power to build strong global, regional and national partnerships for organizational change. • Improve coordination among United Nations entities and partners, and ensure that gender equality is integrated into interagency groups on public administration. • Work in partnership to increase women’s leadership and decision-making in climate negotiations. • Foster partnerships with actors in politics and business who are also working on gender equality. While not always directly focused on women in public administration, work in these institutions creates an enabling environment to influence outcomes for gender equality in public administration and vice versa. • Partner with UN Women on women’s leadership and participation in public life. Build on good practice of UN Women’s programmes on leadership and political participation for work on GEPA. • Collaborate with other important partners including iKNOW Politics. • Engage with the UN System-wide Action Plan for Mainstreaming Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women. This supports gender equality and organizational change. • Harness new partnerships to challenge social norms that restrict women’s participation in public life and decision-making. Work with community and religious leaders and men champions to tackle harmful social norms. • Invest in non-government organizations and women’s movements. NGOs working on women’s participation in decision-making in public life are important for efforts to change social norms hampering gender equality. • Utilize convening power to work with partners to build more gender-responsive public institutions. UNDP will facilitate a global community of practitioners around the UNDP Gender Equality Seal for Public Institutions and GEPA to incentivize public institutions to meet rigorous standards through an action plan for improving public policies, programmes and budgets, leadership and enabling work environments. This will build inclusive and accountable governance through gender-responsive institutions and policies. 18 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION GENDER EQUALITY IN 1 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: AN INTRODUCTION “ P ublic administration is the bedrock of government and the central instrument through which national policies and programmes are implemented. In an ideal world, public administration is guided by principles of fairness, accountability, justice, equality and non-discrimination, and serves as a model of governance for society, which includes the promotion of gender equality and women’s empowerment in the civil service workforce.”6 Gender equality in public administration is a key step towards women’s empowerment in public life and building representative, just and effective institutions. Public administration is a crucial venue to seek and establish gender equality for at least three reasons. First, public administration is the primary institution responsible for implementing national policies and programmes, tasks in which women should be included equally.7 Including women in public administration not only recognizes their right to participation and equal access to public service,8 but it may also help governments function better by improving service delivery, encouraging citizen engagement, and increasing trust and confidence in government.9 Including women in decision-making positions in public institutions also brings women’s priorities and interests to policymaking. Second, in many countries, public administration is the single largest employer. Therefore, building equal public administration workplaces – ensuring gender balance in participation and leadership, adopting and implementing legal and (1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of [their] country, directly or through freely chosen representatives. (2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in [their] country. Article 21, Universal Declaration of Human Rights 6 UNDP, 2014. 7 Public administration is the set of institutions responsible for planning, coordinating and controlling government operations and im- plementing government policies. Public administrators are the employees who work in public departments and agencies at all levels of government. Most countries define public administrators separately from the broader public service, which includes elected and appointed positions such as legislators and judges, and from the military. Note that some countries differentiate the civil service as a segment of public administrators who are highly educated or trained and/or perform key government roles, but not all countries use this distinction. This report relies on how countries define and measure their own public administration, so the sectors, levels and positions included vary across countries. It also uses interchangeably the terms ‘public administration’, ‘public service’ and ‘civil service’ and the terms ‘public administrator’, ‘public servant’ and ‘civil servant.’ See also UNDP, 2015, pp. 1–2, and Peters and Pierre, 2012. 8 See, for example, Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 9 For reviews of the academic literature, see Bradbury and Kellough, 2011; Pitts and Wise, 201; Riccucci and Van Ryzin, 2016; and Sabharwal, Levine, and D’Agostino, 2018. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 19 Increasing the proportion of women in public institutions makes them more representative, increases innovation, improves decision-making and benefits whole societies. United Nations SecretaryGeneral António Guterres, 2017 policy frameworks that support gender equality, and building inclusive institutional cultures – has the potential to transform the lives and livelihoods of millions of workers worldwide. Third, public administration can ‘walk the talk’, setting a standard for other workplaces such as corporations, small businesses, non-profits, colleges and universities. When public administration is guided by principles of fairness, equality and justice, it can provide a model for the society it serves. “Thus, closing gender gaps in public administration is important to ensuring truly inclusive development and democratic governance and helps to restore trust and confidence in public institutions and enhance the sustainability and responsiveness of public policies.”10 Good governance and democracy require inclusive leadership and representation. While men and women are equally responsible for achieving gender equality, a larger number of women in office can influence gender responsive public policies and institutional practices. Women have a right to be equally represented and consulted in decision-making. Report of the SecretaryGeneral, 65th Commission on Status of Women, 2021 What does gender equality in public administration entail? A critical component of gender equality in public administration is parity – equal numbers of women and men11 working and leading in all levels and sectors of public administration. Special attention must be paid to women’s inclusion in decision-making positions. Gender parity in public decision-making is “a matter of the full enjoyment of human rights and of social justice, and a necessary condition for the better functioning of a democratic society”.12 However, even in countries where women are well represented in public administration overall, women are often less likely to advance into public administration management and leadership.13 It is equally important to consider progress towards gender parity across government sectors and positions. Historically, some policy areas have been deemed appropriate for women (e.g. education, social welfare) and others more appropriate for men (e.g. defence, foreign affairs). These proscriptions not only limit individual opportunity and advancement, but drive down organizational efficiency, productivity and innovation.14 Assessments of gender parity across levels and sectors must also account for other forms of diversity within populations, and 10 UNDP, 2014. 11 Since this report uses the language of ‘gender’, which is socially constructed, it uses categories of ‘men’ and ‘women’ rather than cat- egories of ‘male’ and ‘female,’ which are linked to biological factors. The report also refers to gender-disaggregated data except when referring to the SDG reporting process, which requires the ‘sex disaggregation’ of data. Data and research on civil servants outside of ‘women and men’ are extremely rare. Furthermore, ‘gender’ is often conflated with ‘women’. Although this report gives disproportionate attention to women and their experiences, it is important to recognize that men also have gender, and that gender equality cannot be reached without men. 12 Council of Europe, 2017, p.16. 13 For example, in the 2014 global GEPA report, six countries had 50 percent or more women in public administration – Botswana, Kazakhstan, Mexico, Romania, South Africa and Ukraine – but in all six countries women were underrepresented in decision-making positions (UNDP, 2014, p. 13). 14 Sneed, 2007. 20 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION pay special attention to the representation of women and men from marginalized and excluded population groups.15 Gender equality in public administration is about the creation of institutions and cultures that are inclusive. As workplaces, public administration must have recruitment, retention and promotion policies that respect human rights, are fair and accessible to all. Structures and rules must bolster rather than undermine gender equalities and be implemented and enforced. Policies and practices that embrace gender equality must consider ways that sexism and gender bias intersect with other forms of discrimination and marginalization to shape the experiences and outcomes of diverse groups of women and men. Governments must also collect the data and statistics necessary to measure progress towards gender equality in public administration and be open, accountable and transparent in making information available and accessible to the public. States Parties shall … ensure to women, on equal terms with men, the right … [t]o participate in the formulation of government policy and the implementation thereof and to hold public office and perform all public functions at all levels of government. CEDAW, Part II, Article 7 Gender equality in public administration: why now? Women’s participation in public life is not a recent concern. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), adopted in 1979 by the United Nations General Assembly, committed countries to ensure women the right to participate equally in government, including in the formulation and implementation of policy. The 1995 Beijing Platform for Action calls for the equal participation of women and men in public life and in decision-making. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development is committed to ensuring “women’s full and effective participation and equal opportunities for leadership at all levels of decision-making in political, economic and public life”(Target 5.5) and “responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels” (Target 16.7). Yet, 41 years after the adoption of CEDAW, 25 years after the launch of the Beijing Platform for Action, and five years after the initiation of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, women remain marginalized in decision-making in public life in every region of the world. Women’s empowerment and their full participation on the basis of equality in all spheres of society, including participation in the decision-making process and access to power, are fundamental for the achievement of equality, development and peace. Beijing Platform for Action, Beijing Declaration, p. 2 The broadening of ‘gender equality in public life’ to include public administration is both necessary and timely. Narratives about and indicators of women’s participation and decision-making in public life have predominantly focused on women’s representation in political positions, such as heads of state and government, legislators and cabinet ministers. Women’s participation and leadership in positions in career civil service, in con- 15 The call for inclusive and representative public administration reflects the ideal that “elected and appointed positions in public life should reflect the societies from which they are drawn, including the major social cleavages of identity politics, such as those of gender identities and sexual orientations, race, religion, and ethnicity, socioeconomic status, income, education, and social class, and geography and region” (Norris, 2020, p. 12). GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 21 Lack of diversity and gender representation in decisionmaking at global, country and organizational levels means perspectives of some of the most vulnerable communities…are often left out, limiting an effective response by failing to address the direct and indirect effects on women and girls and minorities, and failing to leverage their expertise and talent when it is needed most. Bali et al., 2020, p. 2 trast, have been less visible and under-examined. The 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda provides a vehicle to broaden both the narrative and measurement of gender equality in public life to include public administration. SDG indicator 16.7.1(b) measures representation in the public service with respect to the sex, age, disability and population group status of public servants, and assesses how this corresponds to the proportion of these groups in society as a whole.16 The COVID-19 pandemic has drawn attention to the importance of responsive governance, effective service delivery, and gender-responsive public policies and crisis response. The pandemic has created unprecedented global challenges to public health, economies and societies. Like other crises, the pandemic and its impacts have not been gender-neutral. Globally, women make up 70 percent of workers in the health and social sector,17 and are overrepresented among frontline health workers, putting them at higher risk of infection. The pandemic has exacerbated economic and social inequalities since women have experienced disproportionate losses in employment and income, shouldered an even larger share of care work, and faced rising threats to their safety and security.18 At the same time, attention to women’s interests and concerns is threatened by their systematic underrepresentation in the decision-making institutions tasked with responding to the crisis. This imbalance persists despite mounting evidence that more diverse and inclusive institutions provide more effective and innovative solutions and crisis response.19 UNDP’s Gender Equality in Public Administration initiative Promoting gender equality and strengthening public institutions have been central to UNDP’s mandate and development approach. UNDP recognizes gender equality as a fundamental human right, a necessary foundation for a peaceful and prosperous world, and one of the most important accelerators of development.20 UNDP has also implemented a wide range of programmes and projects to strengthen public service capacities, support civil service reform and innovation, and train administrators, including women. 16 Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 16 aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all, and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels. Its target 16.7 demands global and national commitments to ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels. One of its indicators, 16.7.1, measures the proportions of positions (by sex, age, persons with disabilities and population groups) in public institutions in (a) national and local legislatures, (b) public service, and (c) judiciary, compared to national distributions. In June 2019 SDG 16.7.1b was reassigned to the Tier 2 level indicators, initiating a process of reporting of sex-disaggregated data on public administration in all member states. UNDP, 2019f; UNDP, 2021a. 17 Boniol et al., 2019. 18 Azcona et al., 2020. 19 Studies of organizational diversity, effectiveness, and innovation include e.g. Cheng and Groysberg, 2020; Larson, 2017; and Rock and Grant, 2016. For research on the gender and crisis response, see, for example: Ghosh, 2013; IASC, 2006; and Legato et al., 2019. 20 McKinsey & Company and UNDP, 2017; and UNDP, 2020d. 22 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION In 2011, UNDP integrated its efforts to support gender equality and public administration by launching a global initiative, on Gender Equality in Public Administration (GEPA).21 The initiative first produced a global report in 201422 and 13 case studies,23 establishing a baseline on knowledge about gender equality in public administration around the world and generating a set of recommendations to spur change. UNDP’s regional hubs mapped the availability of gender-disaggregated public administration data in a series of regional reports (2016–2020).24 UNDP also partnered with the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) to design a tool to assist countries in assessing gender gaps in public administration and barriers to gender equality as a basis for developing programme and policy recommendations and actions. The methodology was then implemented in Pakistan and Myanmar.25 Since 2015, UNDP has collaborated with an interdisciplinary team of faculty and graduate students from the Gender Inequality Research Lab (GIRL) at the University of Pittsburgh. Through this collaboration, the University of Pittsburgh team has worked to track women’s participation and leadership in public administration and investigated both barriers to gender equality in public administration and catalysts for change.26 In its role as the custodian agency of the SDG global indicator 16.7.1b, UNDP also provides support to countries as they monitor and report progress towards building more responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative institutions. UNDP continues to work with its national, regional and global partners to support legal and policy reforms, programming and advocacy to promote women’s participation and decision-making in public administration. One such initiative is UNDP’s Gender Equality Seal for Public Institutions, which has been piloted globally and will soon be rolled out to support and recognize the efforts made by public institutions to achieve substantive gender equality and accelerate the achievement of the 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development. The global Gender Equality in Public Administration (GEPA) initiative aims to: (i) Support women’s empowerment and expanded participation and leadership in public institutions; and (ii) Contribute to the availability of up-todate information on gender equality in public administration and of evidence and analysis to facilitate informed policy and decision-making. UNDP, 2014 21 Prior to the launch of the GEPA initiative, gender equality was not always systematically integrated into UNDP’s public administration programming and activities. This gap was reflected in UNDP’s 2010 stocktaking exercise. See UNDP, 2010. 22 UNDP, 2014. 23 The 13 case studies included Botswana, Burundi, Mali and Uganda in Africa; Jordan, Morocco and Somalia in the Arab States; Bangladesh and Cambodia in Asia; Kyrgyzstan and Romania in Europe and the CIS; and Colombia and Mexico in Latin America and the Caribbean. 24 Two of the GEPA reports have been publicly released: UNDP Istanbul Regional Hub, 2017, and UNDP RBLAC, 2020. 25 UNDP Pakistan and UN Women, 2017; UNDP, 2019. 26 The team at the University of Pittsburgh is led by GIRL Co-Directors Müge Finkel and Melanie M. Hughes, who supervise the GEPA Working Group. The GEPA Working Group has collected, analysed and visualized data on women’s participation in and leadership of public administration; researched the ways that armed conflicts and peace processes shape GEPA; investigated how gender intersects with race, ethnicity, language, age, sexual orientation and gender identity to shape inequities in government bureaucracies; and researched gender equality on COVID-19 task forces. For more information about GIRL and the GEPA Working Group, see www.girl.pitt. edu. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 23 Report methodology and overview The 2021 Global GEPA Report provides a new global stocktaking of progress towards gender equality in public administration worldwide, and aims to serve as a catalyst for policy and programming that accelerates women’s equal participation and leadership in public administration. Progress towards gender equality is evaluated quantitatively as proximity to gender parity in public administration.27 Parity is assessed for public administrators overall and for decision-making positions, across levels and sectors of government, and for marginalized groups. The report also makes qualitative assessments of policies, practices and institutional culture, draws from regional assessments and case studies to highlight challenges and opportunities to gender equality in public administration, and reports on the ongoing work of UNDP and its partners. Ultimately, the report draws from this body of evidence to make policy and programming recommendations with the aim of furthering gender equality in public administration worldwide. This section briefly describes the report’s methodology while additional details on both the data and methodology are available in a set of appendices. The primary tool for evaluating progress towards gender parity in public administration is the Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) dataset.28 Gen-PaCS data has been collected by a team of researchers at the GIRL at the University of Pittsburgh. It relies principally on publicly available statistics, which are complemented in some cases by data provided by governments to UNDP or to GIRL. Gen-PaCS includes data on the overall numbers and percentages of women, men and others working in public administration, together with gender-disaggregated statistics by decision-making level; sector, ministry, and/or agency; employment type; government level; and demographic or population group. Throughout the report, regional analyses use the groupings from the SDGs reporting process.29 Gen-PaCS reveals substantial gains in the availability of gender-disaggregated data on public administrations around the world. As of 31 December 2020, Gen-PaCS included gender-disaggregated data and statistics in 170 countries between 1951 and 2020. This represents a sharp increase in country coverage compared to the 2014 global GEPA report, which included 34 countries. These gains reflect the efforts of individual governments whose national statistical offices and civil service commissions are increasingly making gender-disaggregated statistics on public administrators available to the public, and available to the work of organizations such as UNDP, OECD and the European Union, who have partnered with governments to collect and disseminate cross-national data. Making comparisons across countries, measures and time should be approached with some caution. Several factors pose challenges to comparability and generalizability: • Public administration can look very different from one country to the next. Some of the key differences across countries include the size of public administration, the degree of centralization, and the sectors and jobs that are included. Such differences complicate efforts to make like-with- like comparisons (see Appendix A). 27 Parity is defined as equal numbers of women and men, which in figures throughout the report is indicated by a vertical line at the 50 percent mark. However, small deviations from 50 percent women and men are expected, in some cases simply because there are an odd number of positions. The report therefore considers parity to have been reached once there are 45 percent women, and women’s overrepresentation begins at 55 percent. This is more flexible than some ways of operationalizing parity that allow for only a 3 percent deviation from 50 percent (i.e. 47–53 percent women or men), but stricter than those that allow a 10 percent deviation from 50 percent (i.e. 40–60 percent women or men). 28 Hughes, Finkel, and Howell, 2020. 29 UN Statistics Division, 2020. 24 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION • Collecting and processing high-quality statistics is challenging, and countries use different approaches. Public administration is typically a large and sprawling institution, including thousands or even millions of individuals who are spread across different levels of government, sectors and agencies. Official statistics may omit some sectors, levels, or positions, either by design or practicality. Countries also use different approaches to generate statistics: some compile administrative data,30 and others, field labour force surveys (see Appendix A). • Countries report varying measures of gender parity publicly. This leads to considerable differences in data availability from one statistic to the next. For example, data on gender parity in public administration overall are available for 163 countries, whereas gender-disaggregated data on decision-making levels are available in 126 countries. Intersectional data are particularly scarce (see Appendix B). • Across countries, data and statistics often come from different points in time. It is rare for countries to report statistics on gender equality in public administration annually. Any global or regional analysis of change over time therefore reflects both within-country changes and differences in the countries that are included. The Global GEPA 2021 Report has eight chapters. Following this introduction, Chapter 2 provides an overview of key trends in women’s overall participation in public administration across countries, including by geographic region and level of development, and within countries among groups of workers such as full-time vs. parttime status. Chapter 3 turns to hierarchies within public administration, considers the extent to which women are concentrated in lower-level positions with less authority. It evaluates women’s access to positions in top leadership, senior management and management. Chapter 4 examines horizontal segregation – the extent to which women and men are distributed unevenly across government sectors. It focuses on women’s participation in policy areas traditionally dominated by men (defence, foreign affairs and finance) and in environmental protection ministries. Chapter 5 dives into women’s participation in public policymaking in the context of COVID-19, including in health ministries and COVID-19 Taskforces. Chapter 6 introduces intersectionality as a way to think about the category of ‘women’ critically and to engage with the experiences of women who face varying forms of exclusion and marginalization, including those with disabilities; racial and ethnic minorities and indigenous peoples; those who face discrimination based on their sexual orientation and gender identity; and young women.31 Chapter 7 offers policy recommendations to strengthen national policy frameworks and to promote institutional change in an effort to make public administration more representative of the populations they are designed to serve. It concludes with a discussion of the implications of these recommendations for UNDP’s programming and policy support. The body of the report is complemented by a set of Appendices, which include more detailed information on the report’s data sources and methodology (Appendix A), supplementary analyses of data availability (Appendix B) and gender-disaggregated statistics by country (Appendix C). 30 Administrative data is collected by organizations on their routine operations and includes, for example, demographic, financial and workforce information. Administrative data is routinely collected and stored for program operations, but it can be leveraged to improve program management or inform evidence-based policymaking. 31 Intersectionality, a term coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989, draws attention to the ways that gender, race, class, and other sources of identity intersect to shape a person’s outcomes and experiences. Intersectionality is often used to point to important differences within groups (e.g. highlight that not all women face the same obstacle) and to explore how forms of oppression such as racism, sexism, and classism are interrelated and can have compounding effects (Crenshaw, 1989; Crenshaw, 1991). GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 25 WOMEN’S PARTICIPATION 2 IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION: KEY TRENDS Chapter findings, in brief Gender parity among civil servants is within reach. Around the world, women’s participation in public administration overall averages 46 percent. Yet only 32 percent of countries have achieved gender parity. Women are underrepresented in public administration in 39 percent of countries, and women significantly outnumber men in 28 percent. Across regions, gender parity among public administrators is most common in Latin America and the Caribbean and least common in Central and Southern Asia. On average, countries at higher levels of economic development have more women in the civil service, whereas fragile and conflict-affected countries tend to have fewer. Women’s participation in public administration is structurally different than men’s: often women are better represented in subnational levels of government and are more concentrated in part-time work. Progress towards gender parity in public administration is positively impacted by national action plans and executive orders that prioritise gender equality in public administration, as well as gender-sensitive recruitment, retention and promotion policies. Work-life balance policies, parental leave and childcare benefits are essential to building equitable, diverse and inclusive public administration. T o assess progress towards gender equality in public administration, one place to start is by evaluating levels of women’s participation in public administration overall. The proximity of women’s and men’s share of public administration to gender parity signals the degree to which public administration is representative of the broader society it serves. The following sections assess progress towards gender parity in public administration workforces globally, by geographic region, level of economic development, and recent conflict status, and within countries across central and subnational levels of government and part-time and full-time status. The chapter closes with an assessment of ongoing challenges and opportunities for promoting gender equality in public administration more broadly. 26 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION The world is inching towards gender parity among civil servants, but progress is uneven across countries Looking at the most recent data available (2015–2020), the global average of women’s participation in public administration stands at 46 percent in 139 countries.32 Compared to the 2014 global GEPA report, where women averaged 37 percent of public administrators in 33 countries (2006–2012), progress towards gender parity around the world is notable.33 Using any data available in each year also sup- ports this upward trend: women’s average share of all public administrators increases from 44 percent in 2010 to 49 percent in 2020.34 Even Between 2000 and 2020, women’s average share of all public administrators increased from 43 percent to 49 percent. considering only the countries included in both the 2014 global GEPA report and in this report, women’s participation in public administration still grows over time from 38 percent to 42 percent. Despite recent progress in some countries, substantial global variation in women’s participation in public administration remains (Map 2.1). Pakistan and Democratic Republic of the Congo have the lowest share of women in public administration in the world, at 6 percent and 7 percent, respectively. The countries with the most women in public administration are Lithuania, with 77 percent women, and Russian Federation with 73 percent women. Gender imbalance in public administration workforces remains pervasive (Figure 2.1). Less than one third (32 percent) of countries are at or near gender parity in public administration overall. Globally, it is more common for women to be underrepresented, which occurs in 39 percent of countries. In 17 percent of countries, there is a high degree of women’s underrepresentation, or women are nearly excluded from public administration. To the extent that women are underrepresented, public administration is not tapping into the full potential, capacity and creativity of its citizenry. Given that, in many countries, public administration is the single largest employer, women’s underrepresentation in the civil service also undermines their economic security and empowerment, which are influential drivers of sustainable development and economic growth.35 32 The 139 countries include only those that made their data publicly available, or provided data directly to UNDP or GIRL to support the GEPA initiative. For this statistic, data older than 2015 are excluded. 33 Comparison is not straightforward. Some of the difference in these figures results from the selection of countries included. However, looking just at the 26 countries included in both the 2014 global GEPA report and in this report, women’s participation in public administration still grows over time from 38 percent to 42 percent. 34 These figures include 164 countries with any available data on women’s share of all public administrators from 2000 to 2020. Change over time reflects differences both in the sample of countries and in levels of women’s participation. 35 The correlation between women’s labour force participation and economic growth are documented in: Cuberes and Teignier, 2016; Ferrant and Kolev, 2016; and International Monetary Fund, 2018. To understand the broader links between gender equality and sustainable development, see: Hausmann, Tyson, and Zahidi, 2012; Leach, 2016; Mason and King, 2001; and SDG Fund, 2020. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 27 Map. 2.1 MAP 2 .1 Percentage of women’s participation in public administration in 139 countries Percentage of Women in Public Administration < 10% 10–29% 30–44% 45–54% (Gender Parity) 55–69% 70%+ Note: The map indicates the overall share of women in public administration in 139 countries, using data from the most recent year available. Data prior to 2015 are excluded. Countries at or near gender parity are coloured in light purple. Darker shades of purple indicate women’s overrepresentation, with the darkest shade associated with the highest levels of women’s participation. Women are underrepresented in countries shaded grey, with darker shades indicating more severe underrepresentation. The share of women in public administration by country is available in Table C1 of Appendix C. FIGURE 2.1 Distribution of countries by level of women’s representation in public administration Fig. 2.1 Women’s Representation Highly Overrepresented (70% or more) Slightly Overrepresented (55–69%) Gender Parity (45–54%) Slightly Underrepresented (30–44%) Hightly Underrepresented (10–29%) Nearly Excluded (below 10%) Percentage of Countries 1% 27% 32% 22% 16% 1% Note: The figure includes 139 countries with data on women’s share of all public administrators, the most recent year available. Data prior to 2015 are excluded. Because of rounding figures do not add to 100%. Source: Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) dataset, December 2020. 28 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Figure 2.1 shows that in 28 percent of countries, women are highly or slightly overrepresented in public administration. Women’s overrepresentation in public administration is explained, at least in part, by their concentration in education, health and social services, sectors that often capture a large share of positions in the civil service (see Chapter 4). In some countries, higher wages and generous retirement plans in the private sector draw men away from public administration, whereas family-friendly policies, such as flexible working hours, maternity leave and childcare benefits, attract women to public administration.36 In some countries women may also be drawn to public administration for its lower levels of gender wage discrimination.37 Women’s participation in public administration varies across and within world regions Women’s levels of participation in public administration vary across world regions (Map 2.2).38 Three regions are at or near gender parity, on average: Europe and North America (53 percent women), Eastern and Southeastern Asia and Oceania (51 percent women), and Latin America and the Caribbean (49 percent women). The three remaining regions have lower average rates of women in public administration: 38 percent in Sub-Saharan Africa, 37 percent in Northern Africa and Western Asia, and 32 percent in Central and Southern Asia. Map. 2.2 MAP 2.2 Average Percentage of Women Across the Regions Women’s average levels of participation in public administration, by region 53% Europe and North America 37% Northern Africa and Western Asia 49% Latin America and the Caribbean 32% Central and Southern Asia 51% Eastern and Southern Asia + Oceania 38% Sub-Saharan Africa Note: The map shades 139 countries with data on women’s share of all public administrators, the most recent year available. Data prior to 2015 is excluded. Source: Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) dataset, December 2020. 36 Lanfranchi and Narcy, 2013. 37 The public sector is often associated with a wage premium for women (i.e. women in the public sector earn more than women overall) and a smaller gender wage gap (i.e. the average difference between women’s and men’s earnings). See Lanfranchi and Narcy, 2013; Mueller, 2019; Shi, Kay and Somani, 2019. 38 This report follows the regional groupings used in the Sustainable Development Goals reporting process (UN Statistics Division, 2020). GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 29 Every geographic region has substantial variation in women’s levels of participation in public administration (Figure 2.2). A difference of at least 35 percentage points separates the countries with the lowest and highest levels of women’s representation in every region. In Europe and North America, which has the highest average share of women civil servants at 53 percent, North Macedonia reports 29 percent women and Kosovo39 just 21 percent. In contrast, in Central and Southern Asia, which has the lowest average share of women in public administration at 32 percent, women are overrepresented among civil servants in Kazakhstan (56 percent) and Maldives (61 percent). FIGURE 2.2 VariFaigt. 2io.2n in women’s participation in public administration across and within regions Percentage of Women in Public Administration 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% Lithuania Russia Denmark France 50% 40% United States 30% 20% 10% North Macedonia Kosovo 0% Europe and North America Thailand New Zealand Singapore Philippines Lao PDR Kiribati Japan Dominican Republic Chile Colombia Brazil Cuba Mexico Haiti Botswana Seychelles Ghana Rwanda Guinea-Bissau Togo Israel Kuwait State of Palestine Tunisia Iraq Qatar Democratic Republic of the Congo Maldives Kazakhstan Sri Lanka Bhutan Afghanistan Nepal Pakistan Eastern and Latin America Southeastern and Asia + Oceania the Caribbean Sub-Saharan Africa Northern Africa Central and and Southern Asia Western Asia Gender Parity Note : Data include 139 countries with data on women’s share of women’s share of all public administrators, the most recent year available. Data prior to 2015 are excluded. Source: Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) dataset, December 2020. Progress towards gender parity in women’s public administration participation also varies by region (Figure 2.3). Latin America and the Caribbean stands out for embracing parity; 64 percent of its countries have levels of women’s participation in public administration that are near parity, which is more than in any other region. In contrast, no country in Central and Southern Asia is near parity; 80 percent of the region reports women’s participation at less than 45 percent. Compared to other regions, Eastern and Southeastern Asia and Oceania has the largest share of countries where women are overrepresented (50 percent of countries) and the smallest share of countries where women are underrepresented (19 percent of countries). 39 All references to Kosovo in this publication shall be understood to be in the context of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1244 (United Nations, 1999). 30 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION FIGURE 2.3 Share of countries at gender parity and with women’s underrepresentation and overFirge. 2p.3resentation, by region Percentage of Countries at Gender Parity 100% 80% 60% 64% 40% 20% 0% Latin America and the Caribbean 37% Europe and North America 31% Eastern and Southeastern Asia + Oceania 25% 18% 0% Sub-Saharan Africa Northern Africa Central and and Southern Asia Western Asia Percentage of Countries with Women's Underrepresentation 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 18% 0% Latin America and the Caribbean 24% Europe and North America 82% 80% 64% 19% Eastern and Southeastern Asia + Oceania Sub-Saharan Africa Northern Africa Central and and Southern Asia Western Asia Percentage of Countries with Women's Overrepresentation 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 18% 0% Latin America and the Caribbean 39% Europe and North America 50% 19% Eastern and Southeastern Asia + Oceania 20% 11% 0% Sub-Saharan Africa Northern Africa Central and and Southern Asia Western Asia Note: The top panel is the share of countries in each region at or near gender parity; the middle panel is the share of countries where women are underrepresented; and the bottom panel is the share of countries where women are overrepresented. Data include 139 countries with data on women’s share of all public administrators, the most recent year available. Data prior to 2015 are excluded. Source: Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) dataset, December 2020. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 31 Most world regions have closed in on parity in women’s participation in public administration in the last decade (Figure 2.4). Of the three regions where women’s underrepresentation in public administration is the greatest – Central and Southern Asia, Northern Africa and Western Asia, and Sub-Saharan Africa – only Northern Africa and Western Asia does not report progress towards gender parity over time. The region of Central and Southern Asia shows the greatest shift over the decade, from an average of 30 percent women in 2010 to 35 percent women in 2020. Eastern and Southeastern Asia and Oceania transitions from women’s underrepresentation (44 percent) to gender parity (52 percent women, 48 percent men). The remaining two regions – Europe and North America, and Latin America and the Caribbean – having already averaged gender parity in 2010, remain at similar levels in 2020. FIGURE 2.4 RFeigg. 2i.o4 nal change in participation in public administration by sex, 2010–2020 Average Percentage of Women in Public Administration Central and Southern Asia 100% Northern Africa and Western Asia Sub-Saharan Africa 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 35% 30% 30% 20% 35% 35% 40% 37% 10% 0% 2010 2020 2010 2020 2010 2020 Eastern and Southeastern Asia + Oceania 52% 44% 2010 2020 Europe and North America 52% 50% 2010 2020 Latin America and the Caribbean 50% 50% Gender Parity 2010 2020 Note: Regional averages for 2010 include 93 countries with data available in 2010 or the most recent year going back to 2008. Similarly, regional averages for 2020 include 94 countries with data available in 2020 or the most recent year going back to 2018. Differences between 2010 and 2020 reflect both changes within countries over time and variation in the countries included at each time point. Source: Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) dataset, December 2020. Countries that face greater economic and structural challenges have lower levels of women in public administration As country income levels increase, so do women’s average levels of participation in public administration (Figure 2.5). Differences in economic development are important for understanding the kinds of obstacles women face across the world. Economic development shapes women’s access to skills and resources directly, and also affects which skills and resources matter. Low-income countries average just 29 percent women in civil servant positions, compared to lower-middle-income countries, which average 40 percent women; and up- 32 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION per-middle-income and high-income countries, which average 47 percent and 52 percent women, respectively. These trends suggest a two-fold explanation: that higher levels of government resources and capacities enable women’s employment in civil service; or perhaps that including women in public administration contributes to greater economic development. FIGURE 2.5 Women’s participation in public administration, by level of economic development Fig. 2.5 Average Percentage of Women in Public Administration 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 52% 47% 40% 29% Low Income Lower-Middle Upper-Middle High Income Income Income Gender Parity Note: Data are on women’s share of all public administrators in 138 countries , using the most recent year available, and that are classified by income group by the World Bank. Data prior to 2015 are excluded. Income category data are selected to match the year of public administration data. Sources: Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) dataset, December 2020; World Bank Analytical Classifications. In fragile and conflict-affected countries, women’s employment opportunities in public administration are often limited.40 Women’s participation in public administration approaches parity, averaging 48 percent, in countries not currently experiencing conflict. This figure is more than halved, dropping to 23 percent, in fragile and conflict-affected countries. One potential explanation is that conflict increases the physical and personal insecurities of government workers, which could drive sharp declines in women civil service workers in conflict-affected areas. Women’s participation in public administration in fragile and conflictaffected countries averages just 23 percent, less than half of the same figure in all other countries. 40 Fragile and Conflict-Affected Situations (FCS) are flagged annually by the World Bank Group to identify countries with high levels of institutional and social fragility and/or that are affected by violent conflict (World Bank, 2020a). GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 33 Women’s concentration in part-time work Around the world, women are over-represented in part-time work.41 Part-time work often comes with lower pay, worse job quality and poorer chances for advancement.42 The concentration of women in part-time work drives women into certain sectors and occupations, and contributes to gender gaps in pay.43 However, in some countries, a part-time option is one of several measures in support of work-life balance, or may even be the only viable alternative to not working at all.44 In countries with limited options for affordable and high-quality childcare, part-time work may be a way for women to combine work with their disproportionate responsibilities at home, reducing work-family conflict.45 FIGURE 2.6 Women’s participation in full-time vs. part-time work Fig. 2.6 Percentage of Women in Public Administration Gender Parity France 88% 65% New Zealand 85% 60% United Kingdom 81% 46% Republic of Korea 77% 47% United States 63% 43% Sweden 60% 55% Mauritania 53% 33% Uruguay 50% 58% Madagascar 41% 45% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Type of Employment Part Time Full Time Note: The figure includes nine countries with data disaggregated by full-time vs. part-time status. Countries are sorted from those with the largest share of women in part-time work to the smallest. Source: Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) dataset, December 2020. 41 ILO, 2016. 42 ibid. 43 ILO, 2016; Sparreboom, 2014. 44 Barbieri et al., 2019. 45 Russell, O’Connell, and McGinnity, 2009. 34 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Available data suggest that part-time civil service workers are mostly women (Figure 2.6). In some countries, the concentrations of women in part-time work are striking. For instance, women are more than three-quarters of part-time civil servants in France, New Zealand, Republic of Korea and the United Kingdom. Across the nine countries that report gender-disaggregated figures for part-time and full-time public administrators, women average 66 percent of part-time workers, compared to 50 percent of full-time workers. Women’s share of part-time administrators is typically larger than their share of full-time administrators. In seven of the nine countries, where data are available disaggregated by women’s full-time and part-time status, women’s level of participation in part-time work is higher than in full-time work. The gap between full-time and part-time work is particularly striking in the United Kingdom, where 46 percent of full-time civil servants are women but 81 percent of part-time civil servants, a difference of 35 percentage points. The two countries that do not fit this pattern are Uruguay and Madagascar, where the share of women civil servants in full-time work is 4–8 percentage points greater than in part-time work. Women’s participation in public administration at the subnational level Women often, but not always, participate at higher levels in subnational than in central public administration (Figure 2.7). Women’s participation is greater at the subnational level than at the central level in 11 of the 18 countries that make such data publicly available. In these 18 countries, women average 48 percent of civil servants at the subnational level and 42 percent of civil servants at the central level. In Sri Lanka, Indonesia and Nigeria, subnational employees are mostly women, but central government employees are mostly men. The most striking example of imbalance is in Tunisia, where women are 78 percent of subnational administrators but hold just 15 percent of positions in the central level. Subnational administrations are not always more welcoming to women, however. In the Philippines, Republic of Korea and Uruguay, women are the majority at the central level but remain a minority at the subnational level, suggesting the need for further investigation of context-specific factors. In addition to enabling comparison across government levels, subnational data can also be useful in understanding the barriers to more inclusive public administration across geographic areas. If gender inequalities are concentrated in some provinces or municipalities, governments can make targeted efforts to recruit and retain women employees in these locations. Consider the handful of countries that report data disaggregated into rural and urban areas: Cabo Verde, Botswana, Timor-Leste and Turkey. In each of these countries except Cabo Verde, women’s participation in public administration is greater in urban than in rural areas. The gap is the largest in Turkey, where in 2012, women’s participation in public administration was 17 percent in urban areas but just 8 percent in rural areas. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 35 FIGURE 2.7 Women’s participation in public administration at subnational and central levels Fig. 2.7 Percentage Women in Public Administration Gender Parity Tunisia 78% 15% Maldives 64% 57% Sri Lanka 62% 36% France 61% 52% Indonesia 54% 42% Colombia 53% 51% Kazakhstan 52% 59% Nigeria 51% 46% Kenya 47% 15% Philippines 45% 53% Cambodia 43% 31% Lao PDR 42% 46% Bhutan 41% 34% Republic of Korea 40% 51% 36% Uruguay 57% Peru 34% 50% Iraq 34% 28% 19% Afghanistan 32% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Level Subnational Central Note: The figure includes 18 countries and territories with data on women’s share of public administrators in subnational and central levels, the most recent year available. Not shown here are five countries or territories that provide subnational data but comparable figures for central level (Georgia, Kosovo, Kyrgyzstan, Republic of Moldova and Romania). Data prior to 2015 are excluded. Countries are sorted from the highest level of women’s participation in the subnational level to the lowest. The value labels mark the share of women in subnational administration in each country. Source: Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) dataset, December 2020. 36 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Building gender equality in public administration: challenges and opportunities Constitutional, legislative and policy frameworks Discriminatory practices and social exclusion may continue unless the state fulfils its duty to advance equality. The state should begin by ensuring gender equality in the country’s supreme law. It emerged from research by UNDP in the Asia and Pacific region that countries with constitutional guarantees for gender parity have been able to support greater political representation of women, and while the study focuses on political representation, constitutions are important to advance gender equality more generally.46 A supportive national constitution can lead the way to concrete national legislation for quota laws in public administration. For example, in Colombia, women’s movements advocated for provisions in the 1991 Constitution to support the effective participation of women in decision-making positions in public management, which led to the enactment of the quota law including for women in public administration.47 National action plans and executive orders can identify gender equality in public administration as a national priority, identify target areas for improvement, and provide a catalyst for change. For example, Peru’s 2012–2017 National Equality Plan (PLANG) seeks to increase women’s participation in decision-making jobs in the state (Line of Action 7), establish affirmative actions, and to change the institutional culture of the public sector by publishing the “Guide to Incorporate the Gender Perspective in the Communications of Public Agencies.”48 In El Salvador, Executive Decree No. 56 of 2010 affirms a national commitment “to avoid all forms of discrimination in the public administration, for reasons of gender identity and/or sexual orientation.” According to this Decree, heads of public offices must revise policies, programmes and projects, and adopt the necessary measures to remove any form of discrimination on the grounds of gender identity and/or sexual orientation (Article 3).49 Together with a national gender equality plan, an earmarked national gender budget can enable the implementation of commitments to gender equality in the public administration. The national gender machinery should be involved in the design and planning of programmes in coordination with other ministries. OECD provides guidance on developing gender budgeting within the framework of a strong national gender equality strategy.50 The Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability programme, including the World Bank among others, developed a framework on assessing gender-responsive public financing to integrate gender equality into public financing.51 The UNDP, EU and the Project of Strengthening Technical and Functional Capacities of the Supreme Audit Institutions, National Parliaments and Civil Society for the control of Public Finances in PALOP and in Timor-Leste, Pro PALOPTL ISC, programme partners in Portuguese-speaking countries (Angola, Cabo Verde, Guinea Bissau, Mozambique, Sao Tome and Principe, and Timor-Leste) have developed a model of gender-sensitive budgeting.52 46 UNDP, 2013b. 47 UNDP, 2014. 48 UNDP RBLAC, 2020, pp. 130–31. 49 ibid, p. 91. 50 OECD, 2020a. 51 Zrinski, Raapppana, and Rame, 2021. 52 EU and UNDP, 2020. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 37 Gaps in the implementation of enabling legal and policy frameworks remain. It is crucial that once laws and policies have been adopted, governments shift their focus to implementation and act upon their commitments – to ‘walk the talk’. For example in El Salvador, the National Institute for Women (ISDEMU) piloted the Gender Equality Seal for Public Institutions in partnership with the Ministries of Labour and the Economy and UNDP to meet rigorous standards through an action plan for improvement.53 Institutional change within public administration Workplace culture in public administration Some public administration cultures enable sexism and harassment. Institutional cultures that do not penalize sexism and harassment are major barriers to gender equality in public administration. Case study research suggests that in many contexts, victims of sexism and harassment are either not aware of how to report it or are unwilling to do so because of fear of retaliation and the difficulty of proving them.54 Specific provisions to eliminate and punish harassment, where they exist, may not be consistently implemented.55 Increasing attention to the harassment of women in politics may provide opportunities to broaden the conversation to women in public administration. Scholars, international organizations, activists and civil society groups are drawing attention to violence against women in politics and public life.56 It is difficult to obtain precise global statistics to demonstrate the magnitude of sexual harassment in public administration, but surveys of public administrators suggest that it is pervasive and needs to be urgently addressed.57 Systematic comparative studies are needed of the incidence and nature of sexism and harassment in public administration.58 Work-life balance for women and men Significant impediments to work-life balance deter more women from seeking and sustaining employment in public administration. The public sector is often seen as more women- and family-friendly than the private sector, but greater efforts are needed to substantiate this vision. If addressed intentionally, work-life balance policies can play a role in affirming gender equality in the workplace and transforming the culture into one that is gender-inclusive. 53 UNDP RBLAC, 2020, p. 91. 54 UNDP, 2012a. 55 For example, in Jordan, there is a regulation in the public administration disciplinary procedures relating to “respect for females”, but there is no explicit policy addressing sexual harassment in the workplace and it is not mentioned in the Civil Service By-law (2007). 56 Bardall, Bjarnegård, and Piscopo, 2020; Bjarnegård, 2018; Krook, 2020; Krook and Restrepo Sanín, 2020. 57 In 2010, the District Secretariat of Bogota’s Municipal Government in Colombia carried out a survey of workplace harassment and found that 60 percent of respondents had witnessed sexual insinuations against women and that 88 percent believed women victims did not file complaints against their aggressors (UNDP, 2012b, p. 43). In Mongolia, UNDP supported the National Human Rights Commission of Mongolia (NHRCM) to conduct gender and workplace harassment training, resulting in gender action plans to prevent harassment (UNDP, 2019e). 58 UNDP, 2012c. 38 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Parental leave and childcare benefits are key policies.59 The EU Directive 2019/1158 is set to change requirements for parental leave in all member states. At the moment, parents have a right to at least four months of unpaid parental leave per parent with one non-transferable month. The new Directive makes two months non-transferable between parents and mandates that they are paid. EU member states are required to bring laws and regulations in compliance with the new Directive by August 2022. The ILO in 2014 reported that 14 countries (8 percent) provide 11–15 days’ leave (including Azerbaijan, France, Kenya and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela). Only five countries, (Finland, Iceland, Lithuania, Portugal and Slovenia) provide paternity leave of more than two weeks.60 In Mauritius, men have been entitled to 5-day parental leave since 2008, complementing 14 weeks of parental leave on full pay for women.61 Since 2017, public sector workers in Uruguay have had access to 13 weeks’ paid maternity leave and 10 days of paid paternity leave.62 Kenya guarantees women three months’ paid maternity leave and men up to two weeks paternity leave, both at full pay.63 In Romania, after parental leave ends, parents are entitled to up to two years of additional childcare leave at 85 percent of their average salary during the 12 months prior the leave.64 In Chile, recent regulations (Organic Constitutional Law 20,891 of 2016) deemed that public servants with children under two years of age had a right to childcare.65 Policies to make governments more friendly to women are not one-size-fits all. While the overall goal is to address the status quo and challenge existing gender stereotypes, practical needs arising from the actual conditions that women experience due to gender roles assigned to them must also be addressed.66 In Pakistan, one measure that has helped the Punjab Government retain women has been the provision of transport services for women employees.67 The Government of Pakistan has further enacted policies to address social constraints faced by women to recruit and retain women civil servants, for example the Rotation Policy, which exempts women from the requirement that civil servants must serve outside the officer’s home province, allowing them to choose to stay closer to their families.68 Tracking progress towards gender parity in public administration High-quality data and statistics are essential to pinpointing where inequalities persist and to understanding, with evidence, how women’s participation in public institutions matters. Yet, tracking progress towards gender parity in public administration at the global level faces numerous challenges. Countries vary widely in terms of which gender-disaggregated statistics on civil servants they report publicly and how often they report them. Although becoming more common, these statistics are not yet universally available. (See also Appendix B.) 59 For example, for a review of the impacts on childcare provision on mothers’ labour force participation, see Mateo Díaz and Rodriguez-Chamussy, 2016. 60 ILO, 2014. 61 Government of Mauritius, 2010. 62 UNDP RBLAC, 2020, p. 137. 63 Summit Recruitment and Search, 2019. 64 Globalization Partners, 2021. 65 UNDP RBLAC, 2020, p. 59. 66 ILO, 2018. 67 The Punjab Government created the Punjab Safe Cities Authority (PSCA), where a pick-up and drop-off facility is provided to all women employees (UNDP Pakistan and UN Women, 2017, p.26). 68 ibid, p.18. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 39 The public administrations of two countries and their public administration statistics are often qualitatively different and therefore not fully comparable. Even if two governments are similar in size and scope of services, the sectors and jobs considered part of ‘public administration’ can vary in important ways. These differences are particularly telling if police and military personnel, teachers, and/or public hospital nurses are counted among public administrators, since they can have substantial effects on estimates of the share of civil servants who are women.69 Countries further vary in the extent to which employees working at subnational levels are counted. Because women are often better represented at subnational levels of public administration, countries that count them in national statistics may rank closer to gender parity than countries that do not. The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development offers an opportunity to improve global tracking of gender equality in public administration. SDG Indicator 16.7.1b measures proportions of positions (by age group, sex, persons with disabilities and population groups) in public institutions (national and local), including the public service, compared to national distributions. Reporting on this indicator has the potential to improve both data availability and consistency.70 SDG16.7.1b will be the first attempt to standardize both what counts as employment in public administration,71 and its associated occupational categories.72 The United Nations Statistical Commission in March 2019 recognized 16.7.1b as Tier 2 level indicators, endorsing the methodology and standards proposed for the measurement of the indicator. With an internationally agreed methodology, systematic data collection and reporting of national data on diversity in the representation in public administration, including sex-disaggregated data, could be initiated. UNDP as the custodian agency of the indicator, has established a platform for member states to report on SDG 16.7.1b, and global reporting is expected to start in 2021. Governments should capitalize on the reporting requirement of SDG 16.7.1b to improve capacities to collect, process and disseminate administrative data related to representation in public administration. The harmonization of public administration statistics for SDG reporting requires stronger efforts to collect a broader range of statistics disaggregated by sex to address specific policy needs. As required by this SDG indicator, statistics should disaggregate public servants by sex (female; male) and also by: 1. Administrative level (central level; “state” level or equivalent) 2. Occupational categories (four ISCO-based categories across the entire public service and a focus on select- ed ‘front-line service’ categories, namely police, healthcare and education personnel, as well as front-desk administrative personnel) 3. Various demographic characteristics: • Age group (below 35 years; 35–44; 45–54; 55–64; 65 and above) • Disability status (disability; no disability) • Population subgroup (country-specific). 69 All else being equal, common gender segregation employment patterns among public servants mean that a country that defines public administration as including the military and excluding teachers is likely to perform worse on gender equality indicators than a country that includes teachers and excludes the military. 70 SDG Indicator 16.7.1b, formally approved as a Tier 2 indicator in March 2019, seeks to improve the collection and reporting of data on “Proportions of positions (by age group, sex, persons with disabilities and population groups) in public institutions (national and local), including (b) the public service, compared to national distributions.” (UNDP, 2019; UNDP Oslo Governance Centre, 2020). 71 The ILO has long used measures of employment in the ‘government sector’, but this is a broader category than public administration. 72 Employment in the general government sector is defined in the system of national accounts 2008, and occupational categories in the public sector are defined according to the International Standard Classification of Occupations, ISCO-08 (UNDP, 2019f ). 40 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Building strong partnerships for organizational change Governments need support to collect and process gender-disaggregated public administration data and to identify gaps and barriers to gender equality in public institutions. High-quality administrative data are the gold standard. However, in many countries, personnel record management systems are non-existent or incomplete.73 Producing statistics across all sectors and levels of public administration requires substantial coordination and data sharing across government agencies. Survey and interview data are also an important complement to personnel data to identify structural and cultural barriers as understood by public servants. Human resources management and capacity development functions in public administration may not have the staff or experience to support gender equality training, analysis, and/or gender-responsive planning and budgeting.74 UNDP and the OECD jointly designed a toolkit to support countries as they assess gender gaps and barriers to gender equality in public administration and to provide a basis for programming. The UNDP-OECD methodology has already been implemented in Myanmar75 and is currently being implemented in South Sudan. UNDP has developed the Gender Equality Seal for Public Institutions, which offers an innovative toolkit to public institutions to help them systematically analyse, diagnose and address institutional impediments to providing gender equitable workplaces76 (see Box 2.1). 73 Personnel systems may not include data on certain government sectors (e.g. defence) or categories of workers (e.g. contract or parttime). Integrating data across all sectors and levels may pose particular challenges in countries with decentralized public administration. 74 This was reportedly the case in Fiji after changes in the mandate of the Public Service Commission resulted in responsibilities for human resource management and capacity development being transferred to individual ministries (Asian Development Bank, 2016, p. 64). 75 UNDP, 2019b. 76 The UNDP Gender Equality Seal for Public Institutions has been piloted and is expected to be launched in 2021. This initiative is built upon successful experiences from UNDP’s Gender Equality Seal corporate certification process (UNDP, 2020g). GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 41 BOX 2.1 Piloting the Gender Equality Seal for Public Institutions in Republic of Moldova In 2018, the Gender Equality Seal for Public Institutions was piloted in Republic of Moldova. The pilot was carried out at both the national and local public administrations. At the local level, UNDP Moldova held a series of workshops with six local public administrations (LPAs).77 The workshops helped the LPAs to better understand the Gender Equality Seal methodology and performance standards, and to adjust them to the local context. UNDP Moldova worked with each of the LPAs to carry out the self-assessment, to draft action plans for improvement and to identify evidence for the achievement of benchmarks. The pilot initiative in Moldova was carried out in support of the effective implementation of the National Strategy on Ensuring Equality between Women and Men (2017–2021). The pilot initiative achieved several results: • Six LPAs from the Republic of Moldova received a diploma from UNDP in recognition of their delivery of transformational gender equality results. • The LPAs successfully worked towards promoting institutional change within public administration by updating important internal human resource policies to make them gender-sensitive: • Introducing new provisions of compulsory induction training and continuing professional development of staff, including on gender. • Creating registries for complaints on sexual harassment and discrimination at the workplace. • Developing Codes of Ethics for City Hall employees that included provisions on the observance of gender equality and non-discrimination in the workplace. • Stipulating the observance of gender equality in three regulations of the discipline commission. • Supplementing collective labour contracts with provisions to promote favourable working environments for women and men. • The LPAs developed draft budgets for 2019, and mid-term projections for 2020–2021 included financial resources (2 percent of the salary fund) for continuous professional development of staff, including on gender equality. • To prioritize gender in their ongoing work, the LPAs mainstreamed gender in their local development strategies and the LPAs’ mayors set up gender focal teams. 77 Participating LPAs included Ocolina (Soroca district), Glodeni (Glodeni district), Serpeni (Anenii Noi district), Siret (Straseni district), Cirnateni (Causeni district), and Valea Perjei (Taraclia district). 42 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION GLASS CEILINGS: CHALLENGES TO 3 GENDER-INCLUSIVE DECISIONMAKING IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Chapter findings, in brief Gender-inclusive decision-making in public administration is crucial for both normative principles (gender equality is a human right, and public administrations need to model best practices) and instrumental reasons (to serve the interests and perspectives of women better, and to improve the quality of decision-making and public policy outcomes). Despite such powerful arguments, women continue to be underrepresented in the highest levels of decision-making in public administration in all regions of the world. Women make up 46 percent of public administration employees overall, but only 31 percent of top leaders, 30 percent of senior managers, and 38 percent of managers. Current patterns of women’s representation suggest a pipeline effect: gender parity in decision-making is nearly impossible if parity among overall employees is not achieved. Persistent gender gaps among top leaders and senior managers, even in contexts where women in the civil service are better educated than men, point to the weakness of gender-neutral human resource policies in promoting women and men equitably. Temporary special measures (TSMs) may be an effective remedy to break glass ceilings and fuel gender parity in upper levels of decision-making in public administration. W omen around the world continue to be underrepresented in the highest rungs of public administration.78 In the vast majority of countries, women’s share of decision-making positions is less than their share of positions in public administration overall. Gender parity in decision-making positions can remain elusive even in countries where women outnumber men in the civil service. The sections that follow introduce the dimensions of gender-inclusive decision-making and why it is important, review the state of knowledge on glass ceilings in public administration, and then turn to new findings. Progress towards gender parity in three types of decision-making positions has been evaluated – top leaders, senior managers and managers. Particular focus has been placed on the extent to which women’s greater participation in public administration drives higher levels of women in decision-making. Variation in 78 See, for example, EY, 2012; EY, 2014; Global Government Forum, 2017; Nasser, 2018; OECD, 2017; Schreiber, 2017. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 43 women’s representation in decision-making positions across countries, across geographic regions, and in fragile and conflict-affected countries have also been presented. The closing sections with policy and programming examples draw attention to initiatives and reforms that can enable gender-inclusive decision-making. Gender-inclusive decision-making in public administration: What is it and why does it matter? Glass ceilings are the actual or perceived barriers that block women from moving up the ranks of an organization, depressing their representation in senior management and top executive roles. Gender-inclusive decision-making in public administration is multidimensional and benefits public administration and the society it serves (Figure 3.1). FIGURE 3.1 DFigim. 3.1ensions and importance of gender-inclusive decision-making What are the Dimensions of Gender-Inclusive Decision-Making in Public Administration? Greater representation of women from diverse backgrounds in decision-making positions Gender-sensitive approach to data collection, analysis, and response Making decisions in ways that are sensitive to gender (both processes and outcomes) Why Does Gender-Inclusive Decision-Making in Public Administration Matter? Asserts women’s right to participate in public life Sends powerful signals to other institutions and to individuals in society Takes both women’s and men’s interests and perspectives into consideration Improves the quality of decision-making processes and outcomes Source: Gender Inequality Research Lab (GIRL) at the University of Pittsburgh. Dimensions of gender-inclusive decision-making One dimension of gender-inclusive decision-making in public administration is the proportional representation of women and men from diverse backgrounds in decision-making positions. This dimension is called ‘descriptive representation’ or ‘passive representation.’ Gender-inclusive decision-making is assessed at the benchmark of gender parity and by the representation of women and men from diverse backgrounds, identities and experiences. A second dimension of gender-inclusive decision-making in public administration is a gender-responsive approach to how public administration data are collected, analysed and acted upon. Public institutions collect, process and disseminate data, and it is their responsibility to provide gender-disaggregated data. A gender-inclusive approach to data is intersectional, enabling disaggregation not only by gender, but also by other factors that shape access to decision-making, including disability status, ethnic and racial origin, age, geo- 44 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION graphic location and more. It also entails collecting data on the policies, practices and environments that enable diversity and inclusion. Collecting the right data allows governments to identify roadblocks to gender-inclusive decision-making and to design specific interventions. A third dimension of gender-inclusive decision-making in public administration is ensuring that decisions are made in ways that are inclusive of both women’s and men’s interests and priorities. This dimension, called ‘substantive representation’ or ‘active representation’, considers the inclusiveness of decision-making behaviours, processes and outcomes. It considers whether public administration decision-making is accounting for the varied priorities, interests and needs of diverse groups of women and men. It assesses whether the outcomes of public policies are gender-responsive and whether they are effectively addressing the unequal distribution of goods, services and opportunities among women and men. Reasons for seeking gender-inclusive decision-making in public administration Gender equality is a human right.79 Since women make up around half of the population in every country, they should also make up half of leaders. Even if men and women decision makers make the same decisions, implement policy and distribute resources in the same way as men, women have a right to equal representation. The practices of public institutions send powerful messages to their workers, to other institutions, to women and girls, and to society at large: • The diversity of public administration leadership affects how civil servants feel about their workplaces as well as their uptake of initiatives designed to enhance gender equality. In most countries, public administrations claim to have open, fair and transparent processes for career progression. But when top levels of the civil service are overwhelmingly comprised of men, the system’s openness and transparency can be called into question.80 The presence of women public managers can also signal to workers that institutions are committed to gender equality, increasing the likelihood that civil servants take advantage of programmes designed to promote work-life balance.81 Civil servants in women-led agencies have even reported more favourable assessments of their leaders and higher levels of job satisfaction than their counterparts in men-led agencies. 82 • Public administration has a responsibility to set the standard for gender-inclusive decision-making. Inclusive institutions are those: led by diverse groups of women and men; where policies, practices and institutional cultures promote gender equality; and where decisions are guided by gender-sensitive data and analyses. By modelling inclusive institutions, public institutions can effectively set standards for workplaces both in public and private sectors. 79 OHCHR, 2020. 80 Adusah-Karikari and Ohemeng, 2014. 81 Bae, Lee and Sohn, 2019. 82 D’Agostino, 2015. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 45 • Women’s presence in visible and powerful decision-making positions sends the message that women can and should lead.83 Research on descriptive representation in politics shows that women’s representation and leadership have important symbolic effects: they enhance women’s participation and engagement;84 improve the educational and career aspirations of girls;85 enhance women’s belief in their ability to govern;86 decrease implicit biases against women leaders;87 and change men’s assessments of women’s capacities.88 Including women in decision-making positions in public administration may similarly send the message that women should be leading policy development and implementation. • Inclusive decision-making processes increase public trust and confidence in the outcomes that these processes yield. When citizens believe that their public institutions are inclusive of women, they are more likely to see their government as effective and responsive.89 Women’s inclusion on decision-making bodies also causes citizens – both men and women – to attach greater legitimacy to decision-making procedures.90 Inclusive institutions serve the interests and perspectives of diverse societies. Leadership comes with discretionary power in how policies are formulated or interpreted, or how resources are allocated, and women may act in ways that are different from men and beneficial to women.91 Including women in leadership and management also enhances service delivery to women and encourages the engagement of women citizens in government programmes.92 Ensuring there are diverse groups of women and men in decision-making recognizes that women and men are not monolithic groups, and that women and men from marginalized groups may also have distinct interests, priorities and perspectives.93 Gender parity improves the quality of decision-making. When women are brought into the fold, this doubles the pool of talent and increases Women’s equal participation in decision- making is not only a demand for simple justice or democracy, but can also be seen as a necessary condition for women’s interests to be taken into account. Beijing Platform for Action, para.181 A more diverse set of decision makers means more creative, innovative decisions – and decisions that reflect the experiences of a bigger range of people. We’re all shaped by our many varying experiences. We need the voices and ideas of people who have experienced the world from many different angles, so that the best and widest range of knowledge goes into decision-making and leadership. Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, 2017 83 Political theorist Jane Mansbridge has argued that in contexts where women and other groups have been excluded from or marginalized in politics, descriptive representation helps to create the perception that members of the group should be included, that they are ‘fit to rule’ (Mansbridge, 1999). 84 Barnes and Burchard, 2013; Desposato and Norrander, 2009; Fridkin and Kenney, 2014; Kittilson and Schwindt-Bayer, 2012; Ladam, Harden and Windett, 2018. 85 Beaman et al., 2012. 86 Alexander, 2012. 87 Beaman et al., 2009; Clayton, 2018. 88 Johnson, Kabuchu and Vusiya Kayonga, 2003. 89 Stauffer, 2018. 90 Clayton, O’Brien and Piscopo, 2019; Greene and O’Brien, 2016; Norderval, 1985. 91 Meier and Funk, 2017; Meier and Morton, 2015; Wilkins and Keiser, 2006. 92 Andrews and Miller, 2013; Riccucci, Van Ryzin, and Li, 2016; Wilkins and Keiser, 2006. 93 Smooth, 2011. 46 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION the diversity of ideas, values, priorities and political styles that shape policy outcomes.94 Diversity in leadership enhances communication between the workforce and its leaders, and helps to create an environment where ‘outside the box’ ideas are heard, driving improvements in organizational performance and outputs.95 Public institutions with diverse leadership perform better, both objectively and subjectively.96 Progress towards gender parity in decision-making in public administration worldwide: the state of the field Comparative or global studies of women’s inclusion in decision-making positions in public administration are rare. Much of the global research on women’s leadership in public administration focuses on the political appointees who head bureaucracies – cabinet ministers.97 However, UNDP’s 2014 report, Gender Equality in Public Administration, and the series of regional reports and case studies that followed, establish two broad patterns about gender equality in decision-making positions in public administration: First, in many countries the upper rungs of public administration are dominated by men. For example, in Ghana, a 2014 study reported that women accounted for 32 percent of the civil service but were concentrated in secretarial and clerical classes.98 In Indonesia in 2015, women represented 49 percent of bureaucrats but only 17 percent of high leadership positions.99 One study in Republic of Korea found that even though women’s employment in the civil service doubled over two decades, they did not make parallel gains in the highest grade levels.100 Second, there is substantial variation in women’s share of leadership positions in public administration across countries. UNDP’s 2014 global GEPA report found that countries such as Costa Rica, Botswana and Colombia had 40 percent or more women in decision-making positions, whereas equivalent figures for Oman, Kazakhstan and Nepal were under 10 percent. Among the Arab States, women’s share of national administration leadership was 11 percent in the State of Palestine but 30 percent in the United Arab Emirates.101 Gender parity by level of decision-making There is no agreed-upon way to measure decision-making. To date, most attempts to measure women’s share of decision-making positions across countries takes one of two approaches. One is to define what is meant by decision-making and then find the data that most closely fits the definition. The other is to report whatever decision-making data are available, often aggregating different types of data broadly into a single decision-making category. This report takes a new approach by using available decision-making data and matching them to one of three categories: top leaders, senior managers and managers. 94 Green and O’Brien, 2016; Norderval, 1985; Paxton, Hughes, and Barnes, 2020. 95 Hewlett, Marshall, and Sherbin, 2013. 96 Andrews, Ashworth and Meier, 2014; Ostrup and Villadsen, 2014. 97 For a review see Annesley, Beckwith, and Franceschet, 2019. 98 Ghana Statistical Service, 2012; cited from Adusah-Karikari and Ohemeng, 2014. 99 Krissetyanti, 2018. 100 Kim, 2003; see also Choi and Park, 2014; Choi, 2019. 101 Nasser, 2018. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 47 Top leaders are the small number of executive positions at the very top levels of public administration, typically less than 1 percent of a country’s public servants.102 Top leaders include positions such as permanent secretary and agency director. Senior managers generally capture a slightly larger share of leadership positions, averaging around 3 percent of public administration positions.103 Managers are the broadest category of decision-making used in this report and comprise 13 percent of positions, on average.104 Women’s underrepresentation is greater at higher levels of public administration (Figure 3.2). Women average 46 percent of public administrators overall, but they comprise 38 percent of managers and just 30–31 percent of higher decision-making levels. The overall trend confirms a common refrain in studies of gender inequalities in organizations: at each rung up the hierarchy, women’s share of positions diminishes.105 Less expected is that women’s average shares of senior managers and top leaders are similar. Among countries with available data, women comprise 30 percent of senior managers and 31 percent of top leaders. The relatively high share of women top leaders could be explained by regional bias in reporting,106 and/or by explicit efforts to enhance women’s presence in the most visible leadership positions. FIGURE 3.2 Women’s share of positions across levels in public administration Public Administrators Top Leaders Senior Managers Managers 31% 30% 38% 46% 54% 62% 69% 70% 139 countries 78 countries 87 countries 71 countries Percentage of Men Percentage of Women Note: Data include the most recent year available. Countries include only those with data available in 2014 or later. Source: Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) dataset, June 2020. Women’s share of top leadership positions ranges from a high of 58 percent to a low of 4 percent, with few countries approaching gender parity (Map 3.1). Liechtenstein and Poland have the highest shares of women in top leadership (58 percent), followed by Latvia (57 percent), Slovenia (56 percent) and Albania and Croatia (55 percent). Twenty-one countries have less than 20 percent women in top leadership roles, spread across all 102 Statistics on the share of public administration positions captured by a leadership category were generated through calculations using available data from Gen-PaCS, June 2020. 103 In some cases, the language describing a measure of senior decision makers was not specific enough to know whether it captured top leaders or senior managers. In each case, researchers used their best judgement to make a determination. See Appendix A for details on how decision-making data were categorized. 104 The category of managers varies widely from one country to the next. In OECD countries, the category of managers typically captures the share of women in ‘middle management’ in the central government; elsewhere, the category may be much broader. 105 For example, see: Catalyst, 2020; Gorman and Kmec, 2009; Huang et al., 2019. 106 As shown in Appendix B, Europe and North America are more likely than other regions to report statistics on women’s representation among top leaders. To the extent that Europe and North America outperform other regions on women’s representation in these positions, the statistic may be inflated by a lack of reporting in regions where there are fewer women leaders. 48 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION regions with such data. Japan and Nepal have the lowest shares of women in top leadership roles at 4 percent. Of the 78 countries with available data, only 11 have reached parity in top leadership positions, and all but one – New Zealand – is in the region of Europe and North America. Women’s share of senior managers follows a similar pattern. Just five countries have more than 50 percent women senior managers: Latvia (54 percent), Iceland (54 percent), Uruguay (52 percent), Greece (51 percent) and Poland (51 percent). In 22 countries, less than 20 percent of senior managers are women. Saudi Arabia claims the lowest spot, with just over 1 percent,107 but Japan and Nepal are not far behind, at 3 percent and 5 percent, respectively. Among managers, the third decision-making category, women’s participation emerges as slightly better. Nineteen countries meet or exceed the threshold for gender parity. Lithuania and Malaysia lead the world in women manager positions, with 68 percent and 66 percent, respectively, followed by the two leading countries in senior manager positions, Latvia (66 percent) and Iceland (65 percent). At the other end, just 8 countries have less than 20 percent women managers. Of countries with available data, Japan, at 5 percent, and Republic of Korea, at 13 percent, have the fewest women managers, followed by Qatar and Afghanistan, at 15 percent. MAP 3.1 WomenM’saps. 3h.1a- Praert 1of top leaders, senior managers and managers in public administration Top Leaders Percentage of Women Top Leaders 0% 50% 70% 107 Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 aims to increase the percentage of women in civil service decision-making positions – defined as Grade 11 and above – to 5 percent (Nasser, 2018). GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 49 Map. 3.1 - Part 2 Senior Managers Percentage of Women Senior Managers Map. 3.1 - Part 3 0% 50% 70% Managers Percentage of Women Managers 0% 50% 70% Note: In each map gender parity is marked as the transition from grey to purple. Darker shades of grey are associated with greater dominance of a position by men, whereas darker shades of purple are associated with more women. Data include 115 countries with available information on women’s share of decision-making positions in 2014 or later, the most recent year available. The share of women in each position is available in Table C2 of Appendix C. Source: Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) dataset, June 2020. 50 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Rarely does the share of women in decision-making exceed their share of employees (Figure 3.3). Women’s share of public administration overall outpaces women’s share of managers in 13 countries, senior managers in 5 countries, and top leaders in 8 countries. Many countries have reached gender parity among their employees but not among their decision makers. Of the three decision-making categories, this occurs most frequently for senior managers (35 countries), followed by top leaders (28 countries) and then managers (19 countries). Alternatively, reaching gender parity in decision-making without doing so among overall employees is nearly impossible. Croatia is the sole country to have reached gender parity in any decision-making category (top leadership) without also doing so for total employees. Women’s share of managers is typically greater than their share of senior managers or top leaders (Figure 3.4). Thus, at increasing levels of public administration, women’s share of positions generally decreases. However, women’s share of top leaders exceeds their share of senior managers in only about half of countries. This suggests that differences in which measures are reported across countries cannot fully explain why women are well represented in top leadership. As noted above, one explanation for the relatively high share of women in top leaders in some countries is that they are appointed by elected politicians, who are subject to pressure to include more women. When the share of top leaders is high in a country, at least higher than other measures of women in decision-making, this may reflect top-down efforts by leaders to diversify public administration leadership. FIGURE 3.3 Scatterplots of women’s participation compared to decision-making categories Percentage of Women Managers 100% Employees vs. Managers Gender Parity (Total) 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% Gender Parity (Managers) 30% 20% 10% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percentage of Women Total Employees GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 51 Percentage of Women Senior Managers Employees vs. Senior Managers Gender Parity (Total) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% Gender Parity (Senior Managers) 30% 20% 10% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percentage of Women Total Employees 100% Employees vs. Top Leaders Gender Parity (Total) 90% 80% Percentage of Women Top Leaders 70% 60% 50% 40% Gender Parity (Top Leaders) 30% 20% 10% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percentage of Women Total Employees Note: Data include 115 countries with available information on women’s share of decision-making positions in 2014 or later, the most recent year available. Each plot compares women’s share of total employees (on the x-axis) to one of our three measures of women’s decision-making – top leaders, senior managers and managers (on the y-axis). Purple dots represent countries where the share of women employees exceeds women’s share of decision-making, whereas yellow dots have the reverse pattern. The grey lines highlight the thresholds for gender parity. Source: Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) dataset, June 2020. 52 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION FIGURE 3.4 Scatterplots of categories of decision-making compared to one another 100% Managers vs. Senior Managers Gender Parity (Senior Managers) 90% Percentage of Women Senior Managers 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% Gender Parity (Senior Managers) 30% 20% 10% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percentage of Women Managers Percentage of Women Top Leaders 100% Managers vs. Top Leaders Gender Parity (Managers) 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% Gender Parity (Top Leaders) 30% 20% 10% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percentage of Women Managers GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 53 100% Senior Managers vs. Top Leaders Gender Parity (Senior Managers) 90% 80% Percentage of Women Top Leaders 70% 60% 50% 40% Gender Parity (Top Leaders) 30% 20% 10% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percentage of Women Senior Managers Note: Data include 115 countries with available information on women’s share of decision-making positions in 2014 or later, the most recent year available. Each plot compares two measures of the three measures of women’s decision-making. Top leaders is considered the highest-level category, followed by senior managers and then managers. In each plot, the lowest category is always on the x-axis, and the higher-level category is on the y-axis. Purple dots represent countries where the share of women in the higher-level category exceeds women’s share of in the lowest category, whereas yellow dots have the reverse pattern. The grey lines highlight the thresholds for gender parity. Source: Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) dataset, June 2020 Some countries are showing evidence of progress towards gender parity in decision-making positions. In Europe, women’s share of top leaders has increased over time, from 32 percent in 2010 to 42 percent in 2020.108 There are other stand-out examples. In 2019, Statistics Mauritius reported 39 percent women in senior positions in government services, an increase from 19 percent in 1999. These figures include Senior Chief Executive, Permanent Secretary, Deputy Permanent Secretary, Director, Manager, Judge and Magistrates.109 Between 2006 and 2016, the share of women in decision-making positions in Sri Lanka increased from 28 percent to just shy of 40 percent. Leadership as the domain of men: public administration vs. politics Politics has long been the domain of men. Although the past few decades have seen impressive gains in women’s political representation, progress towards gender equality in politics has often lagged other domains.110 With more public administration data available than ever before, it is possible to consider: How does women’s representation in decision-making positions compare to their political representation? The natural point of comparison is with cabinets, the top of the executive branch. Women’s representation among cabinet ministers 108 These figures are the authors’ calculations with data from the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) (EIGE, 2020). 109 Statistics Mauritius, 2020. 110 Paxton, Hughes and Barnes, 2020. 54 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION remains low: in 2019, women’s share of ministerial positions was only 21 percent.111 There were many countries at either extreme: 9 countries had 50 percent or more women, and 11 countries had no women.112 Looking at regional patterns, women’s share of cabinet positions is almost always lower than their share of decision-making positions in public administration (Figure 3.5). The one exception is in Latin America and the Caribbean, where women average 31 percent of cabinet ministers, a greater share than the 26 percent of top leaders. However, top leader data are rare in Latin America (see Figure B.3 in Appendix B) and should therefore be interpreted with caution. Overall, this pattern suggests again that as the power and prestige of decision-making positions increase, women’s representation tends to decline. FIGURE 3.5 Women’s representation in cabinets and in public administration decision-making, by world region Percentage of Women 11% Northern Africa 19% and Western Asia 16% 27% Gender Parity 13% Eastern and 26% Southeastern Asia + Oceania 27% 36% 14% Central and 19% Southern Asia 19% 24% 21% 24% Sub-Saharan Africa 27% 30% 31% Latin America 26% and the Caribbean 40% 43% 31% Europe and 41% North America 37% 48% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Cabinet Minister Top Leader Senior Manager Manager Note: The figure includes 115 countries with one or more measures of public administration decision-making in 2014 or later. Sources: Data on cabinet ministers are from 2019 (IPU 2019). Measures on women’s decision-making in public administration are from the Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) dataset, June 2020. 111 IPU, 2019. 112 ibid. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 55 The regional variation in women’s share of cabinet positions aligns with that in decision-making in public administration. Europe and North America, together with Latin America and the Caribbean, perform well relative to other regions on most categories of decision making. Sub-Saharan Africa follows next. In contrast, Northern Africa and Western Asia has the lowest levels of women in decision-making across nearly all measures. This suggests that the context-specific factors that create regional differences in women’s representation in decision-making positions have similar effects across levels of decision-making. Armed conflict and women in decision-making positions In some countries and regions, the ending of major armed conflicts has fuelled progress towards women’s representation and leadership.113 Transition to peace has provided windows of opportunity for the adoption of constitutional provisions and laws committed to gender equality in society and in government institutions.114 For example, the ending of major armed conflicts has been shown to increase the likelihood that electoral gender quotas are adopted.115 Ultimately, these legal and policy changes, combined with increases in women’s activism and shifting gender norms on women’s capabilities, have added gains in women’s legislative representation.116 However, little is known about how gender equality in public administration fits into this picture, indicating a need for further research in this area. Conflict is associated with below-average levels of women in decision-making positions in public administration (Figure 3.6). Notably, countries that are experiencing medium- or high-intensity conflict, or that are vulnerable to conflict due to high institutional and social fragility, have average levels of women in decision-making positions that are 10–19 percent lower than other countries. Countries experiencing high-intensity conflict reported the lowest levels of decision-making in public administration, averaging just 16 percent women. Across the 12 fragile and conflict-affected countries, only 1 country – Myanmar – exceeds the global average of women in decision-making positions.117 FIGURE 3.6 Women in decision-making positions in conflict-affected countries Fig. 3.6 Percentage of Women in Decision-Making Positions Gender Parity Non-Con ict 35% High Institutional and Social Fragility 23% Medium-Intensity Con ict 25% High-Intensity Con ict 16% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Note: Data include 115 countries with one or more measures of public administration decision-making in 2014 or later. In 2020, the World Bank identified 39 fragile and conflict-affected countries, 12 of which are included in the figure. Sources: Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) dataset, June 2020; World Bank, 2020. 113 There is also evidence of the reverse: studies show that countries that have greater gender equality among decision makers have lower levels of intrastate conflict and experience more prolonged peace after negotiated settlements. See Bjarnegård and Melander, 2011; Bjarnegård and Melander, 2013; Melander, 2005; and Shair-Rosenfield and Wood, 2017. 114 Anderson and Swiss, 2014. 115 Hughes, Krook and Paxton, 2015. 116 Berry, 2018; Hughes, 2009; Hughes and Tripp, 2015; Tripp, 2015. 117 Myanmar reported 47 percent women in top leadership as of 2017, exceeding the global average of 31 percent women. 56 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION BOX 3.1 Peace, sustainable development and gender equality in public administration in Colombia’s territories In 2016, the Colombian Government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) signed an historic peace agreement, marking an end to over 50 years of armed conflict. Under the peace agreement, the Government pledged to spend billions of dollars in rural areas, including the territories most affected by Colombia’s longstanding conflict. Colombia’s strategy to develop rural areas has included a series of territorially focused development plans called, Development Programs with Territorial Approach (PDETs).118 The Government selected the municipalities most affected by the armed conflict, which have high rates of poverty and some history of illicit economies and institutional weakness. This approach was designed to build sustainable peace through economic development and by fostering a greater sense of citizenship in conflict-affected areas. PDETs are already in place in 170 municipalities, and the Government plans to reach 11,000 villages. Municipalities targeted for PDETs have fewer women in decision-making positions in public administration (Figure 3.7). Women make up a lower share of administrators of the top three tiers of Colombia’s civil service – the director, advisor and professional levels – compared to other rural municipalities. In 2020, women were 37 percent of Directors in PDET municipalities compared to 41 percent in non-PDET municipalities. Notably, however, when comparing data from 2019 and 2020, it can be suggested that the number of women directors in PDET municipalities is on the rise. FIGURE 3.7 Percentage of women in PDET and non-PDET municipalities, by hierarchical levels, 2020 Average Percentage of Women in Public Administration Gender Parity Director 37% 41% Advisor 46% 50% Professional 55% 57% Technical 45% 45% Assistant 64% 62% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% PDET Non-PDET Note: To enhance comparability between PDET and non-PDET municipalities, the largest cities (Bogota, Medellin, Cali, Barranquilla and Cartagena) were excluded. Sources: Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) dataset, December 2020; data supplied to the GEPA initiative by Colombia’s Department of Public Function. 118 Colombia is a unitary state that consists of 32 departments, 1 capital district, and 1,101 municipalities. The decentralized nature of the civil service allows for certain level of autonomy in territorial sub-national entities in public service delivery. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 57 Fostering gender equality is also part of the Government’s approach to sustainable development in PDET municipalities. Colombia’s Department of Public Function, working with the Vice-Presidency of the Republic and the High Council for Equity for Women, has been taking steps to create gender machinery. In each PDET municipality, an existing civil servant is identified to address and prioritize gender issues in the municipal administration. These administrators are tasked with promoting and ensuring the effective participation of women in political, public and economic affairs. Colombia’s approach to develop the rural areas that are the most affected by its longstanding armed conflict is both cause for concern and optimism. Of concern is that the lower shares of women in high-level positions in PDET municipalities compared to other rural municipalities suggest that longstanding armed conflicts may undermine progress towards gender parity in decision-making positions in public administration. However, the peace process appears to be enabling progress towards gender equality in public administration, both in terms of positions, and in mainstreaming gender equality into public institutions. Challenges and opportunities Constitutional, legislative and policy frameworks Affirmative action and temporary special measures One of the most effective tools for advancing the numerical representation of women in decision-making around the world has been gender quotas, also known as temporary special measures (TSMs).119 Electoral gender quotas have transformed the ways that candidates are selected in more than 130 countries, spanning all geographic regions, levels of development and levels of democratization.120 On average, electoral quotas have been effective at increasing the representation and diversity of women in national legislatures.121 However, not all quotas are equally effective at increasing women’s numbers,122 and in some countries, they have been through multiple rounds of reform before working effectively.123 Unlike electoral quotas, TSMs in public administration are not well documented or understood. There is no data source that enumerates where civil service TSMs are in use.124 As a result, knowledge is limited about which countries are using TSMs; the range of policies that exist and whether they are successful at increasing women’s representation in decision-making; and how policymakers should design, implement, or reform them to maximize their effectiveness. Still, what is known about affirmative action strategies in public administration in some country cases provides useful insights. 119 Quotas have been shown to influence party strategy, legislative behaviour, public opinion, political engagement, and the aspirations, education, and political efficacy of women and girls. For a review, see Hughes, Paxton and Krook, 2017. 120 Hughes et al., 2017; International IDEA, 2020. 121 For example, see Dahlerup, 2006; Hughes, 2011; Paxton, Hughes and Painter, 2010; and Tripp and Kang, 2008. 122 For example, Schwindt-Bayer, 2009; Paxton and Hughes, 2015. 123 Hughes et al., 2019; Piscopo, 2013. 124 Surveying available evidence at the time, the 2014 global GEPA report suggested that public administration rarely used temporary special measures. 58 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION [W]hen I compare myself with my male colleagues, and consider where they are and where I am today, I am inclined to believe that if I were a male, I would have advanced further than where I am now. Not because I am not qualified or do not have the skills, but it is all because of gender. It is so subtle that you cannot place your finger on it. Woman civil servant in Ghana Adusah-Karikari and Ohemeng 2014, p. 575 A handful of country cases suggest that TSMs in public administration could become the bridge for qualified women candidates to move into decision-making positions. Malaysia is one such success story. In 2014, the Malaysian government adopted a policy requiring at least 30 percent women decision makers in the public sector; over the next six years, women’s share of decision-making positions in the civil service increased from 19 percent to 32 percent.125 Since 2000, Colombia has had a civil service quota of a minimum of 30 percent women in decision-making positions.126 Colombia’s public administration is exceeding this commitment: in 2020, women averaged 41 percent of positions at the director level. Policies designed to increase women’s representation in decision-making positions in the civil service must be specific, backed by the force of law and have mechanisms to ensure enforcement. Uganda’s affirmative action policy lacked a clear identified target or threshold for representation, ultimately rendering it less effective.127 Similarly, Ghana in 1998 put in place an Affirmative Action Policy that called for at least 40 percent representation of women in appointments to the public service, committees, boards and other public institutions.128 However, because the policy was not backed by a law, it lacked accountability and remained less effective.129 Promoting institutional change within public administration Workplace culture in public administration Stereotypes about what makes a “good leader” benefit men. In 2020, nearly half of men and women surveyed around the world reported believing that men make better political leaders than women.130 Traditionally, effective leadership has been associated with aggression, competitiveness, dominance and decisiveness – traits often associated with men.131 Men in leadership benefit from displaying this stereotypically masculine behaviour.132 Women, in contrast, face a double bind: if they do not act like men, they may be seen as poor leaders, but if they do display stereotypically masculine behaviour, they may face criticism for not being feminine enough.133 Gender stereotypes are seen by women civil servants as a barrier to their promotion.134 Case studies on gender equality in public administration reveal the widespread belief that both men and women in public 125 UNDP, 2014. 126 Law 581 of 2000. 127 UNDP, 2012c. 128 Adusah-Karikari and Omehang, 2014. 129 ibid. 130 UNDP, 2020m. 131 Wood, 2008. 132 Eagly and Carli, 2007. 133 Eagly and Karau, 2002; Eagly and Carli, 2007; Murray, 2010. 134 UNDP, 2014; Kuzhabekova, Janenova and Almukhambetova, 2018. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 59 administration perceive power as ‘fundamentally masculine’.135 The stereotyping of leadership as masculine shows up in different ways. Some are more overt. In some countries, the expectation that high-level position holders are ‘men’ is even made explicit in key documents.136 Men may act in ways that directly undermine women’s leadership and authority.137 Other forms of discrimination are more subtle. The internalization of the idea that leadership is the domain of men can operate through women, who may be less likely to see themselves as qualified to lead and thus less likely to apply for promotion.138 But even when this is not the case, men may think women civil servants are less ambitious than men.139 Gender stereotypes are just one component of the cultural and organizational barriers women face. There is a broader set of cultural norms and attitudes that contribute to unequal gender relations in organizations and exclude women from power, resources and opportunities – what scholars have termed ‘masculine organizational culture’.140 In such organizations, the few women who do make it to the top are more likely to be tokenized and may have limited power to challenge or transform the norms set by men.141 The first step to changing these cultures must be diagnosing the problem. Human resources policies Inclusive human resources policies of recruitment, retention and promotion are often lacking. Mainstreaming gender in human resource practices helps governments to address gendered barriers to career development and to build confidence in government institutions. It is not uncommon to find women feel discouraged by institutional policies starting with recruitment into civil service.142 This challenge requires assessment of on paper gender-neutral human resources policies that regulate promotions in public sector to understand and fix their gendered consequences. Women civil servants’ promotions often occur later in life, limiting how far they can progress in public administration. In many countries, women catch up to men in the lower ranks of decision-making levels, such as front-line managers, but fall far behind in the upper ranks. Anecdotal evidence suggests this could happen when women take time off from their careers for parenting. While the public sector may offer generous parental leave policy and job protection, taking such time off may still limit the amount of lifetime career promotions women civil servants can achieve. This gender-specific challenge suggests that public administrations must offer benefits that help parents stay in the workforce, such as on-site childcare, alongside gender-sensitive and innovative approaches for retaining and promoting women civil servants.143 Parental leave that encourages the shared care-taking responsibilities and actively incentivises the retribution of care work should also be promoted. 135 UNDP, 2012c. 136 UNDP, 2014. 137 Adusah-Karikari and Omehang, 2014. 138 For example, in Australia’s senior and executive civil service, women reported low self-confidence and self-belief, which limited their career progression (Edwards et al., 2014). 139 AIM, 2012. 140 Connell, 2006; see also Ongsakul, Resurreccion and Sajor, 2012; Wagle, Pillay and Wright, 2020. 141 Guy, 1993. 142 OECD, 2018, p. 79. 143 Research also suggests that women who have reached decision-making positions in the civil service are more likely to take advantage of work/life policies, such as flexible hours and childcare provision, demonstrating the importance of such policies for their career advancement in public administration (D’Agostino, 2011). 60 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION BOX 3.2 A career in the civil service and gender equality in Georgia In 2019, the UNDP Public Administration Reform (PAR) project commissioned a study, “Career in Civil Service and Gender Equality,” focused on the career paths of women and men managers within the Georgian civil service. Women made up 45 percent of government ministers and 36 percent of high-ranking civil servants. As a pioneering systemic examination of gender, the study used an online survey, focus groups and in-depth interviews to expose the ‘glass ceilings’ that continue to shape the career paths of women civil service managers. The study captured women civil service managers’ perceptions that they are criticized more frequently and receive less respect from their supervisors than men in similar positions, pointing to an invisible hierarchy. The study also showed the following: • 71 percent of civil servants believe that it is easier for men to advance their careers; • 69 percent of civil servants believe that men receive more rewards for their work; • 86 percent of civil servants think that men enjoy more power and influence in the workplace; • 66 percent of civil servants believe that women with the same qualifications are less visible. In response to these and other related research findings, the UNDP PAR project joined forces with UN Women to integrate the elements of Gender and Social Inclusion (GESI) into the new PAR Strategy and Action Plan for Georgia, 2021–2025. The new strategy will be inclusive of civil society organizations (CSOs) and is expected to increase the engagement of GESI-focused CSOs in more robust monitoring processes of future PAR implementation. UNDP has identified several entry points to mainstreaming gender in public administration reform processes and to addressing ‘gender ceilings’ in the public sector, as follows: • policy planning and coordination, where gender analysis needs to be made an integral part of the policy planning together with gender-responsive indicators for monitoring and evaluation; • civil service reform, where gender-disaggregated data need to be collected, monitored and analysed to aid the civil service professional development systems; • public service delivery, where evidence-based assessments of gender impacts of the design and delivery of public service, especially the barriers women face in accessing public service, need to be provided. Source: Urchukhishvili and Tusharshvili, 2019. Education and promoting women in the civil service Promotion through the ranks of public service is often not based solely on merit. Although systems may be designed as gender-neutral, which should reward performance, they may not necessarily operate in this way.144 Indeed, women are often better educated than similarly situated men but are not rewarded, compensated, or promoted equitably in the public sector.145 144 Sealy, 2010. 145 Women’s Participation in the Timor-Leste Civil Service in 2010, United Nations Integrated Mission in Timor-Leste (2010); cited in UNDP, 2014. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 61 Educating women is necessary but not enough to shatter the glass ceiling. A commonly offered solution to close gender gaps is to provide women with more education. A lack of education remains a barrier to women’s promotion in some countries where traditional cultural attitudes undervalue the education of women and girls.146 Men, seen as the main financial providers of the family, are encouraged to pursue higher education, whereas women are not.147 But even in countries where women have equal access to education, gender parity in decision-making positions in public administration is not guaranteed.148 In some contexts, a university education can help women to access decision-making positions in public administration. Some decision-making positions require a university degree. As the shares of women graduating with university degrees has increased over time, it has opened the door to new opportunities for women in public administration, at least in some sectors. Capacity-building, training and professional development for women Women may have less access to professional development and leadership training. Beyond formal education, public administration can also offer capacity-building and on-the-job professional development to help employees advance. Such training enhances employees’ skills but can also improve visibility and create opportunities for networking and mentorship. However, training is not necessarily organized in ways that enable women’s full and equal participation.149 And women may be less likely than men to be offered opportunities for leadership training. Tracking progress towards gender parity in decision-making in the public service Data challenges concerning the measurement and comparative analyses of decision-making levels are significant. Countries define and measure ‘leadership’ and ‘decision-making’ differently. Some countries define a separate class of executives, a senior civil service, or tier of directors. Others use job titles or occupational categories, aiming to capture the extent to which a civil servant manages others, makes decisions over budgets, or sets agendas. Still other countries select civil service grades or levels within their organizational hierarchies. Moreover, what countries count as a ‘decision-making level’ can vary from less than 1 percent of civil servants to more than 25 percent, or even more. These differences matter for assessing progress towards parity and devising approaches to build more gender-inclusive public administrations. Consider a concrete example. Qatar and Armenia both report that in 2018, women held 15 percent of decision-making positions in their respective public administrations. However, the two countries are reporting on a different decision-making measure.150 Qatar’s data cover both senior officials and managers, whereas Armenia reports that its figure includes only the highest management levels. Although the numbers are the same, it is impossible to know whether the degree of gender inclusivity in public administration decision-making is indeed similar in these two countries. 146 Adusah-Karikari and Omehang, 2014. 147 ibid. 148 UNDP, 2014. 149 ibid. 150 State of Qatar Planning and Statistics Authority, 2019; Statistical Committee of the Republic of Armenia, 2019. 62 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Monitoring of SDG Indicator 16.7.1b promises to increase both the availability and comparability of decision-making data. The indicator standardizes reporting through a set of occupational categories151 and by defining the decision-making level to report senior government officials, managing directors and chief executives.152 Starting in 2021, the SDG data reporting process promises significant improvements for the availability and consistency of data tracking gender parity in the public service. 151 Employment in the general government sector is defined in the system of national accounts 2008, and positions in the public sector are defined according to the International Standard Classification of Occupations, ISCO-09 (UNDP, 2019f; UNDP Oslo Governance Centre, 2020). 152 Senior Government Officials are classified as ISCO-08 1112, and “Managing Directors and Chief Executives” and “Business Services and Administration Managers” are classified as ISCO-08 1120 and ISCO-08 121, respectively. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 63 GLASS WALLS: 4 SECTORAL DIFFERENCES IN GENDER INCLUSION Chapter findings, in brief Women’s effective participation in public administration is undercut by ‘glass walls’. Women are overrepresented in just two policy areas – women’s issues and health – and have reached gender parity in traditionally feminine areas of education, social issues and labour, and social security. In the remaining 15 of 20 policy domains, women are underrepresented. Their underrepresentation is most pronounced in areas of environmental protection, natural resources, information and communications, agriculture, and public works and transportation. In the traditionally masculine areas of defence, foreign affairs and finance, women continue to be underrepresented, but their levels of participation average 36–41 percent and show gains over time. Glass walls are also mirrored in decision-making levels. Progress towards gender parity has been most pronounced in socio-cultural ministries, where women hold an average of 43 percent of decision-making posts. Women average 36 percent of decision-making positions in economic ministries, 34 percent in basic function ministries, and 33 percent in infrastructure ministries. Women’s underrepresentation among public administrators in environmental protection ministries is also present in decision-making levels and shows little evidence of progress towards gender parity over time. In order to address climate change in the most effective way, it is critical that women’s experiences, knowledge and skills are incorporated into decision-making, and their perspectives are included in policy outcomes. Tools such as the Gender Equality Seal for Public Institutions can help country governments to make great strides towards gender equality, even in sectors with historically low numbers of women in public administration. G ender-inclusive public administration must enable women’s participation not only at all levels, but also across all sectors and positions.‘Glass walls’are invisible barriers that confine women to positions and policy areas considered appropriate for them, generating horizontal occupational segregation. This chapter considers the importance of glass walls as a subject of analysis, reviews the state of knowledge on glass walls, and reports new findings. In addition to considering data challenges, this chapter investigates horizontal segregation in public administration today, assessing the degree to which women remain concentrated in traditionally feminized sectors. The chapter also looks in closer detail at sectors historically dominated by men – defence, foreign affairs and finance. 64 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Additionally, this chapter focuses on the underrepresentation of women in public administration globally in the area of environmental protection and natural resources. It is among the lowest of the policy areas included in this report. Parity in decision-making in environmental protection is exceptionally rare, and there is little evidence of progress towards gender parity over time. Furthermore, climate change and environmental degradation are exacerbating existing patterns of disadvantage and risk, disproportionately affecting women and girls. As key protectors and managers of the environment, in order to address climate change in the most effective way, incorporating women’s experiences, knowledge and skills into decision-making, and ensuring that their perspectives are included in policy outcomes are critical.153 Glass walls are invisible, artificial barriers that keep men and women separated into different sectors, departments and occupations; and that keep women concentrated in less powerful and prestigious areas within an institution. Why do glass walls matter? Dividing jobs into those considered appropriate for men and women has many downsides, including for society, the economy and for individuals.154 Assigning jobs using gender rather than aptitudes and skills leads to a misallocation of resources and drives down productivity. Limits on the sectors and occupations where women work also depress women’s employment, which slows economic growth.155 Glass walls also limit individual opportunity and advancement. To the degree that women are underrepresented in some sectors due to structural or institutional factors – e.g. barriers to their hiring, retention and promotion; unsupportive institutional cultures; and workplace discrimination – glass walls pose a serious concern.156 Together with glass ceilings, glass walls box women in, limiting their career advancement. Women are often concentrated in sectors like education and social services, where skills and training are often considered less moveable or transferrable than those in sectors like planning and finance, where men are concentrated.157 Because experience in several sectors can be considered valuable for senior leaders, men’s greater mobility across sectors helps them to move up the ranks more quickly than women. Glass walls thus do not operate separately from glass ceilings. They can operate together to box women into certain positions and exclude them from others.158 Removing glass walls is thus a necessary step towards inclusive decision-making. 153 UN Women, UNDP and UNDPPA/PBSO, 2020. 154 Reskin and Hartmann, 1986, cited by Sneed, 2007; ILO, 2017. 155 Kapsos, Silberman and Bourmpoula, 2014. 156 Although some of the differences in where women and men work result from differences in preferences, their preferences are shaped by the practices and cultures of institutions. Hence, women might “choose” workplaces perceived to be receptive to or supportive women, making it difficult to disentangle whether the segregation of men and women into separate government sectors is driven by individual preference or broader structural or organizational factors (Naff, 2001). 157 Finkel, Grøn and Hughes, 2019. 158 Consider, for example, experimental research by Kendall Funk, who finds that men tend to evaluate women managers as favourably as men managers in feminine organizations, but in masculine organizations, they rate women managers less favourably than their men counterparts (Funk, 2019). GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 65 Glass walls drive gender wage gaps.159 Horizontal occupational segregation – i.e. the concentration of women and men in professions or sectors – contributes to gender pay gaps. In public administration, salary is often linked to department mission. In many countries, sectors with higher rates of women employees have lower salaries.160 Due to the exclusion of women from certain sectors or policy areas, women’s interests might not be represented effectively. In frontline positions, where civil servants interact with the public and deliver government services, they often have substantial discretion in how they operate.161 Who is employed by public agencies influences the decisions made and the policies pursued. Women frontline bureaucrats have been shown to use their discretion to improve government responses to issues of particular importance to women.162 A public service that looks like the population it serves – across all sectors and occupations – is good for all. 163 Gender equality in public sector agencies traditionally dominated by men has been shown to improve organizational performance and service delivery.164 In such organizations, greater representation of women at the street level can also enhance clients’ perceptions of government legitimacy.165 As a result, people may be more likely to seek out government services. Glass walls limit women’s contribution to complex challenges that demand multisectoral interventions. Today, many of the biggest challenges that governments face are complex, requiring coordination across many departments and agencies. For instance, combatting climate change and its effects requires leadership not only by the environmental sector, but by those in planning and infrastructure, energy, finance, foreign affairs and more. Breaking down the walls that confine women to particular sectors enhances their ability to shape solutions to these complex problems from all sides. Women are highly overrepresented in some cabinet positions and underrepresented in others. As is the case with decision-making positions, much of what we know about sector imbalances in public administration draws from research on cabinet ministers. A 2019 global study of all government cabinet ministers finds that women most often lead social affairs (9 percent of the time), followed by family and/or children and/or youth affairs, etc. (8 percent), the environment (7 percent) and women’s affairs (6 percent).166 In contrast, women cabinet ministers are much less likely to appear in areas such as finance or defence (just 2 percent–3 percent of women’s posts).167 There are sectoral differences beyond the subject matter. The ‘hard’ ministries typically dominated by men are often considered more prestigious, are more likely to be in the circle of ‘core advisors’, and are more likely stepping-stones to greater power.168 Feminized sectors – sometimes dubbed ‘soft’ ministries – are generally 159 Hegewisch and Hartmann, 2014; ILO, 2017. 160 In the United States, for example, women in state and municipal government are better represented in redistributive agencies – those that manage public welfare programmes, public health, employment security, and programmes for the elderly, people with disabilities, and those in poverty – than agencies with other functions, and redistributive agencies have lower salaries than other agencies (Kerr, Miller and Reid, 2002; Miller, Kerr and Reid, 1999). 161 For street-level bureaucrats, supervisory oversight may be less intrusive than in upper echelons, giving them significant autonomy and discretion in the how they operate day-to-day. For example, see Lipsky, 1980. 162 Andrews and Miller, 2013; Meier and Nicholson-Crotty, 2006. 163 Andrews and Miller, 2013; Andrews, Ashworth and Meier, 2014; Meier and Nicholson-Crotty, 2006. 164 Andrews, Ashworth and Meier, 2014. 165 Riccucci, Van Ryzin and Lavena, 2014. 166 IPU, 2019, cited from Paxton, Hughes and Barnes, 2020. 167 ibid. 168 Barnes and O’Brien, 2018; Barnes and Taylor-Robinson, 2018; Escobar-Lemmon and Taylor-Robinson, 2009; Reynolds,1999; Studlar and Moncrief, 1999. 66 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION considered lower-prestige portfolios. The upside is that women cabinet ministers in areas such as finance and defence are becoming more common. By 2012, women had served as defence ministers in 41 countries, and since then their numbers have continued to rise.169 Women in Western Europe – particularly in Scandinavia – are more likely than those in other regions to have held posts in foreign affairs, finance and defence multiple times.170 Where in public administration do women work? An overall picture Women in public administration are overrepresented in traditionally feminized policy areas (Figure 4.1). On average, women are overrepresented in the areas of women’s issues (63 percent women) and health (57 percent). Women’s participation is not far behind in education (52 percent), social issues (51 percent) and labour & social security (46 percent) – all traditionally feminized policy areas, which, on average, have reached gender parity. FIGURE 4.1 Women’s participation in public administration, by policy area Average Percentage of Women in Public Administration Gender Parity Women's Issues 63% Health 57% Education 52% Social Issues 51% Labour & Social Security 46% Commerce and Industry 42% Finance 41% Culture 41% Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics 41% Foreign Relations 40% Planning 38% Executive Operations 38% Housing and Regional Development 38% Defence 36% Justice and Public Security 35% Environmental Protection 33% Natural Resources 33% Information and Communications 33% Agriculture 33% Public Works and Transportation 29% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Note: The figure includes 61 countries with any form of ministry-level data available. Data use the most recent year available. Source: Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) dataset, December 2020. 169 Barnes and O’Brien, 2018; Barnes and Taylor-Robinson, 2018. 170 ibid. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 67 Women are underrepresented, on average, in 15 of the 20 policy areas, but areas where women are the least represented are not in the areas one would expect. The five policy areas with the lowest average levels of women are environmental protection (33 percent), natural resources (33 percent), information and communications (33 percent), agriculture (33 percent) and public works and transportation (29 percent). Interestingly, this list does not include several of the high-profile ministries traditionally considered the domain of men. Such ministries – defence, foreign affairs and finance – have 36-41 percent women employees, on average, earning them a middle ranking. Women can be underrepresented in policy areas traditionally considered more appropriate and can be well represented in areas that men typically dominate (Table 4.1).171 On the one hand, even in the most feminized policy areas, women’s overrepresentation is not guaranteed. In Burkina Faso, men comprise 80 percent of the Ministry of Promotion of Women and Gender.172 In Pakistan, men hold 86 percent of positions in national health services, regulations and coordination, and 93 percent of positions in the Ministry of Federal Education and Professional Training.173 On the other hand, women’s overrepresentation can occur in any policy area. Even in the areas where men are most numerically dominant, women make up 56 percent of employees or more in at least one country. TABLE 4.1 Summary statistics on the average share of public administration employees that are women, by policy area Ministry No. Average Minimum Maximum Women's Issues 26 63 20 96 Health 51 57 14 79 Education 53 52 7 81 Social Issues 34 51 10 77 Labour and Social Security 41 46 5 71 Commerce and Industry 48 42 8 80 Finance 51 41 4 73 Culture 35 41 3 66 Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) 16 41 11 65 Foreign Affairs 49 40 7 64 Planning 21 38 2 75 Executive Operations 46 38 5 71 Housing and Regional Development 25 38 8 62 Defence 34 36 2 63 Justice and Public Security 53 35 1 69 Environmental Protection 37 33 5 57 Natural Resources 32 33 3 64 Information and Communications 30 33 3 64 Agriculture 45 33 3 76 Public Works and Transportation 46 29 1 56 Note: Data include 61 countries with any form of ministry-level data available. Data use the most recent year available. Source: Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) dataset, December 2020. 171 Table 4.1 reveals that the number of countries with ministries tasked to these policy areas differs. The number of countries with ministry-level data ranges from 53 for education, and justice and public security, to just 16 for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM). These differences are a result of variation in how governments are organized, and incomplete ministry-level data in some countries. 172 Two of ten reported employees were women. Data are from June 2017 and were provided to UNDP by the Direction Générale de la Fonction Publique (DGFP) du Burkina Faso. 173 Calculations are based on data from the Pakistan Public Administration Research Center, 2018. 68 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Progress towards gender parity in decision-making positions in public administration is uneven across government functions (Figure 4.2). One way of classifying ministries is through the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) model and grouping them into their broad government functions: basic, economic, infrastructure and socio-cultural (BEIS).174 On average, the most progress towards gender parity in decision-making has been in socio-cultural ministries, where women average 43 percent of positions. Economic ministries lag behind at 36 percent, followed by basic function ministries at 34 percent, and infrastructure ministries at 33 percent. It is not surprising that women are represented well in socio-cultural ministries. What is surprising, however, is that women hold more than three fifths of decision-making positions in economic ministries, an area often typed as masculine. FIGURE 4.2 WFoigm. 4.2en’s share of decision-making positions in public administration, most recent year Basic Economic Infrastructure Socio-Cultural 34% 33% 36% 43% 66% 64% 57% 67% Percentage of Men Percentage of Women Note: The rings capture women’s and men’s average share of decision-making positions by ministry type, collapsing ministries into Basic Functions (B), Economic (E), Infrastructure (I), and Socio-Cultural (S). The figure includes 54 countries with complete ministry-level data, the most recent year available. Data prior to 2015 are excluded. Decision-making positions are top leaders in 41 countries, senior managers in 8 countries and managers in 5 countries. Source: Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) dataset, December 2020. Global averages mask notable differences by level of development (Figure 4.3). In basic function and economic ministries, progress towards gender parity is similar in OECD and non-OECD countries. In contrast, in socio-culture and infrastructure ministries, OECD countries outperform non-OECD countries, on average. These findings add important nuance to the general trends by level of development observed in Chapter 2. Although countries at higher levels of economic development may be making greater progress towards gender equality on some indicators, this pattern is far from universal. 174 Basic functions include foreign and internal affairs, defence and justice. Economic functions include finance, trade, industry and agriculture. Infrastructure functions includes transport, communications and the environment. Sociocultural functions include health, education, social affairs, employment, family, culture and sports. For additional information, see EIGE, 2021. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 69 FIGURE 4.3 Women’s participation in public administration , by ministry type and OECD and non-OECD countries Socio-Cultural Basic 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Economic Infrastructure Non-OECD (N=32) OECD (N=26) Note: The diamond graph visualizes progress towards gender parity in public administration overall in OECD and non-OECD countries. The four points on the diamond are Basic Function (B), Economic (E), Infrastructure (I) and Socio-Cultural (S) ministries. The figure includes 54 countries with complete ministry-level data, in 2015 or later, the most recent year available. Source: Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) dataset, December 2020. Policy areas historically dominated by men: Defence, foreign affairs and finance Between 2010 and 2020, ministries of defence, foreign affairs and finance – policy areas traditionally considered men’s domain – experienced gains in women’s participation in public administration (Figure 4.4). Defence started in 2010 with the lowest average levels of women, 32 percent, but gained 9 percent over the decade. Ministries of foreign affairs experienced more modest gains from 41 percent to 47 percent. Finance is unlike the others in its relatively high levels of women’s participation in 2010, 44 percent, and after following the trend closely of women’s participation in overall public administration, shows a sharp increase in 2020 to 54 percent women, on average. 70 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION FIGURE 4.4 Average levels of women’s participation in ministries of defence, foreign affairs, finance and publiFcig.a4.4d-mParitn1 istration overall, 2010–2020 Average Percentage of Women Ministry of Defence 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 45% 45% 40% 35% 30% 32% 25% 20% 2010 2011 2012 2013 Fig. 4D.4e-fePnacret 2 Public Administration Overall 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Gender Parity 49% 43% 2020 Average Percentage of Women Ministry of Foreign A airs 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 45% 45% 40% 41% 35% 30% 25% 20% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Foreign A airs Public Administration Overall 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Gender 49% Parity 47% 2020 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 71 Fig. 4.4 - Part 3 Average Percentage of Women Ministry of Finance 80% 75% 70% 65% 60% 55% 50% 45% 45% 44% 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 54% Gender 49% Parity 2020 Finance Public Administration Overall Note: The figure includes 61 countries with ministry-level data for defence, foreign affairs and/or finance between 2010 and 2020. Women’s participation in public administration overall is shown in purple, defence in yellow, foreign affairs in blue, and finance in red. Source: Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) dataset, December 2020. Sizeable gender gaps in defence ministries persist, but in some countries, women are well represented in these ministries overall (Figure 4.5). Indeed, in 13 countries, women’s representation in ministries of defence exceeds their average share of positions overall. Nearly half of the countries in this group are in Sub-Saharan Africa.175 Public administration institutions responsible for peace and reconciliation are uncommon. Colombia is one of the rare examples. Following the 2016 Peace Accords, the Government created a new ministry to manage peace and reconciliation.176 In 2019, 75 percent of public servants were women, 23 percentage points higher than their share of public administration overall. Women also held 53 percent of positions at the director level in its peace ministry, outpacing the Quota Law’s required minimum of 30 percent women.177 The Colombian case may be an example where the end of conflict has created new opportunities for women to take the lead in bureaucracy, at least in the peace sector. 175 The remaining seven countries are diverse, including different geographic regions and levels of development. These countries are Armenia, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Ghana, Japan, Myanmar, Pakistan, Philippines, Uganda, United States of America and Zambia. 176 Upon its creation, the Ministry of Social Inclusion and Peace was tasked with overseeing the five agencies integral to the implementation of the peace accord: the Colombian Institute for Family Welfare (ICBF), the National Agency for Overcoming Extreme Poverty (ANSPE), Unit for Comprehensive Assistance and Reparation to Victims (UARIV), the Special Administrative Unit for Territorial Consolidation, and the National Center for the Historical Memory (CMH). 177 Law 581 of 2000. 72 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION FIGURE 4.5 Women’s participation in public administration overall and in ministries of defence Fig. 4.5 Gender Parity 100% 90% 80% Percentage of Women in Defence 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% Pakistan 0% 0% 10% Myanmar Burkina Faso Cote D’Ivoire Zambia Colombia Cabo Verde Ghana Philippines New Zealand Sweden Lesotho Uganda United States Kuwait Armenia Georgia South Korea Australia United Kingdom Brazil Canada Paraguay Japan South Africa Chile Uruguay Guinea Afghanistan Sao Tome and Principe Czech Republic Guinea-Bissau Sri Lanka Bangladesh Senegal 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Percentage of Women in Public Administration Gender Parity 90% 100% Note: The figure includes 35 countries with gender-disaggregated data on defence ministries between 2015 and 2020, most recent year available. The 45-degree angle, marked with the solid purple line, divides the figure into countries where women’s participation in ministries of defence is higher than in the public administration overall, versus countries where women’s share of positions in ministries of defence is lower than in overall public participation. Source: Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) dataset, December 2020. Women’s participation in ministries of environmental protection Given current gender inequalities, climate change and environmental degradation is likely to exacerbate patterns of disadvantage and risks, which disproportionately affect women and girls. They are key providers of food, water and energy, but have fewer resources with which to adapt to changing conditions.178 The nexus between gender and climate change has been on the sustainable development agenda for the last two decades. A growing number of studies has firmly established that the ways in which people are affected by climate change and interact with their environments are shaped by their gender, levels of poverty, and access to and control over their resources.179 Further evidence of the gender-climate change linkages is highlighted in gender analyses carried out to strengthen the integration of gender equality into nationally determined contribution 178 UN Women, UNDP and UNDPPA/PBSO, 2020. 179 Dankelman, 2010. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 73 (NDC) planning and implementation. In addition to the gender-differentiated impacts of climate change, these analyses considered countries’ policy, legal and institutional frameworks, and their suitability for supporting gender-responsive climate action, as well as the challenges to women’s participation and empowerment, and opportunities for supporting gender-responsive measures.180 Globally, women have less economic, political and legal power, and as a result, are both more exposed to the adverse effects of climate change and less able to cope with these changes.181 Addressing climate change in the most effective way requires incorporating women’s experiences, knowledge and skills into decision-making, and ensuring that their perspectives are included in policy outcomes.182 In most regions of the world, women’s participation in environmental protection ministries is low. Women’s participation in Environmental Protection averages 33 percent globally – among the lowest of the 20 policy areas included in this report. Figure 4.6 shows a regional breakdown and demonstrates that only in Europe and North America does women’s participation approach parity. In all other regions, women remain underrepresented. In Central and Southern Asia, environmental protection ministries are almost exclusively men; the regional average of women employees is only 10 percent. FIGURE 4.6 Women’s and men’s participation in environmental ministries, by region Gender Parity Central and Southern Asia 9% 91% Sub-Saharan Africa 32% 68% Eastern and Southeastern Asia + Oceania 33% 67% Northern Africa and Western Asia 36% 64% Latin America and the Caribbean 42% 58% Europe and North America 47% 53% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Women Men Note: The figure includes 37 countries with data on ministries of environmental protection. Source: Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) dataset, December 2020. Parity in decision-making in environmental protection is rare (Figure 4.7).183 Colombia is an exception, having nearly reached gender parity. The degree of women’s exclusion elsewhere is striking. In Cambodia’s Ministry of Environment, just 16 percent of civil servants are women, a lower share than in 23 of Cambodia’s 30 ministries. Available data also show little evidence of improvement over time. In Bangladesh, women’s share of decision-making positions in the Ministry of Environment and Forests was 7 percent both in 2013 and 2017. However, one country showing some progress on this front is Kazakhstan, where women’s share of decision-making positions in the Ministry of Environment and Water Resources increased from 7 percent in 2013 to 16 percent in 2019. 180 UNDP, 2019. See also Pilot Countries Gender-Analyses for Bhutan, Ghana, Kenya, Lebanon, Philippines, Trinidad and Tobago, and Uganda. 181 UNDP, 2013. 182 ibid. 183 Notably, progress towards gender equality in cabinet positions has been recently made in the areas of environment, natural resources and energy, which in 2020 became the portfolio with the third highest share of women ministers (IPU and UN Women, 2020). 74 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION FIGURE 4.7 Women’s share of employees and decision makers in ministries of environmental protection Fig. 4.7 48% Colombia 47% Gender Parity 37% Kosovo 35% 34% Philippines 28% 28% Guinea-Bissau 0% 26% Myanmar 15% 22% Iraq 12% 16% Japan 6% 16% Cambodia 16% 7% Bangladesh 7% 7% Afghanistan 6% 5% Pakistan 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percentage of Women Overall Percentage of Women in Decision-Making Positions Note: The figure includes 11 countries and territories with data on women’s participation and decision-making positions in environmental protection ministries. Data prior to 2015 are excluded. Varied levels of decision-making are reported. Source: Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) dataset, December 2020. Opportunities and challenges Constitutional, legislative and policy frameworks Affirmative action provisions can break down glass walls. Although targets and quotas are often seen as tools to enhance gender equality in decision-making positions, they can also enable women’s access to sectors where they are underrepresented. Austria’s Federal Equal Treatment Act obliges all employers to eliminate the underrepresentation of women. Under Austrian law, ministers must pass affirmative action plans every six years, GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 75 which must include binding targets to raise the share of women in decision-making positions. The measure is applied to give greater access to women in sectors where they are underrepresented: a woman applicant is to be preferred if she is equally qualified as the best candidate who is a man, and if women are underrepresented on the staff of the recruiting institution.184 Promoting gender equality in public administration to combat climate change Establishing gender equality across climate change machinery is a high return opportunity. Mainstreaming women’s participation across different line ministries in charge of climate change policy and at all levels of decision-making, first, allows breaking through traditional glass walls and ceilings. Complex policy challenges, such as climate change, require a diverse set of decision-making bodies. Opening up space for women to participate and lead in a variety of public institutions, promises not only more efficient and effective policy outcomes for all, but also speeds up the progress towards more gender equal and inclusive public institutions. UNDP supports climate policy focused training opportunities for civil servants targeting women to address the gender gap in these ministries. In Iraq, together with the Ministry of Health and Environment the UNDP launched a platform, Women for Safe and Green Iraq (WfSGI) to create opportunities for women’s continued professional development and entry points for innovative solutions for an environment-friendly and resilient country.185 There are multiple ways in which gender equality can be systematically mainstreamed into climate change machinery. Many governments are providing training opportunities focused on climate policy to their civil servants. If women civil servants are specifically targeted and recruited into these training programmes, the scope and level of their contribution to climate change policymaking could increase significantly. As with other opportunities, however, in the absence of targeted efforts to diversify these training opportunities, women are often left behind, hence, losing their potential to contribute to effective policy solutions. To increase the participation of women in ministries dominated by men, such as the energy, mining and the environment and in the climate change sector, investments and technical assistance in capacity- building to integrate gender equality in policy, programming and leadership are necessary. It is important to focus on the representations of indigenous women and young women particularly. UNDP’s NDC Support Programme continues to support countries to improve the integration of gender, poverty and climate change within their national public sector climate financing systems. UNDP’s Framework report includes examples of capacity-building across ministries, as well as gender-responsive policies and accountability mechanisms.186 In addition, the NDC Support Programme provides technical support to countries to ensure that gender equality is mainstreamed into NDC processes including analysis, the strengthening of institutional mechanisms, ensuring gender-responsive climate actions, and the dissemination of best practices. In Lebanon, gender analysis and capacity-building were carried out across sectoral line ministry staff and gender focal points were designated in each ministry.187 In Chile, UNDP provided support to the Ministry of the Environment to integrate gender into its participatory processes and consultations through the creation of the Climate Change and Gender Working Group.188 184 OECD, 2014. 185 UNDP Iraq, 2018. 186 UNDP, 2020a. 187 UNDP, 2020i. 188 Government of Chile, 2020. 76 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Finally, climate change also offers an opportunity to collect gender-disaggregated data on environmental ministries. In order to take effective climate action and reduce their carbon footprint, member nations are encouraged to invest in their national statistical systems and improve their capacities and collect and utilize environmental data. These efforts to collect better and more accessible data on the environmental sector should also include gender-disaggregated data on civil servants and decision makers in public institutions tasked with combating climate change. GEPA policy and programming at the country level BOX 4.1 Progress towards gender equality in energy and mining in Benin In February 2019, in Benin, UNDP provided training on the Gender Equality Seal for Public Institutions pilot initiative to 55 staff, including directors of programming and planning; administration officers and the gender focal points from 15 ministries and 10 leaders of civil society organizations. Five of these ministries – the Ministries of Energy and Mines, of Social Affairs and Microfinance, of Higher Education and Scientific Research, of Defence, and of the Digital Economy – agreed to take part in the Gender Equality Seal for Public Institutions pilot in Benin. The progress achieved within the Ministry of Energy and Mines, a sector of public administration that has traditionally seen limited numbers of women participating and leading, was striking. Within the year of the initial training, the Government in Benin passed Order No. 002 (01/16/19), which appointed a Gender Unit under the direct supervision of the Minister. Furthermore, the Ministry designed an action plan to integrate gender into policies of energy access, complemented by a newly approved national framework for gender and social inclusion in the energy sector. These successes suggest that the Gender Equality Seal for Public Institutions can be an effective tool to promote gender equality in public institutions, even in sectors traditionally dominated by men. Tracking progress towards gender parity across all sectors and levels Gender-disaggregated public administration data at the level of ministry/department are crucial both to identify where barriers to women’s inclusion remain and to develop evidence-based solutions. The data that are available point to wide variation within countries, where women and men participate unevenly across policy areas. Ministries where inequalities are greatest are not necessarily the usual suspects. Developing evidence-based solutions to persisting gender inequalities requires government transparency and open data access across all government sectors and policy areas. Data disaggregated both by sector and level are needed to better understand the links between gender-inclusive governance and policy outcomes. Knowing the share of women in public administration, or even in senior management is insufficient if the goal is to understand how gender-inclusive leadership shapes organizational capacities or effectiveness. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 77 More data by occupational category are necessary. Glass walls are about more than gender segregation by policy area; they are also about the concentration of women in certain occupations. If women are working in defence ministries, but are concentrated in human resources and administrative support, their influence on policy remains limited. Furthermore, data on street-level bureaucrats, while crucial to better understand the links between women’s presence and improved service delivery, are rarely available. The Sustainable Development Agenda, through SDG indicator 16.7.1b, calls on countries to report public administration data disaggregated by both decision-making level and sector. In addition to requesting figures for the public administration as a whole, SDG 16.7.1b reporting includes separate categories for police, education, health and front-desk administrative personnel, and asks countries to disaggregate data on these sectors across International Standard Classification of Occupations- (ISCO) based occupational categories of managers, professionals, technicians and associate professionals, and clerical support workers. 78 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION GENDER-INCLUSIVE 5 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION AND COVID-19 Chapter findings, in brief Paradoxically, while a small number of women leaders have been recognized for their effective response to the pandemic, women more broadly have been underrepresented in the institutions tasked with leading governments’ COVID-19 responses. Women average 58 percent of health ministry employees but only 34 percent of decision-making positions. Women are also systematically underrepresented on the 300 COVID-19 task forces operating in 163 countries and territories: they average 27 percent of members and lead 18 percent. Only 6 percent of task forces are at gender parity, while nearly double that share, 11 percent, have no women represented. Women are better represented on task forces populated by experts and advisors (33 percent) than those that include cabinet ministers and other government decision makers (25 percent). Women are also better represented on task forces charged with policies concerning public health (30 percent) than on those focused on economic issues (24 percent). T he COVID-19 pandemic has placed unprecedented challenges on international organizations, governments and their citizens. In the midst of these challenges, effective decision-making in public institutions, and adaptive and innovative public service delivery have been increasingly recognized as essential qualities of good governance. This chapter presents a two-fold analysis of COVID-19’s intersection with public administration. The first part examines women in decision-making positions in health crisis preparedness and response, including health ministry leadership and COVID-19 task forces.189 The second part considers the extent to which public administrations are inclusive workplaces enabling women and men to work during the pandemic. This section spotlights policies that acknowledge and value women’s care burden and offer work-life balance policies to support their contribution to paid employment in the public sector as best practices. 189 Economic and finance ministries also played key roles in COVID-19 response. For statistics on gender equality in public administration in these ministries, see Chapter 4. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 79 Gender and COVID-19 The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated pre-existing social and economic inequalities among women and men. Prior to the pandemic, the prevalence of intimate partner violence had already reached the level of a global health crisis.190 Lockdowns and other government restrictions on movement intensified risk factors for gender-based violence (GBV), increasing threats to women and girls’ safety and security, visible through a sharp rise in reporting.191 COVID-19 has increased the disproportionate share of time women spend caring for others.192 COVID-19 has pushed women out of the workforce in disproportionate numbers. The increased burden of unpaid care is also feared to be leading women out of employment. For example, in the United States, women comprise 58 percent of the workforce in local and state government, but in April 2020 accounted for 63 percent of job losses.193 Every night, cities around the world erupt in applause for health care and other frontline public servants battling COVID-19. This pandemic has taught us an important lesson about the critical role of public sector institutions in serving the people. Liu Zhenmin, Under-SecretaryGeneral for Economic and Social Affairs of China, 2020 During highly pressured times of policymaking, the under-representation of women in leadership and decision-making in public health and in health crisis response becomes more costly.194 Leaders must make decisions on how to respond to the crisis – decisions that affect millions of lives – and it is essential to have a range of experiences and perspectives around decision-making tables. As governments design and refine policies to adapt to the pandemic, it is critical that the gendered effects of the crisis are considered. Women’s leadership during the COVID-19 pandemic At the onset of COVID-19 in early 2020, women drew international attention for their effective leadership. The media paid substantial attention to a handful of women leaders and hailed their effective governance.195 This small group of leaders were praised for speaking the ‘truth’, taking ‘decisive’ action, using ‘technology effectively’ for testing and tracing, while showing great depths of ‘empathy,’ as they became the representation of ‘women who have what it takes to lead’.196 However, overall women’s representation in COVID-19 policy spaces has been sparse and inadequate.197 Of the 25 members of the World Health Organization (WHO)-China joint mission on COVID-19, only 20 percent were women.198 Similarly, in March 2020 the U.S. White House Coronavirus Task Force had 27 members but 190 OECD, 2020d. 191 Ghoshal, 2020; Boserup, McKenney and Elkbuli, 2020. 192 Kopel et al., 2020; Moreira and Pinto da Costa, 2020. 193 Ewing-Nelson, 2020. 194 Harman, 2016. 195 Substantial media attention was paid to women national leaders from seven countries, including Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, New Zealand, Norway and Taiwan, Province of China. See, for example, Wittenberg-Cox, 2020. However, whether and how the gender of leaders shaped government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic is a matter of continued scholarly debate. See: Aldrich and Lotito, 2020; Piscopo, 2020; and Shay, 2020. 196 Chamorro-Premuzic and Gallop, 2020. 197 CARE International, 2020; Rajan et al., 2020; van Daalen et al., 2020. 198 Gharib, 2020. 80 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION just 2 women.199 These high-profile examples motivated a broader and more systematic analysis of COVID-19 committees, commissions and advisory bodies (hereafter COVID-19 task forces) presented here. Across 300 COVID-19 task forces in 163 countries and territories, women are systematically underrepresented both as members and leaders (Figure 5.1).200 Worldwide, women average just 27 percent of task force positions.201 Six percent of task forces have gender parity in membership, whereas 11 percent of task forces are exclusively composed of men. Eighteen percent of task forces are led by women, and another 5 percent have men and women co-leaders.202 Despite the obvious need to include women in decision-making for outbreak preparedness and response, these figures suggest that many countries have not made gender inclusion on COVID-19 task forces a priority. FIGURE 5.1 Gender inclusiveness on COVID-19 task forces Average Percentage of Women on Task Forces Women's Percentage of Task Force Leaders 18% 27% 73% Percentage of Men Percentage of Women Percentage of Task Forces at Gender Parity 6% 82% Men or Mixed-Gender Women Percentage of Task Forces that are Exclusively Men 11% 94% 89% Gender Imbalance Gender Parity Exclusively Men Mixed-Gender Note: Membership data cover 211 task forces in 125 countries and territories, whereas leadership data cover 282 task forces in 156 countries and territories. Statistics are calculated across all task forces in a region, rather than first averaging within countries. Gender parity is measured as between 45 percent and 55 percent women or men. Source: UNDP-UNW-UPITT COVID-19 Global Gender Response Tracker Task Force Dataset. Living database, version 1 (March 22, 2021). 199 ibid. 200 These data capture only bodies created specifically for COVID-19 response. It excludes pre-existing agencies that were tasked with COVID-19 response and task forces where data on their origins were not available. To facilitate comparison with data elsewhere in this report, which focuses on United Nations member states, Kosovo and the State of Palestine, this count excludes data for 24 territories. See Appendix A for additional information on how task force data were collected. 201 The gender of the task force membership was available for 211, or 70 percent, of COVID-19 task forces. 202 The gender of the task force leader(s) was available for 282, or 94 percent, of COVID-19 task forces. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 81 The gender composition of COVID-19 task forces varies widely across regions (Figure 5.2). Europe and North America has the highest average percentage of women members on task forces, at 36 percent, followed by Latin America and the Caribbean, at 28 percent, Sub-Saharan Africa, at 23 percent, and Eastern and Southeastern Asia and Oceania, at 22 percent. The lowest average percentage of women members on task forces are in Northern Africa and Western Asia, at 19 percent, and in Central and Southern Asia, at 17 percent. Europe and North America ranks at the top on most other measures of task force gender-inclusiveness (Table 5.1). Seven percent of its task forces are at parity, and 32 percent are led or co-led by women.203 Within Europe and North America, Canada stands out for its gender inclusivity: of its six COVID-19 task forces, four have mixed-gender leadership teams.204 At the other end of the spectrum, Czechia, the Holy See, Italy and Ukraine, each formed a COVID-19 task force with all men as members.205 FIGURE 5.2 WFiog.m5.2en’s membership on COVID-19 task forces, by region Average Percentage of Women on COVID-19 Task Forces 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 36% 30% 20% 10% 0% Europe and North America Gender Parity 28% 23% 22% 19% 17% Latin America Sub-Saharan Eastern and North Africa Central and and Africa Southeastern and Southern Asia the Caribbean Asia + Oceania Western Asia Note: The data include 211 task forces in 125 countries and territories. Averages are calculated across all task forces in a region, rather than first averaging within countries. Source: UNDP-UNW-UPITT COVID-19 Global Gender Response Tracker Task Force Dataset. Living database, version 1 (March 22, 2021). 203 Countries with parity task forces include Antigua and Barbuda, Canada, Chile, Ethiopia, Finland, Ireland, Jamaica, Saint Lucia and Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. 204 Canada’s task forces headed by one woman and one man are: the COVID-19 Immunity Task Force Leadership Group, Special Advisory Committee on COVID-19, COVID-19 Therapeutics Task Force, and the COVID-19 Vaccine Task Force. 205 The men-only COVID-19 task forces are Czechia’s Government Council for Health Risks, the Holy See’s Vatican COVID-19 Commission, Italy’s Technological Scientific Committee, and Ukraine’s Coordination Council for Counteracting the Proliferation of COVID-19. 82 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION TABLE 5.1 Measures of gender inclusion of COVID-19 task forces, by region COVID-19 task force membership COVID-19 task force leadership Region No. of task forces with data Average percentage of women (percent) Percentage at gender parity (percent) Percentage with all men (percent) No. of task forces with data Percentage with women leaders (percent) Percentage with women co-chairs (percent) Europe and North America 59 36 7 7 75 25 7 Latin America and Caribbean 56 28 13 13 62 16 5 Sub-Saharan Africa 35 23 3 9 55 16 4 Eastern and Southeastern Asia and Oceania 25 22 0 20 26 24 3 North Africa and Western Asia 27 19 0 15 37 8 0 Central and Southern Asia 9 17 0 11 25 8 8 Note: Statistics are calculated across all task forces in a region, rather than averaging within countries first. Gender parity is measured as between 45 percent and 55 percent women or men. Source: UNDP-UNW-UPITT COVID-19 Global Gender Response Tracker Task Force Dataset. Living database, version 1 (March 22, 2021). On gender inclusivity, Latin America and the Caribbean’s COVID-19 task forces also perform well relative to other regions. Women lead or co-lead 21 percent of task forces, and the share of task forces at gender parity is 13 percent, the highest of any region.206 St. Lucia is a regional leader: its two COVID-19 task forces both have 50 percent women and men, and one is co-led by a woman and a man. Chile also stands out in the region for having three task forces with 50 percent or more women members, and/or women leaders, but one of its task forces is men-only. Three other countries in the region – Guatemala, Jamaica and St. Vincent and the Grenadines – have all-men task forces. While remaining geographic regions rank lower on the gender inclusivity of their task forces, they are not without success stories. Task forces in sub-Saharan Africa, Eastern and Southeastern Asia and Oceania, Northern and Western Africa, and Central and Southern Asia, all average fewer than 25 percent women members. Three regions – Eastern and Southeastern Asia and Oceania, North Africa and Western Asia, and Central and Southern Asia, and Eastern – have no parity task forces. Men-only task forces are most common in Eastern and Southeastern Asia and Oceania (20 percent of task forces) and in North Africa and Western Asia (15 percent of task forces). Northern Africa and Western Asia, and Central and Southern Asia both stand out for having the fewest task forces led by women, at 8 percent. Still, a few examples of greater gender balance stand out. Ethiopia’s COVID-19 National Ministerial Committee has 50 percent women members and is led by a woman, the Minister of Health. New Zealand’s COVID-19 Immunisation Implementation Advisory Group is co-led by two Indigenous Māori women. Cyprus and Turkey have task forces that fall just short of gender parity, with 44 percent women members, and Lebanon has a task force with 58 percent women. Kyrgyzstan’s 21-member task force, COVID-19 Operational Headquarters, comprises 43 percent women. 206 Women lead task forces in the Bahamas, Chile, Guyana, Jamaica and Nicaragua. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 83 Gender inclusivity of COVID-19 task forces varies by type of membership and sectoral focus (Table 5.2). Task force membership is classified into two categories: decision-making and expert/advisory.207 On average, women’s membership is higher on expert/advisory task forces (33 percent women) than on decision-making task forces (25 percent). Although there are 62 percent women members in Portugal’s expert/advisory task force, there are only 30 percent women in the decision-making task force.208 Women also tend to be better represented on public health task forces (30 percent) than economic (24 percent) or multi-sectoral task forces (23 percent).209 In the Dominican Republic, for example, the public health task force has 59 percent women members, but its multi-sectoral task force has only 14 percent.210 However, the intersection of task force membership type and focus reveals that differences across sectors are stark among expert/advisory task forces: women average 35 percent in public health but just 21 percent in the economic sector. Women’s share of COVID-19 task forces is related to their share of top leadership in public administration (Figure 5.4).211 On the low end of the spectrum, countries such as Armenia, Iraq, Guinea and Nepal have low shares of women both in top leadership positions in public administration and on task forces. On the high end, many of the countries that have achieved near parity in public administration leadership positions such as Finland, Latvia, Portugal and New Zealand have task forces that are between 40 percent and 60 percent women. This is not surprising given that in some countries task forces are populated by high-level public administrators. It is also likely that of the social and political factors that enable women to move up the ranks in public administration also enhance their representation on task forces. FIGURE 5.3 Women’s pFiga. 5r.3ticipation on COVID-19 task forces, by membership and sector Percentage of Women on COVID-19 Task Forces Gender Parity 26% Decision-Making 25% 22% 21% Expert/Advisory 35% 30% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Economic Public Health Multi-sectoral Note: The data include 197 task forces in 125 countries and territories. Statistics are calculated across all task forces in a category, rather than first averaging within countries. Source: UNDP-UNW COVID-19 Global Gender Response Tracker Version 2, March 2021. 207 Members of ‘decision-making’ task forces are politicians and other government officials, including heads of government, cabinet ministers, and top public administrators. ‘Expert/advisory’ task forces may advise government leaders but do not include them as members. Of task forces with data on the gender of members, 69 percent are decision-making and 31 percent are expert/advisory. 208 Portugal’s expert task force is the Task Force for the Operationalization and Implementation of Measures for the Prevention and Control of Infection by New Coronavirus. Its decision-making task force is the National Council of Public Health. 209 Among the task forces reporting the gender of their members, 14 focused on single sectors other than public health and the economy, but were too few to warrant separate study. These task forces focused on enforcement (5), social science/socio-cultural factors (3), education (3), government oversight (2), and children’s and family welfare (1). These are excluded from the sector-level averages of women members. 210 The Dominican Republic’s public health task force is the Expanded Logistics Committee for the Implementation of the National Vaccination Plan against COVID-19. Its multi-sectoral task force is the Emergency and Health Management Committee to Combat COVID-19. 211 Statistically speaking, 31 percent of the variation in women’s task force membership can be explained by their share of top leadership positions in public administration. 84 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION FIGURE 5.4 Women’s share of top leaders in public administration by women’s participation on COVID-19 Fig. 5.4 task forces 100% Gender Parity 90% Percentage of Women on COVID-19 Task Forces 80% Zimbabwe Lesotho Albania 70% Estonia 60% Ireland Iceland Netherlands 50% Finland Portugal Cyprus Spain New Zealand 40% Namibia Luxembourg Austria Latvia Poland 30% Turkey Sri Lanka France Georgia Montenegro Bulgaria Greece Burkina Faso Serbia 20% Morocco Kenya North Macedonia Japan Guinea Mauritania Armenia Malawi Uruguay India Brazil 10% Oman Indonesia Pakistan Hungary Singapore Myanmar Iraq Azerbaijan 0% Nepal Ukraine 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% Percentage of Women in Top Leadership in Public Administration Gender Parity 100% Note: The underlying data include 57 countries with available data on women’s share of COVID-19 Task Forces and top leadership positions in public administration. To enhance readability, some countries are not visualized. Sources: Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) dataset, December 2020; UNDP-UNW COVID-19 Global Gender Response Tracker Version 2, March 2021. BOX 5.1 The Gender-Responsive Crisis Chamber in Iraq Despite the critical roles that women play in Iraq’s public sector, their limited participation in decision-making and leadership positions has become particularly visible and costly in times of crisis, leaving their needs largely unmet. At the onset of the Covid-19 Pandemic in January 2020, the Government established a Crisis Cell, also called Committee 55.212 The Committee included 17 high-level representatives from different public institutions, but none were women. The exclusion of women from the Committee may explain why the initial public policies created in response to the pandemic failed to incorporate women’s and girl’s needs into policy design and service delivery. 212 The Crisis Cell became a ministerial committee according to Prime Minister Order No. 55 of 2020. See UN Women, 2020a. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 85 In July 2020, as part of ongoing efforts to assist the Iraqi Government’s progress towards gender equality, UNDP supported Iraq’s launch of the first Gender-Responsive Crisis Chamber (GRCC). The Chamber includes women’s rights defenders and women’s activists and involves public institutions concerned with women’s issues in the executive authority, including the Women’s Empowerment Directorate, the Gender Team Leader in the Central Statistics Office, and the Ministry of Planning. The membership composition of the chamber is designed to ensure representation from minority and marginalized communities, and includes women with disabilities and women from minority groups. While currently the GRCC works to ensure that COVID-19 public policy responses take into account of the needs of Iraqi women and girls, in the long term it is set to become a permanent entity in charge of providing gender-informed policymaking in times of crises and shaping recovery plans. The health sector: women on the front lines and men at the helm Around the world, women are well represented in the health sector overall but are underrepresented in leadership. Women make up around 70 percent of the health care workforce but are often relegated to lower status and lower paid positions.213 This pattern holds in public administration: women make up the majority of the workforce, averaging 58 percent of employees in health ministries,214 but only around 31 percent of ministers of health are women,215 and women occupy 34 percent of high-level decision-making positions.216 Globally, women make up 58 percent of health ministry employees but hold just 34 percent of high-level decisionmaking positions. Women’s share of decision-making position in health ministries shows considerable variation across countries and territories (Figure 5.5).217 Only 4 of the 15 countries and territories are situated at or near gender parity in decision-making positions in health ministries: Myanmar (55 percent women), the Philippines (50 percent), Colombia (47 percent) and Kosovo (45 percent). Women are underrepresented in 9 of the countries, and in 6 of which, they occupy fewer than 20 percent of decision-making positions: Afghanistan, Cambodia, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Maldives and Thailand. On the other end of the spectrum, women are overrepresented in decision-making positions in two countries: Montenegro (77 percent) and Sao Tome and Principe (67 percent). 213 World Health Organization, 2019. 214 Across the 50 countries with data available between 2015 and 2020, women’s share of health ministry employees ranges from 14 percent in Pakistan to 79 percent in Thailand. 215 Manzoor, 2018, cited in World Health Organization, 2019. 216 The degree of overlap between public administration and public health varies across countries. For example, in some countries, doctors and nurses in public hospitals are considered public administrators and would be included in figures for health ministries, whereas in other countries, this is not the case. 217 As discussed in Chapter 3, decision-making data are often not directly comparable across countries. Most of the countries that appear in Figure 5.2 (e.g. Iraq, Thailand) report only on top appointees, such as director general and deputy director general – less than 1 percent of public administrators – whereas others (e.g. Bangladesh) report on high-ranking officers in the civil service – 10 percent or more of public administrators. 86 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION FIGURE 5.5 Women’s share of decision-making positions in health ministries Fig. 5.5 Europe and Montenegro 77% North America Kosovo 45% Gender Parity Sub-Saharan Africa Sao Tome and Principe 67% Guinea-Bissau 19% Myanmar 55% Eastern and Philippines 50% Southeastern Asia + Oceania Cambodia 16% Thailand 8% Latin America and the Caribbean Colombia 47% Northern Africa Morocco 39% and Western Asia Iraq 0% Pakistan Central and Bangladesh Southern Asia Maldives Afghanistan 31% 30% 12% 7% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Percentage of Women in Decision-Making Positions in Health Ministries Note: The figure includes 15 countries with available data on women in decision-making positions in the health sector of public administration. Data prior to 2015 are excluded. Source: Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) dataset, December 2020. Gender-sensitive public policy responses to COVID-19 The COVID-19 crisis demands a coordinated and integrated response to healthcare, care policies and other measures in order to mitigate the social and economic impacts of the crisis.218 In September 2020, UN Women and UNDP released the COVID-19 Global Gender Response Tracker, investigating government measures in three policy areas: violence against women and girls, unpaid care work and women’s economic security. The analysis of 2,517 measures initiated in response to COVID-19 in 206 countries and territories found that only one in eight countries had measures in place to protect women against the social and economic impacts of the pandemic.219 Countries adopted 177 measures in 85 countries to strengthen women’s economic security and 111 measures in 60 countries to address unpaid care work.220 COVID-19 Global Response Tracker demonstrates that while many governments have taken positive measures to support women and girls, the policy response remains insufficient and uneven overall, both across regions and policy dimensions. 218 UNDP, 2020c. 219 UNDP and UN Women, 2020a. 220 ibid. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 87 BOX 5.2 COVID-19 and government response to gender-based violence in Kenya One impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has been an increase in gender-based violence (GBV) all over the world.221 Kenya’s National Bureau of Statistics reported that 24 percent of Kenyans have witnessed or heard cases of domestic violence in their communities since the beginning of the COVID-19 containment measures in February 2020.222 Around the same time, the Ministry of Health and Population Council reported 39 percent of women and 32 percent of men experiencing tension in their homes. This has resulted in an exponential increase in the numbers of people seeking help through “1195”, Kenya’s National Helpline for Survivors of Sexual and Gender-Based Violence Hotline: between February and June 2020, the number of calls surged from 86 to over 1,100, an increase of 1,179 percent.223 The national hotline continued to receive high numbers of calls, 646 in August and 810 in September 2020.224 All cases received psychosocial first aid (PFA) and referral services, but there were enormous caseloads challenging the remaining resources. Furthermore, given the delays in the judicial system due to COVID-19 restrictions, GBV cases are backlogged. Even though the Kenyan Government has been swift in its policy response – implementing safeguard policies for public health and establishing the National Emergency Response Committee – the eruption of GBV overwhelmed its planning efforts.225 The Kenyan Government has therefore sought additional support from the United Nations in the form of a multi-agency collaboration. It has been collaborating with UN Women to address the increased call volume to the hotline, and with UNDP, which has implemented a new programme, “Supporting Preparedness, Response and Recovery to COVID-19 in Kenya”, and includes an analysis of gender implications of the pandemic in partnership with the World Bank and UNICEF.226 The Tracker shows that the adoption of policies to address gender-based violence were more widespread. UN Women and UNDP tracked 704 policies that have stepped up action to address violence against women and girls in 135 countries. Given the alarming rates of increase of violence against women and girls around the world during the time of quarantine, this focus has been necessary. Many of the new policies have focused on expanding emergency hotlines, expanding shelter capacity and access, and raising awareness of government services.227 For example, Armenia’s helplines, operated by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs, have been updated to work 24 hours a day, seven days a week. In Afghanistan, the Government created new policies to ensure that women’s shelters remained open during lockdowns and opened new shelters to accommodate more Afghan women. In Ghana, public administrators and local authorities have been trained in gender-responsive risk communication and community engagement to address calls for personal protection, household preparedness and GBV prevention more effectively.228 Despite these positive steps, however, analysis by UN Women and UNDP found that “only 48 countries, less than a quarter of those analysed, treated violence against 221 UN Women, 2020g. 222 UN OCHA, 2020. 223 UN News, 2020. 224 UN OCHA, 2020. 225 Aluga, 2020. 226 UNDP, 2020j; UN Women, 2020d. 227 UNDP and UN Women 2020a. 228 Janoch, 2020. 88 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION women and girls-related services as an integral part of their national and local COVID-19 response plans, with very few adequately funding these measures.”229 Amidst the COVID-19 crisis, some governments developed and implemented policies that assisted women caring for children but did not extend the same benefits to men. For example, women working in public administration were relieved of their professional duties to care for their children, but men were not, reinforcing gender inequalities in care work. Similarly, extended leave for public administration staff that targets women raising children, rather than a parent regardless of gender, can also reinforce traditional roles.230 Effective responses to such crises include women’s perspectives, concerns and interests.231 Incorporating a gender analysis into preparedness and response efforts has the potential to improve the effectiveness of policy interventions and to promote gender equity.232 Challenges and opportunities: public administrations building back better The COVID-19 pandemic is an opportunity to transform public institutions and to make permanent and sustainable changes in the ways that public sector functions. OECD notes: The crisis has also acted in some ways as a ‘living lab’, whereby many areas of the public sector have had ‘hands-on’ experience with new tools, applications, processes and working methods. Agendas that may have seemed abstract or disconnected to day-to-day ‘business-as-usual’ work have suddenly become very pertinent and tangible.233 Looking beyond the COVID-19 pandemic, public policy institutions are positioned to take advantage of what has been learned and to build back more gender-inclusive and diverse societies, economies and governments. The COVID-19 Global Gender Response Tracker shows the potential for developing innovative public policies for gender equality, such as counting unpaid care in national accounting systems. National responses to the pandemic must place women and girls at the centre of their efforts to build more just and resilient institutions while also recognizing that women are the backbone of recovery in their communities. Policy responses that recognize this will be the more impactful for it.234 To ensure an effective response, women’s voices, needs and rights must be brought into pandemic response planning and decision-making. As the data above show, however, women are excluded from COVID-19 planning and decision-making, hence governments are less able to respond effectively to the gendered social and economic fallout of the pandemic.235 As outlined above, including women in public administration not only recognizes their right to participation and equal access to public service, but it may also help governments function better by improving service delivery, encouraging citizen engagement, and increasing trust and con- 229 UNDP and UN Women, 2020a. 230 For a discussion of the ways that family-friendly workplace policies can uphold traditional gender roles, see Mastracci, 2011. 231 WHO, 2020. 232 Wenham et al., 2020. 233 OECD, 2020c, p. 21; see also OSPI, 2021. 234 UN, 2020. 235 UNDP and UN Women, 2021. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 89 fidence in government. Including women in decision-making positions in public institutions also brings their priorities and interests to policymaking processes. Policies that support an increase in the numbers of women in decision-making in public administrations, including work-life balance, targeted recruitment and temporary special measures, are important to redress the balance. Public policies can inadvertently play a role in reproducing the gender stereotypes and roles that limit women’s opportunities.” Care roles and social reproduction are commonly naturalised in public policy in such a way that the cost of care is unacknowledged or assumed.”236 Feminist political economists further assert the need to make the unpaid care economy a highly visible part of public policymaking,237 given its crucial contributions to economic growth. This is increasingly gaining traction as the significance became more starkly visible during the pandemic. COVID-19, with its effect on childcare and school closures together with social distance restrictions, both revealed the heavy care burden women carry in all countries across all kinds of jobs and the possibility for aggravating gender inequalities.238 A lack of acknowledgement and ignorance of women’s care burden thus produces lost welfare impacts not only for women but also for societies. Public administrations can model new work-life policies which can start to shift the current gendered care responsibility. To ‘walk the talk,’ public institutions can now adopt policies that value women’s disproportionate care work burden, introduce flexible work arrangements, and when possible, going above and beyond, provide support services to increase the appeal of public sector employment for women. Public institutions can also lead the way in challenging existing norms and motivating men to become active participants in unpaid work at home. Public sector employment policies acknowledging and valuing women’s care work During the pandemic, many public administrations have extended the eligibility, duration and benefits of paid parental leaves. In Argentina, Resolución 3/2020 enables previously non-paid leave to be paid for public administrators who are mothers, fathers, or guardians of adolescents attending primary, secondary, nursery or kindergarten at times of school closures due to COVID-19.239 In Cuba, paid leave has been extended to a mother, father, or relative who has the status of worker and is in charge of caring for a child whose primary school or special education classes were suspended.240 The United States instituted the Families First Coronavirus Response Act, allowing parents with children under age 18 whose school/child care facility had closed up to 12 weeks’ family leave to be paid at two-thirds of earnings.241 The policy, however, does not extend to all federal employees and specifically excludes health care providers and emergency responders. In Trinidad and Toba- 236 Harman, 2016, pp. 525-6; see also Mastracci, 2011. 237 Elson, 1992, cited from Harman, 2016. 238 For example, a recent study of publications and citations in 2,347 academic journals finds that the “pandemic has penalized the scien- tific productivity of women and created cumulative advantages for men”. Two specific findings of the study are most worrisome: first, women in later stages of their careers, presumably when they are at their highest potential to contribute to their fields of study, are penalized the most, which, the paper suggests, could be explained by having more family responsibilities. Second, and perhaps even more telling in the context of the pandemic, women submitted fewer COVID-19-related manuscripts in health and medicine journals than men in 2020 (Flaherty, 2020; Squazzoni et al., 2020). 239 The leave provides the eligible worker with a wage guarantee equivalent to 100 percent of the basic salary during the first month, and 60 percent for the following months while the suspension lasts (Office of Ministers, Secretariat of Management and Public Employment, 2020). 240 Republic of Cuba Ministry of Justice, 2020. 241 The provision is capped at a limit of US$200 per day and US$12,000 over the duration (U.S. Department of Labour, 2020). 90 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION go, the Ministry of Labour introduced ‘pandemic leave’ as a new classification of paid leave for public officers, including those not eligible for sick leave.242 This particular measure is specifically aimed at working parents without access to a support system to care for their children during school closures. In cases where alternative work arrangements cannot be made, the public employee is allowed to stay at home with their dependents without being penalized by either disciplinary action or by non-payment of salary. Policies that incorporate flexible work arrangements in the public sector The COVID-19 pandemic has demonstrated the increased the need for flexible work arrangements. While these policies are often gender-neutral, if made permanent in the post-COVID-19 world, they could draw women to public sector jobs to better balance productive and reproductive demands on their time. In Cabo Verde, Lei no. 83/IX/2020 established telework as an option for parents who have children under three years of age.243 Bosnia and Herzegovina passed new a labour law to facilitate remote work, a practice that, although legally allowed, was seldom practised in pre-pandemic times.244 In Portugal, Article 10 of the Resolução do Conselho de Ministros no. 87/2020 specifically targets pregnant workers, workers who have recently given birth or who are breastfeeding, together with workers with reduced work capacity, disabilities or chronic illness, and allows them to telework according to the new timetables set by the public employer.245 In Philippines, the Civil Service Commission (Resolution No. 2000540) offers alternative work arrangements and support mechanisms for workers in the Government.246 The guidelines offer government agencies four types of work arrangements: working from home; a skeletal workforce (minimum in office); a compressed work week limited to 4 days a week; and staggered working hours during a 24-hour shift. Furthermore, employees who are younger than 21, who are older than 60, who have health risks, who are pregnant and/or who are in quarantine are told to work from home. While flexible work arrangements and working from home are often viewed positively as a solution to challenges in the work-life balance for professionals, and now with COVID-19, a key response measure for business continuity, such arrangements have also caused challenges to many women. While working from home encourages an essential cultural shift in workplaces to view women as both caregivers and workers, it does not account for how men and women value each other’s paid and unpaid work. “The home is not a neutral space: it is drenched with gendered expectations of obligations that family members have to each other.”247 Working from home does not alter paid and unpaid work enough to facilitate a more enduring move toward gender equality at home and work. Such flexible working arrangements must be accompanied by a range of other measures, such as state-led provision of affordable childcare, which can catalyse attitudinal and behavioural change to valuing women’s unpaid care work and encourage shifts toward a more gender-egalitarian organization of the division of labour between men and women at home.248 242 Ministry of Labour and Small Enterprise Development, 2020. 243 Republic of Cabo Verde, 2020. 244 Sarajlić and Kulenović, 2020. 245 President of the Council of Ministers of Portugal, 2020. 246 Republic of the Philippines Civil Service Commission, 2020. 247 Rao, 2020. 248 ibid. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 91 Policies that go beyond immediate needs In a select few cases, the public sector has gone beyond taking care of the immediate needs of their employees and offered support services embodying empathy and care. In Latvia, the Government initiated an employee survey to assess the wellbeing of public servants, including causes of anxiety and their expectations of the government and their management. The results are guiding targeted psychological help to public servants.249 Targeting mental well-being, the Government of the Netherlands has developed an online toolbox for public servants with information and short videos about working from home and maintaining work-life balance.250 While the current pressures of COVID-19 necessitated these changes mostly on a temporary basis, there is no reason not to adopt some permanently, especially if they prove successful in recruiting, retaining and promoting qualified women to work in the public sector. COVID-19 is a major public health crisis. But it can also become a means to catapult public institutions from ‘business-as-usual’ to ‘building back better’ as they become more gender-inclusive and diverse at the highest decision-making levels, more representative of the societies they serve, and more democratic and efficient in the policies they produce. There are reasons to be hopeful: indeed, changes in public and private organizations due to the pandemic have demonstrated that positive change is possible and may lead to longer-term change in the way we work: there is an opportunity to choose the road towards gender equality. Key policy responses can include governments legislating that flexible working becomes the norm in public administrations. Fathers have provided a greater share of unpaid care during lockdowns. Although mothers generally have been taking on more unpaid care than fathers, during lockdown, fathers doubled the time they spent on childcare. Governments can reform parental leave to create a longer, better paid period of reserved leave for fathers and second carers. Governments should invest in social care and childcare infrastructure to support working parents, particularly mothers. Without investment in the childcare sector, the gender gap in employment and pay will widen.251 249 OECD, 2020b. 250 ibid. 251 The Fawcett Society, 2020. 92 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 6 INTERSECTIONALITIES: A NEW FRONTIER Chapter findings, in brief Gender equality is about more than parity. The intersection of gender with disability, racial and ethnic minority status, indigeneity, sexual orientation and gender identity, and age shape not only women’s overall participation and their representation at decision-making levels of public administration, but also their experiences and perceived barriers to advancement. At every intersection, data point to further impediments to women’s ability to participate and lead their public administrations. Women with disabilities, often are disproportionately underrepresented in the civil service compared to women without disabilities; indigenous women in civil service, even in countries that are exemplary for their efforts to close gaps, such as New Zealand, have substantially lower salaries; and gender discrimination takes different forms for young women entering the work force and older women approaching retirement. Workforce surveys that can help identify and acknowledge the experiences of discrimination that people and women with diverse backgrounds and identities face in public administrations are too infrequently utilized. Why looking at intersectionality matters P ublic administrations today reflect more of the diversity in the populations they serve than ever before. Yet, considering how gender intersects with social identities draws attention to new inequalities and imbalances. This chapter lays a foundation for thinking about gender and the category of ‘women’ and engaging with difference. It considers the ways that gender intersects with disability, racial and ethnic minority status, indigeneity,252 and age to shape the outcomes, experiences and perceptions of civil servants. It also considers how public administrations can be more inclusive for those who face multiple barriers to participation, representation and equality. 252 Although there is not a single definition of who is ‘indigenous’, these peoples have a way of life that is distinct from that of the dominant societies in which they live. Although indigenous peoples are different within and across countries, what often makes them similar to one another is a shared history of struggle for recognition and protection of their lands, languages and ways of life. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 93 What is intersectionality? Intersectionality is a term coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw in 1989 to describe how race, class, gender and other individual characteristics ‘intersect’ with one another and overlap.253 Initially developed as a legal concept, intersectionality has since been used more broadly to interrogate structural inequalities in all spheres of life, and has redefined the ways that academics, activists and others understand inequalities. Intersectionality is integrated into the United Nations’ approach to gender equality and sustainable development. The 1995 United Nations Beijing Platform for Action committed to: [i]ntensify efforts to ensure equal enjoyment of all human rights and fundamental freedoms for all women and girls who face multiple barriers to their empowerment and advancement because of such factors such as their race, age, language, ethnicity, culture, religion, or disability, or because they are indigenous people.254 The 2030 Agenda makes an unequivocal call to ‘leave no one behind’, and UNDP understands that the furthest behind “tend to endure multiple and intersecting disadvantages.”255 The sixty-fifth session of the Commission on the Status of Women, which took place in March 2021, renewed the call to further “explore critical barriers to women’s participation in decision-making that prevent women from realizing their civil and political rights, with special focus on women facing intersecting forms of discrimination.”256 Intersectionality is embedded in all of these commitments that recognize both explicitly and implicitly that: women are not a homogenous group with undifferentiated experiences; structured inequalities are interlinked, compounding and reproducing; and ‘business as usual’ keeps power dynamics unchallenged and continues the marginalization of women with different identities. The first step towards “leaving no one behind” requires systemic changes in the ways public institutions have functioned. 253 Crenshaw, 1989. 254 UN, 1995. 255 UNDP, 2018b. 256 UN Women, 2020b. Thinking intersectionally Intersectionality draws our attention to the following: 1. Women are different from each other. Recognizing and exploring differences among women is at the foundation of intersectionality research. 2. Systems of inequality are inseparable. Forces of oppression such as sexism and racism are seen as interlinked, interlocking and mutually constructed. 3. Differences intersect to shape an individual’s social location. Intersectionality engages with the ways that social inequalities are produced, reproduced and resisted. 4. Understanding life at the intersections is anything but simple. Even for the same person or group, experiences and outcomes vary across time and space. 5. Social inequalities that result from intersecting systems of power are unjust. Intersectionality is used to amplify the voices that have been quieted and shine a light on those that have been kept in the dark. 94 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Intersections of gender with disability There have been significant strides in global and national recognition of the rights of people with disabilities since the adoption of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities and its Optional Protocol in 2006.257 The Convention has been since celebrated for shifting the perspective on persons with disabilities from ‘objects’ of charity, medical treatment and social protection to ‘subjects’ with equal rights and active membership in society. While the human rights for persons with disabilities have been affirmed at the global level, the ways in which these rights are to be realized have been left to member states, where progress has been haphazard. Women with disabilities face additional challenges and barriers to their participation and representation. For many people with disabilities, the public sector offers a shelter, with expectations for decent work with benefits and security, as well as public commitment to equal treatment in pay and representation in decision-making positions.258 But for women with disabilities, whose experiences are shaped by the intersection of gender and disability, stigma and discrimination may prevent full and equal participation.259 Women’s share of civil servants with disabilities often lags behind their share of civil servants overall, suggesting that women with disabilities face double barriers to employment in public administration (Table 6.1). In five countries – Oman, Paraguay, Uruguay, Namibia and Colombia – women’s representation among employees with reported disabilities lags behind their representation among total employees by more than 10 percent. Oman reports the largest difference, where women are nearly half of public administrators but just 9 percent of those with reported disabilities. Double barriers for women with disabilities are not universal. In Ireland, Canada, Slovenia and the State of Palestine, women’s share of civil servants with disabilities is very close to women’s share of civil servants overall, and in Turkey, Kosovo and Georgia, women’s share of employees with reported disabilities exceeds their share of total employees by 5 percent or more. Statistics such as these provide one lens to see whether public institutions are progressing towards offering inclusive and diverse employment opportunities to all of their citizens as promised by the SDGs. 257 UN DESA, 2019. 258 Basas, 2013. 259 iKnow Politics, 2019. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 95 TABLE 6.1 Percentage of women with disabilities employed in public administration Country Oman Paraguay Uruguay Namibia Colombia Philippines South Africa Kenya Ireland Canada Slovenia The State of Palestine Turkey Kosovo Georgia Eswatini Year 2018 2019 2018 2017 2020 2019 2019 2017 2016 2018 2018 2017 2019 2015 2019 2017 Percentage of women among total employees (percent) 49 54 55 58 52 51 49 36 51 55 54 43 19 24 29 . Percentage of women among those with disabilities (percent) 9 33 36 40 41 44 44 31 49 53 57 46 25 30 50 67 Difference (total women employees minus women with disabilities) (percent) 40 21 19 18 11 7 5 5 2 2 -2 -3 -6 -6 -21 . Source: Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) dataset, December 2020. Not all disabilities are the same, and disability types may further shape women’s access to the civil service (Table 6.2). Although reported in only six countries, available data suggest that women’s share of employees with reported disabilities can vary by the type reported. For example, in Colombia, Paraguay and Kenya, the degree of women’s underrepresentation is greater among employees with physical disabilities than for most other disability types. 96 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION TABLE 6.2 Percentage of women employed in public administration, by disability type Countries Ireland (2016) The State of Palestine (2017) Colombia (2020) Paraguay (2019) Kenya (2017) Oman (2018) Percentage of women among all employees (percent) Percentage of women among employees reporting various types of disabilities (percent) Average Visual Hearing Physical All others Multiple 51 49 48 41 50 50 – 43 46 45 47 47 46 – 52 41 49 41 34 33 51 54 33 39 42 29 41 23 36 31 70 35 27 40 30 49 9 9 5 11 14 0 Source: Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) dataset, December 2020. Women with disabilities may also face higher barriers to equal participation in certain sectors or in decision-making positions, but more research is needed to expose these gaps and their causes. Of 170 countries and territories that report gender-disaggregated data for civil servants, only one reported such data for civil servants with disabilities at the ministry level: Kosovo. Of the 21 ministries and offices in Kosovo’s central government in 2015, men with disabilities were working in 11 of them, whereas women with disabilities were working in just 5 of them. The available data also suggest that women with disabilities are underrepresented at the highest levels of public administration. According to a 2018 study of decision-making positions in 19 countries, women with disabilities held just 2 percent of legislators, senior officials and managers.260 Elevating women with disabilities to leadership roles in the public sector can make a difference. For example, when disability rights activist Zaruhi Batoyan served as the Minister of Labour and Social Affairs in Armenia (2019–2020), the Ministry drafted new legislation to improve the situation of persons with disabilities: a bill on the rights of people with disabilities, which would replace an outdated 1993 law;261 a bill on psychiatric care and services;262 and anti-discrimination legislation, which includes the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of disability.263 The effect of including women with disabilities in decision-making positions matters not only for others with disabilities, but also “for the wider political, economic and social transformations” needed “to deliver the 2030 Agenda” and ‘leave no one behind’.264 260 UN DESA, 2019, p. 139. 261 Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Armenia, 2020b. 262 Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Armenia, 2020c. 263 Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Armenia, 2020a. 264 Espinosa Garcés, 2019. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 97 BOX 6.1 Measuring disability in the public service in South Africa Since the late 1990s, the Government of South Africa has been committed to building a civil service that is representative of the people it serves. One focus of this effort has been to increase the representation of people with disabilities in public administration. Historically, people with disabilities had faced discrimination in education and labour legislation, as well as other physical and social barriers, which resulted in very small numbers of people with disabilities employed in the civil service, much less in decision-making positions. The South African Government committed to affirmative action policies to recruit more people with disabilities to the public administration. From the start, however, there was disagreement on how to define disability, and efforts to count the number of civil servants with disabilities faced substantial hurdles. In August 2018, a pilot study was conducted by Statistics South Africa (StatsSA) to test the feasibility of the Washington City Group on Disability Statistics questions to measure disability in the Public Service in South Africa. This pilot study has shown that the Washington City Group’s short and extended sets of survey questions, which were initially designed for use in national censuses and surveys, can also be used as part of an administrative data collection system. The Washington Group extended set of questions includes questions on psycho-social wellbeing. Gender-disaggregated results showed that there was a significantly higher number of women who scored lower on psycho-social well-being than that of men. The results with respect to ‘anxiety’ showed that women feel more anxiety (and are more affected by it) than men. Results with respect to ‘depression’ also showed that women suffered more from depression (and are more affected by it) than men. Overall, the findings of the study suggest that using the Washington City Group’s sets of questions for the measurement of disability in the public service is feasible. This is promising because the SDG global indicator 16.7.1.b encourages countries to report disability-disaggregated data. Sources: Department of Public Service and Administration, 1998; Naff and Capers, 2014; Public Service Commission, 2008. Intersections of gender with race, ethnicity and indigeneity Women and men from marginalized ethnic, racial and indigenous backgrounds face discrimination everywhere in the world. The vulnerabilities of women are intertwined with identities related to their ethnicity, race and/or indigeneity.265 Women from marginalized racial and ethnic groups experience the ‘double barriers’ of racism and sexism.266 A cumulative result is the underrepresentation of their distinct experiences, perspectives and knowledge, first, in the process of public policymaking, which comes at a cost to people who are discriminated from participation, and second, in the resulting policy outcomes, which comes at a cost to the society as a whole. 265 Chattier, 2015. 266 Anthias and Yuval-Davis, 1983; Beal, 1970; Combahee River Collective, 2014 [1977]; Cooper, 1892; Davis, 1983; King, 1988; Lorde, 1984; Yuval-Davis, 2006. 98 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION To be a public service that has the trust and confidence of a Maori public… we need to think through: how do we incorporate Maori perspectives into the core businesses of our agencies, not just an add on at the end when it’s a problem. That we have a culturally intelligent public service. Michelle Hippolite, a Maori leader with 20 years of experience in state government and other services, speaking at the ANZOG conference, Reimagining Public Administration: First Peoples, Governance and New Paradigms, Melbourne, February 2019 Gendered work-life norms which place women in inferior positions to men, is distinctively more pronounced for women of ethnic or racial minorities.267 Research on double barriers often shows that women from marginalized groups have progressed in public administration more slowly than both the men from their groups, and privileged groups of women. For example, in the United Kingdom, women make up just 21 percent of senior civil servants on the Civil Service Board and 35 percent of permanent secretaries, but there are no women of colour in these roles.268 Intersections of gender with indigeneity Indigenous peoples are among the most marginalized and vulnerable groups in the world today.269 Historically, Indigenous peoples have been excluded from and underrepresented in public institutions. At times this has been by choice: indigenous peoples fought to maintain their autonomy and to govern themselves through separate governing systems and institutions. Increasingly, however, indigenous movements have been challenging the exclusion and marginalization they faced for centuries, and indigenous women are demanding a role in governance.270 In response, recent efforts to reimagine public administration are focusing on making ‘culturally intelligent public service’ possible.271 A reimagined public service values indigenous knowledge and culture, not just for their importance to indigenous communities, but for the broader society. It welcomes and integrates indigenous views and practice within public policy and service delivery. Only then, scholars, practitioners and members of these communities argue, levels of trust between the indigenous peoples and the governments can possibly increase.272 A reimagined public service needs to prioritize having “Indigenous people represented across the public service at all levels, and particularly as senior decision makers.”273 Representation at the highest levels of power remains pertinent not only to promoting the rights of Indigenous peoples’, but also their ability to bring unique perspectives, knowledge and experience, and to affect positive change for communities. Government approaches to the inclusion of indigenous peoples in general and indigenous women in particular in public administration are mixed. It is uncommon for governments to collect data on Indigenous peoples or Indigenous languages. In Colombia, the Government collects information on whether employees 267 Estes and Hartmann, 2012. 268 Kaur, 2020. 269 Amnesty International, 2021; UN DESA, 2018. 270 Van Cott, 2005; Yashar, 2005; Ewig, 2018; Hernández Castillo, 2010; Rousseau and Ewig, 2017. 271 ANZSOG, 2019. 272 ibid. 273 ibid. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 99 speak foreign languages but does not include information on native languages.274 However, there are exemplary efforts where governments take the lead and purposefully and assertively acknowledge their employees’ different racial, ethnic and indigenous backgrounds. As the largest employer in Canada, the Federal Public Service includes both a non-discrimination policy to protect against discrimination while also targeting a group of four for active promotion of employment equity – women, aboriginal peoples, persons with disabilities, and members of visible minorities.275 The Employment Equity Act charges the public service “to go beyond simply treating these groups the same as others. It requires the implementation of policies, practices and reasonable accommodations to ensure that persons in these designated groups achieve representation similar to levels in the Canadian workforce.”276 Results have been significant diversity in the Canadian federal public service. Women make up 55 percent of all employees and 50 percent of all executives; Indigenous peoples, 5 percent of all employees and 4 percent of all executives; persons with disabilities, 5.1 percent of all employees and 4.6 percent of all executives; and members of visible minorities, 16.7 percent of all employees and 11.1 percent of all executives.277 However, even within these exemplary efforts, it is not possible to speak about intersectionality since the data are not broken down by gender.278 In extremely rare cases when intersectional data on gender and other identity markers are available, a much fuller picture emerges. Although New Zealand’s public service is diverse and inclusive of Maori people, Figure 6.2 demonstrates that salary gaps by gender and ethnicity persist.279 Men in public service are paid more, on average, than women in each ethnic group, and Europeans are paid more, on average, than Maoris. Although Maori women have experienced significant salary increases since 2019, they continue to have the lowest average salaries in the public service and a compounded wage discrimination of being both Maori and a woman. Intersectional data, as in this case, enable policymakers to identify and then implement differentiated policies to abolish interlocking layers of discrimination, and progress towards true equity in the public sector. Blanket diversity and equity initiatives aimed to lift a single marginalized group, in contrast, can only have limited effect. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the need is more urgent than ever to deliver services to indigenous communities in indigenous languages and to ensure that services are appropriate to the specific situations of indigenous peoples. The COVID-19 pandemic has brought attention to pre-existing problems in indigenous communities, such as “poor access to healthcare, significantly higher rates of communicable and non-communicable diseases, lack of access to essential services, sanitation and other key preventive measures.”280 Efforts to address these deficiencies must be attentive the specific needs of indigenous communities, hence the need to ensure their adequate representation in the public administration. 274 In 2020, of the people who report indigenous identity, 52 percent are women – the same share as the public service overall. But only 996 people reported indigenous identity, just 0.54 percent of Colombia’s civil service in a country where indigenous peoples are estimated at 3.4 percent of the population (IWGIA, 2020; Government of Colombia, Department of Public Function, 2020). 275 Mason and van den Berg, 2020. 276 Government of Canada,1995. The Public Service Commission is further tasked with ensuring that the public service is both merit-based and representative, and reports progress annually to Parliament. 277 Mason and van den Berg, 2020. 278 Hence, it is possible to track progress towards diversity identified as inclusion of separate groups, but not to identify or quantify com- pounding barriers to real gender equality that are still at play. It is not possible to account for the double burden women of indigenous backgrounds, or women with disabilities, or women who are also members of visible minorities face in public sector employment in Canada. 279 Public Service Commission, 2020. 280 UN DESA, 2021. 100 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION FIGURE 6.2 Fig. 6.2 Salary levels by gender and ethnicity in New Zealand’s public service, 2020 NZ$120,000 Average Annual Salary NZ$100,000 NZ$80,000 NZ$94,700 NZ$60,000 NZ$84,100 NZ$76,800 NZ$76,300 NZ$40,000 NZ$20,000 NZ$0 European Men European Women Māori Men Māori Women Source: Te Kawa MataaEhuor,o2p0e2a0n. Men European Women Māori Men Māori Women Intersections of gender with age Gender discrimination varies across the life course. Young and middle-aged women are often impacted by motherhood, which can cause interruptions in employment and limit earnings. Older women, who are nearing retirement, also face distinct challenges. Older workers are often seen as less competent, as more difficult to train and as more expensive than younger workers.281 Older women also, by nature of their seniority, come up against glass ceilings. The impacts of gender discrimination in different stages of life can accumulate, producing what is sometimes called ‘lifetime disadvantage’.282 The barriers to equal participation in public life and decision-making faced by young people – and young women in particular – are not well understood. Impediments to young workers are often dismissed as stemming from educational gaps, or it is assumed that gaps can be addressed by broad measures aimed to enhance workforce diversity.283 A better approach would be to make use of data disaggregated by age and gender to show the ages at which women and men enter and exit the workforce, and to better understand gendered patterns in recruitment, retention and promotion across the life-course. 281 Blaine, 2013, pp. 177–178; Maestas, Mullen and Powell, 2016. 282 Bisom-Rapp and Sargeant, 2018, p. 9. 283 ibid, p. 19. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 101 The importance of age considerations in public service Age gaps in public administration are complex. On the one hand, increasing numbers of countries are giving up the once widely used upper and lower age limits for civil service recruitment. The Netherlands, Denmark, Finland, Italy, Sweden and Portugal no longer have them. However, in Germany, civil servants must enter the probationary period of employment by 32, and in Greece, civil servants must join by 30–35 years of age, depending on the position.284 On the other hand, the public sector workforce in many OECD countries is aging more rapidly than the societies they serve or the larger labour markets in which they function.285 Across age groups, the proportion of young employees is by far the smallest, suggesting a common trend, at least among the OECD countries, where the age of entry to public service has increased.286 In the United States, people aged 20–29 make up nearly 14 percent of the population, but only 7 percent of federal government employees are under the age of 30.287 In Canada, the share of public servants under the age of 30 is 10 percent; in Australia, 11 percent; in the United Kingdom, 13 percent; and in New Zealand, 14 percent.288 We recognise that we can’t always pay the most for the best candidates, for the best talent. But we’ve found it’s not just about money with young people. We offer excellent development opportunities, flexible working and a focus on people as human beings — which means their needs in terms of work-life balance. Jack Markiewicz, a leadership and organizational development consultant at the United Kingdom’s Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) Public sectors in several countries are facing an important and urgent demographic challenge: how to make working for governments appealing to younger workers, in general, and to younger women, in particular. As older public servants start to retire, the lack of sufficient numbers of younger public servants in the pipeline could have far-reaching impacts on overall trust and confidence in the functioning of government services, as well as on gender equality across ranks. Despite these looming challenges, however, the recruitment and retention policies in public sectors in most countries have been resistant to change and remain out of sync with the interests of young people. The Civil Service Fast Stream programme initiated in 2015 is the United Kingdom’s flagship leadership development programme to attract young and diverse talent to the public sector.289 The Fast Stream programme has a choice of 15 schemes in each profession, personalized development plans and mentoring opportunities.290 The programme boasts success in recruiting young people to the British civil service and in improving the perception of the civil service as an employment opportunity.291 The Free Agents programme in the Canadian Government takes a different approach, aiming to employ younger people for shorter periods of time, avoiding the perception that the civil service is a ‘job for life’. The programme builds flexibility and mobility within the civil service and allows a select group of highly skilled 284 Kohli, 2016. 285 Pilichowski, Arnould and Turkisch, 2008. 286 ibid. 287 Apolitical, 2018; statistica, 2020. 288 Apolitical, 2018. 289 Civil Service Fast Stream, 2020a. 290 Civil Service Fast Stream, 2020b. 291 Apolitical, 2018. 102 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION These schemes attract young people, but what’s more important is to make government attractive to a more diverse range of people, in terms of class, race and gender. Leighton Andrews, a former education minister in the Welsh Government who now teaches public service leadership at Cardiff Business School public servants to move from department to department, choosing projects that match their talents and interests.292 Diversity and inclusion are at the forefront of these innovative programmes. The Fast Stream programme in the United Kingdom follows detailed protocols to accommodate people with disabilities and has a five-day summer internship programme targeting candidates from lower socio-economic backgrounds, from racial and ethnic minority groups, and with disabilities.293 Since 2016, the Cabinet Office has utilized new software to remove gender bias from all Fast Stream webpages and related media.294 The programme claims to have boosted diversity in the British civil service across several categories, including an increase in the numbers of women candidates appointed, from 38 percent in 1998 to 47 percent in 2016. 295 It remains unclear, however, how Fast Stream and programmes like it are faring at boosting the inclusion of young women, women from minority racial or ethnic groups, or women with disabilities. The representation of young women in public life Young women’s access to public administration varies widely across countries (Figure 6.3). The country with the highest share of women under 30 is Lao PDR, where women under 30 make up 20 percent of public administration employees and 43 percent of all women working in public administration. On the other end of the spectrum, the country with the lowest share of women under 30 is Slovenia. Women under 30 make up only 2 percent of the total public administration employees, and only 4 percent of all women for the public sector. To better understand these patterns and what explains this variation, more data disaggregated by age and gender are necessary. Opportunities and challenges At best, public sector employment has not fully welcomed and integrated women with different identities, perspectives and experiences, and at worst, it has excluded them from positions of power and decision-making. Bringing an intersectional perspective to data, analysis, and policy design and implementation is essential to helping women overcome multiple barriers to equal participation and representation. Times of crisis can offer possibilities and potential for change, and for reimagining how to undo what has proven ineffective. The COVID-19 crisis has demonstrated the need for change towards a more intersectional approach to ensuring equal participation in public life and decision-making. The status quo, continuing business as usual, continues to cost communities, depriving everyone from potentially more effective policy solutions. 292 OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation, 2018. 293 Civil Service, 2020; The Bridge Group, 2016. 294 Civil Service HR, 2016. 295 The Bridge Group, 2016. An exception in the success of Fast Stream’s diversity efforts is with candidates from lower socio-economic backgrounds, who are less likely to apply to the programme and less likely to succeed if they do. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 103 FIGURE 6.3 The gender gap in the share of civil servants under thirty years of age Qatar -21% Kenya -14% Tunisia -8% Azerbaijan -6% Japan -6% Jordan -3% Guinea -2% Cote d’Ivoire -2% Belarus -2% United States -1% Slovenia -1% Average -1% Peru 0% Sri Lanka 0% Morocco 0% Bhutan 0% Colombia 0% United Kingdom 0% Madagascar 1% Zambia 1% Indonesia 1% Brazil 1% Canada 2% Australia 3% Oman 3% Dominican Republic 4% Denmark 5% Lao PDR 5% Thailand 6% Maldives 11% -25% -20% -15% -10% -5% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% Greater percentage of Men under 30 (of all Civil Servants) Greater percentage of Women under 30 (of all Civil Servants) Note : The figure compares young women’s share of total public administration employees to young men’s share of total public administration employees. Countries with a yellow bar have more young men than young women, and countries with a purple bar have more young women than young men. ‘Young’ is measured here as being under 30 years of age. Bars marked 0% are rounded down. Source: Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) dataset, December 2020. Alternatively, addressing intersectional barriers, and by extension, the discriminatory and unsupportive organizational cultures within public administration, promises to expand the array of public policy options and increase communities’ confidence and trust in these policy outputs. 104 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION The first step in this reimagining of a more representative, inclusive and diverse, and therefore, effective public sector requires diagnostics of where the roadblocks are. The need for disaggregated data to identify and describe intersectionalities as they impede gender equality and equity in public institutions is real and urgent. Only with such data can discussions of the double and triple burdens women face be moved from a descriptive to a prescriptive phase. SDG global indicator 16.7.1.b recognizes that representation in public administration needs to be looked at from a lens of intersectionality, given the multiple structural barriers people face in participating in public life. Data must be generated to understand why some groups (e.g. indigenous women) may be less well represented in public administration than others. Using data to understand better who is able to participate in decision-making and who is excluded is a first step in addressing some of the structural inequalities that persist, as well as improving the effectiveness of public services, including for women experiencing multiple discrimination.296 As such, SDG indicator 16.7.1b captures intersectionalities by asking countries to further disaggregate by sex their overall figures of public servants categorized by age group, by population group, and disability status. The population of a country is a mosaic of different population groups that can be identified according to racial or ethnic, language, migration status, religious affiliation, sexual orientation, as well as disability status.297 Public administration data on lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people298 are scarce but do exist. Data on women with disabilities in public administration are also limited. Statistics such as these provide a lens to see whether public institutions are progressing towards offering inclusive and diverse employment opportunities to all of their citizens as promised by the SDGs. Governments can take steps to be more inclusive. Effective policies can minimize the influence of gender identity and expression on hiring, promotion, retention. However, policies alone are often not effective; implementation is key.299 Governments can also take steps to educate their workforce to ensure that all employees feel comfortable being themselves and do not feel vulnerable or intimidated at work. ‘Gendered ageism’ forms a central part of organizational cultures, with discrimination in relation to recruitment, career and pension, and age- and gender-based glass ceilings for women in employment and promotion. Gendered ageism is a ‘double jeopardy’, and women more than men experience ageism based on appearance and sexuality in the labour market.300 The tools available to policymakers in tackling gendered ageism include legal reforms, measures addressing prejudice and negative stereotypes about older women workers, and incentives to employers to remove ageism and sexism from management practices and workplace cultures. To nurture more age-friendly attitudes in the workplace, intergenerational job sharing and mentoring was set up in the civil service in Bulgaria, Poland and Moldova to encourage knowledge exchange between people from different age groups.301 Such measures should integrate a gender perspective. An intersectional approach can support analysis of the complexity of the situation of women who are at the intersection of various forms of discrimination and inform policies and legislation. The European Parliament took an intersectional approach to research on women with disabilities who are at the intersection of 296 UNDP, 2021n. 297 UNECE, cited in UN Statistics Division, 2021. 298 UN OHCHR, 2018. 299 Sabharwal et al., 2019. 300 Krekula, Nikander and Wilińska, 2018. 301 UNECE, 2019. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 105 discrimination on the grounds of gender and disability.302 Statistics on women with disabilities in employment are scarce. International experience shows that women with disabilities are severely under-represented in the public sector. It finds an “unequal representation of women with disabilities in the labour market, pay differentials, segregation in lower-paid jobs and all the composite effects of women’s labour market disadvantage enhanced by the addition of the disability parameter.”303 While there are quotas for women and for people with disabilities in the public sector, it found that there are no quotas dedicated to women with disabilities. As a result, women with disabilities may not benefit from either gender-based or disability-based quotas, as employers may prefer able-bodied women or men with disabilities to fulfil their obligations, which can be seen as intersectional discrimination on the grounds of gender and disability. In addition to the need for specific quotas, public sector workplaces can be made more enabling for women with disabilities through workplace accommodations such as physical changes in the workplace, embedding accessibility features in ICT and breaking stereotypes through greater awareness.304 The interlocking institutions of gender, caste and ethnicity determine access to assets, capabilities and voice, as well as inclusive governance, including the political system, rule of law and the civil service. The Gender and Social Exclusion Assessment (GSEA) in Nepal highlights the complex relationship between caste and gender, where Dalit women experience both gender and caste discrimination, and have the lowest level of empowerment and inclusion. For the civil service, affirmative action is a key recommendation as a strategy to correct historical, unfair discrimination by enabling access to opportunities and benefits to groups that have been excluded. Change will require a complex mix of political and senior management commitments and human resource systems of recruitment, hiring, training, mentoring and cultural change. Building a pipeline of women, Dalits and marginalized ethnic groups is a key recommendation, including scholarships and internships, ensuring that meritocracy is not compromised while reserving positions for women, Dalits and marginalized ethinc groups in the civil service. The initiative is based on the premise that a more diverse civil service can improve service delivery based on better understanding of the needs and perspectives of diverse clients.305 Intersectional thinking presents public institutions with both a challenge and an opportunity. By mainstreaming intersectional analysis into the structures and culture of recruiting, retaining and promoting women, the public administration can demonstrate the true values of diversity and inclusion. By creatively redesigning its internal policies, public administrations could renew their commitments to the public, build trust and improve the quality of democratic governance. 302 European Parliament, 2013. 303 ibid., p. 11. 304 Ibid., p. 72. 305 Bennet, Sijapati and Thapa, 2006. 106 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 7 RECOMMENDATIONS T he UNDP Global Report on Gender Equality in Public Administration 2021 aims to catalyse policy and programming to accelerate women’s equal participation and leadership in public administration. This chapter draws on the opportunities and challenges outlined in the previous sections and is framed in the context of the findings and recommendations put forward in the Report of the United Nations Secretary- General for the Commission on the Status of Women (CSW) 65.306 It outlines how UNDP and partners are contributing to enabling environments that support women’s participation and decision-making in public life, spotlights examples and proposes recommendations for programming and policy support. These recommendations are timely and aim to take advantage of the opportunities to strengthen gender equality in the recovery from COVID-19 and to reimagine and redesign more gender-inclusive and diverse public administrations. Evidence across sectors, including economic planning and emergency response, demonstrates unquestioningly that policies that do not consult women or include them in decision-making are simply less effective, and can even do harm. United Nations, 2020, p. 3 UNDP’s COVID-19 response offers a pathway beyond recovery, towards 2030, with the Sustainable Development Goals as a compass. Post-recovery responses must address the inequalities that prevent women from participating in public administration, including in decision-making positions. Governments and societies face policy, regulatory and fiscal choices that could be the tipping points that transform our societies and our planet for the better, including tackling exclusion, racism and gender inequalities.307 Key priorities for COVID-19 recovery are to ensure women’s equal representation in all COVID-19 response planning and decision-making and to promote their leadership in policy decision-making processes.308 The following sets out five main areas for action: (i) promote positive synergies with the broader gender equality agenda; (ii) strengthen constitutional, legislative and policy frameworks; (iii) support institutional change within public administrations; (iv) strengthen data availability to track progress on women in decision-making in public service; and (v) leverage partnerships for change. 306 UN ECOSOC, 2020. 307 UNDP, 2020b. 308 UN, 2020; UNDP, 2020c. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 107 Promote positive synergies with the broader gender equality agenda • Develop national gender equality plans with concrete mechanisms for implementation and accountability, including for public administration in line with international frameworks such as CEDAW and the Beijing Platform for Action. Support efforts to track budget allocations for gender equality, including in public administration, and to strengthen national oversight, monitoring, evaluation and accountability. Women’s equality and role in decision-making in public administration should be incorporated in gender equality commissions, ombuds offices, or other commissions or institutions with oversight mandates. These gender equality institutions need to be resourced properly to enable them to function. It is important to strengthen the capacities and roles of civil society, including academia and the media, and to participate in monitoring and accountability mechanisms and processes. It is also important to support parliamentary committees on gender equality to monitor gender mainstreaming in public administration, including women’s participation in decision-making in public administration. Lessons from successful responses to COVID-19 show that building back better, and preparing for future crises, means investing in core publicsector capacities and capabilities… As the saying goes, a crisis should not go to waste: let’s hope it brings on a new understanding of how to develop the dynamic capabilities of the public sector–and why it matters. Mazzucato and Kattel, 2020, p. S266 • Develop evidence-based connections between gender equality in public administration, inclusive institutions and quality public policy outcomes for all. Raise awareness of the importance of women’s equal participation and decision-making in public administration among a wide range of stakeholders. • Support women’s education and preparedness for civil service careers, with a focus on young women. A lack of education remains a barrier to women’s promotion in some countries, where traditional cultural attitudes undervalue the education of women and girls. It is important to promote equal education of girls and boys, young women and men, at primary, secondary and tertiary levels, and provide incentives to schools and families to keep girls in school. This can include scholarships, fellowships, and leadership and internship programmes for young women, and supporting secondary schools and universities to build the capacity of young women students as future women civil servants, decision makers and leaders. • Contribute to women’s visibility and gender equality in traditional and social media. Showcase examples of successful and inspiring women in public administration, government and the corporate sector and support awards that recognize successful women. Women’s presence in visible and powerful decision-making positions sends the message that women can and should lead. As outlined above, research on women’s representation and leadership in politics has important symbolic effect: it enhances women’s participation and engagement; improves the educational and career aspirations of girls; enhances women’s belief in their ability to govern; decreases implicit biases against women leaders; and changes men’s assessments of women’s capacities. Including women in decision-making positions in public administration may similarly send the message that women should be leading policy development and implementation. Support national gender machineries to work with the media to challenge gender-based stereotypes in the workplace.309 309 UNDP, 2014. The recommendations in 1) Make positive synergies with the broader gender equality agenda are summarized from the 2014 GEPA report. 108 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Strengthen constitutional, legislative and policy frameworks • Harmonize laws and national action plans governing public administration with the Beijing Platform for Action, which called on governments to commit to gender balance in public administration to advance women’s full participation in public life and decision-making.310 National action plans and executive orders should identify gender equality in public administration as a national priority, identify target areas for improvement, and provide a catalyst for change. UNDP provides technical assistance in constitutional review, law reform, policy development, gender budgeting, temporary special measures and gender parity plans, among others. • Ensure that provisions that promote gender equality are included in the drafting processes in constitutional reviews, and that legislation and policy are grounded in international norms and standards, including CEDAW. UN Women has supported advocacy for making gender equality measures central to public policymaking and for legislative and constitutional reforms.311 UNDP has supported women’s caucuses to engage in Constitutional Review processes, such as in the Gambia.312 A constitutional framework as the supreme law has a valuable role in tackling power asymmetries in society. According to research by UNDP in the Asia and Pacific region, countries with constitutional guarantees for gender parity have been able to support greater political representation of women, and while the study focuses on political representation, constitutions are important to advance gender equality more generally.313 A supportive national constitution can lead the way to concrete national legislation for quota laws in public administration.314 • Develop gender equality laws to uphold gender equality as a national priority, and mainstream gender equality throughout legislation. The World Bank found that in the majority of countries around the globe (155 of 173 examined by the report), gender-based discrimination is embedded in the law, thus perpetuating persistent inequalities between women and men in hiring, remuneration and advancement in the workplace. Globally, an increasing number of countries are adopting equal pay and non-discrimination laws, with the rise in equal pay legislation driven by Sub-Saharan Africa.315 Laws on equal pay for work of the same value should be strengthened to redress discrimination and achieve gender equality.316 For example, in Georgia, UNDP and partners are advocating for an amendment in the Labour Code for equal pay, including by strengthening the evidence on gender pay gap issues.317 Laws on sexual harassment and effective mechanisms to deal with GBV and sexual harassment should be developed and implemented. • Consider quotas across public bodies and temporary special measures (TSMs), including targeted recruitment, hiring and promotion. This is in line with Article 4 of CEDAW on the achievement of gender equality in public life. Research shows that quotas have been effective at improving women’s substantive representation in politics, enabling policies to be more relevant to the needs of both women and men, creating more favourable attitudes towards women as leaders, and increasing the aspirations, education and political efficacy of 310 UN, 1995, paragraph 190(a). 311 UN Women has developed the UN Women Global Gender Equality Constitutional Database, which is a repository of gender equality related provisions extracted from 194 constitutions from around the world. Having women’s rights constitutionally entrenched in a national constitution is an important step towards ensuring eliminating gender-based discrimination and advancing women’s rights (UN Women, 2020f ). 312 UNDP in The Gambia and the Women’s Bureau, 2018. 313 UNDP, 2013. For a review see Hughes, Paxton and Krook, 2017. 314 UNDP, 2014. 315 World Bank, 2020b. 316 ILO, 2016a. 317 UNDP, 2019e. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 109 women and girls.318 As explored in Chapter 3, however, unlike electoral quotas, TSMs in public administration are not well documented. Still, cases such Colombia’s civil service quota, which requires a minimum of 30 percent women in decision-making positions, suggest that TSMs in public administration can provide a bridge for qualified women candidates to move into decision-making positions. The establishment of quotas and temporary special measures for specific groups of women also involves the introduction of targeted measures for the recruitment, hiring and promotion of these groups. In Nepal, reservations for women from Dalit and ethnic groups require human resource systems of recruitment, hiring, training, mentoring and cultural change, and building a pipeline of women, Dalits and marginalized ethnic groups, including through scholarships and internships in the civil service.319 If quotas are not used, targets should be set, and an action plan to achieve them, clearly defined. Effective enforcement of quota systems or targets needs to be developed, including strengthening monitoring bodies.320 The United Nations Secretary-General’s report calls for an urgent need to reform constitutions and adopt laws with parity targets that set clear timeframes for all levels of decision-making and in areas of public life beyond political decision-making.321 • Create a national gender budget and national gender equality plan to implement commitments to gender equality in the public administration. Gender budgeting should focus on: making public administration more gender-equal and making public services provided by the public administration more gender-responsive. The national gender machinery should be involved in the design and planning of programmes in coordination with other ministries. OECD among other organizations provides guidance on developing gender budgeting within the framework of a strong national gender equality strategy.322 In Fiji, the Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) framework provides a tool to assess gender-responsive public financing.323 UNDP has supported the Ministry of Economy’s integrating climate change and gender criteria into its national budget submission.324 In Niger, UNDP provided gender-responsive budgeting support to sectoral ministries, gender focal points of technical institutions, and decentralized services to mainstream gender into future planning of policies, plans and programmes of their institutions.325 National oversight, monitoring, evaluation and accountability mechanisms on gender equality should be strengthened, including incentive schemes for compliance with such legislation. Support institutional change within public administration Re-imagine the public administration post-COVID to position gender equality as central • Re-imagine the public administration post-COVID to position gender equality as central. Harness opportunities for public policy institutions to build back more gender-responsive societies, economies and governments. The COVID-19 Global Gender Response Tracker defines policies as gender-sensitive that seek to directly address the risks and challenges that women and girls face during the COVID-19 crisis. The measures include: (i) social protection, including measures that support women’s economic security, such as universal 318 For a review, see Hughes, Paxton and Krook, 2017. 319 Bennett, Sijapati and Thapa, 2006. 320 Kaur, 2020. 321 UN ECOSOC, 2020. 322 OECD, 2020a. 323 Zrinski, Raappana and Rame, 2021. 324 UNDP, 2019e. 325 UNDP, 2020l. 110 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION income support, and unpaid care such as compensating parents for child-care closures; (ii) labour markets, including measures to strengthen women’s access to paid employment or providing child-care services; (iii) fiscal and economic policies, including targeting sectors that have a larger share of women’s compared to men’s employment; and (iv) protection measures against violence against women. The Tracker shows the potential for developing innovative public policies for gender equality, such as counting unpaid care in national accounting systems, universal social and care services, transforming social norms through fiscal policies (such as parental leave, taxation benefits, public transfers) and reforming the segregation of the labour market.326 • Incorporate women’s voices, needs and rights into pandemic recovery planning and decision-making to ensure more gender-responsive policies. Women are being left out of high-level discussions on COVID-19 response and recovery. Given the low rates of women’s participation in COVID-19 governance, it is not surprising that the Tracker has found that few countries have a gender-sensitive policy response. To ensure that women’s health and socio-economic needs are being met, governments must ensure equal participation in decision-making institutions as a pre-condition to democracy and development, particularly in times of crisis.327 Policies that support an increase in the numbers of women in decision-making in public administrations, including work-life balance, targeted recruitment and temporary special measures, are important to redress the balance. • Ensure the permanence of flexible work arrangements set up in response to COVID-19 to increase the attractiveness of the public sector as a model employer. During the pandemic, organizations have supported policies acknowledging and valuing women’s care work and promoting equal sharing of unpaid care work by men. These have included extending the duration and benefits for parental leave to expanding coverage and eligibility. Internal dissemination campaigns to challenge social norms and promote men’s participation in unpaid care and domestic work, such as UNDP Jordan’s campaign #EqualpartnersJO, can inspire a new normal.328 These campaigns can be harnessed by public administration. Challenge and reform the overall workplace culture in public administration • Ensure commitment to gender equality by ‘walking the talk’, making the workplace a safe, respectful and enriching space for every employee. Organizational culture is the system of dominant values and beliefs that create the internal world of the organization, defining what is acceptable, maintaining hierarchies, and reinforcing or replicating exclusionary norms and boundaries that create inequality. Public administration embodies often a masculine corporate culture with long hours, requirements for physical presence, and lack of transparency in recruitment and promotion. Ensuring women are represented at senior decision-making levels can help to challenge this. A first step is understanding what the barriers are. For example, in Georgia, UNDP supported a survey to understand career paths of women and men managers in the civil service. Women civil servants perceived an invisible gender hierarchy that elevates men above women in the public sector329 (see Box 3.3). A gender-equal organizational culture is one that ensures equality while respecting 326 UNDP and UN Women, 2020b. 327 UNDP, UN Women and GIRL, 2021. 328 UNDP Arab States, 2020. 329 Urchukhishvili and Tushuarshvili, 2019. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 111 differences, and accords equal spaces and dignity regardless of sex, race, sexual preference, ethnicity, ability, or other markers of identity. This is a key element to making public service more appealing to young people, particularly young women. • Penalize sexism and harassment in institutional cultures, which are major barriers to gender equality in public administration. There should be clear processes set out and disseminated for reporting sexism and harassment, including online harassment. Scholars and international institutions have been increasingly attentive to the harassment of women in politics, which may provide opportunities to broaden the conversation to women in public administration.330 Systematic comparative studies of the incidence and nature of sexism and harassment in public administration are needed.331 UNDP has provided assistance to prevent all kinds of harassment in the workplace in Kyrgyzstan and Mongolia.332 Carry out anti-discrimination training with an intersectional perspective for an inclusive work environment. For example, in Costa Rica, the Dirección General del Servicio Civil (DGSC, General Directorate of the Civil Service) offers courses on racial discrimination and LBGT rights. Uruguay also has anti-discrimination training in the workplace offered by Escola Nacional de Administração Pública (ENAP, National School of Public Administration).333 Promote work-life balance for women and men • Promote work-life balance policies to affirm gender equality in the workplace. This supports transforming the culture of senior management into one that is gender-inclusive in body and leadership. Significant impediments to work-life balance deter more women from seeking and sustaining employment in public administration. Work-life balance policies reflect a recognition of the care and domestic responsibilities of both women and men employees. Flexible working arrangements should be outlined in policy, including flexitime, compressed hours, part-time work or job shares, emergency leave arrangements, and childcare structures to allow employees to deal with family pressures. A stated commitment to such policies is important, for example, the “Joint Statement: One UN for family leave and childcare.”334 There are many examples of paid maternity, paternity and parental leave and care benefits, such as day care or access to affordable and quality facilities for civil servants, including in Chile, Brazil and Dominican Republic.335 Flexible working arrangements must be accompanied by a range of other measures, such as state-led provision of affordable child care, which can catalyse attitudinal and behavioural change to valuing women’s unpaid care work and encourage shifts toward a more gender-egalitarian organization of the division of labour between men and women at home.336 330 Bardall, Bjarnegård and Piscopo, 2020; Bjarnegård, 2018; Krook, 2020; Krook and Restrepo Sanín, 2020. 331 UNDP, 2012c. 332 In Kyrgyzstan, UNDP supported a Working Group to draft a bill on harassment in the workplace and in Mongolia, UNDP supported the National Human Rights Commission of Mongolia (NHRCM) to conduct gender and workplace harassment trainings, resulting in gender action plans to prevent harassment (UNDP, 2019e). 333 UNDP RBLAC, 2020, pp. 74 and 136. 334 See, for example, UNDP, 2019c. 335 UNDP RBLAC, 2020, pp. 54, 59 and 80. 336 Rao, 2020. 112 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Implement inclusive and transparent human resources policies • Implement inclusive human resources policies for recruitment, retention, professional development and promotion through gender mainstreaming and affirmative actions.337 Examples from UNDP’s Gender Equality Seal include: developing gender-responsive recruitment and selection procedures, protocols and instruments; setting recruitment targets; establishing a gender balance on recruitment and promotions panels; providing gender training for recruitment managers; and targeting outreach to women and gender-sensitive advertising.338 • Reform performance evaluation processes to ensure that women’s careers are not held back by gender discrimination. Gender-responsive goals should be included in managerial performance criteria to improve executive accountability for gender balance at all levels and in all occupational groups.339 Support capacity-building for all employees on gender-responsive practices • Support capacity-building to address gender biases for all. Initiatives such as the UNDP Gender Equality Seal for Public Institutions supports organizations to ‘walk the talk’, including meeting standards relating to gender parity at all levels and across work-life balance, leadership training and sexual harassment policies. • Invest in leadership training and professional development of women public administration employees to address the gender gap in senior management levels. Build dynamic capabilities of civil servants to adapt and learn, and prioritize professional development for women. The COVID-19 crisis has shown that governments must invest in the dynamic capabilities of the public sector to build agility and resilience during crises and to build back better.340 Governments must build the capacity to adapt and learn, to align public services and citizen needs, and to use digital technologies to solve problems for public purpose.341 Management and leadership skills training and professional development in public administration can include fast-track schemes, coaching and mentoring targeted at women to ensure that they are promoted to senior decision-making positions. In Eritrea, South Sudan and Bahrain, UNDP supports a wide range of professional development training for public administration staff across the regions targeted at women.342 In South Sudan, UNDP, in partnership with the Ministry of Gender, Child and Social Welfare, and the University of Juba’s National Transformational Leadership Institute (NTLI), has rolled out a women leaders coaching and mentorship programme, with the aim of building a critical mass of women ready to take up public sector appointments as leaders and decision makers at national and subnational levels.343 337 UNDP, 2020f. 338 UNDP, 2018a. 339 UNDP RBLAC, 2020, p. 146. 340 Mazzucato and Kattel, 2020. 341 ibid. 342 For example, in Eritrea, in training for auditors of the Office of the Auditor General, women were encouraged to attend; in South Sudan, UNDP partners with the Ministry of Gender, Child and Social Welfare to mentor and coach women public sector officials in leadership and peacebuilding; in Bahrain, participation by women government innovators in workshops for the public administration change innovation project was promoted (UNDP, 2019e). 343 UNDP, 2020l. As reported by the Peace and Community Cohesion project (PaCC) Annual Report in South Sudan, over 257 women, from over six states have benefitted from this programme in just over one year. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 113 • Break down glass walls to ensure women’s participation at all levels of decision-making across different line ministries, especially in ministries in charge of climate change policy. Complex policy challenges, such as the nature-climate crisis, require a diverse set of decision-making bodies. Opening space for women to participate and lead in a variety of public institutions and ensuring institutional capacity through gender focal points or gender units, promises not only more efficient and effective policy outcomes for all, but also speeds up progress towards more gender equal and inclusive public institutions. UNDP supports targeting women civil servants for training focused on climate policy to address the gap in women’s participation in these ministries, for example in Iraq.344 • Invest in capacity-building and technical assistance for gender mainstreaming, specifically in sectors dominated by men such as the energy, mining, environment and climate change. For example, in Indonesia, UNDP has supported the gender task force in the Directorate for Forest Protection in the Ministry of Environment and Forestry to build gender capacity of civil servants. UNDP also supported training for gender-inclusive Climate Budget Tagging. In Fiji, UNDP supported integrating climate change and gender criteria into the national budget submission.345 As outlined in section 3, UNDP’s NDC Support Programme is supporting countries to improve the integration of gender, poverty and climate change within national public sector climate finance systems, through capacity-building and technical support.346 • Build capacity on gender mainstreaming across public administration. UNDP supports capacity-building for civil servants including gender mainstreaming training for policies, planning and programming in public administration in Mauritania, Montenegro, Jamaica and Indonesia.347 Such capacity-building must take an intersectional perspective, recognizing that women are not a homogenous group. In Dominican Republic, the Ministry of Women, Consejo Nacional Sobre Discapacidad (CONADIS, National Council of Disability), the Ministry of the Interior and Police, and the National Police conducted training with the support of UNDP for their personnel on human rights of LGBT persons to prevent discrimination and violence against them in their strategic and government plans. Strengthen the capacity of civil servants on gender mainstreaming and COVID-19 and crisis response. This includes gender mainstreaming training for planners, as UNDP has supported in Lao PDR.348 In Nepal, UNDP supported the leadership and crisis management skills of women in local, provincial and federal government.349 Training in effective telecommuting for civil servants in crisis, 344 UNDP Iraq, 2018. UNDP together with the Ministry of Health and Environment launched a platform on “Women for Safe and Green Iraq” (WfSGI) for women’s continued professional development. 345 For example, in Indonesia, UNDP supports building gender capacity of government administration through strengthening the gender task force in the Directorate for Forest Protection in the Ministry of Environment and Forestry (MoEF) and supported the development of the gender equality roadmap and action plan within the Directorate General of Law Enforcement of MoEF. The participation of the gender machinery in developing gender inclusive-climate budget tagging and ensuring its use by the Government of Indonesia was critical to ensuring climate actions are gender inclusive in Indonesia. In Fiji, UNDP supported the Ministry of Economy’s integrating climate change and gender criteria into the national budget submission (UNDP, 2019e, UNDP, 2020h). 346 UNDP, 2020a. 347 For example, in Mauritania, gender cells were established with the support of UNDP in five ministries: Ministries of Education, Health, Finance, Livestock and Social Affairs, Children and Family (MASEF). UNDP has supported building the gender mainstreaming capacities of the members of these gender cells. (UNDP Mauritania, 2019.) In Montenegro, training of trainers for gender mainstreaming in public administration were delivered; in Jamaica: capacity building with the Ministry of Justice on gender-responsiveness related to justice issues was carried out; and in Indonesia: strengthening gender assessment capacities in defining projects intervention plan with the Ministry of Environment (UNDP, 2020l). 348 In Lao PDR, a series of Training of Trainers was conducted by UNDP and WHO for Ministry of Health and Ministry of Home Affairs staff, including gender sensitivity for COVID-19 committees (UNDP, 2020l). 349 In Nepal, provision of zoom licences for federal and subnational governments and training targeted at women on leadership skills and crisis management skills (UNDP, 2020l). 114 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION with a special emphasis on the increase in burden of unpaid work for all, but especially for women has been supported by UNDP in Kazakhstan.350 • Implement initiatives such as the UNDP Gender Equality Seal for Public Institutions that support organizations to ‘walk the talk’ (see Box 7.1) to adopt policies that value women’s disproportionate care work burden, introduce flexible work arrangements, and provide support services to increase the appeal of public sector employment for women. This is based on the UNDP Gender Equality Seal, which includes gender parity at all levels, work-life balance, sexual harassment policies and leadership for gender equality. Further good practices can be found in the “Gender Equality Seal Good Practices Guidance Note.”351 • Harness new opportunities at the end of conflict for institutional change and for women to take the lead in bureaucracy. Public administration should be positioned upfront as a cornerstone in implementing set- tlements in the aftermath of conflict. This will tie GEPA more explicitly to the sustaining peace agenda. For example, in Colombia, public institutions, which have been created out of the peace process and tasked with social inclusion and reconciliation are highly feminized, and women occupy higher-than-average levels of representation in decision-making positions. A need has been identified for the State to guarantee the safety of women and LGBT people in decision-making positions. It is an opportunity to create a gender machinery and for civil servants to be tasked with prioritizing gender issues in the rebuilding of the administration. In Somalia, UNDP has supported the implementation of quotas in the ad- ministration with the integration of the Somali Women Charter across the National Development Agenda. The Charter demands a 50 percent representation across all decision-making positions in both government and non-government entities. The work to monitor this is being carried out jointly by the Ministry of Women and Human Rights and the Ministry of Planning, Investment and Economic Development.352 In Iraq, UNDP assisted in the formation of the Gender-Responsive Crisis Chamber (see Box 5.1). The most critical governance and institutional needs during this time include the restoration of a government’s capacity to deliver for the needs of its population, including for the interests and • Track GEPA good practices to inform policy and programming. UNDP priorities of women and will continue to build a database of UNDP Country Offices’ support the most vulnerable to GEPA programmes. This will include experience of GEPA in crisis members of communities. response, including to the COVID-19 pandemic. This can help to develop practical guidance on how to promote women’s leadership in public service. It will also strengthen UNDP’s tracking of its support on GEPA. Key areas of focus here should be GEPA and local governance, including urban governance (see, for example, Box 2.1 on Moldova and local administration municipalities). UNDP. 2019. “Guidance Note 7: Transform government to deliver equally for all.” In Gender and Recovery Toolkit: Advancing Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in Crisis and Recovery Settings 350 In Kazakhstan, as part of the COVID-19 Country preparedness, response and recovery, UNDP supported the capacity of civil servants for effective telecommuting with a special emphasis on addressing the increase in burden of unpaid work for all but especially for women (UNDP, 2020l). 351 UNDP, 2018a. 352 UNDP, 2020l. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 115 BOX 7.1 The Gender Equality Seal for Public Institutions: A pilot initiative in Latin America and the Caribbean UNDP supports work to transform organizational cultures through global initiatives including the UNDP Gender Equality Seal for Public Institutions. This initiative has been piloted globally and will soon be rolled out to support and recognize the efforts made by public institutions to achieve substantive gender equality and accelerate the achievement of the 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development. The Gender Equality Seal for Public Institutions offers three different levels of recognition: Gold, Silver and Bronze. The institutions are awarded according to their achievements in the different stages of the process and based on the benchmarks met. In Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC), the Gender Equality Seal for Public Institutions was piloted between 2018 and 2019 in 11 institutions of three countries: El Salvador, Panama and Dominican Republic. As a result, four institutions received a Gold certification, four institutions received a Silver certification, and two institutions received a Bronze certification. Some key results of the pilot initiative in LAC are the following: In El Salvador, the National Commission for Medium-sized Enterprises and Micro-enterprises (CONAMYPE) implemented a key policy framework for women’s economic autonomy. This institution was awarded with the Gold certification. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MRREE) integrated a Gender Strategy and an Action Plan, established a gender budget line and a Gender Unit, and was awarded Silver. The Ministry of Environment and Natural Resources (MARN) also established a gender budget line and Gender Unit, and strategic alliances for gender equality with the Salvadoran Institute for the Development of Women (ISDEMU) and the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation (AECID). It was awarded with Bronze. In Panama, the Ministry of Labour and Social Development (MITRADEL) implemented several programmes focusing on women’s labour market participation. A new adult education methodology (sketches, theatre) was used to increase employees’ awareness on gender gaps. It was awarded with the Gold certification. The National Secretariat of Science, Technology and Innovation (SENACYT) identified gender gaps in science and technology sectors, promoted a respectful workplace and encouraged employees to use family-related provisions, including flexible working. It was awarded with Silver. The Panama Canal Authority (ACP) facilitated women’s access to land and women’s participation in the Panama Canal watershed programmes. Education projects with universities and high schools to promote women’s participation in the Panama Canal have been developed. This institution was awarded with the Silver certification. In the Dominican Republic, the Social Policy and Coordination Cabinet (GCPS) implemented several gender-sensitive programmes and replicated actions with staff (training in masculinities, assistance to victims of violence). Strategies to promote participation of women and men in non-traditional areas were also implemented. It was awarded Gold. The Ministry of Economy, Planning and Development (MEPyD) stood out particularly in promoting gender mainstreaming in planning and budgeting, since its plays a strategic role within the state institutions. It implemented new internal measures of work-life balance (extension of parental leave, reduction of working hours, etc.) and was awarded Gold. The Central Electoral Board (JCE) contributed to the participation of women in electoral institutions, the promotion of women’s access to popular elected positions and a Women’s Forum with participation of political parties. It was awarded with the Silver certification. At the beginning of 2021, more than 30 new institutions from six countries – Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Colombia, Costa Rica and Dominican Republic – were participating in the Gender Equality Seal for Public Institutions. In Costa Rica, there is an alliance with the Gender Equality Seal for Public and Private Enterprises. In addition, the Gender Equality Seal for Public Institutions will be adapted for public universities in the LAC region. 116 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Strengthen commitment to data availability to track progress on women in decision-making in public service, SDG 16 and the 2030 Agenda • Commit to investments in quality data collection (and the availability of data) on gender parity in public administration to support evidence-based policy and programming. Both the Gen-PaCS database and SDG 16.7.1b353 provide important sex-disaggregated and intersectional data vital for understanding both the drivers and barriers to achieving gender equality in decision-making and tracking the achievement of the SDGs.354 Countries will continue to face considerable challenges in producing data for SDG indicator 16.7.1.b and will need technical and financial support to strengthen their administrative systems to compile and track sex-disaggregated data.355 UNDP as the custodian agency for this indicator is available to provide countries with capacity development and technical support. UNDP expects to launch the reporting platform for the indicator in mid-2021, at which point the National Statistics Offices will be able to report available data on 16.7.1b. This global indicator on inclusive representation in decision-making is addressing a major gap in gender equality statistics, by focusing on non-elected positions in the public administration, and by proposing a common methodology allowing for the production of comparable statistics across countries, disaggregated by sex, age, disability status and nationally relevant population groups. • Support Member States’ commitment to carry out Voluntary National Reviews. The VNRs use a set of global targets and indicators to evaluate the progress and challenges of implementing the SDGs by each Member State.356 In a review of the 43 county reports submitted for the most recent Voluntary National Review at the 2020 High-Level Political Forum, only 12 reports have a reference to the representation of women in the public sector, and while many countries included data relevant to the inclusiveness of public institutions (especially with regards to gender), there was substantial variation in data sources and methodologies.357 UNDP will continue to support Member States to collect and analyse intersectional data to provide evidence on the inequalities faced by women in participation and leadership in public administration and develop solutions to overcome them in order to achieve the SDGs. This is particularly important in the context of crisis, COVID-19 and economic downturn, in order to analyse sex-disaggregated data to understand the differential impact on women in public administration. Prioritizing investment in data collection and reporting by the public administration and national statistics offices is necessary to help to establish a global understanding of the situation and shape global responses. Leverage partnerships and convening power to build strong global, regional and national partnerships for organizational change and gender equality • Improve coordination with United Nations entities and partners and ensure that gender equality is integrated into interagency groups on public administration. For example, the Committee of Experts on Public Administration (CEPA) and the Division for Public Institutions and Digital Government at DESA collaborate with UN Women on the awarding of the United Nations Public Service Awards, a prestigious international 353 SDG indicator 16.7.1 (b): Proportions of positions (by age group, sex, persons with disabilities and population groups) in public institutions (national and local), including (a) the legislatures; (b) the public service; and (c) the judiciary, compared to national distributions. 354 UNDP Oslo Governance Centre, 2020. 355 UNDP RBLAC, 2020, p. 145. 356 White and Case, 2020. 357 UNDP, 2020k. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 117 recognition of excellence in public service, with a specific category: Promoting gender-responsive public services to achieve the SDGs. UNDP will continue to link with organizations such as Apolitical, which bring to government knowledge-sharing and ongoing learning on public administration, including on gender equality. The Open Government Partnership launched Break the Roles, a campaign asking members to strengthen the gender perspectives in commitments and increase women’s voices across open government.358 The Astana Civil Service Hub brings together over 40 countries and at least 80 partners to share knowledge on and experiences in the civil service. This includes, among others, a dialogue on women in public administration and institutional changes to achieve equality in decision-making in the public administration. • Work in partnership to increase women’s leadership and decision-making in climate negotiations. UNDP, with financing from the Least Developed Countries Fund and UN Environment Programme (UNEP), jointly implemented a programme to build government negotiators’ capacity for least developed countries (LDCs) to participate effectively in intergovernmental climate change processes, which has been instrumental in introducing gender issues on the agenda of the LDC Climate Group.359 Environmental financing mechanisms have led to strengthened partnerships to advance gender equality under the Multilateral Environmental Agreements. Particularly important are the Global Environment Facility (GEF), the Green Climate Fund (GCF) and the Adaptation Fund (AF). All three financing mechanisms have now strengthened gender policies requiring that a gender-responsive approach be undertaken in all financed activities. • Foster partnerships with actors in politics or in business working on gender equality. While not always directly concerning women in public administration, work in these institutions creates an enabling environment to influence outcomes for gender equality in public administration and vice versa. The World Bank’s Bureaucracy Lab’s data suggests that the public sector is more attractive for women, since it employs a higher proportion of women and pays them a fairer wage, and offers job security, among other reasons. There is, however, significant occupational segregation by gender, with women underrepresented in higher-paying managerial occupations.360 The UNDP Gender Equality Seal for the Private Sector has been supporting more than 1,000 companies in 16 countries, influencing gender-sensitive business policies, the reduction of gender gaps and the advancement of women workers. The work of the International Monetary Fund and World Bank on gender-responsive budgeting, unpaid care work, influences governments’ attitudes to women in work, including in the public sector. The emphasis on support in the private sector (e.g. for childcare) produces pressure in the public sector for similar facilities. • Partner with UN Women on women’s leadership and participation in public life. In partnership with UN Women and University of Pittsburgh, UNDP recently published data to flag the lack of women’s participation in COVID-19 task forces. UN Women’s programmes on leadership and participation361 offer important lessons for work on GEPA, for example, learning from training for women political candidates to help build their skills and from work to ensure women’s fair access to political spheres – as voters, candidates, elected officials and civil service members.362 Work with civil society for upholding women’s rights in elections, including to vote and campaign free from electoral violence offers ways forward for women facing violence in public life, 358 Open Government Partnership, 2021. 359 Cormac et al., 2018. 360 Shi, Kay and Somani, 2019. 361 UN Women, 2021b. 362 UN Women and UNDP, 2015. 118 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION including in public administration.363 Important lessons can be learned from UN Women’s work in crises, for example, capacity-building of public officials on the specific challenges that women face in conflict364 and its support to women’s human rights and the leadership of women in preventing and responding to crises.365 • Collaborate with other important partners including iKNOW Politics. This is a partnership with UNDP, UN Women, International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (International IDEA) and the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU). The goal here is to increase the participation and effectiveness of women in political life, and many of the resources and lessons offer relevant good practices for leadership and parity in public administration, including an e-discussion on Women in Public Administration. For example, the IPU and UN Women’s partnership on data on women in politics through the “Women in politics map” presents yearly data for women in executive, government and parliamentary positions, and according to its most recent 2021 edition, despite increases in the number of women at the highest levels of political power, widespread gender inequalities persist.366 • Engage with the System-wide Action Plan for Mainstreaming Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN-SWAP 2.0).367 This supports internal organizational change, through commonly agreed standards for the UN system. It offers good practices across the United Nations system for mainstreaming gender in large institutions. UNDP shares its learning on organizational change through the United Nations Systems-wide Action Plan (UNSWAP) and with public institutions. • Harness new partnerships to challenging social norms that restrict women’s participation in public life and decision-making. Governments and organizations need to take deliberate action to counter and adjust social norms that restrict women’s participation here. Even where there are laws and policies to promote women’s role in public life, negative social norms and gender stereotypes can hinder their implementation and impact.368 According to UNDP’s Gender Social Norms Index, 47 percent of men and women interviewed across 75 countries said that they thought men make better political leaders than women, and more than 41 percent felt that men made better business executives.369 UNDP and other partners must raise awareness and work with community and religious leaders as well as men champions of gender equality to tackle these harmful social norms that are stopping progress. Global campaigns to change norms relating to leadership in organizations include HeForShe, whose Champions across the public and private sector and universities are challenging the discriminatory attitudes that exclude women from leadership positions.370 • Invest in non-government organizations and women’s movements. For example, the International Civil Society Action Network launched a global online discussion, “Engaging women in post-conflict political and economic decision-making, including lessons for COVID-19” in partnership with UNDP and UN Women. This partnership demonstrates the opportunity to invest in women’s leadership through activities such as lending groups for women to connect, and as they organize they create a viable power base that can help build local 363 UN Women, 2020e. 364 UN Women, 2014. 365 UN Women, 2020h. 366 UN Women, 2021a. 367 UN Women, 2020j. 368 UN ECOSOC, 2020. 369 UNDP, 2020m. 370 UN Women, 2018. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 119 government capacity.371 Work by organizations such as the Feminist Observatory of the Internet is important to overcoming the gender digital divide, including in e-government, which can be a game changer in enhancing women’s participation, challenging norms and progressive change. Women can transact directly with government, overcoming cultural constraints on mobility, which can transform their experience of citizenship, for example through the expansion of spaces to encourage women’s voice in public policymaking.372 A critical aspect is challenging online violence against women in private and public spaces.373 • Utilize convening power to work with partners to build more gender-responsive public institutions. UNDP will facilitate a global community of practitioners around the UNDP Gender Equality Seal for Public Institutions and GEPA to incentivize public institutions to meet rigorous standards through an action plan for improvement relating to public policies, programmes and budgets, leadership and enabling work environments. This will build inclusive and accountable governance through gender-responsive institutions and policies. 371 Zerouali and Guy, 2020. 372 ESCAP, 2018. 373 It for Change, 2020. 120 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION REFERENCES Addati, Laura, Umberto Cattaneo, Valeria Esquivel, and Isabel Valarino. 2018. Care Work and Care Jobs for the Future of Decent Work. ILO. https://www.ilo.org/global/publications/books/WCMS_633135/lang--en/index.htm. Adusah-Karikari, Augustina, and Frank Louis Kwaku Omehang. 2014. “Representative Bureaucracy in the Public Service? A Critical Analysis of the Challenges Confronting Women in the Civil Service of Ghana.” International Journal of Public Administration 37(9):568–80. AIM (Australian Institute of Management). 2012. “Gender Diversity in Management: Targeting Untapped Talent.” White Paper. February. Aldrich, Andrea S., and Nicholas J. Lotito. 2020. “Pandemic Performance: Women Leaders in the Covid-19 Crisis.” Politics & Gender 16(4):960–7. Alexander, Amy C. 2012. “Change in Women’s Descriptive Representation and the Belief in Women’s Ability to Govern: A Virtuous Cycle.” Politics & Gender 8(4):437–64. Aluga, Martin A. 2020. “Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in Kenya: Preparedness, Response, and Transmissibility.” Journal of Microbiology, Immunology and Infection 53:671–673. Amnesty International. 2021. “Indigenous Peoples.” Available at www.amnesty.org/en/what-we-do/indigenous-peoples. Accessed on 14 March 2021. Anderson, Miriam J., and Liam Swiss. 2014. “Peace Accords and the Adoption of Electoral Quotas for Women in the Developing World, 1990-2006.” Politics & Gender 10(1):33–61. Andrews, Rhys, and Karen Johnston Miller. 2013. “Representative Bureaucracy, Gender, and Policing: The Case of Domestic Violence Arrests in England.” Public Administration 91(4):998–1014. Andrews, Rhys, Rachel Ashworth, and Kenneth J. Meier 2014. “Representative Bureaucracy and Fire Service Performance.” International Public Management Journal 11(1):1–24. Annesley, Claire, Karen Beckwith, and Susan Franceschet. 2019. Cabinets, Ministers, and Gender. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Anthias, Floya and Nira Yuval-Davis. 1983. “Contextualizing Feminism: Gender, Ethnic and Class Divisions.” Feminist Review 15:62–75. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 121 ANZSOG (Australia & New Zealand School of Government). 2019. “Post-Conference Report: Conference on Reimagining Public Administration: First Peoples, Governance, and New Paradigms.” Available at www.anzsog. edu.au/preview-documents/research-,output/5409-reimagining-public-administration-conference-report-pdf/ file. Accessed on 23 December 2020. apolitical. 2018. “Government Jobs Aren’t Working for Millennials. Here’s How That Could Change.” October 5. Available at https://apolitical.co/en/solution_article/government-is-getting-old. Accessed on 24 December 2020. Asian Development Bank. 2016. “Fiji: Country Gender Assessment 2015.” Available at www.adb.org/sites/default/ files/institutional-document/210826/fiji-cga-2015.pdf. Accessed on 10 January 2021. Azcona, Ginette, Antra Bhatt, Jessamyn Encarnacion, Juncal Plazaola-Castaño, Papa Seck, Silke Staab, and Laura Turquet. 2020. “From Insights to Action: Gender Equality in the Wake of COVID-19.” UN Women. Available at www. unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2020/09/gender-equality-in-the-wake-of-covid-19. Accessed on 6 December 2020. Bae, Kwang Bin, David Lee, and Hosung Sohn. 2019. “How to Increase Participation in Telework Programs in US Federal Agencies: Examining the Effects of Being a Female Supervisor, Supportive Leadership, and Diversity Management.” Public Personnel Management 48(4):565–83. Bali, Sulzhan, Roopa Dhatt, Arush Lal, Amina Jama, Kim Van Daalen, Devi Sridhar, and the Gender and COVID-19 Working Group. 2020. “Off the Back Burner: Diverse and Gender-Inclusive Decision-Making for COVID-19 Response and Recovery.” BMJ Global Health. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjgh-2020-002595. Accessed on 3 March 2021. Barbieri, Paolo, Giorgio Cutuli, Raffaele Guetto and Stefani Scherer. 2019. “Part-time Employment as a Way to Increase Women’s Employment: (Where) Does It Work?” International Journal of Comparative Sociology 60(4): 249–268. Bardall, Gabrielle, Elin Bjarnegård, and Jennifer Piscopo. 2020. “How is Political Violence Gendered? Disentangling Motives, Forms, and Impacts.” Political Studies 68(4):916–35. Barnes, Tiffany D., and Diana Z. O’Brien. 2018. “Defending the Realm: The Appointment of Female Defence Ministers Worldwide.” American Journal of Political Science 62(2):355–68. Barnes, Tiffany D., and Michelle M. Taylor-Robinson. 2018. “Women Cabinet Ministers in Highly Visible Posts and Empowerment of Women: Are the Two Related?” pp. 229–255. In Measuring Women’s Political Empowerment across the Globe: Strategies, Challenges, and Future Research. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan. Barnes, Tiffany D., and Stephanie M. Burchard. 2013. “‘Engendering’ Politics: The Impact of Descriptive Representation on Women’s Political Engagement in Sub-Saharan Africa.” Comparative Political Studies 46(7):767–790. Basas, Carrie Griffin. 2013. “Universally Designing the Public Sector Workplace: Technology as Disability Access.” WorkingUSA: The Journal of Labour and Society 16(1):69–89. Beal, Frances. 1970. “Double Jeopardy: To Be Black and Female.” In Sisterhood is Powerful: An Anthology of Writings from the Women’s Liberation Movement. New York, NY: Vintage Books. Beaman, Lori, Esther Duflo, Rohini Pande, and Petia Topalova. 2012. “Female Leadership Raises Aspirations and Educational Attainment for Girls: A Policy Experiment in India.” Science 335(6068):582–86. 122 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Beaman, Lori, Raghabendra Chattopadhyay, Esther Duflo, Rohini Pande, and Petia Topalova. 2009. “Powerful Women: Does Exposure Reduce Bias?” Quarterly Journal of Economics 124(4):1497–549. Bennett, Lynn, Bandita Sijapati, and Deepak Thapa. 2006. Unequal Citizens: Gender, Caste and Ethnic Exclusion in Nepal. World Bank and DFID. Available at http://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/201971468061735968/ pdf/379660Nepal0GSEA0Summary0Report01PUBLIC1.pdf. Accessed on 1 April 2021. Berry, Marie E. 2018. War, Women, and Power: From Violence to Mobilization in Rwanda and Bosnia-Herzegovina. Cambridge University Press. Bianchi, Suzanne M., and Melissa Milkie. 2010. “Work and Family Research in the First Decade of the 21st Century.” Journal of Marriage and Family 72(3):705–25. Bisom-Rapp, Susan, and Malcolm Sargeant. 2018. Lifetime Disadvantage, Discrimination, and the Gendered Workforce. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Bjarnegård, Elin, and Erik Melander. 2011. “Disentangling Gender, Peace and Democratization: The Negative Effects of Militarized Masculinity.” Journal of Gender Studies 20(2):139–54. Bjarnegård, Elin, and Erik Melander. 2013. “Revisiting Representation: Communism, Women in Politics, and the Decline of Armed Conflict in East Asia.” International Interactions 39(4):558–74. Bjarnegård, Elin. 2018. “Making Gender Visible in Election Violence: Strategies for Data Collection.” Politics & Gender 14(4):690–695. Blaine, Bruce E. 2013. Understanding the Psychology of Diversity, 2nd Edition. Los Angeles, CA: Sage Publications. Blanton, Robert, Shannon Blanton, and Dursun Peksen. 2019. “The Gendered Consequences of Financial Crises: A Cross-National Analysis.” Politics & Gender 15(4):941–70. Boniol, Mathieu, Michelle McIsaac, Lihui Xu, Tna Wuliji, Khassoum Diallo, and Jim Campbell. 2019. “Gender Equity in the Health Workforce: Analysis of 104 Countries.”World Health Organization. Health Workforce Working Paper 1. Available at www.who.int/hrh/resources/gender_equity-health_workforce_analysis/en/. Boserup, Brad, Mark McKenney, and Adel Elkbuli. 2020. “Alarming Trends in US Domestic Violence during the COVID-19 Pandemic.” The American Journal of Emergency Medicine 38(12):2753–55. Bradbury, Mark, and J. Edward Kellough. 2011. “Representative Bureaucracy: Assessing the Evidence on Active Representation.” The American Review of Public Administration 41(2):157–167. Breeden, Aurelien. 2020. “City of Paris Fined Nearly $110,000 for Appointing Too Many Women.” The New York Times. December 16. Available at www.nytimes.com/2020/12/16/world/europe/paris-too-many-women-fine. html. Accessed on 3 April 2021. Budlender, Debbie. 2004. Why Should We Care about Unpaid Care Work? Harare, Zimbabwe: UNIFEM. Camorro-Premuzic, and Cindy Gallop. 2020. “7 Leadership Lessons Men Can Learn from Women.” Harvard Business Review. April 1, 2020. Available at https://hbr.org/2020/04/7-leadership-lessons-men-can-learn-from-women. Accessed on 10 January 2021. CARE International. 2020. “Where are the Women? The Conspicuous Absence of Women in COVID-19 Response Teams and Plans, and Why We Need Them.” Available at www.care-international.org/files/files/CARE_ COVID-19-womens-leadership-report_June-2020.pdf. Accessed on 17 January 2021. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 123 Catalyst. 2020. “Women in Academic: Quick Take.” www.catalyst.org/research/women-in-academia. Accessed on 21 March 2021. Chamorro-Premuzic, Tomas, and Cindy Gallop. 2020. “7 Leadership Lessons Men Can Learn from Women.” Available at https://hbr.org/2020/04/7-leadership-lessons-men-can-learn-from-women. Accessed on 10 January 2021. Chattier, Priya. 2015. “Intersectional Discrimination and Women’s Political Participation in Fiji.” State Society and Governance in Melanesia in Brief 2015/58. Canberra, Australia: The Australian National University. Chelsey, Noelle, and Sarah Flood. 2016. “Signs of Change? At-Home and Breadwinner Parents’ Housework and Child-Care Time.” Journal of Marriage and Family 79(2):511–534. Cheng, J. Yo-Jud, and Boris Groysberg. 2020. “Gender Diversity at the Board Level can Mean Innovation Success.” Harvard Business Review. January 8. Available at https://hbr.org/2020/01/how-corporate-cultures-differ-aroundthe-world. Accessed on 21 January 2021. Choi, Sungjoo, and Chun-Oh Park. 2014. “Glass Ceiling in Korean Civil Service: Analyzing Analysing Barriers to Women’s Career Advancement in the Korean Government.” Public Personnel Management 43(1):118–39. Choi, Sungjoo. 2019. “Breaking Through the Glass Ceiling: Social Capital Matters for Women’s Career Success?” International Public Management Journal 22(2):295–320. Civil Service Fast Stream. 2020. “About Us.” Available at www.faststream.gov.uk/about-us/index.html. Accessed on 10 January 2021. Civil Service Fast Stream. 2020. “Welcome to the Fast Stream.” Available at www.faststream.gov.uk. Accessed on 10 January 2021. Civil Service HR. 2016. Fast Stream and Early Talent Annual Report 2016. Available at https://assets.publishing. service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/694028/FSET_Annual_Review_2016. pdf_23_March_Final.pdf. Accessed on 10 January 2021. Civil Service. 2020. “Civil Service Fast Stream: Promoting Diversity and Inclusion – Disability.” Available at www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-service-fast-stream-promoting-diversity-and-inclusion/civil-service-fast-stream-promoting-diversity-and-inclusion-disability. Accessed on 10 January 2021. Clayton, Amanda, Diana Z. O’Brien, and Jennifer M. Piscopo. 2019. “All Male Panels? Representation and Democratic Legitimacy.” American Journal of Political Science 63(1):113–29. Clayton, Amanda. 2018. “Do Gender Quotas Really Reduce Bias? Evidence from a Policy Experiment in Southern Africa.” Journal of Experimental Political Science 5(3):1–13. Combahee River Collective. 2014 [1977]. “A Black Feminist Statement.” Women’s Studies Quarterly 42(3/4):271–80. Connell, Raewyn. 2006. “Glass Ceiling or Gendered Institutions? Mapping the Gender Regimes of Public Sector Worksites.” Public Administration Review 66(4):837–49. Cooper, Anna Julia. 1892. A Voice from the South. Xenia, Ohio: The Aldine Printing House. Cormac Adelé, Marie-Ange Baudoin, Pierre Bégat, Anthony Mills, and Onno Huyser. 2018. “Building Capacity for LDCs to Participate Effectively in Intergovernmental Climate Change Processes.” Available at https://www. thegef.org/project/building-capacity-ldcs-participate-effectively-intergovernmental-climate-change-processes. Accessed on 1 April 2021. 124 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Council of Europe. 2017. Balanced Participation of Women and Men in Decision-Making. Gender Equality Commission Analytical Report. Available at https://rm.coe.int/analytical-report-data-2016-/1680751a3e. Accessed on 9 January 2021. Crenshaw, Kimberlé W. 1989. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics.” University of Chicago Legal Forum 140:139–67. Crenshaw, Kimberlé W. 1991. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity, Politics and Violence Against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review 43(6):1241–99. Cuberes, David, and Marc Teignier. 2016. “Aggregate Effects of Gender Gaps in the Labour Market: A Quantitative Estimate”. Journal of Human Capital 10(1):1–32. D’Agostino, Maria J. 2011. “Making Sense of Women’s Career Progression: Utilization of Work/Life Practices in State Government Agencies.” Public Administration & Management 16(1):95–115. D’Agostino, Maria J. 2015. “The Difference that Women Make: Government Performance and Women-Led Agencies.” Administration & Society 47(5):532–548 Dahlerup, Drude, Ed. 2006. Women, Quotas, and Politics. London, UK: Routledge. Dankelman, Irene, Ed. 2010. Gender and Climate Change: An Introduction. London, UK: Earthscan. Davies, Sara E., and Belinda Bennett. 2016. “A Gendered Human Rights Analysis of Ebola and Zika: Locating Gender in Global Health Emergencies.” International Affairs 92(5):1041–60. Davis, Angela Y. 1983. Women, Race, and Class. New York: Vintage Books. Department of Public Service and Administration. 1998. ‘‘White Paper on Affirmative Action in the Public Service.’’ Notice 564 of 1998. Government Gazette 394(23). Available at www.dpsa.gov.za/dpsa2g/documents/acts®ulations/frameworks/white-papers/affirmative.pdf. Accessed on 14 March 2021. Desposato, Scott and Barbara Norrander. 2009. “The Gender Gap in Latin America: Contextual and Individual Influences on Gender and Political Participation.” British Journal of Political Science 39(1):141–62. Eagly, Alice H. and Steven J. Karau. 2002. “Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice Toward Female Leaders.” Psychological Review 109(3):573–98. Eagly, Alice H., and Linda L. Carli. 2007. “Women and the Labyrinth of Leadership.” Harvard Business Review 85(9):62–71. Edwards, Meredith, Bill Burmester, Mark Evans, Max Halupka, and Deborah May. 2014. Not Yet 50/50: Barriers to the Progress of Senior Women in the Australian Public Service. Canberra, Australia: ANZSOG Institute for Governance. EIGE. 2021. “Gender Statistics Database: Women and Men in Decision-Making Methodology.” Available at http:// eige.europa.eu/sites/default/files/documents/wmid_methodology.pdf. Accessed on 18 April 2021. EIGE. 2020. “National Administrations: Top Two Tiers of Administrators by Function of Government.” Available at https://eige.europa.eu/gender-statistics/dgs/indicator/wmidm_adm_nat__wmid_natadmin. Accessed on 14 March 2021. EIGE. 2020. “Level 1 and Level 2 Administrators in National Ministries.” Available at https://eige.europa.eu/sites/ default/files/wmid_mapping_natadmin_2.pdf. Accessed on 14 March 2021. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 125 Elson, Diane. 1992. “Male Bias in the Development Process.” Capital & Class 16(1):111–113. ESCAP. 2018. “eGov4women Online Toolkit.” Available at https://egov4women.unescapsdd.org/toolkit. Accessed on 14 April 2021. Escobar-Lemmon, Maria C., and Michelle M. Taylor-Robinson. 2009. “Getting to the Top Career Paths of Women in Latin American Cabinets.” Political Research Quarterly 62(4):685–99. Escobar-Lemmon, Maria C., and Michelle M. Taylor-Robinson. 2016. Women in Presidential Cabinets: Power Players or Abundant Tokens? New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Espinosa Garcés, H.E. María Fernanda. 2019. “High-Level Meeting of Women with Disabilities in Political and Public Leadership: Towards Beijing+25.” Available at https://www.un.org/pga/73/2019/06/12/high-level-meeting-of-women-with-disabilities-in-political-and-public-leadership-towards-beijing25/. Accessed on 20 November 2020. E-Stat. 2020. “Portal Site of Official Statistics of Japan.” Available at www.e-stat.go.jp/en. Accessed on 14 May 2020. Estes, Caroll, Terry O’Neill, and Heidi Hartmann. 2012. Breaking the Social Security Glass Ceiling: A Proposal to Modernize Women’s Benefits. Available at www.ncpssm.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/breaking_ss_glass_ceiling. pdf. Accessed on 9 January 2021. EU and UNDP. 2020. Gender-Sensitive Budgeting is Possible: The Methodology Applied by Pro PALOP-TL ISC. Eurofound. 2020. “Women and Labour Market Equality: Has COVID-19 Rolled Back Recent Gains?” Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union. European Parliament’s Committee on Women’s Right and Gender Equality. 2013. “Discrimination Generated by the Intersection of Gender and Disability.” Directorate General for Internal Policies Policy Department C, Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs. Available at www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2013/493006/ IPOL-FEMM_ET(2013)493006_EN.pdf. Accessed on 1 April 2021. Ewig, Christina. 2018. “Forging Women’s Substantive Representation: Intersectional Interests, Political Parity, and Pensions in Bolivia.” Politics & Gender 14(3):433–459. Ewing-Nelson, Claire. 2020. “After a Full Month of Business Closures, Women Were Hit Hardest by April’s Job Losses.” May 2020. National Women’s Law Center Fact Sheet. Available at https://nwlc-ciw49tixgw5lbab.stackpathdns. com/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/Jobs-Day-April-Factsheet.pdf. Accessed on 1 April 2021. EY. 2012. Worldwide Index of Women as Public Sector Leaders: Opening Doors for Women Working in Government. Available at www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY_-_Worldwide_Index_of_Women_as_Public_Sector_Leaders/$FILE/EY-Worldwide-Index-of-Women.pdf. Accessed on 21 June 2019. EY. 2014. Worldwide Index of Women as Public Sector Leaders 2014: Opening Doors for Women Working in Government. Available at www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/EY_-_Worldwide_Women_Public_Sector_Leaders_Index_2014/$FILE/EY_Worldwide_Index_of_Women_22Oct14.pdf. Accessed on 21 June 2019. The Fawcett Society 2020. “Coronavirus Crossroads: Equal Pay Day 2020 Report”. Ferrant, Gaëlle, and Alexandre Kolev. 2016. “Does Gender Discrimination in Social Institutions Matter for LongTerm Growth? Cross-Country Evidence.” OECD Development Centre Working Papers, No. 330, OECD Publishing, Paris. 126 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Finkel, Müge Kökten, Caroline Howard Grøn, and Melanie M. Hughes. 2019. “Moving on Up: Effects of Education and Intersectoral Mobility on Women’s Advancement in Danish Public Administration Management.” Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Society for Public Administration, 8–12 March, Washington, DC. Flaherty, Colleen. 2020. “Women Are Falling Behind.” Inside Higher Ed. Available at www.insidehighered.com/ news/2020/10/20/large-scale-study-backs-other-research-showing-relative-declines-womens-research. Accessed on 10 January 2021. Fridkin, Kim L. and Patrick J. Kenney. 2014. “How the Gender of U.S. Senators Influences People’s Understanding and Engagement in Politics.” The Journal of Politics 76(4):1017–031. Funk, Kendall D. 2019. “If the Shoe Fits: Gender Role Congruity and Evaluations of Public Managers.” Journal of Behavioral Public Administration 2(1):1–10. Gender Equality Bureau Cabinet Office in Japan. 2017. “Gender Equality Policy in Japan.” Available at www.gender. go.jp/international/int_kaigi/int_acw3/pdf/contry_presentation_japan_09.pdf. Accessed on 14 March 2021. Ghana Statistical Service. 2012. “2010 Population and Housing Census.” Available at www.census-ghana.net/ docfiles/2010phc/2010_phc_summary_tables_pop_by_reg_sex.pdf. Accessed on 22 March 2013. Gharib, Malaka. 2020. “Where the Women Aren’t: On Coronavirus Task Forces.” Available at www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2020/06/24/882109538/where-the-women-arent-on-coronavirus-task-forces. Accessed on 10 January 2021. Ghosh, Jayati. 2013. Economic Crises and Women’s Work: Exploring Progressive Strategies in a Rapidly Changing Global Environment. UN Women. Available at www.unwomen.org/-/media/headquarters/attachments/sections/ library/publications/2013/1/economic-crises-and-womens-work percent20pdf.pdf?la=en&vs=1454. Accessed on 18 January 2021. Ghoshal, Rakhi. 2020. “Twin Public Health Emergencies: Covid-19 and Domestic Violence.” Indian Journal of Medical Ethics 5(3):195–9. GIRL (Gender Inequality Research Lab). 2020. “Gender Equality on COVID-19 Task Forces.” Gender Inequality Research Lab (GIRL), University of Pittsburgh. Unpublished. Gimenez-Nadal, Jose Ignacio, and Almudena Sevilla-Sanz. 2011. “The Time-Crunch Paradox.” Social Indicators Research 102:181–96. Global Government Forum. 2017. Women Leaders Index 2016-2017. Available at www.globalgovernmentforum. com/white-papers/#WLI2016/17Report. Accessed on 19 June 2019. Globalization Partners. 2021. “Romania – Employer of Record.” Avaliable at www.globalization-partners.com/ globalpedia/romania-employer-of-record/. Accessed on 18 April 2021. Global Health 50/50. 2020. “Sex, Gender and COVID-19.” Available at https://globalhealth5050.org/covid19/. Accessed on 30 November 2020. Gorman, Elizabeth H., and Julie A. Kmec. 2009. “Hierarchical Rank and Women’s Organizational Mobility: Glass Ceilings in Corporate Law Firms.” American Journal of Sociology 114(5):1428–74. Government of Canada. 1995. Employment Equity Act (S.C. 1995, c. 44). Available at https://laws-lois.justice. gc.ca/eng/acts/E-5.401/page-1.html. Accessed on 23 December 2020. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 127 Government of Chile. 2020. “Chile’s Nationally Determined Contribution.” Available at www4.unfccc.int/sites/ ndcstaging/PublishedDocuments/Chile percent20First/Chile percent27s_NDC_2020_english.pdf. Accessed on 15 January 2021. Government of Mauritius. 2010. “The Employment Rights Act 2008.” Available at www.ilo.org/dyn/travail/ docs/1266/Employment percent20Rights percent20Act.pdf. Accessed on 15 March 2021. Graham-Harrison, Emma, Angela Giuffrida, Helen Smith, and Liz Ford. 2020. “Lockdowns around the World Bring Rise in Domestic Violence.” The Guardian. March 28. Available at www.theguardian.com/society/2020/mar/28/ lockdowns-world-rise-domestic-violence. Accessed on 6 December 2020. Greene, Zachary, and Diana Z. O’Brien. 2016. “Diverse Parties, Diverse Agendas? Female Politicians and the Parliamentary Party’s Role in Platform Formation. European Journal of Political Research. Available at http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/1475-6765.12141. Guul, Thorbjørn Sejr. 2018. “The Individual-Level Effect of Gender Matching in Representative Bureaucracy.” Public Administration Review 78(3):398–408. Guy, Mary E. 1993. “Three Steps Forward, Two Steps Backward: The Status of Women’s Integration into Public Management.” Public Administration Review 53(4):285–92. Harman, Sophie. 2016. “Ebola, Gender and Conspicuously Invisible Women in Global Health Governance.” Third World Quarterly 37(3):524–41. Hassim, Shireen, and Laurel Weldon. 2020. “Women’s Informal Participation in Political and Public Life and Space: Global Trends and Challenges.” UN Women Expert Group Meeting. October 5-8. Available at https://www.unwomen.org/-/media/headquarters/attachments/sections/csw/65/egm/hassim%20weldon%20unwomen_final. pdf?la=en&vs=2729. Accessed on 9 January 2021. Hausmann, Ricardo, Laura D. Tyson, and Saadia Zahidi. 2012. The Global Gender Gap Report, 2012. Geneva, Switzerland: World Economic Forum. Available at https://c2you.eu/data/GenderGapReport2012.pdf. Accessed on 18 January 2021. Hegewisch, Ariane, and Heidi Hartmann. 2014. “Occupational Segregation and the Gender Wage Gap: A Job Half Done.” Institute for Women’s Policy Research. Available at https://iwpr.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/ C419.pdf. Accessed on 12 March 2021. Hernández Castillo, R. Aída. 2010. “The Emergence of Indigenous Feminism in Latin America.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 35(3):539–45. Hewlett, Sylvia Ann, Melinda Marshall, and Laura Sherbin. 2013. “How Diversity Can Drive Innovation.” Harvard Business Review. Hinchliffe, Emma. 2021. “Of All the Jobs the U.S. Workforce Lost in December, 100 percent Belonged to Women.” Fortune. January 11. https://fortune.com/2021/01/11/of-all-the-jobs-the-u-s-workforce-lost-in-december-100belonged-to-women. Accessed on 1 April 2021. Hisashi Inoue. 2016. “On the 4th Basic Plan for Gender Equality Approved by Cabinet in December.” Available at www.zenroren.gr.jp/jp/english/2016/03/english160301_02.html. Accessed on 14 March 2021. 128 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Huang, Jess, Alexis Krivkovich, Irina Starikova, Lareina Yee, and Delia Zanoschi. 2019. “Women in the Workplace 2019.” McKinsey & Company. Available at www.mckinsey.com/featured-insights/diversity-and-inclusion/women-in-the-workplace. Accessed on 12 March 2021. Hughes, Melanie M. 2009. “Armed Conflict, International Linkages, and Women’s Parliamentary Representation in Developing Nations.” Social Problems 56(1):174–204. Hughes, Melanie M. 2011. “Intersectionality, Quotas, and Minority Women’s Political Representation Worldwide.” American Political Science Review 105:604–20. Hughes, Melanie M., and Aili Mari Tripp. 2015. “Civil War and Trajectories of Change in Women’s Political Representation in Africa, 1985–2010.” Social Forces 93(4):1513–540. Hughes, Melanie M., and Müge Kökten Finkel. 2020. “Women’s Inclusion in Public Administration Decision-Making Worldwide: Facing Down the Challenges to Measurement and Data Harmonization.” UN Women Expert Group Meeting. October 5-8. Available at https://www.unwomen.org/-/media/headquarters/attachments/ sections/csw/65/egm/finkelhughesdata%20public%20adminep2egmcsw65.pdf?la=en&vs=3205. Accessed on 30 November 2020. Hughes, Melanie M., Mona Lena Krook, and Pamela Paxton. 2015. “Transnational Women’s Activism and the Global Diffusion of Gender Quotas.” International Studies Quarterly 59(2):357–72. Hughes, Melanie M., Pamela Paxton, and Mona Lena Krook. 2017. “Gender Quotas for Legislatures and Corporate Boards.” Annual Review of Sociology 43(1):331–52. Hughes, Melanie M., Müge Kökten Finkel, and Brianna Howell. 2020. “Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) Dataset.” Unpublished. Hughes, Melanie M., Pamela Paxton, Amanda B. Clayton, and Pär Zetterberg. 2017. “Quota Adoption and Reform over Time (QAROT), 1947–2015.” [Computer file]. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. Available at http://doi.org/10.3886/E100918V1. Hughes, Melanie M., Pamela Paxton, Amanda B. Clayton, and Pär Zetterberg. 2019. “Global Gender Quota Adoption, Implementation, and Reform.” Journal of Comparative Politics 51(2):219–38. Human Rights Watch. 2020. “China: Gender Discrimination in Hiring Persists”. Available at www.hrw.org/ news/2020/04/29/china-gender-discrimination-hiring-persists. Accessed on 14 March 2021. IASC. 2006. Gender Handbook in Humanitarian Action. Available at https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/ system/files/legacy_files/women_girls_boys_men_different_needs_equal_opportunities_iasc_gender_handbook_for_humanitarian_action_english_language_.pdf. Accessed on 18 January 2021. iKnow Politics. 2019. “Summary of the e-Discussion on Political Participation of Women with Disabilities”. Available at www.iknowpolitics.org/sites/default/files/en_consolidated_reply_e-discussion_on_pp_of_women_with_disabilities_0_1.pdf. Accessed on 30 November 2020. ILO (International Labour Organization). 2014. Maternity and paternity at work: Law and practice across the world. Available at https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---dgreports/---dcomm/---publ/documents/publication/ wcms_242615.pdf. Accessed on 12 March 2021. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 129 ILO (International Labour Organization). 2016a. “Tackling sex discrimination through pay equity”. ILO InfoStories. Available at https://www.ilo.org/infostories/en-GB/Stories/discrimination/tackling-sex-discrimination-through-pay-equity#introduction. Accessed on 12 March 2021. ILO (International Labour Organization). 2016b. Women at Work: Trends 2016. Geneva: ILO. ILO (International Labour Organization). 2017. World Employment Social Outlook: Trends for Women 2017. Available at www.ilo.org/global/research/global-reports/weso/trends-for-women2017/lang–en/index.htm. Accessed on 12 March 2021. ILO (International Labour Organization). 2018. Handbook on Mainstreaming Gender equality into decent work. Available at https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---africa/---ro-abidjan/documents/publication/wcms_633768. pdf. Accessed on 12 March 2021. International IDEA (Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance). 2020. “Global Database of Quotas for Women.” Available at www.idea.int/quota. Accessed on 9 January 2021. International Monetary Fund. 2018. “Pursuing Women’s Economic Empowerment.” Available at www.imf.org/ en/Publications/Policy-Papers/Issues/2018/05/31/pp053118pursuing-womens-economic-empowerment. Accessed on 4 March 2021. It for Change. 2020. “The Feminist Observatory of the Internet.” Available at https://itforchange.net/index.php/ feminist-observatory-of-internet. Accessed on 25 December 2020. IPU (Inter-Parliamentary Union). 2018. Youth Participation in National Parliaments. Available at www.ipu.org/ resources/publications/reports/2018-12/youth-participation-in-national-parliaments-2018. Accessed on 10 January 2021. IPU (Inter-Parliamentary Union). 2019. “Women in Politics: 2019, Situation on 1 January 2019.” Available at www. ipu.org/resources/publications/infographics/2019-03/women-in-politics-2019. Accessed on 9 June 2019. IPU and UN Women (2020), “Women in Politics: 2020.” Available at www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2020/03/women-in-politics-map-2020. Accessed on 14 March 2021. IWGIA. 2020. “Indigenous Peoples in Colombia”. Available at www.iwgia.org/en/colombia.html. Accessed on 14 March 2021. Jacquemart, Alban, Anne Revillard, and Laure Bereni. 2020. “Gender Quotas in the French Bureaucratic Elite: The Soft Power of Restricted Coercion.” French Politics 18:50–70. Janoch, Emily. 2020. “How We Can Reduce Gender-Based Violence During COVID-19.” Available at https://care. org/news-and-stories/ideas/how-we-can-reduce-gender-based-violence-during-covid-19. Accessed on 10 January 2021. JICA. n.d. “Public Administration in Japan: An Overview.” Available at https://jica-net-library.jica.go.jp/library/ jn408/Index.pdf. Accessed on 14 March 2021. Johnson, Deb, Hope Kabuchu, and Santa Vusiya Kayonga. 2003. “Women in Ugandan Local Government.”Gender and Development 11(3):8–18. Kapsos, Steven, Andrea Silberman, and Evangelia Bourmpoula. 2014. “Why is Female Labour Force Participation Declining So Sharply in India?” ILO Research Paper No. 10. Available at www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/–dgreports/–-inst/documents/publication/wcms_250977.pdf. Accessed on 12 March 2021. 130 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Kaur, Sanmeet. 2020. Sex and Power 2020. Fawcett Society. Available at www.thewomensorganization.org.uk/ wp-content/uploads/2020/06/8.-Fawcett-Society-Sex-Power-Report-Download.pdf. Accessed on 1 April 1 2021. Kerr, Brinck, Will Miller, and Margaret Reid (2002), “Sex-Based Occupational Segregation in U.S. State Bureaucracies, 1987–97.” Public Administration Review 62(4):412–423 Kim, Chon-Kyun. 2003. “Women in the Korean Civil Service.” International Journal of Public Administration 26(1):61–78. King, Deborah K. 1988. “Multiple Jeopardy, Multiple Consciousness: The Context of a Black Feminist Ideology.” Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 14(1):42–72. Kittilson, Miki Caul, and Leslie A. Schwindt-Bayer. 2012. The Gendered Effects of Electoral Institutions: Political Engagement and Participation. New York: Oxford University. Kleinman, Zoe. 2020. “PPE ‘Designed for Women’ Needed on Frontline.” BBC News. April 29. Available at https:// www.bbc.com/news/health-52454741. Accessed on 1 December 2020. Kocher, Kristen, Arthur Délot-Vilain, D’Andre Spencer, Jonathan LoTempio, and Emmanuèle C. Délot. 2020. “Paucity and Disparity of Publicly Available Sex-Disaggregated Data for the COVID-19 Epidemic Hamper Evidence-Based Decision-Making.” Unpublished Manuscript. Available at www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.29.20083 709v. Accessed on 1 December 2020. Kohli, Gauri. 2016. “Here is How Civil Servants are Selected in Other Countries.” Hindustan Times. June 7. Available at www.hindustantimes.com/education/here-is-how-civil-servants-are-selected-in-other-countries/story-tEQuirmtUy1FZ5WlX1La3H.html. Accessed on 23 December 2020. Kopel, Jonathan, Abhilash Perisetti, Ali Roghani, Muhammad Aziz, Mahesh Gajendran, and Hement Goyal. 2020. “Racial and Gender-Based Differences in COVID-19.” Frontiers in Public Health 8(418). Published online July 28. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.00418. Krekula, Clary, Pirjo Nikander, and Monika Wilińska. 2018. “Multiple Marginalizations Based on Age: Gendered Ageism and Beyond.” pp. 30–50 in Contemporary Perspectives on Ageism, ed. by Liat Ayalon and Clemens TeschRömer. SpringeOpen. Available at https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-73820-8#about. Accessed on 1 April 2021. Krissetyanti, E. P. L. 2018. “Gender Bias on Structural Job Promotion of Civil Servants in Indonesia.” In Competition and Cooperation in Social and Political Sciences. London, UK: Taylor & Francis. Krook, Mona Lena, and Juliana Restrepo Sanín. 2020. “The Cost of Doing Politics? Analyzing analysing Violence against Female Politicians.” Perspectives on Politics 18(3):740–55. Krook, Mona Lena. 2020. Violence Against Women in Politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Kuzhabekova, Aliya, Saltanat Janenova, and Ainur Almukhambetova. 2018. “Analyzing in the Experiences of Female Leaders in Civil Service in Kazakhstan: Trapped Between Economic Pressure to Earn and Traditional Family Role Expectations.” International Journal of Public Administration 41(15):1290–1301. Ladam, Christina, Jeffrey J. Harden, and Jason H. Windett. 2018. “Prominent Role Models: High-Profile Female Politicians and the Emergence of Women as Candidates for Public Office.” American Journal of Political Science 62(2):369–81. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 131 Lanfranchi, Joseph, and Mathieu Narcy. 2013. “Female Overrepresentation in Public and Nonprofit Sector Jobs.” Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 44(1):47–74. Lapolla, Pierfrancesco, Andrea Mingoli, and Regent Lee. 2020. “Deaths from COVID-19 in Healthcare Workers in Italy—What Can We Learn?” Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology. Published online May 15. doi:10.1017/ ice.2020.241. Larson, Erik. 2017. “Hacking Diversity with Inclusive Decision-Making.” Cloverpop. Available at www.cloverpop. com/hacking-diversity-with-inclusive-decision-making-white-paper. Accessed on 1 April 2021. Law 581 of 2000. Official Journal No. 44.026. May 31. Available at www.secretariasenado.gov.co/senado/basedoc/ ley_0581_2000.html. Accessed on 1 April 2021. Leach, Melissa, Ed. 2016. Gender Equality and Sustainable Development. New York, NY: Routledge. Legato, Marianne J., Wendy L. Bennett, Sabra Klein, Jeanne S. Sheffield, Rosemary Morgan, Michele R. Decker, and Phyllis Sharps. 2020. “Roundtable Discussion on COVID-19 Through a Sex and Gender Lens.” Gender and the Genome 4:1–13. Lipsky, Michael. 1980. Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Services. New York, NY: Russell Sage. Lorde, Audre. 1984. Sister Outsider. Trumansburg, NY: Crossing Press. Maestas, Nicole, Kathleen Mullen, and David Powell. 2016.“The Effect of Population Ageing on Economic Growth, the Labour Force and Productivity.” Working Paper for National Bureau of Economic Research, Working Paper 22452. Available at www.nber.org/papers/w22452. Accessed on 9 January 2021. Mansbridge, Jane J. 1999. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes.’” Journal of Politics 61(3):628–57. Mateo Díaz, Mercedes, and Lourdes Rodriguez-Chamussy. 2016. Cashing in on Education: Women, Childcare and Prosperity in Latin America and the Caribbean. Washington, DC: The World Bank. Manzoor, Mehr. 2018. “Percentage of WHO Member States’ Ministries of Health that are Headed by Women.” [unpublished data] Mason, Andrew D., and Elizabeth M. King. 2001. “Engendering Development: Through Gender Equality in Rights, Resources, and Voice.” World Bank Policy Research Report Washington, D.C.: World Bank and Oxford University Press. Mason, Robert, and Ryan van den Berg. 2020. “Employment Equity in Canada’s Federal Public Service.” HillNotes: Research and Analysis from Canada’s Library of Parliament. August 13. Available at https://hillnotes. ca/2020/08/13/employment-equity-in-canadas-federal-public-service. Accessed on 23 December 2020. Mastracci, Sharon. 2011. “(Un)intended Consequences of Family-Friendly Workplace Policies.” pp. 95–109. In Women in Public Administration, Theory and Practice, edited by Maria J. D’Agostino and Helisse Levine. Sudbury, MA: Jones & Barlette Learning, LLC. Mazzucato, Mariana, and Rainer Kattel. 2020. “COVID-19 and Public-Sector Capacity.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 36(S1):S256–S269. 132 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION McKinsey & Company and United Nations Development Programme. 2017. Gender Diversity in the State: A Development Accelerator? Available at www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/democratic-governance/ public_administration/gender-diversity-in-the-state.html. Accessed on 9 January 2021. Meier, Kenneth J., and Jill Nicholson-Crotty. 2006. “Gender, Representative Bureaucracy, and Law Enforcement: The Case of Sexual Assault.” Public Administration Review 66(6):850–60. Meier, Kenneth J., and Tabitha Morton. 2015. “Representative Bureaucracy in a Cross-National Context: Politics, Identity, and Discretion. In Politics of Representative Bureaucracy, B. Guy Peters et al. eds. Meier, Kenneth J., and Kendall D. Funk. 2017. “Women and Public Administration in a Comparative Perspective: The Case of Representation in Brazilian Local Governments.” Administration & Society 49(1):121–42. Melander, Erik. 2005.“Gender Equality and Intrastate Armed Conflict.”International Studies Quarterly 49(4):695–714. Miller, Will, Brinck Kerr, and Margaret Reid. 1999. “A National Study of Gender-Based Occupational Segregation in Municipal Bureaucracies: Persistence of Glass Walls?” Public Administration Review 59(3):218–30. Ministry of Labour and Small Enterprise Development. 2020. National Policy Guidelines on Preparing Workplaces in Trinidad and Tobago for COVID-19. Available at www.news.gov.tt/sites/default/files/NATIONAL percent20POLICY percent20GUIDELINES percent20ON percent20PREPARING percent20WORKPLACES percent20IN percent20TRINIDAD percent20AND percent20TOBAGO percent20FOR percent20COVID.pdf. Accessed on 10 January 2021. Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Armenia. 2020a. “Draft Laws of the Republic of Armenia ‘On National Minorities,’‘On Ensuring Equality,’ and Related Laws. Available at www.e-draft.am/projects/1801. Accessed on 3 April 2021. Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Armenia. 2020b. “RA Draft Law on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.” Available at www.e-draft.am/projects/231. Accessed on 3 April 2021. Ministry of Justice of the Republic of Armenia. 2020c. “The Law of the Republic of Armenia on Making Amendments to the Law of the Republic of Armenia on Psychiatric Care.” Available at www.e-draft.am/projects/982. Accessed on 3 April 2021. Moreira, Diana Nadie, and Mariana Pinto da Costa. 2020. “The Impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic in the Precipitation of Intimate Partner Violence.” International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 71(July–August). doi:10.1016/j. ijlp.2020.101606. Mueller, Richard E. 2019. “The Gender Pay Gap in the Public Sector: Evidence from the Labour Force Survey.” Working Paper. Available at https://ssrn.com/abstract=3477612; or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3477612. Accessed on 4 March 2021. Murray, Rainbow, Editor. 2010. Cracking the Highest Glass Ceiling: A Global Comparison of Women’s Campaigns for Executive Office. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger. Naff, Katharine C., and K. Jurée Capers. 2014. “The Complexity of Descriptive Representation and Bureaucracy: The Case of South Africa.” International Public Management Journal 17:515–39. Naff, Katherine C. 2001. To Look Like America. New York: Westview Press. Nasser, Salma. 2018. “Boxed Women in Public Administration - Between Glass Ceilings and Glass Walls: A Study of Women’s Participation in Public Administration in the Arab States.” Journal of International Women’s Studies 19(3):152–71. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 133 Nienhaus, Albert, and Rozita Hod. 2020. “COVID-19 among Health Workers in Germany and Malaysia.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 17(3). Published online 7 July. doi:10.3390/ijerph17134881. Norderval, Ingunn. 1985. “Party and Legislative Participation Among Scandinavian Women.” Women and Politics in Western Europe 18(4):71–89. Norris, Pippa. 2020. “The State of Women’s Participation and Decision-making in Public Life.” UN Women Expert Group Meeting. October 5-8. Available at www.unwomen.org/-/media/headquarters/attachments/sections/ csw/65/egm/norris_state percent20of percent20womens percent20participation percent20and percent20empowerment_bp1_csw65egm.pdf?la=en&vs=1544. Accessed on 30 November 2020. OECD. 2014. Women, Government and Policymaking in OECD Countries: Fostering Diversity for Inclusive Growth. OECD Publishing. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264210745-en. OECD. 2017. “Women in Public Sector Employment.” Government at a Glance 2017. Paris: OECD. OECD. 2018. OECD Toolkit for Mainstreaming and Implementing Gender Equality. Available at www.oecd.org/gov/ toolkit-for-mainstreaming-and-implementing-gender-equality.pdf. Accessed on January 10, 2021. OECD. 2020a. “OECD Gender Budgeting Framework: Highlights.” Available at www.oecd.org/gov/budgeting/ Gender-Budgeting-Highlights.pdf. Accessed on 1 April 2021. OECD. 2020b. Public Servants and the Coronavirus (Covid-19) Pandemic: Emerging Responses and Initial Recommendations. Available at https://read.oecd-ilibrary.org/view/?ref=131_131929-mf1tqy72he&title=Public-servants-and-the-Coronavirus-% percent28Covid-19% percent29-pandemic-emerging-responses-and-initial-recommendations. Accessed on 10 January 2021. OECD. 2020c. “The Covid-19 Crisis: A Catalyst for Government Transformation.” November 10. Available at www. oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/the-covid-19-crisis-a-catalyst-for-government-transformation-1d0c0788. Accessed on 10 January 2021. OECD. 2020d. “Women at the Core of the Fight against COVID-19 Crisis.” Available at www.oecd.org/coronavirus/ policy-responses/women-at-the-core-of-the-fight-against-covid-19-crisis-553a8269. Accessed on 6 December 2020. OECD Observatory of Public Sector Innovation. 2018. “Case Study: Free Agents and GC Talent Cloud – Canada.” Embracing Innovation in Government: Global Trends. Available at www.oecd.org/gov/innovative-government/ Canada-case-study-UAE-report-2018.pdf. Accessed on January 10, 2021. Office of Ministers, Secretariat of Management and Public Employment. 2020. Resolution 3/2020 (RESOL-2020-3APN-SGYEP#JGM). Available at http://servicios.infoleg.gob.ar/infolegInternet/anexos/335000-339999/335474/ norma.htm. Accessed on 23 December 2020. OHCHR. 2020. “Women’s Human Rights and Gender Equality.” Available at www.ohchr.org/EN/Issues/women/ wrgs/pages/wrgsindex.aspx. Accessed on 21 December 2020. Ongsakul, Rutmanee, Bernadette Resurreccion, and Edsel Sajor. 2012. “Normalizing Masculinities in Water Bureaucracy in Thailand.” International Journal of Public Administration 35(9): 577–86. Open Government Partnership. 2021. “Break the Roles.” Available at www.opengovpartnership.org/campaigns/ break-the-roles. Accessed on 1 April 2021. 134 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION OSPI. 2021. “COVID-19 Innovative Response Tracker.” Available at https://oecd-opsi.org/covid-response. Accessed on 14 March 2021. Ostrup, Niels, and Anders R. Villadsen. 2014. “The Right Mix? Gender Diversity in Top Management Teams and Financial Performance.” Public Administration Review 75(2):291–301. Pailhé, Ariane, Anne Solaz, and Maria Stanfors. 2021.“The Great Convergence: Gender and Unpaid Work in Europe and the United States.” Population and Development Review. Published online 8 February 2021. Available at https://doi.org/10.1111/padr.12385. Pakistan Public Administration Research Center. 2018. Annual Statistical Bulletin of Federal Government Employees, 2017–18. Available at www.establishment.gov.pk/userfiles1/file/Annual percent20Bulletin percent20of percent20FG percent20Employees percent20(2017–18).pdf. Accessed on 26 December 2020. Paxton, Pamela and Melanie M. Hughes. 2015. “The Increasing Effectiveness of National Gender Quotas, 1990– 2010.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 40(3):331–62. Paxton, Pamela, Melanie M. Hughes, and Matthew Painter. 2010. “Growth in Women’s Political Representation: A Longitudinal Exploration of Democracy, Electoral System and Gender Quotas.” European Journal of Political Research 49(1):25–52. Paxton, Pamela, Melanie M. Hughes, and Tiffany D. Barnes. 2020. Women, Politics, and Power: A Global Perspective, 4th Edition. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. People’s Democratic Republic of Algeria. 2020. Official Gazette Number 15. 21 March. Available at https://ambalgeri.esteri.it/ambasciata_algeri/resource/doc/2020/03/decreto_dz_covid_19_-_21032020.pdf. Accessed on 10 January 2021. Peters, B. Guy, and Jon Pierre. 2012. The Sage Handbook of Public Administration. London: Sage Publications Ltd. Pilichowski, Elsa, Emmanuelle Arnould, and Édouard Turkisch. 2008. “Ageing and the Public Sector: Challenges for Financial and Human Resources.” OECD Journal on Budgeting 7(4):1–40. Piscopo, Jennifer M. 2013. “Gender Quota Laws: Activism and Jurisprudence in Mexico.” Executive Training Seminar, EUI, Florence, 20–22 November. Piscopo, Jennifer. 2020. “Women Leaders and Pandemic Performance: A Spurious Correlation.” Politics & Gender 16(4):951–59. Pitts, David W., and Lois Recascino Wise. 2011. “Workforce Diversity in the New Millennium: Prospects for Research.” Review of Public Personnel Administration 30(1):44–69. President of the Council of Ministers of Portugal. Council of Ministers Resolution No. 87/2020. October 14. Available at https://dre.pt/application/conteudo/14535968. Accessed on 10 January 2021. Public Service Commission. 2020. “Pay by Gender and Ethnicity.” Available at www.publicservice.govt.nz/ourwork/workforce-data/pay-by-gender-and-ethnicity. Accessed on 30 December 2020. Rao, Aliya Hamid. 2020. “Is Working from Home a Solution to Gender Inequality?” Available at https://gender. stanford.edu/news-publications/gender-news/working-home-solution-gender-inequality. Accessed on 14 April 2021. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 135 Rajan, Dheepa, Kira Koch, Katja Rohrer, Csongor Bajnoczki, Anna Socha, Maike Voss, Marjolaine Nicod, Valery Ridde, and Justin Koonin. 2020. “Governance of the Covid-19 Response: A Call for More Inclusive and Transparent Decision-Making.” BMJ Global Health 5(5). Published online 5 May. doi:10.1136/ bmjgh-2020-002655. Republic of Cabo Verde. 2020. Official Gazette Number 44. Available at www.tralac.org/documents/resources/ covid-19/countries/3491-cabo-verde-official-bulletin-law-no-83-2020-exceptional-and-temporary-measuresto-tackle-covid-19-4-april-2020-portuguese/file.html. Accessed on 10 January 2021. Republic of Cuba Ministry of Justice (2020), Official Gazette No. 39. Available at www.gacetaoficial.gob.cu/es/ gaceta-oficial-no-39-ordinaria-de-2020. Accessed on 10 January 2021. Republic of the Philippines Civil Service Commission. 2020. “Revised Interim Guidelines for Alternative Work Arrangements and Support Mechanisms for Workers in the Government During the Period of State of National Emergency Due to COVID-19 Pandemic.” Available at www.csc.gov.ph/phocadownload/MC2020/MC percent20No. percent2010, percent20s. percent202020.pdf Reskin, Barbara, and Heidi I. Hartmann. 1986. Women’s Work, Men’s Work: Sex Segregation on the Job. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Reynolds, Andrew. 1999. “Women in the Legislatures and Executives of the World: Knocking at the Highest Glass Ceiling.” World Politics 51(July):547–72. Riccucci, Norma M., and Gregg G. Van Ryzin. 2016. “Representative Bureaucracy: A Lever to Enhance Social Equity, Coproduction, and Democracy.” Public Administration Review 77(1):21–30. Riccucci, Norma M., Gregg G. Van Ryzin, and Cecilia F. Lavena. 2014. “Representative Bureaucracy in Policing: Does It Increase Perceived Legitimacy?” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 24(3):537–51. Riccucci, Norma M., Gregg G. Van Ryzin, and Huafang Li. 2016. “Representative Bureaucracy and the Willingness to Coproduce: An Experimental Study.” Public Administration Review 76(1):121–30. Rock, David, and Heidi Grant. 2016. “Why Diverse Teams are Smarter.” Harvard Business Review. November 4. https://hbr.org/2016/11/why-diverse-teams-are-smarter. Accessed on 1 April 2021. Rousseau, Stéphanie, and Christina Ewig. 2017. “Latin America’s Left-Turn and the Political Empowerment of Indigenous Women.” Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society 24(4):425–51. Russell, Helen, Philip J. O’Connell, and Frances McGinnity. 2009. “The Impact of Flexible Working Arrangements on Work-Life Conflict and Work Pressure in Ireland.” Gender, Work, & Organization 16(2):73–97. Sabharwal, Meghna, Helisse Levine, and Maria D’Agostino. 2018. “A Conceptual Content Analysis of 75 Years of Diversity Research in Public Administration.” Review of Public Personnel Administration 38(2):248–267. Sabharwal, Meghna, Helisse Levine, Maria J. D’Agostino, and Tiffany Nguyen. 2019. “Inclusive Work Practices: Turnover Intentions Among LGBT Employees of the U.S. Federal Government.” The American Review of Public Administration 49(4):482–494. Sarajlić, Lana, and Lamis Kulenović. 2020. “Bosnia & Herzegovina: All Aboard the Flexibility Train.”Taylor Vintners. 20 July. Available at www.taylorvinters.com/article/bosnia-herzegovina-all-aboard-the-flexibility-train. Accessed on 1 April 2021. Sawahel, Wagdy. 2020. “Women Outnumber Men at Universities, Lag in Employment.” University World News. Available at www.universityworldnews.com/post.php?story=20201201123459402. Accessed on 14 March 2021. 136 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Sayer, Liana C. 2015. “Trends in Women’s and Men’s Time Use, 1965-2012: Back to the Future?” pp. 43–77. In Gender and Couple Relationships, edited by Susan M. McHale, Valarie King, Jennifer Van Hook, and Alan Booth. Cham, Switzerland: Springer. Schreiber, Uschi. 2017. “Women as Public Portfolio Leaders: A Long Way from Gender Parity.” pp. 88–108. In Governing in a Global World: Women in Public Service, ed. by Maria J. D’Agostino and Marilyn Marks Rubin. New York, NY: Routledge. Schwindt-Bayer, Leslie A. 2009. “Making Quotas Work: The Effect of Gender Quota Laws on the Election of Women.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 34(1):5–28. SDG Fund. 2020. “Goal 5: Gender Equality.” Available at www.sdgfund.org/goal-5-gender-equality. Accessed on 8 December 2020. Sealy, Ruth. 2010. “Changing Perceptions of Meritocracy in Senior Women’s Careers.” Gender in Management: An International Journal 25(3):184–197. Shair-Rosenfield, Sarah, and Reed M. Wood. 2017. “Governing Well after War: How Improving Female Representation Prolongs Post-Conflict Peace.” Journal of Politics 79(3):995–1009. Shay, Laine P. 2020. “Closing Time! Examining the Impact of Gender and Executive Branch Policymakers on the Timing of Stay-at-Home Orders.” Politics & Gender 16(4):935–42. Shi, Rong, Kerenssa Kay, and Ravi Somani. 2019. “5 Facts about Gender Equality in the Public Sector.” Available at https://blogs.worldbank.org/governance/five-facts-about-gender-equality-public-sector. Accessed on 4 March 2021. Smooth, Wendy. 2011. “Standing for Women? Which Women? The Substantive Representation of Women’s Interests and the Research Imperative of Intersectionality.” Politics & Gender 7(3):436–41. Sneed, Bethany. 2007. “Glass Walls in State Bureaucracies: Examining the Difference Departmental Function Can Make.” Public Administration Review 67(5):880–91. Sparreboom, Theo. 2014. “Gender Equality, Part-Time Work and Segregation in Europe.” International Labour Review 153(2):245–268. Squazzoni, Flaminio, Giangiacomo Bravo, Francisco Grimaldo, Daniel Garcıa-Costa, Mike Farjam, and Bahar Mehmani. 2020. “No Tickets for Women in the COVID-19 Race? A Study on Manuscript Submissions and Reviews in 2347 Elsevier Journals during the Pandemic.” http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3712813. Accessed on 9 January 2021. State of Qatar Planning and Statistics Authority. 2019. “Labour Force Sample Survey 2018”. Available at www. psa.gov.qa/en/statistics/Statistical percent20Releases/Social/LabourForce/2018/statistical_analysis_labor_ force_2018_En.pdf. Accessed on 14 March 2021. Statistical Committee of the Republic of Armenia. 2019. “Women and Men in Armenia 2019.” Available at https:// armstat.am/en/?nid=82&id=2215. Accessed on 1 April 2021. statistica. 2020. “Resident Population of the United States by Sex and Age as of July 1, 2019.” www.statista.com/ statistics/241488/population-of-the-us-by-sex-and-age. Accessed on 18 April 2021. Statistics Mauritius. 2020. “Gender Statistics Year 2019.” Available at https://statsmauritius.govmu.org/Pages/ Statistics/ESI/Gender/Gender_Yr19.aspx. Accessed on 15 March 2021. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 137 Stauffer, Katelyn E. 2018. The Sum of Its Parts? Women’s Collective Representation and American Evaluations of Political Institutions. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University. Studlar, Donley T., and Gary F. Moncrief. 1999. “Women’s Work? The Distribution and Prestige of Portfolios in the Canadian Provinces.” Governance 12(4):379–95. Summit Recruitment and Search. 2019. “The Law in Kenya on Maternity and Paternity Leave in 2019.” Available at www.summitrecruitment-search.com/the-law-in-kenya-on-maternity-paternity-leave-in-2019. Accessed on 18 April 2021. Tanaka, Hideaki. 2009. “The Civil Service System and Governance in Japan.” Available at www.tokyofoundation. org/en/articles/2009/the-civil-service-system-and-governance. Accessed on 14 May 2020. Te Kawa Mataaho. 2020. “Pay by Gender and Ethnicity.” Available at www.publicservice.govt.nz/our-work/workforce-data/pay-by-gender-and-ethnicity. Accessed on 23 December 2020. The Bridge Group. 2016. Socio-Economic Diversity in the Fast Stream. Available at www.gov.uk/government/ publications/socio-economic-diversity-in-the-fast-stream-the-bridge-report. Accessed on 23 December 2020. Treasury Board of Canada. 2020. Employment Equity in the Public Service of Canada, 2018-2019. Available at www. canada.ca/content/dam/tbs-sct/documents/employment-equity-report/20200406-eng.pdf. Accessed on 9 January 2021. Tripp, Aili Mari. 2015. Women and Power in Post-Conflict Africa. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Tripp, Aili Mari, and Alice Kang. 2008. “The Global Impact of Quotas: The Fast Track to Female Representation.” Comparative Political Studies 41(3):338–61. Turquet, Laura, and Sandrine Koissy-Kpein. 2020. “COVID-19 and Gender: What Do We Know; What do We Need to Know?” Available at https://data.unwomen.org/features/covid-19-and-gender-what-do-we-know-what-dowe-need-know. Accessed on 1 December 2020. Urchukhishvili, Giorgi, and Goga Tushuarshvili. 2019. “Career in Civil Service and Gender Equality.” Available at www.ge.undp.org/content/georgia/en/home/library/democratic_governance/GenderInCivilService.html. Accessed on 1 April 2021. UN. 1995. Beijing Platform for Action. Fourth World Conference on Women. Available at www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/pdf/BDPfA percent20E.pdf. Accessed on 10 January 2021. UN. 1999. UN Security Council Resolution 1244. Adopted 10 June. Available at https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/274488?ln=en. Accessed on 1 April 2021. UN. 2017. UNDP Strategic Plan, 2018–2021. Available at http://undocs.org/DP/2017/38. Accessed on 9 January 2021. UN. 2020. “Policy Brief: The Impact of COVID-19 on Women.” 9 April. Available at www.un.org/sexualviolenceinconflict/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/report/policy-brief-the-impact-of-covid-19-on-women/policy-brief-theimpact-of-covid-19-on-women-en-1.pdf. Accessed on 1 April 2021. UN DESA. 2006. “Japan: Public Administration Country Profile.” January 2006. Available at https://docplayer. net/21723414-Division-for-public-administration-and-development-management-dpadm-department-of-economic-and-social-affairs-desa-united-nations.html. Accessed on 14 March 2021. 138 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION UN DESA. 2018. “Indigenous Peoples and Ethnic Minorities: Marginalization is the Norm.” www.un.org/development/desa/dspd/world-social-report/2018-2.html. Accessed on 1 April 2021. UN DESA. 2019. “Disability and Development Report: Realization of the Sustainable Development Goals by, for and with Persons with Disabilities, 2018.” Available at https://social.un.org/publications/UN-Flagship-Report-Disability-Final.pdf. Accessed on 1 April 2021. UN DESA. 2021. “COVID-19 and Indigenous Peoples.” Available at www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/covid-19.html. Accessed on 15 March 2021. UN ECOSOC. 2020. Women’s Full and Effective Participation and Decision-Making in Public Life, As Well as the Elimination of Violence, for Achieving Gender Equality and the Empowerment of All Women and Girls. Report of the Secretary-Genera. Available at https://undocs.org/E/CN.6/2021/3. Accessed on 12 March 2021. UN News. 2020. “‘We Want Justice for These Girls’: The Kenyan Helpline for Victims of Gender Violence” https:// news.un.org/en/story/2020/10/1075522. Accessed on 11 March 2021. UN OCHA. 2020. “Kenya, Sector Status: Protection (Gender-Based Violence).” Available at https://reports.unocha. org/en/country/kenya/card/2rC8ktJetx. Accessed on 11 March 2021. UN OHCHR. 2018. Fact sheet LGBT Rights: Frequently Asked Questions. www.ohchr.org/Documents/Issues/ Discrimination/LGBT/FactSheets/unfe-28-UN_Fact_Sheets_English.pdf. Accessed on 12 February 2021. UN Statistics Division. 2020. “SDG Indictors: Regional Groupings Used in Report and Statistical Index.” Available at https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/indicators/regional-groups. Accessed on 18 December 2020. UN Statistics Division. 2021. “SDG indicator metadata for SDG16.7.1.” Available at https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/ metadata/files/Metadata-16-07-01A.pdf. Accessed on 14 April 2021. UN Women and UNDP. 2015. “Inclusive Electoral Processes: A Guide for Electoral Management Bodies on Promoting Gender Equality and Women’s Participation.” Available at www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/ publications/2015/7/inclusive-electoral-processes. UN Women. 2014. “Evaluation: Contribution of UN Women to Increasing Women’s Leadership and Participation to Peace and Security and Humanitarian Response.” Available at www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/ publications/2014/4/the-contribution-of-un-women-to-increasing-womens-leadership-and-participation-to-peace-and-security. Accessed on 1 April 2021. UN Women. 2018. “HeForShe: Emerging Solutions for Gender Equality 2018.” Available at www.heforshe.org/ sites/default/files/2018-10/HeForShe percent20Emerging percent20Solutions percent20Report percent202018 percent20- percent20Full percent20Report.pdf. Accessed on 1 April 2021. UN Women. 2018. “Présence des Femmes dans la Fonction Publique et Accès aux Postes de Décision en Tunisie.” Available at www.onu-tn.org/Publications/Documents/228_Presence_des_femmes_dans_la_fonction_publique_et_acces_aux_postes_de_decision_en_Tunisie. Accessed on 14 March 2021. UN Women. 2020a. “A Gender Response to COVID-19 in Iraq: A Guidance Note on Actors’ Engagement.” Available at https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/un_women_gender_response_to_covid-19_in_iraq._a_ guidance_note_on_actors_engagement_final.pdf. Accessed on 11 March 2021. UN Women. 2020b. “Concept Note.” UN Women Expert Group Meeting, Women’s Full and Effective Participation and Decision-Making in Public Life, as Well as the Elimination of Violence, for Achieving Gender Equality and the GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 139 Empowerment of All Women and Girls. 5–8 October. Available at www.unwomen.org/-/media/headquarters/ attachments/sections/csw/65/egm/csw65 percent20egm percent20concept percent20note percent20final. pdf?la=en&vs=1709. Accessed on 30 November 2020. UN Women. 2020c. “COVID-19 and Ending Violence against Women and Girls.” Available at www.unwomen.org/ en/digital-library/publications/2020/04/issue-brief-covid-19-and-ending-violence-against-women-and-girls. Accessed on 6 December 2020. UN Women. 2020d. “COVID-19: UN Women Supports Kenya’s National Helpline for Survivors of Sexual and Gender-Based Violence.” Available at https://africa.unwomen.org/en/news-and-events/stories/2020/06/on-thefrontline-with-kenyas-national-helpline. Accessed on 11 March 2021. UN Women. 2020e. “Data and Violence against Women in Politics: Expert Group Meeting Report and Recommendations.” Available at www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2020/08/ egm-report-data-and-violence-against-women-in-politics. UN Women. 2020f. “Global Gender Equality Constitutional Database.” Available at https://constitutions.unwomen. org/en/dashboard. Accessed on 1 April 2021. UN Women. 2020g. “The Shadow Pandemic: Violence Against Women During COVID-19.” Available at www. unwomen.org/en/news/in-focus/in-focus-gender-equality-in-covid-19-response/violence-against-womenduring-covid-19. Accessed on 11 March 2021. UN Women. 2020h. “Women, Peace and Security in Action: 2019-2020.” Available at www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2020/10/women-peace-and-security-annual-report-2019-2020. Accessed on 1 April 2021. UN Women. 2020i. “Women, Peace, Power: 20 Years of UNSCR 1325.” Available at www.unwomen.org/en/news/ in-focus/women-peace-security. Accessed on 10 January 2021. UN Women. 2020j. UNSWAP 2.0 Accountability Framework for Mainstreaming Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women in United Nations Entities: United Nations Systems-wide Action Plan 2.0 Framework & Technical Guidance. December. Available at www.unwomen.org/-/media/headquarters/attachments/sections/how percent20we percent20work/unsystemcoordination/un-swap/un-swap-2-tn-en.pdf?la=en&vs=2359. Accessed on 1 April 2021. UN Women. 2021a. “Women in Politics: 2021.” Available at www.unwomen.org/en/digital-library/publications/2021/03/women-in-politics-map-2021. Accessed on 1 April 2021. UN Women. 2021b. “Women’s Leadership and Political Participation”. Available at www.unwomen.org/-/media/ headquarters/attachments/sections/library/publications/2013/12/un percent20womenlgthembriefuswebrev2 percent20pdf.pdf?la=en. Accessed on 12 March 2021. UNDP. 2010. Building Bridges between the State and the People: An Overview of Trends and Developments in Public Administration and Local Governance. Available at www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/democratic-governance/public_administration/overview-of-trends-and-developments-in-public-administration–-local-governance.html. Accessed on 3 March 2021. UNDP. 2012a. Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in Public Administration: Botswana Case Study. Available at www.undp.org/contentr/undp/en/home/librarypage/democratic-governance/public_administration/ gepa2.html. Accessed on 4 May 2020. 140 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION UNDP. 2012b. Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in Public Administration: Colombia Case Study. Available at www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/democratic-governance/public_administration/gepa2. html. Accessed on May 4, 2020. UNDP. 2012c. Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment in Public Administration: Uganda Case Study. Available at www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/democratic-governance/public_administration/gepa2. html. Accessed on 4 May 2020. UNDP. 2013a.“Gender and Climate Change: Asia and the Pacific Policy Brief”. Available at www.undp.org/content/ undp/en/home/librarypage/womens-empowerment/gender_and_environmentenergy/gender-and-climatechange-asia-pacific.html. Accessed on 10 January 2021. UNDP. 2013b. “Gender Equality: Women’s Participation and Leadership in Governments at the Local Level: Asia and the Pacific 2013.” Available at www.asia-pacific.undp.org/content/rbap/en/home/library/democratic_governance/gender-equality-in-local-gov-2013.html. Accessed on 1 April 2021. UNDP. 2014. Gender Equality in Public Administration. New York, NY: United Nations Development Programme. UNDP. 2015. Public Administration Reform: Practice Note. Available at www.undp.org/content/dam/aplaws/ publication/en/publications/democratic-governance/dg-publications-for-website/public-administration-reform-practice-note-/PARPN_English.pdf. Accessed on 9 January 2021. UNDP. 2018a. Gender Equality Seal Good Practices Guidance Note. (internal unpublished) UNDP. 2018b.“What Does it Mean to Leave No One Behind?”Available at www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/ librarypage/poverty-reduction/what-does-it-mean-to-leave-no-one-behind-.html. Accessed on 14 March 2021. UNDP. 2018c. UNDP Gender Equality Strategy 2018–2021. Available at www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/ librarypage/womens-empowerment/undp-gender-equality-strategy-2018–2021.html. Accessed on 9 January 2021. UNDP. 2019a. Gender Analysis and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs): Short guidance for government stakeholders. . Accessed on 27 April 2021. See also UNDP Pilot Countries Gender-Analyses for Bhutan, Ghana, Kenya, Lebanon, Philippines, Trinidad & Tobago and Uganda. Available at www.ndcs.undp.org/content/ndc-support-programme/en/home/our-work/focal/cross-cutting-gender.html. Accessed on 27 April 2021. UNDP. 2019b. Gender Equality in Public Administration Myanmar Case Study. Available at www.mm.undp.org/ content/myanmar/en/home/library/democratic_governance/gepa-myanmar-case-study.html. Accessed on 9 January 2021. UNDP. 2019c. “Joint Statement: One UN for Family Leave and Childcare.” Available at www.undp.org/content/ undp/en/home/news-centre/news/2019/Joint_Statement_One_UN_for_family_leave_and_childcare.html. Accessed on 1 April 2021. UNDP. 2019d. “Key Findings Briefing: The Myanmar Gender Equality in Public Administration Case Study.” Available at www.mm.undp.org/content/myanmar/en/home/library/democratic_governance/gepa-myanmar-case-study. html. Accessed on 8 July 2020. UNDP. 2019e. “Results-Oriented Annual Reporting ROAR.” (internal unpublished) UNDP. 2019f. “SDG Indicator 16.7.1.b.” IAEG-SDG. March. Available at https://unstats.un.org/sdgs/files/meetings/ iaeg-sdgs-meeting-09/7f.% percent2016.7.1% percent20(b)% percent20UNDP.pdf. Accessed on 10 January 2021. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 141 UNDP. 2020a. “A Framework for Enhancing Gender and Poverty Integration in Climate Finance.” (internal unpublished). UNDP. 2020b. “Beyond Recovery: Towards 2030.” Available at www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/ hiv-aids/beyond-recovery–towards-2030.html#:~:text=The percent20next percent20phase percent20of percent20UNDP’s,green percent20economy percent2C percent20and percent20digital percent20disruption. Accessed on 1 April 2021. UNDP. 2020c. “Briefing Note: The Economic Impacts of COVID-19 and Gender Inequality. Recommendations for policymaking”. Available at www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/womens-empowerment/ the-economic-impacts-of-covid-19-and-gender-equality.html. Accessed on 1 July 2020. UNDP. 2020d. “Equal Rights. Equal Contributors.” Available at www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/2030-agenda-for-sustainable-development/people/gender-equality.html. Accessed on 20 December 2020. UNDP. 2020e. “Expanding Women’s Participation and Leadership in Public Institutions.” UN Women Expert Group Meeting. October 5-8. Available at www.unwomen.org/-/media/headquarters/attachments/sections/csw/65/ egm/undp_observer percent20paper_egmcsw65.pdf?la=en&vs=447. Accessed on 9 January 2021. UNDP. 2020f. “Gender Equality Seal Award for Public Institutions.” Available at www.undp.org/content/undp/ en/home/2030-agenda-for-sustainable-development/people/gender-equality/gender-equality-in-public-administration.html. Accessed on 30 November 2020. UNDP. 2020g. “Gender Equality Seal for UNDP Entities.” Available at www.undp.org/content/undp/en/ home/2030-agenda-for-sustainable-development/people/gender-equality/transforming-workplaces-to-advance-gender-equality/gender-equality-seal-for-undp. Accessed on 30 November 2020. UNDP. 2020h. Gender Responsive Climate Change Budgeting. SDF, PATTIRO & Republic of Indonesia Ministry of Finance and Ministry of Women. Available at www.id.undp.org/content/indonesia/en/home/library/ IFL-Study-on-Gender-Responsive-Climate-Budgeting.html#:~:text=United percent20Nations percent20Development percent20Programme percent20(UNDP,that percent20are percent20gender-responsive percent20through. Accessed on 23 April 2021. UNDP. 2020i. “How to Put Gender-responsive Climate Solutions into Action - Lebanon’s Approach.” Available at www.ndcs.undp.org/content/ndc-support-programme/en/home/impact-and-learning/library/how-to-putgender-responsive-climate-solutions-into-action–-leb.html. Accessed on 1 April 2021. UNDP. 2020j. “Kenya: Initiation Plan.” Available at https://info.undp.org/docs/pdc/Documents/KEN/PPM_Project percent20Initiation percent20Plan_SPRR_COVID-19_KENYA_23 percent20April percent202020.docx.pdf. Accessed on 11 March 2021. UNDP. 2020k. “Report on Women’s Representation in Public Service Based on the 2020 VNRs.” (internal unpublished). UNDP. 2020l. “Results-Oriented Annual Reporting ROAR, and mini ROAR.” (internal unpublished) UNDP. 2020m. “Tackling Social Norms: A Game Changer for Gender Inequalities.” Available at http://hdr.undp. org/sites/default/files/hd_perspectives_gsni.pdf. Accessed on 15 March 2021. UNDP. 2021a. “Advancing Inclusive Decision-Making for Sustainable Development: Representation in the Public Service through SDG 16.7.1b.” SDG 16 Policy Brief. Oslo Governance Centre. 19 March. Available at www.undp. 142 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION org/content/oslo-governance-centre/en/home/library/brief–advancing-inclusive-decision-making-for-sust– dev–repres.html. Accessed on 1 April 2021. UNDP and UN Women. 2020a. “Global Factsheet: COVID-19 Global Gender Response Tracker.” 28 September. Available at www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/womens-empowerment/COVID-19-Global-Gender-Response-Tracker.html. Accessed on 21 December 2020. UNDP and UN Women. 2020b. “Methodological Note: COVID-19 Global Gender Response Tracker.” 28 September. Available at https://data.undp.org/gendertracker. Accessed on 21 December 2020. UNDP and UN Women. 2021c. “COVID-19 Global Gender Response Tracker.” Version 2. 21 March. Available at https://data.undp.org/gendertracker. Accessed on 1 April 2021. UNDP, UN Women and Gender Inequality Research Lab (GIRL) at the University of Pittsburgh. 2021. “Factsheet: Women remain absent: COVID-19 task force participation.” Available at www.undp.org/content/undp/en/home/librarypage/womens-empowerment/COVID-19-Global-Gender-Response-Tracker.html. Accessed on 27 April 2021. UNDP Arab States. 2020. “#EqualPartnersJO Challenges Gender Norms During Coronavirus Outbreak.” Available at www.arabstates.undp.org/content/rbas/en/home/presscenter/pressreleases/2020/-equalpartnersjo-challenges-gender-norms-during-coronavirus-outb.html. Accessed on 1 April 2021. UNDP Iraq. 2018. “Strengthening the Role of Women in Protecting Iraq’s Environment.” (internal) UNDP Istanbul Regional Hub. 2017. Gender Equality in Public Administration: Snapshot of Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Available at www.eurasia.undp.org/content/rbec/en/home/library/gender-equality/gender-equality-in-public-administration–-snapshot-of-eastern-e.html. Accessed on 9 January 2021. UNDP Oslo Governance Centre. 2020, “SDG Indicator 16.7.1b at a Glance: Inclusive Representation in the Public Service.” Available at www.undp.org/content/oslo-governance-centre/en/home/library/sdg-16-appetizer-indicator-16-7-1b.html. Accessed on 15 March 2021. UNDP Mauritania. 2019. “Training Report of the Members of the Gender Sectoral Cells under the Tutelage of MASEF”. (unpublished). UNDP Pakistan and UN Women. 2017. Gender Equality in Public Administration: Pakistan Case Study. Available at www.pk.undp.org/content/pakistan/en/home/library/democratic_governance/gender-equality-in-public-administration–pakistan-case-study.html. Accessed on 9 January 2021. UNDP RBLAC (Bureau for Latin America and the Caribbean). 2020. Gender Equality in the Public Administration in Latin America. Unpublished. UNDP RBLAC. 2020. Informe sobre Igualdad de Género en la Administración Pública de América Latina y el Caribe. Available at www.gt.undp.org/content/guatemala/es/home/library/democratic_governance/informe-sobre-igualdad-de-genero-en-la-administracion-publica-de.html. Accessed on 9 January 2020. UNDP The Gambia and the Women’s Bureau. 2018. “Report of the Constitutional Review Workshop.” (internal unpublished). UNECE. 2019. “Combating Ageism in the World of Work.” UNECE Policy Brief on Aging No. 21. February. Available at https://unece.org/fileadmin/DAM/pau/age/Policy_briefs/ECE-WG1-30.pdf. Accessed on 1 April 2021. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 143 United Nations Environment Programme. 2019. “5 Winners Take Home Environmental Enforcement Awards for Service to Environmental Protection.” Available at www.unep.org/news-and-stories/press-release/5-winners-take-home-environmental-enforcement-awards-service. Accessed on 23 April 2021. UN Women, UNDP, and UNDPPA/PBSO. 2020. Gender, Climate and Security. Available at www.undp.org/content/ undp/en/home/librarypage/womens-empowerment/gender–climate-and-security.html. Accessed on 3 March 2021. U.S. Bureau of Labour Statistics. 2021. “Table A-1. Employment Status of the Civilian Population by Sex and Age.” Available at www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t01.htm. Accessed on 15 March 2021. U.S. Department of Labour. 2020. “Families First Coronavirus Response Act: Employee Paid Leave Rights.” Available at www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/pandemic/ffcra-employee-paid-leave. Accessed on 10 January 2021. Van Cott, Donna Lee. 2005. From Movements to Parties in Latin America: The Evolution of Ethnic Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press. van Daalen, Kim Robin, Csongor Bajnoczki, Maisoon Chowdhury, Sara Dada, Parnian Khorsand, Anna Socha, Arush Lal, Laura Jung, Lujain Alqodmani, Irene Torres, Samiratou Ouedraogo, Amina Jama Mahmud, Roopa Dhatt, Alexandra Phelan, and Dheepa Rajan. 2020. “Symptoms of a Broken System: The Gender Gaps in COVID-19 Decision-Making.” BMJ Global Health. Published online October 1. Available at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm. nih.gov/33004348/. Wagle, Radha, Soma Pillay, and Wendy Wright. 2020. Feminist Institutionalism and Gendered Bureaucracies: Forestry Governance in Nepal. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan. Wenham, Clare, Julia Smith, Rosemary Morgan, and the Gender and COVID-19 Working Group. 2020. “COVID-19: The Gendered Impacts of the Outbreak.” The Lancet 395(10227):846–8. White and Case. 2020. “White & Case Review of the 2020 Voluntary National Reports with a focus on Sustainable Development Goal 16.” Available at https://www.sdg16hub.org/system/files/2020-11/W%26C%20Review%20 of%20the%202020%20Voluntary%20National%20Reports%20with%20a%20focus%20on%20Sustainable%20 Development%20Goal%2016.pdf. Accessed on 1 April 2021. Wilkins, Vicky M., and Lael R. Keiser. 2006. “Linking Passive and Active Representation by Gender: The Case of Child Support Agencies.” Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 16(1):87–102. Winer, Stuart. 2020. “Cabinet Sets Goal for Women to Fill Half Senior Civil Service Positions by 2023.” The Times of Israel. October 18. Available at www.timesofisrael.com/cabinet-sets-goal-for-women-to-fill-half-senior-civilservice-positions-by-2023. Accessed on 15 March 2021. Wittenberg-Cox, Avivah. 2020. “What Do Countries with The Best Coronavirus Responses Have in Common? Women Leaders.” Forbes. Available at www.forbes.com/sites/avivahwittenbergcox/2020/04/13/what-do-countries-with-the-best-coronavirus-reponses-have-in-common-women-leaders/?sh=55881e913dec. Accessed on 10 January 2021. Wood, Glenice. 2008. “Gender Stereotypical Attitudes: Past, Present, and Future Influences on Women’s Career Advancement.” Equal Opportunities International 27(7):613–28. World Bank. 2020a. “Classification of Fragile and Conflict-Affected Situations.” Available at www.worldbank.org/ en/topic/fragilityconflictviolence/brief/harmonized-list-of-fragile-situations. Accessed on 23 December 2020. 144 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION World Bank. 2020b. “Six facts on gender laws and the public sector.” World Bank Blog, 9 March 2020. Available at https://blogs.worldbank.org/governance/six-facts-gender-laws-and-public-sector. Accessed on 14 April 2021. World Health Organization. 2019. Delivered by Women, Led by Men: A Gender and Equity Analysis of the Global Health and Social Workforce. Human Resources for Health Observer Series No. 24. Geneva: World Health Organization. World Health Organization. 2020. “Executive Board EB146/Conf/17: Strengthening Preparedness for Health emergencies; Implementation of International Health Regulations (IHR 2005).” Yashar, Deborah. 2005. Contesting Citizenship in Latin America: The Rise of Indigenous Movements and the Postliberal Challenge. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Yuval-Davis, Nira. 2006. “Intersectionality and Feminist Politics.” European Journal of Women’s Studies 13(3):193–209. Zerouali, Kawtar, and Frances Guy. 2020. “UNSCR 1325 beyond its 20th Anniversary.” UNDP Arab States. Available at https://medium.com/@UNDPArabic/unscr-1325-beyond-its-20th-anniversary-549b892b05ad. Accessed on 1 April 2021. Zrinski, Urška, Tia Elise Raappana, and Holy-Tiana Rame. 2021. “Who Benefits from Public Spending? Gender Responsive Budget Policies Support Inclusive Societies.”World Bank Blogs. Available at https://blogs.worldbank. org/governance/who-benefits-public-spending-gender-responsive-budget-policies-support-inclusive. Accessed on 1 April 2021. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 145 GLOSSARY Civil servants – the employees who work in public departments and agencies at all levels of government; in some countries, a segment of employees in public administration who are highly educated or trained and/or perform key government roles. Decision-making positions – jobs or occupations within public administration that come with the authority to make decisions and lead the development, interpretation and implementation of government policies; see also top leaders, senior managers and managers. Gender – socially constructed differences between women and men that are created and maintained through socialization, performance and practice; the attitudes, behaviours, norms, and roles that a society associates with an individual’s sex category; a persistent and pervasive social form that orders human activity and generates inequalities in power and prestige. Gender equality – the equal rights, responsibilities, and opportunities of women and men, and girls and boys; a condition under which the interests, needs and priorities of both women and men are taken into consideration, recognizing the diversity of different groups of women and men. Gender mainstreaming – the systematic incorporation of gender into all government institutions, decision-making processes and policies. Gender parity – equal numbers of men and women in positions. Gender-disaggregated data – data collected with gender in mind and separated into categories based on gender (e.g. ‘women’ and ‘men’). Gender-inclusive decision-making – gender balance and diversity in representation in decision-making positions and a gender-sensitive approach to data analysis, decision-making processes and policy outcomes. Glass ceilings – actual or perceived barriers that block women from moving up the ranks of an organization, depressing women’s representation in senior management and top executive roles. 146 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Glass walls – actual or perceived barriers that keep men and women separated into different sectors, departments and occupations, and that keep women concentrated in less powerful and prestigious areas within an institution. Indigenous peoples – ethnic groups that are native to a geographic place and have retained social, cultural, economic, and political characteristics that are distinct from those of the dominant societies in which they live; also known as First people, aboriginal people, native people, or autochthonous people. Intersectionality – a term used to describe how multiple sources of identity (gender, race, ethnicity, class, sexuality, age, etc.) interrelate to affect experience and outcomes. Managers – a broad category of decision-making positions in public administration, often including multiple levels of responsibility, typically 10–25 percent of a country’s civil servants. Ministry – a sector of the public administration focused on one unifying mission and specialized in a specific area of policy (i.e. the Ministry of Finance, the Ministry of Health, the Ministry of Tourism, etc.). Public administration – the set of public institutions responsible for planning, coordinating and controlling government operations and implementing government policies. Senior managers – upper-level positions or managers within public administration who usually set the strategic goals of the organization and make decisions on how the organization will operate, typically 1–10 percent of a country’s civil servants. Temporary special measures – constitutional regulations, electoral laws, or policies that require a certain percentage of positions to be held by women and/or men; also referred to as ‘gender quotas’. Top leaders – executive leadership positions at the highest levels of decision-making within public administration, typically less than 1 percent of a country’s civil servants. Transgender – individuals who do not identify with and/or present as the sex they were assigned at birth. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 147 APPENDIX A 2021 GLOBAL GEPA REPORT METHODOLOGY T his Appendix includes an extended discussion of the report’s methodology. It provides an overview of the Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) dataset and its data sources, including a table of country-level sources for the most recent year of data available. The Appendix also offers details on the data and methods in Chapters 2 through 6. The Gen-PaCS dataset The primary source of public administration data in this report is the Gen-PaCS dataset, compiled by an interdisciplinary research team at the Gender Inequality Research Lab (GIRL) at the University of Pittsburgh, in collaboration with UNDP.374 Gen-PaCS is designed to house publicly available gender-disaggregated public administration employment data from all United Nations member states, in addition to Kosovo and the State of Palestine. Publicly available statistics are supplemented with data provided directly to GIRL or UNDP in support of the Gender Equality in Public Administration (GEPA) initiative (see Chapter 1). The research team at the University of Pittsburgh has been collecting gender-disaggregated data on public administration since it began its collaboration with UNDP in September 2015. The creation of a global dataset began in earnest in summer 2017. The research team collected new data over the next three academic years. The dataset was finalized and cleaned in 2020, when it was shared with UNDP regional hubs, which validated the data and, in some cases, located additional data with the support of UNDP country offices. Decision-making statistics were pulled from the Gen-PaCS dataset for coding into top leader, senior manager, and manager categories on 1 June, 2020. Data on COVID-19 task forces were finalized in March 2021. All other data and statistics presented in the report reflect the state of the Gen-PaCS dataset as of 31 December 2020. The research team collected gender-disaggregated data on public administration employment in each country by primarily using government websites, often those of national statistics offices, public administration agen- 374 The team at the University of Pittsburgh is led by GIRL Co-Directors Müge Finkel and Melanie M. Hughes and since 2015 has included an interdisciplinary group of graduate students operating as the Gender Equality in Public Administration (GEPA) Working Group. In each academic year, 20–25 graduate students have worked collectively about 1,500 hours on the GEPA initiative, and each summer, students from the group have interned in the UNDP headquarters and its regional hubs. For more information about GIRL and the GEPA Working Group, see www.girl.pitt.edu 148 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION cies and gender-focused ministries. Third-party agency resources, such as the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE) and the Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), were also used for additional public administration employment data. Where publicly available information was limited, UNDP country offices provided supplemental public administration employment data. All public administration data were recorded in country templates and validated by a second researcher before being added to the dataset.375 Gen-PaCS includes data on the overall numbers and percentages of women, men and others working in public administration; by decision-making level (e.g. by tier, title, grade); by sector, ministry and/or agency; by employment type (e.g. full-time, part-time, contract); by government level (e.g. central, subnational); and by other demographic and population characteristics (e.g. age, disability, race/ethnicity). Gen-PaCS also includes available information about the scope and structure of each country’s public administration, and on data collection methods and sources. How data on public administrators is sourced Two common data sources used to compile data on public administrators are labour force surveys and administrative records. Together, they account for nearly 90 percent of the observations in Gen-PaCS. Remaining observations were collected through national or civil service censuses, and in some cases by international organizations, which either send data requests to governments or field their own surveys. The method used to collect data for an available statistic are not always reported. Labour force surveys typically survey nationally representative samples and are administered on a regular basis to capture employment patterns in a country. These surveys often rely on the International Labour Organization’s (ILO) International Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO) category, ‘Public Administration; Defence; and Compulsory Social Security’. While this measure is relatively standardized and widely available cross-nationally and over-time, it is also often inconsistent with official definitions of public administration in a country. For example, people employed in national defence may not be part of a country’s public administration. Similarly, groups that a country may define as public administration workers, such as nurses or teachers, may be excluded from this ILO measure. Due to these differences between the International Labour Organization (ILO) category and country legal frameworks on public administration, the data from labour force surveys can provide an incomplete or unclear picture of civil service employment patterns. Administrative records are official employment records captured by government agencies, often through human resource management information systems. Almost all decision-making, ministry-level and subnational data in Gen-PaCS comes from this type of source. Administrative data are not internationally harmonized, are often not publicly available, and may be incomplete. Personnel systems may not include data on certain government sectors (e.g. defence) or categories of workers (e.g. contract or part-time), and administrative systems are not always kept up to date. Integrating data across all sectors and levels can create additional challenges, especially in countries with decentralized public administrations. 375 Researchers in the UNDP Working Group were divided into six regional teams, corresponding to the five UNDP regional hubs (Africa, Arab States, Asia-Pacific, Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States, and Latin America and the Caribbean) and a sixth team for OECD countries. Each team had one or more experienced leaders, who were responsible for validating any new public administration data before they were added to the database. Each year, one research assistant was also tasked with maintaining and updating the master dataset. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 149 How statistics on public administrators are reported Governments primarily report data and statistics on civil servants in one of four ways: labour force survey reports, gender reports, civil service yearbooks and online databases. • Labour force survey reports provide results of labour force surveys. Countries often provide monthly or quarterly reports. When multiple reports are issued by a country for a single year, data from the latest quarter or month were included in Gen-PaCS. • Gender reports highlight the status of women relative to men in countries across many dimensions, including health and well-being, economic security, and representation in government. Data on public administration are often available in an employment section, and data on decision makers are often available in a government section. These reports are most widely available in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. • Civil service yearbooks are reports on the organization, performance, and employment patterns in public administration. When available, these reports tend to provide robust data across decision-making levels and ministries. These yearbooks are most widely available in Eastern and Southeastern Asia. • National websites and databases provide extensive data and statistics across a variety of domains, including gender-disaggregated measures. The statistics on offer are typically processed by national statistics offices. Data on national websites primarily utilize labour force surveys, but often provide additional information by allowing users to create employment data tables with demographic, employment type, or subnational information. These databases are most widely available in Europe and North America, and in Latin America and the Caribbean. 150 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Data Sources by Country TABLE A.1 Sources of gender-disaggregated data on overall employment (Overall) and decision-making positions (DM) in public administration, most recent year Country or Territory Afghanistan Bangladesh Bhutan India Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Maldives Nepal Pakistan Sri Lanka Tajikistan Australia Brunei Cambodia Fiji Indonesia Japan Kiribati Lao PDR Malaysia Micronesia Year 2018 2017 2019 2015 2016 2018 2009 2018 2015 2018 2015 2018 2016 2018 2017 2019 2019 2019 2014 2019 2019 2015 2017 2019 2010 Women’s Participation in Public Administration Overall or DM Source name/type CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN ASIA Both Statistical Yearbook Both Statistics of Civil Officers and Staff Both Civil Service Statistics Overall Women in Indian Public Administration: Prospects and Challenges DM Women and Men in India Overall DM Overall DM Both Men and Women in Kazakhstan GEPA Global Report (2014) Men and Women in the Kyrgyz Republic Statistical Yearbook Both Women in Public Service Both Both Overall Annual Statistical Bulletin of Federal Government Employees Census of Public and Semi-Government Sector Employment GEPA Snapshot of Eastern Europe and Central Asia (2017) DM Dynamic Series of Gender Indicators EASTERN AND SOUTHEASTERN ASIA & OCEANIA Both Online Database Both Government Employee Report Both MOWA Newsletter and Statistics Overall Annual Paid Employment Release Both Statistical Yearbook Both Cabinet Secretariat Overview of Cabinet Personnel Bureau Overall National Census Overall Both Overall Statistical Yearbook Online Database National Census Created by National Statistics & Information Authority Ministry of Public Administration Royal Civil Service Commission Beniwal and Dhar James (2019) Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation Agency on Statistics UNDP National Statistical Committee National Bureau of Statistics Ministry of General Administration Establishment Division – Cabinet Secretariat Department of Census and Statistics UNDP Committee on Women & Family Affairs Public Service Commission Prime Minister’s Office Ministry of Women’s Affairs Bureau of Statistics Statistics Indonesia Cabinet Office Ministry of Finance and Economic Development Statistical Information Service Open Data Portal FSM Statistics GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 151 Country or Territory Mongolia Myanmar Nauru New Zealand Philippines Republic of Korea Samoa Singapore Solomon Islands Thailand Timor-Leste Vanuatu Albania Andorra Austria Belarus Belgium Bosnia and Herzegovina Bulgaria Canada Croatia Year 2018 2017 2011 2019 2019 2018 2018 2018 2017 2009 2018 2013 2011 2003 2018 2020 2020 2018 2020 2017 2019 2018 2020 2015 2020 2018 2020 2018 2017 2019 2020 Women’s Participation in Public Administration Overall or DM Source name/type Overall Statistical Yearbook Both Statistical Yearbook Overall Both Both National Census Online Database Civil Service Yearbook Both Civil Service Yearbook Overall Overall DM Overall Employment Statistics Online Database Preliminary Report on Tracking Gender Equality in the Public Administration in the Asia-Pacific Region (2017) National Census Both Civil Service Yearbook Overall Overall DM Overall Timor-Leste Country Gender Assessment GEPA Global Report (2014) EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA Women & Men in Albania DM Online Database Overall Online Database Overall Statistical Yearbook DM Overall DM Overall DM Overall DM Overall DM Overall DM Overall DM Online Database Women & Men in Belarus Sustainable Development Goal Platform Online Database Online Database GEPA Snapshot of Eastern Europe and Central Asia (2017) Online Database Online Database Online Database Employment Equity in the Public Service Online Database Online Database Created by National Statistics Office Central Statistical Organization Bureau of Statistics Public Service Commission Civil Service Commission Ministry of Personnel Management Bureau of Statistics Department of Statistics UNDP National Statistics Office Office of the Civil Service Commission Asian Development Bank UNDP Institute of Statistics European Institute for Gender Equality Department of Statistics Chambers of Commerce (WKO) European Institute for Gender Equality National Statistical Committee Statbel European Institute for Gender Equality UNDP European Institute for Gender Equality National Statistical Institute European Institute for Gender Equality Treasury Board Croatian Bureau of Statistics European Institute for Gender Equality 152 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Country or Territory Czechia Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Kosovo Latvia Liechtenstein Lithuania Year 2016 2020 2018 2020 Women’s Participation in Public Administration Overall or DM Source name/type Overall Government at a Glance (2017) DM Online Database Overall Online Database DM Online Database 2019 Overall Civil Service Yearbook 2020 2019 2020 DM Overall DM Online Database Online Database Online Database 2015 Overall Online Database 2020 2018 2020 2015 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2016 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2020 2015 2020 DM Overall DM Overall DM Overall DM Overall DM Overall DM Online Database Online Database Online Database Government at a Glance (2017) Online Database Online Database Online Database Online Database Online Database Online Database Online Database Overall Online Database DM Overall DM Overall DM Online Database Labour Force Survey Report Online Database Online Database Online Database DM Overall DM Online Database Government at a Glance (2017) Online Database Created by OECD European Institute for Gender Equality Statistics Denmark European Institute for Gender Equality State Personnel and Payroll Database European Institute for Gender Equality Statistics Finland European Institute for Gender Equality Directorate General for Administration and Civil Service European Institute for Gender Equality Federal Office of Statistics European Institute for Gender Equality OECD European Institute for Gender Equality Central Statistical Office European Institute for Gender Equality Statistics Iceland European Institute for Gender Equality Central Statistics Office European Institute for Gender Equality Ministry of the Treasury – Lombardia European Institute for Gender Equality Agency of Statistics European Institute for Gender Equality Central Statistics Bureau European Institute for Gender Equality European Institute for Gender Equality OECD European Institute for Gender Equality GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 153 Country or Territory Luxembourg Malta Monaco Montenegro Netherlands North Macedonia Norway Poland Portugal Republic of Moldova Romania Russia San Marino Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Year 2019 2020 2018 2020 2019 2018 2020 2018 2020 2019 2020 2019 2020 2018 2020 2015 2020 2018 2015 2018 2020 2019 2019 2019 2020 2019 2020 2018 2020 Women’s Participation in Public Administration Overall or DM Source name/type Overall Civil Service Activity Report DM Overall DM Overall Overall DM Overall DM Overall DM Overall DM Overall DM Overall DM Overall DM Overall DM Overall Overall Overall DM Online Database Key Figures for Malta 2019 Online Database Focus: Public Administration Report Statistical Yearbook Online Database Online Database Online Database Online Database Online Database Online Database Online Database Statistical Yearbook Online Database Online Database Online Database Online Database Women in Power and Decision-Making in the Eastern Partnership Countries Online Database Online Database Civil Service Yearbook Economic Statistical Report to the State Budget 2020 Online Database Online Database Overall Online Database DM Online Database Overall Online Database DM Online Database Created by Ministry of Public Administration European Institute for Gender Equality National Statistics Office European Institute for Gender Equality Monaco Statistics Statistical Office European Institute for Gender Equality Statline European Institute for Gender Equality State Statistical Office European Institute for Gender Equality Statistics Norway European Institute for Gender Equality Statistics Poland European Institute for Gender Equality Statistics Portugal European Institute for Gender Equality National Bureau of Statistics European Institute for Gender Equality National Statistical Institute European Institute for Gender Equality Federal Statistical Institute Office of Economic Planning, Data Processing, and Statistics Statistical Office European Institute for Gender Equality Statistical Office of the Slovak Republic European Institute for Gender Equality Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia European Institute for Gender Equality 154 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Country or Territory Spain Sweden Switzerland Ukraine United Kingdom United States Antigua and Barbuda Bahamas Barbados Belize Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia Costa Rica Cuba Dominica Dominican Republic Year 2019 Women’s Participation in Public Administration Overall or DM Source name/type Overall Online Database 2020 DM Online Database 2020 Overall Online Database 2020 Both Online Database 2016 Both Government at a Glance (2017) 2008 Overall GEPA Global Report (2014) 2016 2019 DM Overall Women in Power and Decision-Making in the Eastern Partnership Countries Online Database 2020 DM Online Database 2019 2017 2015 2013 Overall Online Database DM Senior Executive Service Report LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN Overall Online Database DM Country Gender Assessment 2000 Overall Report on the Bahamas 2018 Overall Online Database 2000 Overall Report on Belize 2016 Both – 2019 Both Online Database 2018 2017 Overall DM Statistical Yearbook 2020 Both – 2019 2017 2018 2001 2019 2017 Overall DM Overall Labour Force Survey Report Report on Tracking Gender Equality in the Public Administration in Latin American Countries (2017 – unpublished) Statistical Yearbook Overall Report on Dominica Overall DM Online Database Report on Tracking Gender Equality in the Public Administration in Latin American Countries (2017 – unpublished) Created by National Statistical Institute European Institute for Gender Equality Statistics Sweden European Institute for Gender Equality OECD UNDP European Institute for Gender Equality Office of National Statistics European Institute for Gender Equality Office of Personnel Management Statistics Division Caribbean Development Bank Caribbean Community Secretariat Ministry of Labour Caribbean Community Secretariat UNDP Country Office Ministry of Economy, Planning, Development, and Management Ministry of Finance – Budget Office Public Employment Information Management System (SIGEP) National Institute of Statistics and Censuses UNDP National Office of Statistics and Information Caribbean Community Secretariat Ministry of Public Administration UNDP GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 155 Country or Territory Ecuador El Salvador Grenada Guatemala Guyana Haiti Honduras Jamaica Mexico Nicaragua Panama Paraguay Peru St. Kitts andand Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent andand the Grenadines Uruguay Algeria Armenia Year 2017 2017 2018 2019 2012 2017 2017 2019 2015 2017 2006 2019 2019 2018 2016 2018 2015 2018 2017 2017 2018 Women’s Participation in Public Administration Overall or DM Source name/type Both Both Overall Report on Tracking Gender Equality in the Public Administration in Latin American Countries (2017 – unpublished) Report on Tracking Gender Equality in the Public Administration in Latin American Countries (2017 – unpublished) Online Database Overall Civil Service Yearbook Overall National Census Both Civil Service Census DM Overall Overall DM Overall Report on Tracking Gender Equality in the Public Administration in Latin American Countries (2017 – unpublished) Online Database Report on Tracking Gender Equality in the Public Administration in Latin American Countries (2017 – unpublished) Report on Tracking Gender Equality in the Public Administration in Latin American Countries (2017 – unpublished) Overall Labour Force Survey Report Both Civil Service Yearbook Both Online Database Overall Labour Force Survey Report Overall Labour Force Survey Report Overall Overview of the Labour Market in St. Vincent andand the Grenadines: A gender perspective Overall Online Database Report on Tracking Gender Equality DM in the Public Administration in Latin American Countries (2017 – unpublished) NORTH AFRICA and WESTERN ASIA Overall Online Database Both Labour Force Survey Report Created by UNDP UNDP Central Statistical Office Office of the National Civil Service Bureau of Statistics Management of Human Resources UNDP Statistical Institute UNDP UNDP National Institute of Statistics and Census Secretariat of the Public Function National Authority of Civil Service Department of Statistics Central Statistical Office Statistical Office National Civil Service Office UNDP Directorate General of Public Service and Administration Reform Statistical Committee 156 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Country or Territory Azerbaijan Bahrain Cyprus Georgia Iraq Israel Jordan Kuwait Morocco Oman The State of Palestine Qatar Saudi Arabia Tunisia Turkey United Arab Emirates Yemen Angola Benin Botswana Burkina Faso Year 2018 2019 2019 2019 2020 Women’s Participation in Public Administration Overall or DM Source name/type Overall Labour Force Survey Report DM Online Database Overall Labour Force Survey Report Overall Labour Force Survey Report DM Online Database Created by State Statistical Committee Labour Market Regulatory Authority Ministry of Finance European Institute for Gender Equality 2019 Both Civil Service Yearbook Civil Service Bureau 2018 2015 2019 2019 2010 2015 2016 2017 2018 2017 2018 2019 2015 2016 2019 2020 2014 2016 2018 2016 2014 2019 2011 2017 2016 Overall DM Both Overall DM Both Both Both Both Both Overall DM Both Overall DM Both Overall Overall DM DM Overall DM Overall DM – Diversity and Representation Report Women in Public Administration Jordan Case Study (2014) Arab States Gender Tracking in Public Administration (2017 – unpublished) Civil Service Yearbook Civil Service Yearbook UNDP – Country Office UNDP – Country Office Civil Service Commission Civil Service Bureau UNDP UNDP Ministry of Public Administration Reform Ministry of Civil Service Women and Men in Palestine Report Central Bureau of Statistics Labour Force Survey Report Gender Balance in the Civil Service Report Arab States Gender Tracking in Public Administration (2017 – unpublished) Presence of Women in Public Administration and Access to DecisionMaking Positions in Tunisia Gender Statistics 2019 Online Database Arab States Gender Tracking in Public Administration (2017 – unpublished) Statistical Yearbook SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA News article on civil service Statistical Yearbook Benin Case Study (2014) Labour Force Survey Report Botswana Case Study (2012) Planning and Statistics Authority General Authority for Statistics UNDP UN Women Turkish Statistical Institute European Institute for Gender Equality UNDP Central Statistical Organization Diario de Noticias National Institute of Statistics UNDP Statistics Botswana UNDP – UNDP – Country Office GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 157 Country or Territory Burundi Cabo Verde Cameroon Chad Congo, Republic of Cote d’Ivoire Democratic Republic of the Congo Equatorial Guinea Ethiopia Gabon Gambia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Kenya Lesotho Liberia Madagascar Malawi Mali Mauritania Mauritius Mozambique Year 2008 2010 2019 2016 1997 2002 2003 2015 Women’s Participation in Public Administration Overall or DM Source name/type Overall Labour Force Survey Report DM Overall DM DM Burundi Case Study (2014) – – Overall Public Administration Country Profile Both Statistical Yearbook Both Civil Service Yearbook Created by Institute of Statistics and Economic Studies UNDP UNDP – Country Office UNDP – Country Office UN Division for Public Administration and Development Management (DPADM) National Center for Statistics and Economic Studies and the National Statistics System Ministry of Public Function and Administration Modernization 2017 Both – UNDP – Country Office 2015 2013 2009 2002 2017 2018 2017 2019 2019 2017 2017 2010 2017 2014 2010 2017 2015 2019 2005 2006 Overall Overall Both Overall Overall Overall DM Both Overall DM Both Overall Overall DM Both Overall DM Both Overall DM – Labour Force Survey Report Civil Service Yearbook Public Administration Country Profile Civil Service Yearbook “Voluntary National Contribution to the Implementation on the SDGs at the High-Level Political Forum” – – Labour Force Survey Report – – Labour Force Survey Report – National Census Mali Case Study (2014) – – Labour Force Survey Report Towards Gender Equality in Mozambique UNDP – Country Office Central Statistical Agency Ministry of the Economy, Commerce & Industry, & Tourism UN Division for Public Administration & Development Management (DPADM) Office Head of Civil Service Republic of Guinea – National Report UNDP – Country Office UNDP – Country Office National Bureau of Statistics UNDP – Country Office UNDP – Country Office Liberian Institute of Statistics and Geo-Information Services UNDP – Country Office National Statistical Office UNDP UNDP – Country Office UNDP – Country Office Statistics Mauritius Sida – Department for Democracy and Social Development 158 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Country or Territory Namibia Niger Nigeria Rwanda Sao Tome and Principe Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone South Africa Tanzania, United Republic of Togo Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe Year 2017 2016 2017 2016 2017 2019 2020 2017 2008 2014 2019 2016 2016 2017 2018 2014 2014 2015 Women’s Participation in Public Administration Overall or DM Source name/type Both Overall DM Overall DM Overall Employment Equity Commission Annual Report Niger in Numbers (2018) Statistical Report on Men and Women in Nigeria Labour Force Survey Report Both – Both Overall Overall Overall – Seychelles in Figures – Statistical Yearbook Annual Report of the Public Service Commission Multiple sources – annual ministerial reports Both Labour Force Survey Report Overall Both Overall DM Overall DM National Website – Labour Force Survey Report – Understanding Gender Equality in Zimbabwe – Women and Men Report 2016 Created by Employment Equity Commission National Institute of Statistics National Bureau of Statistics National Institute of Statistics UNDP – Country Office UNDP – Country Office National Bureau of Statistics Public Service Commission Government of South Africa – Assorted Agencies National Bureau of Statistics Togosite.com UNDP – Country Office Central Statistical Office UNDP – Country Office National Statistics Agency National Statistics Agency The table includes source information for 168 countries with gender-disaggregated data on overall employment or decision-making positions in public administration, the most recent year available. Eswatini and Somalia are not included in Table A.1 because measures of women in public administration overall or women in decision-making are not available; however, other gender-disaggregated statistics for these countries are available. ‘DM’ stands for decision-making positions. Source: Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) dataset, December 2020. Additional Methodological Considerations by Chapter Chapter 2: Overall Employment in Public Administration When assessing progress towards parity, and especially when attempting to make comparisons across countries, it is important to recognize that public administrations vary: • In size: Public administrations range in size from less than 10 percent of formal employment to more than 40 percent. These differences are often related to the size of a country’s welfare state and the scope of government services that are delivered to the public. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 159 • By sectors and occupations that are included: Some countries count police and military personnel among their public administrators, whereas other countries do not. Some countries include public hospital nurses in public administration statistics, but not all do so. These differences can have sizeable effects on estimates of the share of civil servants who are women. All else being equal, common gender segregation employment patterns indicate that a country that defines public administration as including the military and excluding teachers is likely to perform worse on gender equality indicators than a country that includes teachers and excludes the military. • By degree of centralization:376 The degree of centralization affects the relative share of employees working in central and subnational levels, and whether central governments include civil servants working in subnational governments in their statistics. Differences in centralization mean that statistics for a single level of government may capture different sectors from one country to the next. The inclusion or exclusion of particular sectors can strongly influence the size and direction of gender gaps. Consider the education sector. In many countries, a large chunk of public administrators is made up of primary and secondary school teachers, who are disproportionately women. In some countries, teachers are counted as public administrators in the central government, and in others, they are employed by subnational governments. • By the government branches and types of institutions included: Although public administration is often associated with the executive branch of government, public administrators can include legislative staff, judges, attorneys general and some public and semi-public companies. Chapter 3: Decision-Making Positions in Public Administration When comparing statistics on decision-making positions,377 additional challenges arise from differences in how countries measure decision-making: • Titles: Decision makers, especially at top levels, can be identified through job titles. For example, a statistic might include a count of all women and men in positions of deputy minister, secretary general, head of division, permanent secretary and state secretary. • Tiers and classes: Some statistics on decision makers make use of a separate tier or class of executives – a senior civil service. Many countries have a separately defined senior civil service, but not all do. The senior civil service does not always align well with ‘decision-making’ positions, but some countries use it as a shortcut. • Grades and levels: A common approach is to use grades or levels to designate decision makers. In many public administrations, a level in the hierarchy is signified by a grade, and those at the top of the hierarchy often have the highest grades. In some countries, however, grades are used for salary levels and thus do not necessarily indicate whether someone is in a decision-making position. For example, a highly skilled technical worker could be at a higher salary level than the head of a public day care. To complicate matters further, in some countries, different ministries set their own grading systems. 376 The degree of centralization is the extent to which decision-making authority for various government functions rests with the state or is shared with subnational governments. 377 See also Hughes and Finkel, 2020. 160 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION • Occupations: Decision makers are also identified using their job functions, and the extent to which civil servants perform leadership tasks – managing others, making decisions over budgets and setting agendas. Statistics on ‘managers’ are often based on an occupational category. Classifying the three categories of decision-making in Chapter 3 – top leaders, senior managers and managers – was based on: • Descriptions of decision-making measures: Top leaders are described using terms such as ‘top-level decision-making positions’ and ‘chief executive positions’. Senior managers are often described as ‘senior managers’ but also with terms such as ‘senior positions’, ‘senior leaders’, ‘senior officials’, ‘senior civil servants’ and ‘executive levels’. • The size of the category relative to the size of the civil service: Classifications of publicly available measures of decision-making into one of the three categories was also based on the scope of the civil service that the position covered. Top leaders often capture less than 1 percent of the civil service. Senior managers are typically 1–10 percent of the civil service. Managers can include even larger swaths of the civil service – 25 percent, 35 percent, or more. • Other cross-national data sources: Data on top leaders were collected most frequently from the European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE), which measures the top two levels of administrators in each national ministry.378 The top level of administrators includes positions such as deputy minister, secretary general, head of division, permanent secretary and state secretary. The next rung down includes positions such as director and head of department.379 For countries outside of Europe that report statistics on these types of decision-making positions, the research team selected categories designed to match the EIGE to the closest degree possible. Chapter 4: Ministry-level data Ministry-level employment statistics are recorded at both the overall employment level, capturing all workers, and at decision-making levels, whenever available. Data on ‘ministries’ rely on employment statistics across sectors of the executive branch. Data on agencies, commissions and public corporations that fall outside of the ministry or cabinet structure are excluded from ministry-level statistics. Consequently, the sum of public administrators across all ministries often is not equal to the total number of workers in public administration overall. Countries design and aggregate ministry portfolios in different ways. Comparing the ministry structures of Sri Lanka and Republic of Moldova offers a useful example. Sri Lanka has a decentralized structure with 51 ministries – some cabinet level and others not – each assigned a specific policy area. By contrast, Moldova has centralized all policy areas into just nine ministries, combining economy with infrastructure, and education with culture and research. Sri Lanka has ministries dedicated to provincial and local government, scientific affairs and national heritage – ministries that have no clear equivalents in Republic of Moldova. Government structures also change frequently over time as new ministries are formed and others are repositioned. 378 EIGE, 2020. 379 For a full list, see EIGE, 2020. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 161 The policy focus of ministries were classified using two different systems: Escobar-Lemmon and Taylor-Robinson (ELTR) and BEIS. ELTR Ministries were coded into one of 20 policy areas, adapted from the ELTR classification of cabinet ministries.380 Coding ministries into ELTR categories is designed to standardize ministry data while allowing analysis of a wide array of policy areas. The 20 policy areas are: • Agriculture • Commerce and Industry • Culture • Defence • Education • Environmental Protection • Executive Operations • Finance and Treasury • Foreign Relations • Health • Housing and Regional Development • Information and Communications • Justice and Public Security • Labour and Social Security • Natural Resources • Planning • Public Works and Transportation • Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) • Social Issues • Women’s Issues BEIS The BEIS classification scheme is from EIGE, which categorizes ministries into four categories by their primary government function: • Basic Function ministries (B) include those that cover inter- and intra-governmental operations, including foreign and internal affairs, defence and justice. • Economic ministries (E) include those that cover daily economic and financial operations of government (i.e. finance and trade), as well as those dedicated to key industries, such as agriculture or tourism. • Infrastructure ministries (I) are those that govern basic physical structures and facilities needed for the operation of society, including transportation, public works, housing, communication and the environment. • Socio-Cultural ministries (S) include those that oversee social or cultural affairs, including health, education, social affairs, employment, family, culture and sports.381 380 Escobar-Lemmon and Taylor-Robinson, 2016. 381 See also EIGE, 2021, and Appendix A. 162 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Chapter 5: COVID-19 Task Forces The data on COVID-19 task forces were produced through a collaboration of the Gender Inequality Research Lab (GIRL) at the University of Pittsburgh, UNDP and UN Women. GIRL developed the methodology for data collection. The data were compiled by GIRL, UNDP and UN Volunteers between September 2020 and March 2021. Data are based on desk research of country ministerial websites, news media sources, UNDP/UN Women Country Offices and academic or third-party agency reports.382 The gender of task force leaders and members was determined using online biographies, prefixes, pronouns, and in some instances, photographs. All task force data incorporated from previously published reports were verified and updated with country-level desk research as of March 2021. For the purposes of this report, COVID-19 task forces refer to any executive branch institution (ad hoc or permanent) that was created by the national government in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Institutions that oversee the pandemic response but were created prior to December 2019 were not included, except for situations when a COVID-19-specific sub-committee was identified. Task forces that are part of a subnational, regional, or international response were excluded. Task forces are first classified by their membership by considering whether government officials are members. • Decision-making task forces include members of government. They are typically composed of ministers, public health officials, or other high-level representatives. Any task force with more than one government official is considered decision-making. Decision-making task forces typically design and implement government responses to the COVID-19 pandemic. • Expert task forces include members from outside of government. They are typically composed of academics, medical doctors, and other experts from outside of government agencies. Expert task forces typically advise governments on how they should respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. Task forces were also classified by sector, corresponding to the policy focus of the task force. The report focuses on three sector categories: • Public health task forces focus on various areas of public health, including guidelines to treat COVID-19, measures to contain its spread, policies on what health and mortality data to collect, and plans for vaccine development and distribution. • Economic task forces focus on facilitating economic response or recovery, including initiatives that provide emergency aid and policy measures to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on society and the economy. Some target particular sectors, industries, or occupations that were most affected by the pandemic. • Multi-sectoral task forces focus on government coordination and response across several sectors. 382 CARE International, 2020; Rajan et al. 2020; van Daalen et al., 2020. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 163 Other sectors too rare to permit systematic analysis in the report include those focused on enforcement, social science/socio-cultural factors, education, government oversight, and children’s and family welfare. Task forces focused on these areas were excluded from the sector-level analysis. Chapter 6: Intersectionality Gen-PaCS includes a variety of data disaggregated by gender and other categories of difference, including disability, race/ethnicity, language and age. Intersectional data can be incomplete or collected in ways that make them difficult to use. For example, Colombia tracks ethnicity data in its human resources management information system, the Public Employment Information Management System (SIGEP). But ethnicity data are missing for 85 percent of administrators. For those who do report their ethnicity, most selected ‘none’, likely indicating that they do not identify with a racial, ethnic, or indigenous minority community. It is unclear whether the many administrators with missing ethnicity data did not select a category because they feel similarly to those that marked ‘none’ or because the data were truly missing. Data are often collected and processed in ways that make it difficult to compare. • Disability: Several countries and territories that collect and report data on public administrators with disabilities further disaggregate the data by disability types (see Table 6.2). But the categories differ from one country to the next. For example, Kenya reports data for six categories: mental, visual, hearing, physical, speech and multiple. Alternatively, the State of Palestine reports five categories: seeing, hearing, mobility, communication, and remembering and concentrating. • Language: Some countries collect and report data on the languages spoken by their employees. Such data can be important, especially in countries where multiple languages are spoken and not all people speak the language used by the central government (e.g. South Africa). However, some countries only record whether their employees speak foreign languages (e.g. Colombia). • Age: Countries that disaggregate by gender and age often use different age categories. For example, the youngest age category in some countries is under 21, in others, under 25, and in still others, under 30. Of the 39 countries that report data disaggregated by both gender and age, only 29 do so in a way that permits comparison between civil servants who are under 30, and those 30 and over. 164 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION APPENDIX B DATA AVAILABILITY T his Appendix provides a supplementary discussion of the availability of gender-disaggregated data on public administrators, including changes over time, differences across regions, by level of government, for decision-making positions, and by ministry. Data over time and by region The availability and quality of gender-disaggregated public administration data have improved over time. National statistical offices and civil service commissions are increasingly reporting gender-disaggregated statistics on public administrators. Organizations such as UNDP, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the European Union have partnered with governments to collect and disseminate statistics on women’s participation and representation in public administration across countries. Although still far from being universally available, gender-disaggregated public administration data are now more available, accessible and of higher quality than ever before. Improvements in data availability are not limited to a single region (Figure B.1).383 In the 1990s, few countries made such data available. A jump in the availability of data on Europe and North America is visible in 2003, when the European Institute of Gender Equality (EIGE) began reporting statistics on women’s share of top administrative levels.384 Data availability in other regions grew more steadily. As of December 2020, the single year with the most data on gender in public administration is 2015.385 The declines in data availability in the latest time points likely reflect lags in countries processing and making data available to the public, rather than actual declines in the data countries are collecting. 383 Note that Figure B.1 does not track data as they became available. For example, data for 2000 could have been published in a report that was made available in 2010 or 2020. 384 EIGE, 2020. 385 The uptick in data availability in 2015 is the result of OECD’s 2017 report Government at a Glance 2017, which includes statistics on women’s participation and decision-making in central government in OECD member states mostly for the year 2015. The number of countries with public administration data declines after 2017, likely reflecting a lag in data analysis and dissemination rather than a real decline in data availability. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 165 Number of Countries with Available Data FIGURE B.1 AFivg.aB.i1lability of gender-disaggregated public administration data, by region, 1970–2020 Global Count of Countries with GEPA Data 170 160 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1971 1973 1975 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2001 2003 2005 2007 2009 2011 2013 2015 2017 2019 Latin America and the Caribbean Central and Southern Asia Eastern and Southeastern Asia + Oceania Northern Africa and Western Asia Sub-Saharan Africa Europe and North America The figure includes 170 countries with any form of data available on gender equality in public administration between 1970 and 2020. Source: Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) dataset, December 2020. The amount of any available gender-disaggregated public administration data varies across regions. On the one hand, recent data (2015–2020) on women’s participation are available for 93 percent of countries in Europe and North America, 75 percent in Eastern and South-Eastern Asia, 75 percent in Northern Africa and Western Asia, and 72 percent in Latin America and the Caribbean.386 On the other hand, comparable data were only available in 58 percent of countries in Sub-Saharan Africa and 29 percent in Oceania. Data in Sub-Saharan Africa and Oceania are more often outdated; some information on women’s participation in public administration is available, but not from a recent year.387 386 Notably, data availability varies across sub-regions. For example, coverage was highest in Northern and Southern Europe (100 percent) and lowest in Eastern Asia (60 percent) and Northern Africa (50 percent). 387 Considering all years, data availability on women’s participation in public administration is 81 percent in Sub-Saharan Africa and 64 percent in Oceania. 166 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Data at the subnational level Centralized sources of gender-disaggregated data on public administrators at subnational levels are not widely available (Map B.1).388 Gender-disaggregated public administration data at the subnational level are publicly available in 24 countries and territories.389 The map shows substantial geographic diversity in the countries that report subnational data. MAP B.1 AvaMialpa. Bb.1ility of subnational data on women’s participation in public administration Subnational Data Availability Subnational Data Availability Has Data Available No Data Available Note: The map shades available data on women’s participation in subnational levels of government in 24 countries and territories. Source: Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) dataset, December 2020. Data on decision-making positions The amount of decision-making data available varies within and across countries and regions (Map B.2). Eighty countries have no recent decision-making data; 37 countries have one available measure; 35 countries have two measures; and 43 countries have all three measures (top leaders, senior managers and managers). 388 Better coverage of sub-national governments may require more targeted searches for subnational data, including collecting data from provinces and/or municipalities one by one, which were beyond the scope of this report. 389 These 18 countries do not include cases where central government data are disaggregated into regions within a country. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 167 MAP B.2 Availability of gender-disaggregated data on public administration decision makers # of Decision-Making Measures Available 1 2 3 0 Note: The map visualizes whether any recent decision-making data are available, and if so, how many of the three measures of decision-making (top leaders, senior managers and managers) are available. The countries shaded grey have no recent decision-making data. Shades of purple indicate the number of decision-making measures available in each country: the countries with one available measure of decision-making are in the lightest purple, the countries with two of the measures are in medium purple, and the countries with all three measures are in dark purple. Source: Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) dataset, December 2020. The amount and types of data on women in public administration decision-making vary across countries and regions (Figure B.2). The availability of all three decision-making measures is most common in Europe and North America, followed by Eastern and Southeastern Asia and Oceania. By contrast, no country in Latin America and the Caribbean reports all three measures; instead, the region most often reports senior managers and managers together. Compared to other regions, Central and Southern Asia is more likely to report a combination of data on top leaders and senior managers. Only Ukraine reports women’s share of top leaders and managers without also reporting on senior managers. It is relatively common for countries to report only a single type of decision-making measure, and what is reported differs across and within regions. Top leadership data as an exclusive measure are most commonly available in Europe and North America, driven largely by the European Institute of Gender Equality (EIGE). In contrast, senior management data on its own are most common in Latin America and the Caribbean. If reporting just one measure of decision-making, countries in Northern Africa and Western Asia, as well as in Sub-Saharan Africa favour no single approach; the share of countries reporting top leaders only, senior managers only and managers only are the same. 168 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION FIGURE B.2 Type of decision-making data available, by world region Percentage of Region with Type of Data Available 100% 24% 17% 18% 13% 14% 14% 90% 80% 8% 13% 14% 21% 18% 70% 12% 8% 13% 14% 17% 60% 10% 9% 50% 13% 14% 50% 3% 9% 51% 50% 40% 9% 13% 14% 36% 30% 33% 32% 20% 10% 14% 0% Europe and North America Eastern and Central and Southeastern Southern Asia + Oceania Asia Type of Decision-Making Data Available Top Leaders Only Top Leaders + Senior Managers Top Leaders + Managers Managers Only Northern Sub-Saharan Latin America Africa and Africa and the Western Asia Caribbean Senior Managers Only All Three Senior Managers + Managers Note: The figure includes 115 countries with data on women’s share of decision-making positions, the most recent year available. Data prior to 2013 are excluded. Source: Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) dataset, December 2020. Data by ministry or government function Complete gender-disaggregated data by ministry and level are rare. Indeed, only 15 countries report complete ministry-level data for both overall employees and decision-making positions.390 However, at least some ministerial or sectoral data are available for 103 countries and territories. Gender-disaggregated data on public administration employees in at least one ministry are available for 61 countries. In 10 of these countries, however, data cover less than five ministries. For decision-making positions, data at the ministry level are only available in 26 countries, but data by government function (Basic Function, Infrastructure, Economic and Socio-Cultural) are available for 62 countries. Data on women as employees in ministries are often available in different countries than is data on women in decision-making positions by government function (Map B.3). Countries that report women’s share of de- 390 Countries with complete ministry-level data for public administration overall and decision-making positions include Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Colombia, Guinea-Bissau, Iceland, Iraq, Japan, Kosovo, Maldives, Morocco, Pakistan, Philippines, Sao Tome and Principe, and Thailand. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 169 cision-making positions by ministry or government function are mostly concentrated in Europe. Alternatively, ministry-level data on women’s employment in public administration – or a combination of data on women employees and decision makers – are available in an array of countries spread across the world. MAP B.3 Types of ministry or government function data available Type Overall Employees Decision-Making Positions Both Note: The map visualizes the form of gender-disaggregated data available by ministry or government function and by decision-making level. The countries and territories shaded grey have no available data. Countries and territories with ministry-level data on overall employees are in dark purple; those with ministry-level data on decision-making positions, in light purple; and those with both types of data, in light purple. Source: Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) dataset, December 2020. Intersectional data Intersectional analysis is hindered by scarce data in all regions (Figure B.3). Gender-disaggregated data for civil servants with disabilities are exceedingly rare but are most common in North Africa and Western Asia (16 percent of countries) and in Sub-Saharan Africa (9 percent of countries). No countries in Central and Southern Asia report data disaggregated by gender and disability. However, Central and Southern Asia reports more data by gender and race/ethnicity (27 percent), and by gender and age (36 percent) than any other region. Across all regions, data disaggregated by gender and age are more widely available than gender-disaggregated data by disability or race/ethnicity. 170 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION FIGURE B.3 The share of countries in each region with gender-disaggregated data by disability, race/ ethnicity and age Desability 16% 0% 9% 4% 7% 4% Race/Ethnicity 21% 27% 14% 9% 10% 4% Age 32% 36% 21% 24% 17% 22% 0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 100% Northern Africa Central & and Western Asia Southern Asia Sub-Saharan Africa Europe and Latin America and Eastern and North America the Caribbean Southeastern Asia + Oceania Note: The figure focuses on the 170 countries and territories with any gender-disaggregated public administration data, and measures the share of countries in each region that has intersectional data of various types. Source: Gender Parity in Civil Service (Gen-PaCS) dataset, December 2020. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 171 APPENDIX C MEASURES OF WOMEN’S PARTICIPATION AND DECISION-MAKING IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION T his Appendix provides statistics on women’s participation and decision-making in public administration worldwide. TABLE C.1 Women’s participation in public administration in 163 countries and territories, most recent year available CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN ASIA Afghanistan Bangladesh Bhutan India Kazakhstan Kyrgyzstan Maldives Nepal Pakistan Sri Lanka Tajikistan EASTERN AND SOUTHEASTERN ASIA AND OCEANIA Australia Brunei Cambodia Percentage of women in public administration overall (percent) 22 (2018) 27 (2017) 38 (2019) 23 (2015) 56 (2018) 31 (2018) 61 (2018) 11 (2015) 6 (2018) 45 (2016) 31 (2018) 60 (2019) 55 (2019) 41 (2019) 172 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Fiji Indonesia Japan Kiribati Lao PDR Malaysia Micronesia Mongolia Myanmar Nauru New Zealand Philippines Republic of Korea Samoa Singapore Solomon Islands Thailand Timor-Leste Vanuatu EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA Albania Andorra Austria Belarus Belgium Bosnia and Herzegovina Bulgaria Canada Croatia Czechia Denmark Estonia Finland France Percentage of women in public administration overall (percent) 30 (2014) 52 (2019) 20 (2019) 38 (2015) 46 (2017) 59 (2019) 30 (2010) 60 (2018) 59 (2017) 41 (2011) 61 (2019) 51 (2019) 47 (2018) 53 (2018) 56 (2018) 27 (2009) 67 (2018) 29 (2013) 40 (2011) 54 (2018) 55 (2020) 42 (2018) 56 (2017) 57 (2018) 53 (2015) 52 (2018) 55 (2018) 50 (2019) 50 (2016) 67 (2018) 55 (2019) 54 (2019) 62 (2015) GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 173 Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Kosovo Latvia Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Monaco Montenegro Netherlands North Macedonia Norway Poland Portugal Republic of Moldova Romania Russia San Marino Serbia Slovakia Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Ukraine United Kingdom United States LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN Antigua and Barbuda Bahamas 174 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Percentage of women in public administration overall (percent) 57 (2018) 52 (2015) 55 (2019) 61 (2019) 53 (2019) 57 (2016) 21 (2019) 57 (2019) 77 (2015) 57 (2019) 64 (2018) 40 (2019) 42 (2018) 43 (2018) 29 (2019) 51 (2019) 50 (2018) 66 (2015) 44 (2018) 58 (2018) 73 (2019) 68 (2019) 45 (2019) 52 (2019) 54 (2018) 44 (2019) 52 (2020) 31 (2016) 75 (2008) 65 (2019) 44 (2019) 62 (2015) 48 (2000) Barbados Belize Bolivia (Plurinational State of ) Brazil Chile Colombia Costa Rica Cuba Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador El Salvador Grenada Guatemala Guyana Haiti Jamaica Mexico Nicaragua Panama Paraguay Peru St. Kitts and Nevis St. Lucia St. Vincent and the Grenadines Uruguay NORTH AFRICA AND WESTERN ASIA Algeria Armenia Azerbaijan Bahrain Cyprus Georgia Iraq Percentage of women in public administration overall (percent) 51 (2018) 47 (2000) 49 (2016) 46 (2019) 60 (2018) 52 (2020) 39 (2019) 42 (2018) 34 (2001) 64 (2019) 58 (2017) 50 (2017) 50 (2018) 50 (2019) 46 (2012) 29 (2017) 47 (2019) 37 (2015) 44 (2006) 43 (2019) 54 (2019) 48 (2018) 54 (2016) 51 (2018) 48 (2015) 55 (2018) 39 (2017) 28 (2018) 28 (2018) 48 (2019) 41 (2019) 29 (2019) 27 (2018) GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 175 Israel Jordan Kuwait Morocco Oman State of Palestine Qatar Saudi Arabia Tunisia Turkey United Arab Emirates Yemen SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA Angola Botswana Burkina Faso Burundi Cabo Verde Chad Congo, Republic of Côte d’Ivoire Democratic Republic of the Congo Equatorial Guinea Ethiopia Gabon Gambia Ghana Guinea Guinea-Bissau Kenya Lesotho Liberia Madagascar Mali 176 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Percentage of women in public administration overall (percent) 44 (2019) 47 (2019) 52 (2015) 39 (2017) 49 (2018) 43 (2017) 19 (2018) 39 (2019) 37 (2016) 19 (2019) 55 (2014) 20 (2016) 42 (2018) 60 (2019) 33 (2017) 50 (2008) 47 (2019) 14 (2002) 33 (2003) 31 (2015) 7 (2017) 46 (2015) 29 (2013) 37 (2009) 32 (2002) 45 (2017) 26 (2018) 25 (2019) 46 (2019) 59 (2017) 29 (2010) 45 (2017) 28 (2010) Mauritania Mauritius Mozambique Namibia Niger Nigeria Rwanda Sao Tome and Principe Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone South Africa Tanzania, United Republic of Togo Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe Percentage of women in public administration overall (percent) 14 (2017) 29 (2019) 13 (2005) 58 (2017) 36 (2016) 54 (2016) 34 (2019) 38 (2020) 25 (2017) 54 (2008) 17 (2014) 49 (2019) 26 (2016) 18 (2016) 37 (2017) 25 (2018) 26 (2014) Note: The table provides the most recent year of data on women’s participation in public administration overall for 163 of the 170 countries in Gen-PaCS. For seven countries, gender-disaggregated statistics on public administration are available but do not include figures for women’s participation in public administration overall (Benin, Cameroon, Eswatini, Honduras, Liechtenstein, Malawi, and Somalia). GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 177 TABLE C.2 Women’s share of top leaders, senior managers and managers in public administration in 115 countries and territories Top Leaders (percent) CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN ASIA Afghanistan Bangladesh Bhutan India Kyrgyzstan Maldives Nepal Pakistan Sri Lanka Tajikistan EASTERN AND SOUTHEASTERN ASIA AND OCEANIA Australia Brunei Cambodia Indonesia Japan Malaysia Myanmar New Zealand Philippines Republic of Korea Singapore Thailand EUROPE AND NORTH AMERICA Albania Austria Belarus Belgium Bosnia and Herzegovina Bulgaria Canada 11 (2018) – 11 (2019) 12 (2016) – 29 (2018) 4 (2015) 11 (2018) 33 (2016) – 40 (2019) – 13 (2019) 18 (2019) 4 (2019) – 47 (2017) 52 (2019) – 6 (2018) 29 (2018) 27 (2018) 55 (2018) 38 (2018) – 19 (2018) 45 (2019) 52 (2018) – Senior Managers (percent) 16 (2018) 19 (2017) 14 (2019) – 9 (2015) 35 (2018) 5 (2015) 17 (2018) 40 (2016) – 37 (2019) 37 (2019) 18 (2019) 14 (2019) 3 (2015) 37 (2019) – 50 (2019) 42 (2019) 7 (2018) – 28 (2018) 43 (2017) 29 (2015) 44 (2018) 21 (2015) – – 40 (2015) Managers ( percent) 15 (2018) 26 (2017) 29 (2019) – – 35 (2018) – 22 (2018) – 18 (2014) 42 (2015) 46 (2019) – 34 (2019) 5 (2019) 66 (2019) – 55 (2019) – 13 (2015) – 28 (2018) 49 (2017) 36 (2018) 50 (2018) 27 (2015) – – 46 (2015) 178 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Croatia Czechia Denmark Estonia Finland France Germany Greece Hungary Iceland Ireland Italy Kosovo Latvia Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Malta Montenegro Netherlands North Macedonia Norway Poland Portugal Republic of Moldova Romania Serbia Slovak Republic Slovenia Spain Sweden Switzerland Ukraine United Kingdom United States Top Leaders (percent) 55 (2019) 30 (2016) 24 (2018) 48 (2019) 51 (2019) 30 (2015) 27 (2018) 49 (2015) 18 (2019) 42 (2019) 27 (2016) 30 (2016) 21 (2019) 57 (2019) 58 (2019) 50 (2019) 30 (2015) 39 (2018) 44 (2018) 34 (2018) 44 (2018) 36 (2019) 58 (2018) 46 (2019) 37 (2014) 50 (2018) 40 (2019) 47 (2019) 56 (2018) 41 (2019) 53 (2017) – 29 (2015) 36 (2019) – Senior Managers (percent) – 37 (2016) 22 (2015) 43 (2019) 34 (2015) 41 (2017) – 51 (2015) – 54 (2015) 29 (2015) 33 (2015) 26 (2014) 54 (2015) – 37 (2015) – – – 28 (2015) 38 (2013) 43 (2015) 51 (2015) 40 (2019) – – 27 (2014) 35 (2015) 45 (2015) 29 (2015) 44 (2015) 15 (2015) – 45 (2019) 34 (2017) Managers ( percent) – – 45 (2015) 51 (2019) 43 (2015) 35 – 54 (2015) – 65 (2015) 49 (2015) 43 (2015) – 66 (2015) – 68 (2015) – – – 33 (2015) – 51 (2015) 62 (2015) 54 (2015) – – – 55 (2015) 63 (2015) 38 (2015) 53 (2015) 20 (2015) 52 (2016) – 45 (2015) GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 179 LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN Bolivia Brazil Chile Colombia Costa Rica Dominican Republic Ecuador El Salvador Haiti Honduras Mexico Paraguay Peru Uruguay NORTH AFRICA AND WESTERN ASIA Armenia Azerbaijan Cyprus Georgia Iraq Israel Kuwait Morocco Oman State of Palestine Qatar Saudi Arabia Tunisia Turkey United Arab Emirates SUB-SAHARAN AFRICA Angola Benin Burkina Faso 180 GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION Top Leaders (percent) – 21 (2017) – – – – – – – – – – – 32 (2017) 15 (2018) 33 (2018) 35 (2019) 32 (2015) 12 (2015) – – 16 (2016) 10 (2018) 9 (2017) – – – 8 (2018) – 30 (2014) 26 (2014) 28 (2016) Senior Managers (percent) 33 (2016) 43 (2019) 42 (2018) 41 (2020) 35 (2017) 44 (2017) – 40 (2017) – 49 (2017) 24 (2015) 48 (2019) 29 (2018) 52 (2017) – 13 (2018) – 22 (2013) 12 (2015) 43 (2019) 12 (2016) 15 (2016) 6 (2018) 11 (2018) – 1 (2015) 36 (2016) 8 (2015) – 31 (2013) – – Managers ( percent) – – 35 (2015) 55 (2015) 43 (2017) 43 (2017) 40 (2017) 52 (2017) 36 (2017) – 37 (2015) 47 (2019) – – – – – 22 (2013) – 45 (2015) – 22 (2016) 21 (2018) 22 (2018) 15 (2018) – 40 (2016) 22 (2015) 30 (2014) 21 (2016) – – Cabo Verde Côte d'Ivoire Democratic Republic of the Congo Guinea Guinea-Bissau Kenya Lesotho Malawi Mauritania Mauritius Namibia Niger Nigeria Sao Tome and Principe Senegal Tanzania, United Republic of Uganda Zambia Zimbabwe Top Leaders (percent) – 15 (2015) 12 (2015) 11 (2017) – 29 (2017) 38 (2017) 25 (2014) 20 (2017) – 17 (2017) – – – – 31 (2014) – – 27 (2014) Senior Managers (percent) 34 (2015) 16 (2015) – 23 (2017) 19 (2017) 29 (2019) 38 (2017) 24 (2014) 20 (2017) 29 (2016) 37 (2017) – 27 (2017) 30 (2020) – 28 (2014) – 27 (2014) 13 (2014) Managers ( percent) 21 (2015) 21 (2015) – 19 (2017) – 28 (2017) 53 (2017) – 30 (2017) 41 (2016) 54 (2017) 25 (2016) 34 (2017) – 16 (2017) – 24 (2017) – – Note: Table C.2 includes 115 countries with at least one available measure of women’s share of decision-making positions in public administration in 2014 or later. For countries in this sample, older data were reported if available. Data on women decision-making positions prior to 2014 are available for 11 additional countries (Antigua and Barbuda, Botswana, Burundi, Cameroon, Gabon, Kazakhstan, Jordan, Mali, Mozambique, Republic of the Congo, Vanuatu). Measures of women’s share of decision-making positions were classified into top leaders, senior managers and managers using the data available in Gen-PaCS as of 1 June 2020. GENDER EQUALITY IN PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION 181 United Nations Development Programme
下载完整pdf文档
关注微信
