1. INTRODUCTION

‘Gender mainstreaming involves not restricting efforts to promote equality to

the implementation of specific measures to help women, but mobilizing all

general policies and measures specifically for the purpose of achieving equality

by actively and openly taking into account at the planning stage their possible

effect on the respective situations of men and women’ (European Commission

2000: 5)

This paper seeks to explain how and why the EU decided, in 1996, to introduce gender mainstreaming of EU policies. Though this is potentially far-reaching (and as yet a poorly understood) step, this development can also be characterized as ‘normal’ ‘policy succession (Hogwood and Gunn 1984: 241), or adaptation — building on existing policies, but taking account of changes in the policy environment. Gender mainstreaming is the conjuncture of endogenous trends within the policy sector and exogenous developments demanding at least a change in policy instruments. The introduction of new policy instruments has not changed the basic trajectory of sex equality legislation, which remains intact, but other related policies, resources and policy-making structures have been reorganized in order to support gender mainstreaming. In order to explain how the EU came to embrace gender mainstreaming, we need to explain how pre-existing policies in this sector paved the way for this change. More specifically, we need to identify the underlying dynamic of policy development in this sector.

The argument presented here is that the development of EU sex equality policies — including the introduction of gender mainstreaming - is best explained in terms of the dynamic interaction between interests, ideas and institutions. Social movement theory is helpful in this context, and is employed here to explain how women have been successful in mobilizing an (expanding) ‘equality’ ‘policy frame’ (Schön and Rein 1994) at the EU level. As argued elsewhere, the EU has historically been a favourable opportunity structure, or alternative policy-making arena for women, who during the 1970s and 1980s secured significant legislative gains in terms of equal treatment of men and women within the workplace (Mazey 1998; 1995. See also Hoskyns 1996). This policy area is, therefore a classic example of Baumgartner and Jones (1991) hypothesis that interests exploit alternative venues in order to bring about policy change. As they suggest, groups also try to change the prevailing ‘image’ of existing policies as another means of introducing change. Thus, during the past decade a second — arguably more ambitious - phase of EU equality policy development has emerged. This process of policy succession has been characterized by the emergence of a broader, underlying image or policy frame, derived in part from a feminist critique of existing EU equality legislation, based upon the narrow policy frame of ‘equal treatment’ within the workplace. Women’s declared aim now is to achieve substantive ‘equality of opportunity’ between men and women in and beyond the workplace. This new policy frame is, therefore, crucially important, because it underpins and justifies policy expansion beyond the existing sectoral boundary. This objective requires a policy approach which acknowledges and takes account of the gender differences between men and women. This is the rationale for gender mainstreaming. Thus, the introduction of gender mainstreaming of EU policies needs be analyzed within the wider context of the recent ‘take off’ (Liebert 1998: 2) of gender policy development within the EU during the 1990s. The 1997 Amsterdam Treaty marked an important turning point in this process. The revised Treaty elevated the status of gender equality to a ‘fundamental principle’ of Community activity; it incorporated women’s rights and a new non-discrimination clause into its new provisions on fundamental rights; and it extended the legal scope for supranational policy making in this area. As Liebert asks, ‘how could this policy expansion be achieved by a non-state, non-hierarchical network system of governance, such as the EU?’ (Liebert 1998: 2). The answer is, in fact, a rather familiar story. Just as in the 1970s, women have in recent years been adept in strategically framing and embedding a (broader) policy image at the EU level. In this task, they have been assisted by their participation in an increasingly sophisticated, transnational network of NGOs, who have consciously sought to link women’s rights issues to the wider - and increasingly popular - frame of human rights issues generally. Secondly, just as in the 1970s, women have been assisted by a favourable EU political opportunity structure. In particular, Nordic enlargement of the EU has women with more senior allies inside the EU, while successive IGCs (notably the 1996 IGC) provided important opportunities for women to modify the EU political opportunity structure. Moreover, given the high political salience of European integration and widespread Euroscepticism prompted by the public debate over the Maastricht Treaty, it is no longer possible for European political elites to ignore the views of NGOs (Mazey 2000; Liebert 1998). These pressures for policy succession have been compounded by changes in the external policy environment. During the 1980s, the social democratic consensus within the EU, which had generally supported the introduction of EU social legislation, was eclipsed by a rival, ideational frame based upon economic liberalism and labour market deregulation. Meanwhile, EU member-governments generally have increasingly sought to reduce welfare expenditure levels. Against this backdrop, the EU ‘window of opportunity ‘

(Kingdon 1984) for women’s rights defined in terms of special, EU social legislation for women, appeared to be closing. In this context, gender mainstreaming became an attractive form of policy succession.

The following discussion is divided chronologically into three sections. The first section introduces briefly the explanatory framework, which structures the ensuing empirical analysis. The second section invokes social movement theory to explain the development of EU sex equality policies during the period 1970-1992. This analysis highlights the way in which women’s groups sought to embed their equality frame at the EU level and the extent to which they were assisted in this task by the favourable political opportunity structure provided by the EU. The third section focuses upon the subsequent development of EU equality policies and, more specifically, the emergence of gender mainstreaming within the EU. The central theme of this section of the paper is that gender mainstreaming constitutes a clear example of policy succession or policy adaptation, prompted by the desire to overcome the limitations of existing policies, and need to respond to a changed policy environment.

1. AN EXPLANATORY DYNAMIC: THE MOBILISATION OF INTERESTS, IMAGES AND INSTITUTIONS

Whereas in other policy sectors, established, national policies have become progressively 'Europeanized', the EU was a major catalyst in the generation and extension of national sex equality laws to protect the rights of working women. The origins of these policies lie, however, in the activities of second-wave feminism during the late 1960s and early 1970s. Feminist ideas, values and policy demands constituted a major, new challenge to long-established, cultural attitudes and traditions regarding the socio-economic and political status of women. All public policies are a product of the relationship between ideas, normative values, interests and the manner in which issues are 'framed'. Rein and Schön (1991) define framing as a way selecting, organizing, interpreting and making sense of a complex reality in order to provide guideposts for knowing, analyzing and acting. Thus a frame ‘provides a perspective from which an amorphous, ill-defined and problematic situation can be made sense of and acted upon ‘(Rein and Schön 1991: 263). The way in which a policy problem is framed defines both the nature of the problem to be addressed and the appropriate policy response. Social movement theorists, seeking to explain the policy impact of social movements have increasingly stressed the importance of ‘framing processes’ , defined as ‘ the conscious strategic efforts by groups of people to fashion shared understandings of the world and of themselves that legitimate and motivate collective action’ (McAdam et al 1996: 6).

The impact of a new policy frame is, however, dependent upon the existence of favourable political opportunity structures and mobilizing structures. Without these, new ideas are unlikely to result in new public policies. As new institutionalists have convincingly argued, institutions, broadly defined, structure political interactions and in this way affect policy outcomes (March and Olsen 1984, 1989; Thelen and Steinmo 1992; Hall and Taylor 1996; Peters 1999). At the very least, institutional contexts structure strategic action. Moreover, institutions inevitably privilege certain interests over others in terms of access and influence. Secondly, institutions (and the interests represented therein) typically reflect and reinforce a particular ‘policy frame’ or view of the world. In this sense, policy-making bodies and implementation agencies constitute important ‘filters’ which may either support or resist policy change. This fact is widely appreciated by groups who, as rational actors, typically gravitate to the policy-making arena most favourable to their cause and their particular policy frame. For European feminists, the EU has historically constituted a favourable policy-making arena (Baumgartner and Jones 1991). The European Commission in particular, backed by the European Parliament and women's networks, has been a 'purposeful opportunist' (Cram 1994: 198) in this sector, trying wherever possible to extend EU policies beyond the confines of Article 119. In addition, the European Court of Justice (ECJ) has played a crucial (if at times ambiguous) role in supporting the rights of working women and forcing national policy change (Cichowski 2001; Egan 1998). Incorporation of the equality Directives into national law also generated a whole new area of bureaucratic and political activity at EU and national levels. Notwithstanding feet-dragging by some member-states, the past twenty years have witnessed the development of a formal, institutional framework at EU and national levels, associated with the implementation and monitoring of EU legislation and positive action programmes. Thus, notwithstanding significant variations between member-states, the political opportunity structures for equality policies have gradually become stronger throughout the EU.

The above developments have, in turn, given rise to the emergence of several national and transnational women's networks , and Brussels-centred interest group coalitions involving women. As Hoskyns (1996) and Warner (1984) point out, feminist groups played an important catalytic role in the development of EC equal opportunities legislation during the 1970s. Twenty-five years later, a much wider range and number of women's organizations, trade unions, employers associations, local authorities and firms throughout the Union are routinely involved in the formulation and implementation of sex equality policies. Regularly consulted by Commission officials, many of these organizations are also associated with the official European Women's Lobby (EWL) in Brussels which represents some 2,700 organizations across Europe, the European Network of Women (ENOW) and the European Parliament Women’s rights and Equal Opportunities Committee (formerly the Women’s Rights Committee). Thus, the EU has changed the 'stakeholder' (Richardson 1996: 4) map in this sector. In so doing, it has fostered the development of an increasingly influential ‘advocacy coalition’ (Sabatier 1988: 138) or mobilizing structure for women’s interests, understood as ‘those collective vehicles, informal as well as formal, through which people mobilize and engage in collective action’ (McAdam et al 1996: 3). Moreover, as women have become more sophisticated policy actors, so their interest and participation in a whole range of policy issues such as health, the environment, education, citizenship and political representation has increased. Women (and some policy-makers) have come to realize that a single policy directorate within the Commission can no longer effectively defends women’s rights with equal rights in the workplace. Just as the environmental movement became a significant cross-sectoral policy actor (at both the EU and national levels) during the 1980s, the European women’s movement began to expand its campaign activities in the 1980s and 1990s.

2. THE DEVELOPMENT OF EU SEX EQUALITY POLICIES 1970-92

During the 1960s, the political salience of feminism increased as women's movements throughout Western Europe became actively involved in national campaigns for sex equality in all spheres of public and private life. The demand for sex equality within the workplace–notably the demand for abolition of wage differentials between men and women doing the same job–was central to this campaign. Generally speaking, however, national policy-makers remained unresponsive to women's material demands. In part, this was due to the nascent and internally divided nature of the European feminist movement at this time, which undermined its political effectiveness. However, lack of policy change was also attributable in part to the overwhelming weight at that time within national policy-making arenas of traditional beliefs and values regarding the relationship between women and the labour market. Powerful socio-economic interest groups including male-dominated trade unions and employers were also reluctant to revise their view of the labour-market value of women employees.

However, as Baumgarter and Jones argue, it is often the case that in a pluralist political system 'there remain other institutional venues that can serve as avenues of appeal for the disaffected' (Baumgarter and Jones 1991: 1045). As they go on to explain:

'Each venue carries with it a decisional bias, because both participants

and decision-making routines differ. When the venue of a public policy

changes, as often occurs over time, those who previously dominated the

policy process may find themselves in the minority, and erstwhile losers

may be transformed into winners' (Baumgartner and Jones 1991: 1047).

In short, both the institutional structures within which policies are made and the individual strategies of policy entrepreneurs are important in determining policy outcomes.

For European feminists, the EC constituted just such an alternative venue, not least because Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome already provided (in theory) for equal pay between men and women. In a strategic move, women's groups began in the early 1970s to invoke Article 119 of the Rome Treaty in national equal pay campaigns and to focus their lobbying activities upon EC policy-makers. Significantly, Article 119 had been included in the Treaty primarily in response to French concerns over the possible need to harmonize social costs to employers within the common market arising from national variations in differential wage rates for men and women. No attempt had been made by national governments to apply Article 119 once the Treaty came into force. However, as Hoskyn's (1996) observes, Article 119 was rescued from oblivion by two kinds of political activism generated by Belgian women which helped to place the new 'feminist' policy frame on the EC agenda: industrial action taken by women employees of a munitions factory, who sought to use Article 119 in support of their claim for equal pay; and the professional activities of the advocate and academic lawyer, Eliane Vogel-Polsky, who argued for a strong definition of Article 119 in the courts. Indeed, it was Ms Vogel-Polsky who brought the Defrenne test-case against the Belgian State airline, Sabena that resulted in the ECJ's landmark ruling confirming the direct applicability of Article 119.

Article 119 undoubtedly provided EC policy-makers and the women's lobby with a necessary juridical hook on which to hang their demands for further EC sex equality legislation. However, other features of the EU political opportunity structure also helped to make the EU a more favourable venue for women's groups. First, EU policy-makers, unencumbered by pre-existing policies and vested interests in this sector, were generally more receptive to the new policy frame which underpinned women's policy demands. Secondly, the pluralist and 'open' nature of the EU decision-making process (in contrast to the highly centralized and 'closed' nature of many national political systems) provided the women's lobby with multiple 'access points' to decision-makers. Thus, as Vallance and Davies (1986) demonstrated links between women's groups and women MEPs, established during the 1960s proved extremely useful in placing women's rights on the EC's policy agenda. Thirdly, as members of a new political system, EU Commission officials, European judges and MEPs were, in the early 1970s, generally committed to consolidating and extending the policies and legal authority of the EU. Thus, since its inception, the European Commission has actively cultivated close relations with the relevant policy community in an attempt to create 'constituency' support for EC intervention in a particular policy sector (Mazey 1992). This is a familiar pattern of EC policy development which others and we have observed in a number of policy sectors (Mazey and Richardson 1995; 1996; Cram 1993; Peters 1991). As argued elsewhere (Mazey 1995), the development of EU sex equality policy constitutes yet another example of a policy area developing critical mass via skilful bureaucratic management of key interests by the Commission. Thus, women found little difficulty in finding political allies within senior levels of the Commission. Fourthly, Hoskyns suggests that the general mood within the EC at this time was socially progressive. She cites one of the ECJ judges involved in the Defrenne case, who referring to the activities of the Court said 'this was not a Court engaged in conservatism and reaction–the mood was progressive.....The events of 1968 did not disturb us very much, we felt we were already acting in the spirit of 1968' (Hoskyns 1996: 71). Moreover, on the specific issue of equal pay, several EC policy-makers were influenced by the fact that both the 1951 International Labour Organization (ILO) Convention (No. 100) and the UN's Universal Declaration of Human Rights contained a commitment to the principle of equal pay between men and women. Finally, as Meehan (1990) has argued, during the early 1970s, EC political leaders were anxious to enhance the popular legitimacy of the Community and so decided to strengthen EC social policy. Following the 1972 Paris Summit the European Commission was asked by EC heads of government to draw up a Social Action Programme. Adopted by the Council of Ministers in 1974, this programme listed as a priority ' the undertaking of action to achieve equality between men and women as regards access to employment and vocational training and advancement, and as regards working conditions including pay'. Thus, at the EU level, women encountered a somewhat more favourable policy-making venue to that which prevailed in most national capitals.

In contrast to other policy sectors, the original Treaty basis for EU competence with regard to sex equality was relatively weak. This fact necessarily influenced the type of EC policy instrument used in this sector. Though Article 119 provided the necessary foundation for secondary legislation in this sector, it did not specifically authorize the Council to introduce such legislation. Thus, Commission proposals for EC legislation in this sector prior to the 1997 Amsterdam Treaty were based upon Article 100, Article 235 or, as in the case of the 1992 maternity Directive, upon Article 118 (Health and Safety at Work). Commission attempts to introduce legislation on related issues which affect the labour market position of women (notably childcare provision) were invariably challenged in the Council of Ministers on the grounds that they lie beyond the narrow confines of Article 119. Checked, the Commission nevertheless sought to extend the policy debate to such issues by means of 'soft' policy instruments, including Recommendations and Positive Action Programmes. Though not legally binding upon member-states, there is some evidence that these initiatives, combined with other social and political changes, contributed to greater awareness of sex discrimination on the part of employers, trade unions and the public generally. They also enabled the Commission to broaden, incrementally, the policy agenda in this sector, to include issues such as gender inequalities in education, the portrayal of women in the media, and sexual harassment in the workplace. As such these initiatives helped to prepare the ground for gender mainstreaming.

The EC Equality Directives

Article 119 of the EC founding Treaties states that 'each Member State shall during the first stage ensure and subsequently maintain the principle that men and women should receive equal pay for equal work. For the purpose of this Article "pay" means the ordinary basic or minimum wage or salary and any other consideration whether in cash or in kind, which the worker receives, directly or indirectly, in respect of his employment from his employer'. Prior to the adoption of the Amsterdam Treaty, this Article constituted the only legal basis for EU women's policy. In short, it is the hook upon which all European legislation in this sector had to hang (with the notable exception of the maternity directive). Article 119 came up for interpretation before the European Court of Justice for the first time in 1971 in Defrenne vs.the Belgian State. Crucially, the Court upheld the claim for equal pay and ruled that Article 119 had 'direct effect' in member states; women could rely upon it in national courts irrespective of whether or not national legislation existed on equal pay. The Defrenne ruling gave fresh impetus to women's rights campaigners throughout the Community and brought the issues of equal pay and equal treatment firmly to the forefront of the EC's political agenda.

The way in which the policy issue was processed within the Commission highlights the policy-making importance of different institutional structures and policy-making arenas. Significantly, within the Commission, debate extended beyond the problem of achieving procedural equality between women and men within the workplace to include other aspects of the policy hinterland which adversely affected women's position within the labour market (namely tax and social security measures, childcare facilities, education and training opportunities). Furthermore, key individuals involved in this analysis of the policy problem were women who were prominent members of the 'feminist' advocacy coalition committed to analyzing the problem of women's issues within a new, wider, policy frame. These included the French sociologist, Evelyne Sullerot (author of the influential analysis of women's importance in the labour market, Histoire et sociologie du travil féminin), and Jacqueline Nonon, a French Commission official in DGV who was given responsibility for preparing the equality Directives. Having decided to create an ad hoc working group on women's work, Nonon deliberately chose not to consult established 'independent experts' or civil servants from appropriate departments, but sought instead to nominate women with a genuine interest in the issues. Of the eighteen national representative appointed to the group, only five were men and several women appointed were actively involved in equal pay negotiations. Trade unions active at the EC level who argued that the group should have been set up as a sub-group of the Standing Committee on Employment were also by-passed. Significantly, there was at this time widespread recognition of the need for a more comprehensive (mainstreaming) approach. All members of the group stressed the need for 'positive' intervention (i.e. policies affecting women's rights beyond the workplace), to help women reconcile domestic responsibilities with employment aspirations. However, acknowledging the likely political resistance to such an approach, Nonon's strategy at this time 'was to expand policy outwards from equal pay and "stretch the elastic as far as it would go" (Hoskyns 1996: 102).

This strategy is reflected in the six EC Directives adopted between 1975 and 1992 and in the incremental development of this policy sector at the EU level (Mazey 1996). The 1975 Equal Pay Directive (75/117) introduced the principle of equal pay between men and women for 'work of equal value', thereby confirming and expanding the provisions of Article 119. The 1976 Equal Treatment Directive provided for equal treatment of women and men as regards access to employment, vocational training, promotion and working conditions. The 1978 Directive (79/7) concerned the principle of equal treatment for men and women in matters of statutory social security benefits (excluding retirement ages and survivors' benefits). This was followed by two further equality Directives: the 1986 Directive (86/378) on equal treatment in occupational social security schemes and the 1986 Directive on equal treatment between men and women engaged in an activity including agriculture in a self-employed capacity, and on protection of self-employed women during pregnancy and motherhood. These laws were based upon a narrow definition of social policy as primarily concerned with economic concerns. They were also based upon a liberal interpretation of equality as ‘equal treatment’. The emphasis was upon removing barriers and on non-discrimination, rather than upon the development of 'positive' or special policies for women, designed to achieve substantive equality of opportunity between men and women, which might entail a redistribution of opportunities from advantaged groups to disadvantaged groups. The 1992 Directive on the protection of pregnant women from exposure to hazardous substances in the workplace and on rights to maternity leave was arguably, the first Directive based upon an acceptance of the need to treat women differently to men in order to promote a more equal outcome in terms of employment opportunities.

EC Positive Action Programmes for Women

The above Directives have been complemented since the early 1980s by a series of pluriannual, EU 'positive action programmes' on behalf of women, funded by the Structural Funds, and intended to increase the impact of EC equality laws, raise public awareness of women’s issues and promote equal opportunities for women and men beyond the workplace. Specific initiatives funded have included in-service training for women, women's co-operatives, 'confidence-building' courses for women, the appointment of equal opportunities counsellors in companies and local authorities, creche facilities, information campaigns on EC equality. While the early programmes sought to promote effective implementation of the equality Directives, more recent programmes have sought to change the image of women portrayed by the media, encourage a more equal division of labour within the household, and improve the representation of women in all spheres of decision-making in political, professional and public arenas (Commission of the European Communities: 1991). Thus, the programmes were increasingly used to promote policy expansion. (Indeed, the term gender mainstreaming appears in the 1991-96 Third Medium-Term Action Programme on behalf of women). Two additional programs were introduced by DGV for women during the 1980s, which were influential in the creation of new local and transnational women's networks: the Local Employment Initiatives for Women (LEIs); and the Community Programme for Women's Vocational Training Schemes (IRIS). The LEIs programme provides grants for women starting new businesses. The IRIS network, (which was abolished in 1995 as part of the 'mainstreaming' of equal opportunities programmes), sought to increase the provision of high quality training for women by means of transnational and national partnerships and sponsorships. The programme was coordinated by the Centre for Research on European Women (CREW), which works under the direction of the Commission (Commission of the European Communities 1991a). These initiatives were followed by the creation in 1990 of a new Community Initiative Programme, New Opportunities for Women (NOW). Introduced as part of the reformed structural funds, the NOW programme was designed to assist the integration of women into the labour market. Unlike the Directives, these programmes, funded partially by the European Social Fund are not legally binding and their impact at the national level has varied considerably between member-states depending upon the availability of co-financing. Nevertheless, their existence enabled the European Commission to extend the policy agenda in this sector to issues such as housework, childcare, political representation, women's health, sexual harassment, all of which lay beyond the juridical scope of Article 119. As the former UK Commissioner, Ivor Richards, on leaving the Commission in 1985 argued:

'without the Action programme to use as a lever on the Council, the

Commission would have had to justify every step it tried to take in this field

[Equality Policy]. We can wave it at governments to justify work in areas

where member states might not wish us to be too active'. (CREW Report

January 1985 V.1. Quoted in Rutherford 1989, p.303).

Institutionalization of the Policy Sector

The construction of a critical mass of legislation was accompanied during this period by the creation of a number of institutions, agencies and networks at the EU level, associated with the formulation and implementation of EC equality policies. This institutionalization of the policy sector has been important in helping to keep women's issues on European and national policy agendas. These organizations also became the driving forces of policy succession during the 1990s. Women MEPs have, since the 1970s, constituted an important part of the women's lobby at the European level and, since 1981, there has been a standing committee for Women's Rights within the European Parliament, (which was replaced by the Women’s Rights and Equal opportunities Committee in 1999). Within the Commission, some twenty-five full-time officials are employed in the Equal Opportunities Unit , set up within Directorate-General V (Employment and Social Affairs) in 1976. This Unit works in close collaboration with the Advisory Committee on Equal Opportunities, established by the Commission in December 1981. This Committee, which meets twice a year, to review policy developments and future initiatives, brings together representatives from the official equal opportunities bodies in the EC member-states. The European Women's Lobby (EWL), employers and trade union organizations also have observer status on this Committee. In the European Parliament, women's interests are formally represented in the standing committee on women’s rights.

As an active policy entrepreneur, the Commission has also played a crucial role in promoting the development of EU and transnational policy networks in this sector, consistent with its own institutional interests. For instance, there are now nine European Networks of Experts, each of which comprises between 12 and 24 independent experts (one or two from each member-state) who monitor the impact of existing legislation and/or collect data which might be used to justify further Community action. The most well established networks include the Expert Network (of lawyers) on the Application of the Equality Directives, set up in 1982, and the Network (of economists) on the Position of women in the Labour market, established in 1983. Four additional networks were created in 1986: the Network for Positive Action in Enterprises; the Steering Committee for Equal Opportunities in Broadcasting; the Network on Childcare and other Measures to Reconcile Work and Family Responsibilities; and the Working party on Equal Opportunities in Education. These networks constitute influential 'epistemic communities' (Haas 1992), a term invoked to describe transnational networks of scientific and professional experts who are influential in the policy-making process. In this particular sector, they have played a significant monitoring role. They have also drawn into the EC policy-making process other national, authoritative experts, academics and interested groups (for example in Commission funded seminars, workshops), thereby generating new transnational 'epistemic communities' associated with EC equality policy.

The Commission has also encouraged the growth of a transnational European women's lobby to support and legitimize Commission initiatives in this sector. As part of this mobilization process, the Commission established the Women's Information Service in 1976 to publicize EC equality policies in the member states and to organize international conferences for women. The European Commission, also funds the European Women’s Lobby (EWL), set up in 1990. It co-ordinates the lobbying activities of some 48 national and European non-governmental organizations throughout the EC, whose total membership exceeds 100 million. As the 'official' women's lobby in Brussels, the EWL is regularly consulted by the Commission on EC legislative proposals affecting women and on wider EU developments such as the 1996 IGC. As Bew and Meehan (1994) note, as a transnational network, the EWL has also played an important role in communicating downward information EU policy initiatives. However, compared to business and industrial networks, the policy community associated with EU equality policies, is relatively fragile. In part, this fragility is due to the relative immaturity of the policy sector. However, it is also attributable to the nature of the women's lobby. In particular, the political and cultural diversity of the women's lobby has sometimes resulted in internal divisions within the lobby over strategy and/or policy objectives (e.g. over issues such as abortion). In addition, women's groups, especially at the national level, tend to be loosely organized and poorly resourced (Bretherton and Sperling 1996; Egan 1998). Nevertheless, by the end of the 1980s, there existed at the EU level an established policy community and politico-administrative framework for policy-making in this sector..

2. POLICY SUCCESSION: THE EXPANSION OF EU EQUALITY POLICIES IN THE 1990S

Few public policies are maintained indefinitely without adaptation; most are subject to a process of ‘policy succession’ (Hogwood and Gunn 1984). Existing policies may themselves create conditions requiring changes in policies because of their inadequacies. As Wildavsky (1980) noted, in some ways, policy is its own cause, in the sense that many of today’s problems are created by yesterday’s policies. Policies are also vulnerable to succession (or even termination) if their underlying theory or approach is no longer considered legitimate, or if new actors successfully challenge the hegemony of existing interests. Both of these possibilities are pertinent to this discussion. Policy changes involving a high degree of innovation and those involving succession both go through a similar sequence of stages in the policy process. However, the distinguishing feature of policy succession is ‘the extent to which the policy actors, the process and the substantive outcomes of the policy process are all shaped by the existing policies which succession is intended to replace’ (Hogwood and Gunn 1984: 245). Policy succession is also likely to encounter more mobilized interests than policy innovation. ‘Both producers and consumers of policies will have developed around a particular existing policy …policy succession will challenge their interests’ (Hogwood and Gunn 1984: 245). A further difference is that implementing policy succession rather than innovation involves adapting existing organizations rather than creating new ones, and changing the attitudes and behaviour of those organizations. As argued below, the recent expansion of EU equality policies, constitutes a clear example of policy succession. As such, the previous policies and policy stakeholders have indeed shaped the current policies.

Notwithstanding the impact of ECJ judicial activism with respect to Article 119 and the equality Directives, during the 1980s and 1990s, European women became increasingly vocal in their criticism of the EU legal regime regarding women’s rights. There were, for instance, considerable variations between member-states in the domestic impact of European equality legislation ( Alter and Vargas 2000; Tesoka 1999). There were also signs that the ECJ was becoming increasingly restrained in its rulings relating to sex equality. As Egan notes, ‘the combination of domestic economic recession and the potential costs of compliance with its rulings had not gone unnoticed by the Court’ (Egan 1998: 43). The public backlash against the Maastricht Treaty also made the Court reluctant to intervene in the private, domestic sphere of the family. However, the central, more fundamental critique was the argument that European law was concerned only with the rights of women in paid employment. In consequence, as Hoskyns observed, it ‘reinforces the public/private divide which has classically served to disadvantage women’ by ignoring unpaid work or work done in the home as work of equal value (Hoskyns 1994: 227). Similarly, Ostner and Lewis (1995) commented that ‘women will profit most from EU policy if their concerns can either be presented as those of "similarly situated" workers entitled to economic and social rights or couched in terms of health and safety or improvement of working conditions’ (Ostner and Lewis 1995: 185). Thus, EU law had done little to protect the ‘social citizenship’ rights of women as individuals. In fact, women’s groups, often supported by the Commission and the European Parliament in a form of advocacy coalition have for many years sought to expand EU equality policy to cover issues affecting women such as poverty, health, childcare, education, violence against women and family responsibilities. However, the narrow confines of Article 119 (once an institutional opportunity, now a constraint), combined with widespread resistance from member-states (i.e. a counter advocacy coalition) to further social legislation, had necessitated the frequent resort to ‘soft’ policy instruments such as the positive action programmes, Council recommendations such as the 1992 Recommendation on Childcare, and the 1992 Code of practice on sexual harassment at work.

During the 1990s, however, several developments helped to strengthen the status of this broader, gender, policy frame within the EU. First, the mobilizing structures associated with women’s issues became more sophisticated and more effective. European women’s groups became increasingly involved in international women’s networks, many of which were centred upon the UN system. As such, they became increasingly exposed to new ideas and part of an influential, international advocacy coalition. In particular, the UN decade for Women (1976-1985) catalyzed networks around women’s rights. These networks also became important sites for policy learning and policy transfer. As Keck and Sikkink argue, the three conferences held during this period ‘served as locations to build and connect the emerging international network (Keck and Sikkink 1998: 169). The subsequent conference in Beijing in 1995 further consolidated the network: 30,000 women and governments from 189 countries attended this meeting (European Commission 2000: 1). The development of this network was influential in prompting a broadening of the EU equality frame. As Keck and Sikkink argue:

What is novel in these networks is the ability of non-traditional

international actors to mobilize information strategically, to help create

new issues and categories and to persuade, pressure and gain leverage over

much more powerful organizations and governments. Actors in networks

try not only to influence policy outcomes, but to transform the terms and

nature of the debate’ (Keck and Sikkink 1998: 2).

For the purposes of this discussion two points are worthy of note. First, the involvement of international women’s networks in the 1993 World Conference on Human Rights strengthened the connections between the human rights network and the women’s network. The result was a clever linking of the two frames, which has endured. In the words of EU Commissioner, Anna Diamantopoulou, ‘women’s rights are human rights, and all policies must be geared to protecting and promoting them’ (Speech to the UN general Assembly, 9 June 2000). Secondly, as Pollack and Hafner-Burton (2000) have argued, the concept of gender mainstreaming was effectively legitimated by the platform for action of the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995, which committed the institutions of the UN system to the systematic incorporation of a gender perspective into policy-making. The involvement of the EU in the preparation of the Beijing Declaration and its observer status at the UN prompted the Commission Communication in February 1996, which formally introduced gender mainstreaming (Interview with Ms Anne Havenor, Equal Opportunities Unit, DGV 18 May 1998). Some feminists were (and still are) sceptical about gender mainstreaming. Some fear that it might result in a weakening of EU funding for women’s programmes, while others argue that women may become less effective as a group within a generic, ‘citizenship rights’ advocacy coalition. However, many European women’s groups welcomed the introduction of gender mainstreaming on the grounds that it offered the possibility at least of transcending the limitations of Article 119 and the principle of ‘equal treatment’. More realistically perhaps, as one member of the Equal Opportuntiies Unit acknowledged, gender mainstreaming was adopted in part because it was a politically feasible strategy. It was acceptable to member-states, because it applied equally to men and women, and because it appeared cost-free. We have yet to see how costly mainstreaming is in practice. However, there is a possibility at least that member-states’ calculations in this case (as has often been the case with EU policy-making) were short-term in nature and that they have failed to appreciate the longer-term cost implications of gender mainstreaming.

Institutional developments during the 1990s also contributed to the expansion of the EU equality policies by creating a more favourable political opportunity structure for women’s policy demands. As Pollack and Hafner-Burton have observed, the new Santer Commission appointed in 1995 included representatives from three new member-states (Austria, Finland and Sweden), ‘with a strong, existing commitment to equal opportunities, and with considerable experience in mainstreaming gender in their own public policies’ (Pollack and Hafner-Burton 2000: 436). The incoming Commission included (a record) five women, including Erkki Liikanen of Finland and Anita Gradin of Sweden, both of whom had a strong interest in equality issues and extensive experience of gender-mainstreaming. At the insistence of the women and Scandinavian Commissioners, a new high-level ‘Commissioners’ Group on Equal Opportunties, chaired by the President Santer, was established within the Commission, thereby further institutionalizing women’s interests within the higher echelons of the Commission. After 1995, the proportion of women MEPs also increased from 25.9% in 1994 to 27.6%. Since 62.% of Finnish and 45% of Swedish MEPs were women, the influence of the women’s lobby within the European Parliament was further strengthened (Liebert 1998: 18). The Nordic states were also influential in ensuring that sex equality became a priority issue during the 1996 IGC (Mazey 2001) As Liebert argues, the Swedish, Danish and Norwegian governments were conscious of the need to counter widespread, domestic Euro-scepticism among women, who feared that EU membership would lead to a dilution of their rights (Liebert 1998: 17). Such fears had been fuelled by the Kalanke ruling issued by the ECJ in 1995, which had outlawed national measures of positive discrimination on behalf of women as incompatible with EC law and the principle of ‘equal treatment’.

The 1996 IGC provided an important window of opportunity for the women’s advocacy coalition to embed the broader policy (women’s rights as human rights, equality as equality of opportunity, and gender mainstreaming) into the revised EU Treaties. As we have argued elsewhere (Mazey and Richardson 1997), the 1996 IGC — unlike previous IGCs — was characterized by extensive involvement of interest groups and much ‘competitive framing’. Ratification of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992 had provoked an unexpected upsurge of public opposition to European integration and the undemocratic nature of the Community institutions. The emergence of a vigilant and critical public rendered the ‘Community method’ of integration politically unacceptable. Whereas previous IGCs had taken the form of diplomatic negotiations between member states over clearly defined issues, the changed political circumstances demanded that the 1996 IGC be conducted in a more open manner. The impact of this development was twofold. First, participation in the IGC by large numbers of NGOs, many of whom favoured a more democratic EU, meant that the discourse of the IGC was characterized by normative and political debate rather than by legal reasoning (Sverdrup 2000). Secondly, the openness of the IGC made elite control of the agenda extremely difficult. As one bureaucrat reflected: ‘gone are the days when we had articles in square brackets, and the processes were purely technical; now decision-making in the IGC is open, unclear and democratic (Michel Petite, European Commission, cited in Sverdrup 2000: 260). This process afforded important opportunities for women’s groups, supported by the Scandinavian governments and the Commission to impose their policy frame upon the negotiations. Significantly, the EWL, which had not been involved in the 1985 IGC, lobbied intensely during the 1996 IGC. Moreover, it was an active member of a ‘human rights’ coalition of NGOs comprising Amnesty International, environmental organizations and groups representing the disabled, the elderly and migrants. The common policy frame for these groups during the IGC centred upon the need for the EU to promote citizenship rights, democracy and anti-discrimination (Interview with Cecile Greboval, EWL 18 May 1998 and Agnes Hubert, Forward Studies Unit, European Commission, 19 May 1998. See also Liebert 1998). For member-states, anxious to avoid inflaming European publics, it was extremely difficult to ignore demands for further consitutionalization of citizenship rights.

The foregoing analysis of EC equality policy demonstrates the importance of the EU as a favourable opportunity structure, or alternative policy venue for interests such as women and environmentalists, who find themselves marginalized at the national level, but who have been able to use the EC policy-making process to bring about national policy change. Despite the tenuous Treaty basis for EC sex equality policy, the past thirty years have witnessed the gradual expansion of EU competence in this aspect of social policy. During the first phase of policy development, women’s groups, the Commission, the ECJ and the EP concentrated upon establishing a critical mass of legislation and upon institutionalizing the policy sector. Soft policy instruments were regarded as complementary measures, which nevertheless helped to achieve incremental policy expansion. By the early 1990s, however, the limitations of this legislative strategy were apparent. Moreover, Commission officials within the Equal Opportunities Unit openly acknowledged that the policy-making environment was, in any case, no longer conducive to the introduction of further social legislation which increased employers' costs or reduced labour market flexibility. They also recognized that some member states were opposed, in principle, to any further extension of EU sex equality policies to issues beyond the narrow confines of Article 119. The inadequacies of the existing policies, combined with the constraints imposed by the changed policy environment were influential in prompting policy succession.

Since 1990, women’s networks have strategically reframed — and expanded - the underlying policy image, from the initial focus upon ‘equal pay’ and ‘equal treatment’ to ‘women’s rights as fundamental human rights’. By exploiting new (as well as established), mobilizing networks and the (still) favourable EU institutional opportunity structure, women have been able to embed this expanded policy frame into the Amsterdam Treaty. The new Article 2 of the Treaty confirms equality between men and women; the new Article 3 assigns to the Community responsibility for eliminating inequalities and promoting equality in all its activities (an endorsement of mainstreaming). The new Article 13 permits ‘appropriate action’ to combat discrimination on grounds of sex. Meanwhile, the old Article 119 has been replaced by Article 141, that gives equal treatment of women and men a specific grounding in primary law. The same Article also introduces qualified majority voting procedure for the adoption of new proposals on issues of ‘employment ans occupation’. Finally, the Treaty upholds the rights of member states to take affirmative action measures in favour of the underrepresented sex. These provisions, which are in part at least, attributable to the concerted lobbying efforts of the European Women's Lobby and the Nordic member states during the 1996 Intergovernmental Conference (European Women's Lobby 1996) significantly strengthen the Treaty basis for EC sex equality policies. They also extend the scope for EU intervention in this sector to sources of discrimination which lie beyond the workplace. The endorsement in the Amsterdam Treaty of national measures, which discriminate positively in favour of the underrepresented sex, constitutes a particularly important development. In short, it challenges the liberal (and widely accepted) definition of equal opportunity as equal treatment, which posits that public policies should be gender neutral. Taken together, these Treaty provisions may well help to instill a stronger gender dimension into national and EU policy-making. Gender mainstreaming is an integral and necessary feature of this policy succession. Alongside further legislation, it is now the principal EU policy instrument for achieving gender equality. It is a potentially radical policy approach, but it is also a relatively soft policy approach, which may prove difficult to implement effectively. Transformative mainstreaming will, for instance, require increased representation of women in public and private decision-making institutions, which may themselves have to be redesigned to accommodate women’s needs (Beveridge, Nott and Stephens 2000; Rees 1998). More importantly, it will also require EU and national policy-makers to review critically the way in which they conceptualize policy problems. Such a change will entail questioning of deeply embedded cultural values and policy frames, supported by existing institutions and powerful advocacy coalitions. In the absence of these changes, gender mainstreaming may amount to little more than a change of rhetoric.

Alter, K and Vargas, J (2000) ‘Explaining variation in the use of European litigation strategies. European Community law and British gender equality policy’, Comparative Political Studies, 33(4): 452-482.

Baumgartner, F and Jones, B (1991), 'Agenda dynamics and policy subsystems', The Journal of Politics, vol.53(4): 1044-1073.

Beveridge, F, Nott, S and Stephen, K (2000), ‘Mainstreaming and the engendering of policy: a means to an end?’, Journal of European Public Policy, 7(3): 385-405

Bew, P and Meehan, E (1994), 'Regions and borders: controversies in Northern Ireland about the European Union', Journal of European Public Policy, vol.1(1), pp. 95-114.

Bretherton, C and Sperling, L (1996), 'Women's networks and the European Union: towards an inclusive approach?', Journal of Common Market Studies, vol.34(4): 487-508.

Cichowski R (forthcoming 2001), ‘Judicial rule-making ans the institutionalization of EU sex equality policy’, in W Sandholtz and A Stone Sweet (eds), The Institutionalization of European Space, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Cram, L (1994), 'The European Commission as a multi-organization: social and information technology policy-making in the European Union', Journal of European Public Policy, 1(2): 195-217.

Cram, L (1993), 'Calling the tune without paying the piper? Social policy regulation: the role of the Commission in European Community social policy', Policy and Politics, 21: 135-146.

Department of Employment, Rights of Part-time Workers, Press Notice, 20 December 1994.

Egan, M (1998), ‘Gendered integration: social policies and the European Market’ women and Politics, 19(4): 23-52

European Commission (2000), Implementation by the European Community of the Platform for Action adopted at the fourth World Conference on women in Beijing 1995, Commission of the European Communities: Luxembourg.

European Womens Lobby (EWL) (1996), Contribution to the Intergovernmental Conference 1996, Brussels: European Women's Lobby, 4th March.

.

Haas P (1992), 'Introduction: epistemic communities and international policy co-ordination', International Organisation, 49(1): 1-35.

Hall, P and Taylor, R (1996), ‘Political science and the three new institutionalisms, Political Studies, 44: 936-57

Hogwood, B .W. and Gunn L.A. (1984), Policy Analysis for the Real World, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hoskyns, C, (1996), Integrating Gender: Women, Law and Politics in the European Union, London: Verso.

Keck, M E and Sikkink, K (1998), Activists beyond Borders. Advocacy Networks in International Politics, Ithaca and London: Cornell University Press.

Kingdon, J (1995 2nd ed.), Agendas, Alternatives and Public Policies, New York: Harper Collins.

Liebert, U (1998), ‘Gender politics in the European Union: the return of the public’, unpublished paper presented at the 1998 annual meeting of the American Political Science Association.

Lord Lester of Herne Hill, (1994), 'Discrimination: what lawyers can learn from history?', Public Law: 231

McAdam, D, McCarthy, J and Zald, M (1996), Introduction: opportunities, mobilizing structures, and framing processed — towards a synthetic, comparative perspective on social movements’, in D McAdam, J McCarthy ans M Zald (eds), Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 1-22

March, J P and Olsen, J P (1984), ‘The new institutionalism: organizational factors in political life’, American Political Science Review, 78: 738-49

March, J P and Olsen, J P (1989), ‘Rediscovering Institutions, New York: Free Press.

Mazey, S (forthcoming 2001), ‘The Swedish Permanent Representation to the EU: melding national and collective interests’, in H Kassim, A Menon, G peters and V Wright (eds), National Co-ordination in Brussels: the Role of the Permanent Representation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Mazey, S (forthcoming 2000), ‘European integration: unfinished journey or journey without end?’ in Richardson, J (ed.), European Union: Power and Policy-Making, London: Routledge. Second edition. Forthcoming October.

Mazey, S (1998), ‘The European Union and women’s rights: from the Europeanization of national agendas to the nationalization of a European agenda?’, Journal of European Public Policy, 59(1): 131-52.

Mazey, S (1995), 'The development of EU equality policies: bureaucratic expansion on behalf of women?', Public Administration, 73(4): 591-610.

Mazey, S (1988), 'European Community action on behalf of women: the limits of legislation', Journal of Common Market Studies, 27(1): 63-84.

Mazey S, and Richardson, J (1997), 'Policy framing: interest groups and the 1996 intergovernmental conference (IGC)',West European Politics, 1997

Mazey, S and Richardson, J (1996), 'EU policy-making: a garbage can or an anticipatory and consensual policy-style?', in Mény, Y, Muller, P, Quermonne, J-L (eds), Adjusting to Europe, London: Routledge: 41-60.

Mazey, S and Richardson, J (1995), 'Promiscuous policy-making: the European policy style?', in Rhodes, C and Mazey, S, (eds),The State of the European Union, Vol.3: Building a European Polity, Boulder: Lynne Rienner and Longman: 337-360.

Meehan, E (1990), 'Sex equality policies in the European Community', Journal of European Integration, vol.13(2-3): 185-196.

Ostner, I, and Lewis, J (1995), ‘Gender and the evaluation of European social policies’, in S Liebried and P Pierson (eds), European Social Policy: Between Fragmentation and Integration, Washington D.C.: the Brookings Institution.

Peters, G (1999), Institutional Theory in Political Science. The ‘New Institutionalism’, London: Pinter

Peters, B Guy (1994), 'Agenda-setting in the European Community', Journal of European Public Policy, 1(1): .9-26.

Peters, B Guy (1991), 'Bureaucratic politics and the institutions of the European Community', in Sbragia, Alberta M (ed.), Euro-Politics: Institutions and

Policymaking in the 'New" European Community, Washington DC, The Brookings Institution: 75-122.

Pollack, M and Hafner-Burton, E (2000), ‘Mainstreaming gender in the European Union’, Journal of European Public Policy, 7(3): 432-456.

Rees, T (1998), Mainstreaming Equality in the European Union. Education, training and Labour Market Policies, London: Routledge

Rein, H and Schön, D, '(1991), Frame-reflective policy discourse', in P Wagner, C H Weiss, B Wittrock and H Wollman (eds), Social Sciences, Modern States. National Experiences and Theoretical Crossroads, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richardson, J (ed.) (1996), European Union: Power and Policy-Making, London: Routledge.

Rutherford, F (1989), 'The proposals for a European Directive on parental leave: some reasons why it failed', Policy and Politics, vol.17(4), pp.301-310.

Sabatier, P (1988), 'An advocacy coalition framework of policy change and the role of policy-orientated learning therein', Policy Sciences, vol.2: 128-168.

Schön, D and Rein, M (1994), Frame Reflection. Towards the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies, New York: Basic Books

Sverdrup, O (2000), ‘Precedents and present events in the European Union. An institutional perspective on Treaty reform’, in Neunreither, K and Wiener, A (eds), European Integration after Amsterdam: Institutional Dynamics and Prospects for Democracy, Oxford: Oxford University Press: 241-265.

Tesoka, S (1999), Judicial Politics in the European Union: Its Impact on National Opportunity Structures for Gender Equality’, Max-Planck Institute für Gesellschaftsforschung Discussion Paper 99/2

Thelen, K and Steinmo, S (1992), ‘Historical institutionalism in comparative politics’, in S Steinmo, K Thelen and F Longstretch (eds), Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Vallance, E and Davies E, (1986), Women of Europe: women MEPs and Equality Policy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Warner R, H (1984), ' Social policy in practice: Community action on behalf of women and its impact in the member-states', Journal of Common Market Studies, 23: 141-67.

Wildavsky, A (1980), The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis. London: Macmillan