�山����

Until gender is mainstreamed in public finance, progress on equality will be stymied, as it has been for the past two decades. The recent 20 year review of the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action on the rights and empowerment of women shows that the lives of many are little better. True, more girls are now in education, more women in jobs. But women are paid 10 per cent less than men for doing the same work. Not one single country has achieved gender equality. Progress has been impeded by chronic underinvestment, lack of   skill and of political will. But this could start to change in 2015. The new Sustainable Development Goals and a new approach to financing for development give us the chance to mainstream gender. But implementation requires changes to governments’ budgeting, revenue collection, expenditure patterns, debt management and aid mobilisation and utilisation. Action on the differing impacts on girls and boys, women and men in the following six areas of public finance can be transformative:

1. Gender at the core of national budget setting through gender responsive budgeting. Over 60 countries now apply gender analysis to their budgets. Gender responsive budgeting (GSB) in Nepal increased the spending directly responsive to women’s needs from 11 per cent in 2007 to 17 per cent in 2010. In Bangladesh, several line ministries compiled gender budgeting reports after GSB was introduced. But gender equality considerations are still absent or not applied in a consistent manner in most budget analyses.
2. Audits that track public expenditure to ascertain whether it is inclusive of women and girls; whether government spending is widening or lessening the gender gap. For example, the clustering of women in lower-paid jobs is difficult to change. So, an audit of the beneficiaries of government expenditure to move agricultural workers up the dairy value chain may lead to adjustments, so that female as well as male farmers are included. Consistent use of gender audits provides the information policy makers need.
3. Budgetary austerity and mitigating its impact on women. Women and girls have been particularly vulnerable to economic downturns in developing countries – as illustrated by the higher female youth unemployment and more prominent decline in primary school completion rate for girls.
4. Debt contracted by governments can take into account multiple discrimination such as that experienced by poor rural women. So a loan to build a hospital in a more prosperous urban area that requires the government to pay for running costs may divert money away from services relied on by poor women in rural areas.
5. Reducing gender bias in tax systems – the impact of taxes on different genders is not always obvious. The South Africa Women’s Budget Initiative made the case for paraffin, a basic need for poor women to be zero rated for tax. Tax exemption or reduction for land registered in a woman’s name can change a family’s approach to sharing their assets with daughters, sisters and wives. The way in which Canada was able to use its tax systems to promote greater female participation could be replicated more widely.
6. Overseas Aid. Aid investment in equality is focused mainly on education and health, with only 2 per cent of bilateral aid going to women’s economic empowerment. Some new sources of funding, such as the private sector and philanthropic foundations, are investing in this area. Tracking of the impact of this spending could improve quality and influence priorities of governments.

Interest in financing for gender equality and empowerment is currently high, as evidenced by the dozen or so side meetings on gender, women and girls scheduled during the Financing for Development Conference. Gender is also prominent in the draft outcome document. To bring all this rhetoric into the real world we need key actors and decision makers to understand the gender impact of their decisions. Only then will public finance become a powerful tool to “leave no one behind”.