Pub Date : 2022-04-01DOI: 10.1177/14680181221079097
Julia Smith
Back in 2008, David Fidler coined the term ‘the gender paradox’, which he described in the following terms: ‘We perceive that problems concerning women’s health . . . are growing at the same time that gender-informed analysis of global health issues has become more pervasive’ (Fidler, 2008: 148). He goes on to describe an inverted triangle within global health where there are numerous standards related to women’s health, but little incorporation of these into organizational practices or national implementation, and even less evidence of improved health outcomes for women. The response to COVID-19 has taken the gender paradox to a new level. We see unprecedent attention to the gendered effects of pandemics, in terms of not only health effects, but also the disproportionate social and economic impacts on women, yet little progress in rectifying these inequities (Harman, 2021). In this brief comment, I share two examples of how the gender paradox plays out in policy spaces – both global (the World Health Organization (WHO)) and national (Canada) – and then reflect on what can be learned in order to overcome barriers to transformative change. The WHO is mandated by the International Health Regulations to lead and coordinate responses to Public Health Emergencies of International Concern. While not an implementing organization, WHO provides technical guidance and holds normative power in its ability to set standards and champion agendas within global health; as such, its leadership in promoting gender-sensitive health responses is paramount (Wenham and Davies, 2021). The WHO has demonstrated some follow through on its commitments to mainstream gender (adopted in its Gender Strategy in 2008 and continued in the 13th General Programme of Work 2019–2023) in its COVID-19 response. In May 2020, it released a Gender and COVID advocacy brief and issued guidance on monitoring the unintended consequences of public health lockdowns, including gender-based violence and access to sexual and reproductive healthcare (WHO, 2020). Partially in response to pressure from organizations like Women in Global Health, as well as feminist advocates within and outside the organization, WHO Director General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus met with civil society organizations, in September 2020, and
{"title":"COVID-19 and the gender paradox","authors":"Julia Smith","doi":"10.1177/14680181221079097","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181221079097","url":null,"abstract":"Back in 2008, David Fidler coined the term ‘the gender paradox’, which he described in the following terms: ‘We perceive that problems concerning women’s health . . . are growing at the same time that gender-informed analysis of global health issues has become more pervasive’ (Fidler, 2008: 148). He goes on to describe an inverted triangle within global health where there are numerous standards related to women’s health, but little incorporation of these into organizational practices or national implementation, and even less evidence of improved health outcomes for women. The response to COVID-19 has taken the gender paradox to a new level. We see unprecedent attention to the gendered effects of pandemics, in terms of not only health effects, but also the disproportionate social and economic impacts on women, yet little progress in rectifying these inequities (Harman, 2021). In this brief comment, I share two examples of how the gender paradox plays out in policy spaces – both global (the World Health Organization (WHO)) and national (Canada) – and then reflect on what can be learned in order to overcome barriers to transformative change. The WHO is mandated by the International Health Regulations to lead and coordinate responses to Public Health Emergencies of International Concern. While not an implementing organization, WHO provides technical guidance and holds normative power in its ability to set standards and champion agendas within global health; as such, its leadership in promoting gender-sensitive health responses is paramount (Wenham and Davies, 2021). The WHO has demonstrated some follow through on its commitments to mainstream gender (adopted in its Gender Strategy in 2008 and continued in the 13th General Programme of Work 2019–2023) in its COVID-19 response. In May 2020, it released a Gender and COVID advocacy brief and issued guidance on monitoring the unintended consequences of public health lockdowns, including gender-based violence and access to sexual and reproductive healthcare (WHO, 2020). Partially in response to pressure from organizations like Women in Global Health, as well as feminist advocates within and outside the organization, WHO Director General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus met with civil society organizations, in September 2020, and","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47451094","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-01DOI: 10.1177/14680181211048126
A. Zúñiga-Fajuri, Fuad Hatibovic, J. Gaete
Chile has become the first country in the world where an equal number of men and women will draft the new Constitution due a parity law that was passed in March 2020. In addition, this historic opportunity will take place during one of the worst health pandemics in recorded history, COVID-19, which has revealed deep gender inequalities. The new Chilean Constitution, drafted with gender parity, will have a unique opportunity to grant a right to a universal basic income (UBI), which has been targeted to address some of the worst consequences of the pandemic: the increase in poverty, unemployment, and vulnerability of women. This article reviews the theories developed to justify a UBI and the feminist critics who argue that not all UBI is equally advantageous to women. The misconception that a ‘morally neutral’ model is sufficient and women-friendly disregards the way in which it encourages stereotypes that feminists have fought for centuries. We argue for the development of public policies with a gender focus, especially the right to a ‘gendered UBI’. This means a UBI that meets two basic requirements: first, that every citizen or resident be guaranteed the same amount of income from birth; second, that caregivers be provided with management rights to turn the UBI into a compensatory income that can also promote changes in gender roles, encouraging men to become caregivers.
{"title":"A gendered UBI proposal for the new Chilean constitution (or why being a surfer is not the same as being a caregiver)","authors":"A. Zúñiga-Fajuri, Fuad Hatibovic, J. Gaete","doi":"10.1177/14680181211048126","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181211048126","url":null,"abstract":"Chile has become the first country in the world where an equal number of men and women will draft the new Constitution due a parity law that was passed in March 2020. In addition, this historic opportunity will take place during one of the worst health pandemics in recorded history, COVID-19, which has revealed deep gender inequalities. The new Chilean Constitution, drafted with gender parity, will have a unique opportunity to grant a right to a universal basic income (UBI), which has been targeted to address some of the worst consequences of the pandemic: the increase in poverty, unemployment, and vulnerability of women. This article reviews the theories developed to justify a UBI and the feminist critics who argue that not all UBI is equally advantageous to women. The misconception that a ‘morally neutral’ model is sufficient and women-friendly disregards the way in which it encourages stereotypes that feminists have fought for centuries. We argue for the development of public policies with a gender focus, especially the right to a ‘gendered UBI’. This means a UBI that meets two basic requirements: first, that every citizen or resident be guaranteed the same amount of income from birth; second, that caregivers be provided with management rights to turn the UBI into a compensatory income that can also promote changes in gender roles, encouraging men to become caregivers.","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43332359","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-01DOI: 10.1177/14680181221079099
A. Kaasch
Dear GSP readers, This issue consists of eight articles, a Forum entitled “COVID-19: Lessons for genderresponsive recovery and transformation” and a Digest covering the fields of global social governance, global social policies (redistribution, regulation, rights), health, employment and work, social protection, education, environment, migration and gender, but with an ongoing emphasis on the Covid-19 pandemic. As usual, this editorial briefly presents the discussions and contributions to this issue, but also hints at a number of recently published books in the field. The insights and discussions from our last issue (GSP 21.3) – a special issue on Covid-19 – are continued in the GSP Forum edited by Sarah Cook and Silke Staab, as well as in an article by Zuñiga-Fajuri et al., with a particular focus on gendered and feminist perspectives. The Forum contains short reflections by feminist researchers and advocates from civil society, academia, and intergovernmental agencies. They explore the role feminist activism and ‘policy entrepreneurship’ has played in responding to crisis and driving a more forward-looking gender transformative agenda. Among the insights we get from these contributions are the following: Covid-19 has highlighted gender impacts and inequalities in relation not only to the pandemic but also the crises arising from various measures to prevent the virus from spreading. Activism on genderrelated needs and rights rapidly intensified at the start of the pandemic, drawing on existing evidence and transnational networks. Particularly interesting are the considerations of what transformative, sustainable gender-sensitive policies could be like, linking feminist arguments about care and the environment. In a related vein, the chapter by Warria Ajwang’ in “The Palgrave Handbook of Global Social Problems” (Baikady et al., 2021) describes Covid-19 as a “catalyst for transformative socio-political activism for accountability and justice”. It highlights the potential of the regularization of migrant work for accessing social rights (irrespective of residence, gender, and status). That fits well with the GSP Digest’s comment on the new 1079099 GSP0010.1177/14680181221079099Global Social PolicyKaasch editorial2022
亲爱的普惠制读者，本期共有八篇文章，一个题为“新冠肺炎：性别响应性复苏和转型的教训”的论坛和一个涵盖全球社会治理、全球社会政策（再分配、监管、权利）、健康、就业和工作、社会保护、教育、环境、移民和性别等领域的摘要，但同时持续强调新冠肺炎大流行。和往常一样，这篇社论简要介绍了对这一问题的讨论和贡献，但也暗示了该领域最近出版的一些书籍。Sarah Cook和Silke Staab编辑的《普惠制论坛》以及Zuñiga-Fajuri等人的一篇文章继续介绍了我们上一期（普惠制21.3）——关于新冠肺炎的特刊——的见解和讨论，特别关注性别和女权主义观点。论坛包含了来自民间社会、学术界和政府间机构的女权主义研究人员和倡导者的简短思考。他们探讨了女权主义激进主义和“政策创业”在应对危机和推动更具前瞻性的性别变革议程方面所发挥的作用。我们从这些贡献中得到的见解如下：新冠肺炎突出了性别影响和不平等，不仅与疫情有关，还与防止病毒传播的各种措施引起的危机有关。在新冠疫情开始时，利用现有证据和跨国网络，关于性别相关需求和权利的活动迅速加剧。特别有趣的是，考虑到变革性、可持续的性别敏感政策可能是什么样的，将女权主义关于护理和环境的论点联系起来。与此相关的是，Warria Ajwang在《全球社会问题帕尔格雷夫手册》（Baikady et al.，2021）中的章节将新冠肺炎描述为“促进问责制和正义的变革性社会政治行动的催化剂”。它强调了移民工作正规化对获得社会权利（不分居住地、性别和地位）的潜力。这与《普惠制文摘》对新的1079099 GSP0010.1177/14680181221079099全球社会政策Kaasch社论2022的评论非常吻合
{"title":"What is (successfully) “social” in global social policy and how does it diffuse?","authors":"A. Kaasch","doi":"10.1177/14680181221079099","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181221079099","url":null,"abstract":"Dear GSP readers, This issue consists of eight articles, a Forum entitled “COVID-19: Lessons for genderresponsive recovery and transformation” and a Digest covering the fields of global social governance, global social policies (redistribution, regulation, rights), health, employment and work, social protection, education, environment, migration and gender, but with an ongoing emphasis on the Covid-19 pandemic. As usual, this editorial briefly presents the discussions and contributions to this issue, but also hints at a number of recently published books in the field. The insights and discussions from our last issue (GSP 21.3) – a special issue on Covid-19 – are continued in the GSP Forum edited by Sarah Cook and Silke Staab, as well as in an article by Zuñiga-Fajuri et al., with a particular focus on gendered and feminist perspectives. The Forum contains short reflections by feminist researchers and advocates from civil society, academia, and intergovernmental agencies. They explore the role feminist activism and ‘policy entrepreneurship’ has played in responding to crisis and driving a more forward-looking gender transformative agenda. Among the insights we get from these contributions are the following: Covid-19 has highlighted gender impacts and inequalities in relation not only to the pandemic but also the crises arising from various measures to prevent the virus from spreading. Activism on genderrelated needs and rights rapidly intensified at the start of the pandemic, drawing on existing evidence and transnational networks. Particularly interesting are the considerations of what transformative, sustainable gender-sensitive policies could be like, linking feminist arguments about care and the environment. In a related vein, the chapter by Warria Ajwang’ in “The Palgrave Handbook of Global Social Problems” (Baikady et al., 2021) describes Covid-19 as a “catalyst for transformative socio-political activism for accountability and justice”. It highlights the potential of the regularization of migrant work for accessing social rights (irrespective of residence, gender, and status). That fits well with the GSP Digest’s comment on the new 1079099 GSP0010.1177/14680181221079099Global Social PolicyKaasch editorial2022","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47571734","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-01DOI: 10.1177/14680181221079087
Kaira Zoe Alburo-Cañete
Amid growing concerns regarding how the COVID-19 crisis is derailing the important gains made in advancing gender equality and women empowerment over the years, calls to integrate gender perspectives in ‘building back better’ from the pandemic have been heightened (Azcona et al., 2021; OHCHR, 2021). These calls are not new but have been a staple of discourses around recovery and reconstruction across different contexts marked by disaster, conflict and other forms of crises. Popularised by former US President Bill Clinton in his capacity as UN Special Envoy for Tsunami Recovery, ‘build back better’ has since been a normative principle adopted by the international humanitarian community (Clinton, 2006). It denotes creating a new state of normalcy: that is, rebuilding is no longer thought of as bouncing back but bouncing forward to a new and improved state. What a ‘better’ transformation looks like is of course a matter of interpretation and is highly contentious. In this article, I focus on how gender figures in imaginations of building a ‘better’ post-pandemic future. To do so, I draw on insights from previous research on women’s experiences of postdisaster reconstruction in the Philippines after typhoon Haiyan (Alburo-Cañete, 2021a, 2021b) and highlight opportunities and challenges in achieving the transformation desired in attempts to rebuild from the pandemic, focussing on the notion of care.
随着人们越来越担心新冠肺炎危机如何破坏多年来在促进性别平等和赋予妇女权力方面取得的重要成果，将性别观点纳入从疫情中“重建得更好”的呼声越来越高（Azcona et al.，2021；人权高专办，2021）。这些呼吁并不新鲜，但一直是以灾难、冲突和其他形式危机为标志的不同背景下围绕复苏和重建的主要讨论。美国前总统比尔·克林顿以联合国海啸灾后恢复特使的身份广受欢迎，“重建得更好”已成为国际人道主义界采用的规范原则（克林顿，2006年）。它意味着创造一种新的常态：也就是说，重建不再被认为是反弹，而是向前反弹到一个新的、改善的状态。“更好”的转变看起来是什么样子当然是一个解释问题，并且极具争议。在这篇文章中，我关注的是在建设一个“更美好”的后疫情未来的想象中，性别是如何塑造的。为此，我借鉴了之前对台风“海燕”（Alburo Cañete，2021a、2021b）后菲律宾妇女灾后重建经历的研究的见解，并强调了实现从疫情中重建所需转变的机遇和挑战，重点关注护理的概念。
{"title":"Building back better? Rethinking gender and recovery in the time of COVID-19","authors":"Kaira Zoe Alburo-Cañete","doi":"10.1177/14680181221079087","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181221079087","url":null,"abstract":"Amid growing concerns regarding how the COVID-19 crisis is derailing the important gains made in advancing gender equality and women empowerment over the years, calls to integrate gender perspectives in ‘building back better’ from the pandemic have been heightened (Azcona et al., 2021; OHCHR, 2021). These calls are not new but have been a staple of discourses around recovery and reconstruction across different contexts marked by disaster, conflict and other forms of crises. Popularised by former US President Bill Clinton in his capacity as UN Special Envoy for Tsunami Recovery, ‘build back better’ has since been a normative principle adopted by the international humanitarian community (Clinton, 2006). It denotes creating a new state of normalcy: that is, rebuilding is no longer thought of as bouncing back but bouncing forward to a new and improved state. What a ‘better’ transformation looks like is of course a matter of interpretation and is highly contentious. In this article, I focus on how gender figures in imaginations of building a ‘better’ post-pandemic future. To do so, I draw on insights from previous research on women’s experiences of postdisaster reconstruction in the Philippines after typhoon Haiyan (Alburo-Cañete, 2021a, 2021b) and highlight opportunities and challenges in achieving the transformation desired in attempts to rebuild from the pandemic, focussing on the notion of care.","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47272555","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-04-01DOI: 10.1177/14680181221079098
Margaret Babirye, J. Berten, Fabian Besche-Truthe, A. Boyashov, Sara Cufré, Eberechukwu Igbojekwe, Meghan C. Laws, Tahnee Ooms, Robin Schulze
is especially to ‘help our most vulnerable countries struggling to cope with the impact of the COVID-19 crisis,’ having a large chunk of the SDRs sitting idle on the balance sheets of high-income countries is unhelpful. get worse with climate change. This is an urgent global challenge and we need to step up to it. The science is clear and has been for years. 108
{"title":"Global Social Policy Digest 22.1: Old problems in a Corona context","authors":"Margaret Babirye, J. Berten, Fabian Besche-Truthe, A. Boyashov, Sara Cufré, Eberechukwu Igbojekwe, Meghan C. Laws, Tahnee Ooms, Robin Schulze","doi":"10.1177/14680181221079098","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181221079098","url":null,"abstract":"is especially to ‘help our most vulnerable countries struggling to cope with the impact of the COVID-19 crisis,’ having a large chunk of the SDRs sitting idle on the balance sheets of high-income countries is unhelpful. get worse with climate change. This is an urgent global challenge and we need to step up to it. The science is clear and has been for years. 108","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44364340","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-31DOI: 10.1177/14680181211065240
N. Piper
This article assesses the role of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) as a player within the multi-actor sphere of global migration governance. The aim is to analyse the ILO’s leadership within this sphere that is characterised by shifting dynamics between rules-based and rights-based approaches as a result of the multiplication of actors and, given its normative predisposition, the effects on the ILO’s ability to advance migrant workers’ labour rights. The article is premised on the assumption that the promotion of a rights-based approach to labour migration via the ILO’s decent work agenda depends upon the presence of effective and proactive governing institutions as well as appropriate regulation. Contemporary scholarship highlights the importance of organisational networks across multiple sites and levels of policy making in order to achieve change. The situation of the highly precarious migrant workforce involved in the construction of the physical infrastructure for the Football World Cup 2022 in Qatar demonstrates the particular challenges posed by an unfavourable institutional environment. This leads to the argument that stratified organisational networks at the intersection of various institutional nodes are required to keep shifting the goalpost – and the ILO is one such node. The conception of global governance as nodal provides an understanding of how such networks can generate multi-directional and concerted action across various organisational actors and over time, contributing to the advancement of migrants’ labour rights.
{"title":"The International Labour Organisation as nodal player on the pitch of networked governance: Shifting the goalposts for migrant workers in Qatar","authors":"N. Piper","doi":"10.1177/14680181211065240","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181211065240","url":null,"abstract":"This article assesses the role of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) as a player within the multi-actor sphere of global migration governance. The aim is to analyse the ILO’s leadership within this sphere that is characterised by shifting dynamics between rules-based and rights-based approaches as a result of the multiplication of actors and, given its normative predisposition, the effects on the ILO’s ability to advance migrant workers’ labour rights. The article is premised on the assumption that the promotion of a rights-based approach to labour migration via the ILO’s decent work agenda depends upon the presence of effective and proactive governing institutions as well as appropriate regulation. Contemporary scholarship highlights the importance of organisational networks across multiple sites and levels of policy making in order to achieve change. The situation of the highly precarious migrant workforce involved in the construction of the physical infrastructure for the Football World Cup 2022 in Qatar demonstrates the particular challenges posed by an unfavourable institutional environment. This leads to the argument that stratified organisational networks at the intersection of various institutional nodes are required to keep shifting the goalpost – and the ILO is one such node. The conception of global governance as nodal provides an understanding of how such networks can generate multi-directional and concerted action across various organisational actors and over time, contributing to the advancement of migrants’ labour rights.","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44904014","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-25DOI: 10.1177/14680181211052921
L. Kawar
This article applies a history of knowledge perspective to interwar International Labour Organization (ILO) efforts to produce generalized international instruments for governing migrant labor. The historical analysis explores what it meant in the interwar context to devise ‘an international common law of the emigrant’. It focuses particular attention on the process through which juridical techniques formalized a distinction between ‘migration for employment’ and ‘migratory movements of indigenous workers’. Foregrounding the constructed nature of these categories highlights the underlying race-based notions that informed interwar ILO standard-setting frameworks. More broadly, tracing the knowledge-making processes through which seemingly objective categorical distinctions have been constructed and reconstructed opens space for questioning and potentially rethinking the functionally differentiated normative frameworks through which global policymaking approaches human mobility today.
{"title":"Assembling an international social protection for the migrant: Juridical categorization in ILO migration standards, 1919–1939","authors":"L. Kawar","doi":"10.1177/14680181211052921","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181211052921","url":null,"abstract":"This article applies a history of knowledge perspective to interwar International Labour Organization (ILO) efforts to produce generalized international instruments for governing migrant labor. The historical analysis explores what it meant in the interwar context to devise ‘an international common law of the emigrant’. It focuses particular attention on the process through which juridical techniques formalized a distinction between ‘migration for employment’ and ‘migratory movements of indigenous workers’. Foregrounding the constructed nature of these categories highlights the underlying race-based notions that informed interwar ILO standard-setting frameworks. More broadly, tracing the knowledge-making processes through which seemingly objective categorical distinctions have been constructed and reconstructed opens space for questioning and potentially rethinking the functionally differentiated normative frameworks through which global policymaking approaches human mobility today.","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-03-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44604333","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-24DOI: 10.1177/14680181221079088
Silke Staab, C. Tabbush
With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, feminists in academia, international organizations and civil society were quick to predict that its impact on gender equality would be detrimental (Alon et al., 2020; UN Secretary General, 2020; Wenham et al., 2020). To make their case, they first drew on evidence and lessons from previous crises, but then moved swiftly to collect, analyze and disseminate real-time data—both quantitative and qualitative. This “groundswell of expert activism” (Harman, 2021: 617) was driven by the purposeful and often innovative action of committed gender equality advocates across institutional spaces. Between March 2020 and March 2021, for example, UN Women conducted rapid gender assessments in over 50 countries, collecting gender data on the impact of COVID19 on employment, unpaid care, mental and physical health, and access to government relief through specially designed surveys.1 These and other impact data left no doubt about the gendered fallout of the pandemic, but were governments heeding these insights to inform their response and recovery efforts? Being able to answer this question seemed critical to shape the global policy discourse and hold national governments to account. By May 2020, however, not one of the global policy trackers that monitored government responses to the pandemic included a gender perspective. Public health trackers— such as the WHO COVID-19 Health System Monitor2—focused squarely on first order responses, ignoring measures to address second-order effects such as increasing rates of domestic violence or limited access to sexual and reproductive health services. Meanwhile, trackers monitoring the economic and social policy response—including the ILO’s Social Protection Monitor,3 the World Bank’s Real Time Review of Social Protection and Jobs Responses4 or the IMF’s macroeconomic response tracker5—provided no indication of whether and how countries were responding to large-scale job losses in feminized sectors, women’s heightened poverty risk and rising unpaid care
{"title":"Following a moving target on a global scale: Gender data collection during COVID-19","authors":"Silke Staab, C. Tabbush","doi":"10.1177/14680181221079088","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181221079088","url":null,"abstract":"With the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, feminists in academia, international organizations and civil society were quick to predict that its impact on gender equality would be detrimental (Alon et al., 2020; UN Secretary General, 2020; Wenham et al., 2020). To make their case, they first drew on evidence and lessons from previous crises, but then moved swiftly to collect, analyze and disseminate real-time data—both quantitative and qualitative. This “groundswell of expert activism” (Harman, 2021: 617) was driven by the purposeful and often innovative action of committed gender equality advocates across institutional spaces. Between March 2020 and March 2021, for example, UN Women conducted rapid gender assessments in over 50 countries, collecting gender data on the impact of COVID19 on employment, unpaid care, mental and physical health, and access to government relief through specially designed surveys.1 These and other impact data left no doubt about the gendered fallout of the pandemic, but were governments heeding these insights to inform their response and recovery efforts? Being able to answer this question seemed critical to shape the global policy discourse and hold national governments to account. By May 2020, however, not one of the global policy trackers that monitored government responses to the pandemic included a gender perspective. Public health trackers— such as the WHO COVID-19 Health System Monitor2—focused squarely on first order responses, ignoring measures to address second-order effects such as increasing rates of domestic violence or limited access to sexual and reproductive health services. Meanwhile, trackers monitoring the economic and social policy response—including the ILO’s Social Protection Monitor,3 the World Bank’s Real Time Review of Social Protection and Jobs Responses4 or the IMF’s macroeconomic response tracker5—provided no indication of whether and how countries were responding to large-scale job losses in feminized sectors, women’s heightened poverty risk and rising unpaid care","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46223306","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-24DOI: 10.1177/14680181221079096
J. Franzoni, Sarah Cook
Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic early in 2020, we have heard global leaders, public intellectuals and civil society activists speaking of a crisis that requires not just "building back better" but rather a radical reconstruction of the pre-pandemic world. Among these, the United Nations Secretary General has called for a "New global Deal" and a "New social contract" rooted in global solidarity.
{"title":"Seizing the opportunity to do things differently: Feminist ideas, policies and actors in UN Women’s ‘Feminist Plan for Sustainability and Social Justice’","authors":"J. Franzoni, Sarah Cook","doi":"10.1177/14680181221079096","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181221079096","url":null,"abstract":"Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic early in 2020, we have heard global leaders, public intellectuals and civil society activists speaking of a crisis that requires not just \"building back better\" but rather a radical reconstruction of the pre-pandemic world. Among these, the United Nations Secretary General has called for a \"New global Deal\" and a \"New social contract\" rooted in global solidarity.","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46711096","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-03-24DOI: 10.1177/14680181221079089
R. Moussié, L. Alfers
From the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the International Labour Office (ILO) projected that 1.6 billion of the 2 billion workers in the informal economy would be among the most severely affected. Social protection systems designed for labour markets characterized by formal employment struggled to provide relief and support to these workers as the global pandemic took hold. It is against this backdrop that WIEGO (Women in Informal Employment: Globalizing and Organizing) - a research, advocacy and policy network aimed at improving the livelihoods of workers in the informal economy - deepened its engagement in global social protection policy debates.
{"title":"Pandemic, informality and women’s work: Redefining social protection priorities at WIEGO","authors":"R. Moussié, L. Alfers","doi":"10.1177/14680181221079089","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181221079089","url":null,"abstract":"From the outset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the International Labour Office (ILO) projected that 1.6 billion of the 2 billion workers in the informal economy would be among the most severely affected. Social protection systems designed for labour markets characterized by formal employment struggled to provide relief and support to these workers as the global pandemic took hold. It is against this backdrop that WIEGO (Women in Informal Employment: Globalizing and Organizing) - a research, advocacy and policy network aimed at improving the livelihoods of workers in the informal economy - deepened its engagement in global social protection policy debates.","PeriodicalId":46041,"journal":{"name":"Global Social Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2022-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41937286","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：