跟踪全球范围内的移动目标:COVID-19期间的性别数据收集

IF 1.5 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Global Social Policy Pub Date : 2022-03-24 DOI:10.1177/14680181221079088
Silke Staab, C. Tabbush
{"title":"跟踪全球范围内的移动目标:COVID-19期间的性别数据收集","authors":"Silke Staab, C. Tabbush","doi":"10.1177/14680181221079088","DOIUrl":null,"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":"22 1","pages":"184 - 189"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"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\":null,\"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\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"184 - 189\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-03-24\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Global Social Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181221079088\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Global Social Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14680181221079088","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

随着新冠肺炎疫情的爆发,学术界、国际组织和民间社会的女权主义者很快预测,其对性别平等的影响将是有害的(Alon等人,2020;联合国秘书长,2020;Wenham等人,2020)。为了证明自己的观点,他们首先借鉴了以往危机的证据和教训,但随后迅速采取行动,收集、分析和传播实时数据,包括定量和定性数据。这种“专家激进主义的浪潮”(Harman,2021:617)是由坚定的性别平等倡导者在机构空间采取的有目的且往往是创新的行动推动的。例如,在2020年3月至2021年3月期间,妇女署在50多个国家进行了快速性别评估,通过专门设计的调查收集了关于新冠肺炎对就业、无偿护理、身心健康以及获得政府救济的影响的性别数据19,但各国政府是否注意到了这些见解,从而为其应对和恢复工作提供了信息?能够回答这个问题似乎对塑造全球政策话语和追究各国政府的责任至关重要。然而,到2020年5月,监测政府应对疫情的全球政策跟踪机构中没有一个包含性别观点。公共卫生跟踪机构,如世界卫生组织新冠肺炎卫生系统监测机构2,完全专注于一级应对措施,忽视了解决二级影响的措施,如家庭暴力率上升或获得性和生殖健康服务的机会有限。与此同时,监测经济和社会政策反应的追踪机构——包括国际劳工组织的《社会保护监测》、3世界银行的《社会保障和就业反应实时审查》4或国际货币基金组织的宏观经济反应追踪机构5——没有提供任何迹象表明各国是否以及如何应对女性化部门的大规模失业,妇女贫困风险增加和无偿护理增加
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Following a moving target on a global scale: Gender data collection during COVID-19
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
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Global Social Policy
Global Social Policy POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
6.70%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Global Social Policy is a fully peer-reviewed journal that advances the understanding of the impact of globalisation processes upon social policy and social development on the one hand, and the impact of social policy upon globalisation processes on the other hand. The journal analyses the contributions of a range of national and international actors, both governmental and non-governmental, to global social policy and social development discourse and practice. Global Social Policy publishes scholarly policy-oriented articles and reports that focus on aspects of social policy and social and human development as broadly defined in the context of globalisation be it in contemporary or historical contexts.
期刊最新文献
Social sustainability in the decarbonized welfare state: Social policy as a buffer against poverty related to environmental taxes When growth is not enough: Do government transfers moderate the effect of economic growth on absolute and relative child poverty? Social policy as knowledge process: How its sociotechnical links to labour reconfigure the social question An eco-social policy typology: From system reproduction to transformation Reflexivity in global social policy: Introduction to the special issue
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1