IMF wrong on equating ‘gender’ with ‘women’ in its strategy paper

The term “gender mainstreaming” was popularised by the 1995 United Nations global conference on women. Thereafter, international organisations clamoured to develop gender policies and strategies. One would think the International Monetary Fund (IMF) would be among the trendsetters. But no. The IMF only launched its gender mainstreaming strategy in July last year.

Be that as it may, the strategy is inspired by “recognition that reducing gender disparities goes hand in hand with higher economic growth, greater economic stability and resilience, and lower income inequality”. It outlines “how the IMF can help its member countries address gender disparities in the context of carrying out its core functions—surveillance, lending and capacity development”.

The strategy is based on four pillars, namely creating a centralised data hub and deepening analytical and policy tools, setting up a robust governance framework and internal organisational structure, strengthening collaboration and establishing modalities of engagement with other international institutions, and establishing a central unit to realise economies of scale and avoid duplication of efforts across departments.

Emphasis is placed on fidelity to IMF’s mandate, which is qualified as “integrating gender issues that are relevant for macroeconomic outcomes in exchange rate, monetary, fiscal, financial and structural policy discussions with member countries”.

Gender mainstreaming

Commendably, the strategy realises that country contexts differ hence, advises against “overly standardised recommendations”. It also acknowledges two potential risks and challenges to gender mainstreaming. One is “whether the fund will develop sufficient capacity, expertise, data, information and tools to engage meaningfully with the membership and provide granular and tailored advice”.

This challenge is premised on the high volume work envisaged and acceptance that IMF’s “standard economic models thus far have had little to say about gender”. Citing that “gender topics began to systematically appear in the fund’s work program (only) a decade ago – 2013” is certainly not a complement and demonstrates historical apathy towards the subject.

Two, is that “undertaking more rigorous analytical work will take time, resources, deliberation, and an acknowledgement of successes and failures”. The IMF boldly notes that these should not stop the work from beginning and recommends starting with “elements …that are not resource-intensive”.

With this commitment, the strategy outlines a phased implementation plan over a three-year period. In some instances, the strategy provides practical guidance on gender issues related to IMF’s work. Examples given concern the relationship between gender inequality and macroeconomic policies and outcomes. Regrettably, however, all the illustrations focus on women and ignore how the same factors negatively affect men.

Covid-19

In other words, the strategy largely equates “gender” with “women”, which is an unfortunate hangover from the evolution of the discourse. For instance, the strategy talks of the disproportionate impact of the Covid-19 crisis on women, a statement found in so many other documents and one begins to think men were immune to the disease! Did men not lose their lives, jobs, spouses and children? Were they not driven into mental illness and substance abuse? Did Covid-19 not annihilate men’s capacities to perform traditional gender roles and hence force them into desperate coping measures? Holistic gender mainstreaming requires a relational and comparative approach.

Reading through the strategy, one gets the feeling of a need to interrogate statistics used. For instance, the strategy cites a 2016 UNDP report that “an estimated 80 per cent of people displaced by climate change are women”.

This seems to imply, for instance, that when it floods, 80 of every 100 displaced persons are women. Where possibly would the men be, considering that the population of both is roughly equal? Would men have remained behind to fight the floods? Are they resistant to the ravages of flooding?

Such statistics portray women as permanent victims of circumstances but do not always make logical sense under scrutiny. They also create an impression that women live on an island devoid of men, which is inaccurate and misleading.

Institutional commitment

A press release announcing the strategy revealed that while most of the IMF directors “noted that the fund has an important role to play in mainstreaming gender”, others considered that its role was “relatively limited”. From the tone of the press release, it is clear that there was no unanimity on this subject.

There is also a sense of hesitance in the strategy. This is exemplified by the statement that “gender-related policy advice needs to be carefully considered vis-à-vis country authorities’ implementation capacity and policy priorities.”

While conveying realism, such statements also portray ambivalence and cast doubts about institutional commitment to gender mainstreaming and whether potential users are encouraged to implement it. They can, thus, be easily used by sceptical staff as excuses for avoidance. Considering bureaucracies typical of entities such as the IMF, these cautions inspire little confidence that the strategy will spur meaningful impact.

Dr Miruka is an international gender and development consultant and scholar ([email protected]).