Glenda Simms, Contributor
FOR THE majority of Jamaicans, the 2003 budget presentation by the Honourable Minister Omar Davies was perhaps one of the most anticipated moments in recent times.
Every one, in every corner of the country, had heard of the national debt load and the related global factors that were impacting on the country's economic status. Hard economic decisions had to be taken.
Since the budget presentation, the pundits, economists, social scientists and a variety of political actors have spoken or written about what is wrong or right with the budget. The average citizen is also wondering about the impact at the personal level, of issues such as taxes, pension reforms, and the widening of the General Consumption Tax (GCT) net. This budget could have been the opportune moment for Minister Davies to present a gender-sensitive model of coping with life in tough times.
The concept of a gender- sensitive budget has been in vogue for a number of years and no doubt Minister Davies and his team have spoken to the issue in several international fora. Why then is the 2003 budget so gender blind?
The answer to this question will not be obvious for a long period of time. However, had Dr. Davies and his team presented a gender- sensitive budget, the average man and woman would be able to see the real immediate and long-term benefits of the 'tightening of belts'.
For a brief moment, on April 17, 2003 I felt invigorated by Dr. Davies' spirited and strong presentation. I thought that the following statement was an indication of a gender-sensitive budget being presented for the first time in our country.
The unemployment level remain flat, approximately 15.1 per cent in 2001. However, the chronic problem of the gender differential rates remains Female unemployment remains twice as high as that of males ...
At this point, I was hoping that Minister Davies would speak to how the Government plans to reallocate resources towards gender-equality.
But no such luck!
The presentation returned to a stance that could best be defined as 'gender blind'.
THE IMPORTANCE OF A GENDER SENSITIVE BUDGET
The United Nations Development Programme Poverty Related Resources 2003 posits that on the face of it, budgetary policy and economics generally appear to be gender neutral. Taxes, revenues and expenditures are not seen as gendered concepts. However, disaggregating by gender is vital because there are systematic differences between men and women in their relationship to the economy.
Therefore, in the face of such differences gender blindness can result in inequality of effects of Government initiatives on men and women. Gender sensitive budgets are the very tools to facilitate an assessment of the gendered impact of Government budgets. In other words, the Finance Ministry cannot afford to view a gendered analysis as peripheral to its work and its policies.
The discussion on this important issue was very strong during the Fourth World Conference held in Beijing in 1995. Since then, a number of countries, including Australia and South Africa, have introduced gender responsive budget initiatives. This means that they have developed a methodology to determine the effect of Government expenditures and revenue policies on men and women.
POLITICAL COMMITMENT
In this process, there is a political commitment to mainstream gender analysis in all programmes and projects undertaken by Government. According to the Beijing Platform for Action:
Governments should make efforts to systematically review how women benefit from public sector expenditures, adjust budgets to ensure equality of access to public sector expenditures.
The application of a gendered analysis to policies, plans and programmes will result in a fairer and more cost effective society, because inequalities whether they be between First World and Third World, men and women, uptown and downtown, rural and urban are costly to men, women and children.
Without plans that seek to strategically integrate men and women in areas where they are disadvantaged and marginalised, there will be lower economic efficiency, poor output and the retardation of the development of significant sectors of the society. Microeconomic policies therefore need to be gender aware in order to be effective and gender budget expenditures need to be analysed for their gender impact.
FEMALE PARLIAMENTARIANS
At the 1996 Commonwealth Women's Affairs Ministers' meeting in Trinidad and Tobago, the voices of a number of female Parliamentarians were clearly heard by all. Minister Geraldine Fraser-Molekti of South Africa argued that the starting point was to "recognise that budgets are not gender-neutral. They need to be unpacked".
She further stated that "this is not about more money, but about whether resources are being used in the most effective and equitable way."
In the same vein, her colleague Pregs Govender said:
If you want to know which way a country is headed look at the country's budget and how it allocates resources for women and children.
And the Honourable Portia Simpson Miller, the then Minister with responsibility for Women's Affairs strongly stated:
We must dispel the notion that public policy is neutral in its effects on men and women.
These leaders spoke out in 1996. It is now 2003. There is still time for the Honourable Minister of Finance to ensure that his technical staff identify the points of entry for gender mainstreaming beginning with the financial sector. We have the critical and analytic tools to carry out the job in good times and in bad times. What we need is the collective will.
Dr. Glenda Simms is the Executive Director of the Bureau of Women's Affairs.
