Fall 2005 Pages 366388 doi:10.

1093/sp/jxi020
The Author 2005. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions,
please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org.
Advance Access publication November 8, 2005
JUDITH SQUIRES
Is Mainstreaming
Transformative? Theorizing
Mainstreaming in the Context
of Diversity and Deliberation
1
Abstract
This article locates mainstreaming within a typology of inclusion,
reversal, and displacement and maps these three approaches to
mainstreaming, outlining the strengths and weaknesses of each.
It focuses on the potential of the transformative approach and
suggests that, if augmented by the resources of deliberative
democracy, this transformative model of mainstreaming is best
placed to respond to the increasingly important demands of
diversity. It suggests that deliberative mechanisms, such as citi-
zens forums, could be useful in enhancing this transformative
model of mainstreaming.
Introduction
Is gender mainstreaming a transformative strategy, a bureau-
cratic tool of integration, or an agenda-setting process? I will explore
this question in relation to the current policy concern with diversity
and recent theoretical debates concerning the pursuit of democratic
inclusion.
The first part of the paper outlines the threefold typology of inclu-
sion, reversal, and displacement (Squires 1999) and locates mainstream-
ing within this typology. I argue that while it is possible to depict
Is Mainstreaming Transformative? 367
mainstreaming as a strategy of displacement (where equal treatment and
positive action are viewed as strategies of inclusion and reversal, respec-
tively), one can also find each of the strategies of inclusion, reversal, and
displacement within mainstreaming practices. I then go on to map these
three approaches to mainstreaming, outlining the strengths and weak-
nesses of each. While acknowledging the strengths as well as the weak-
nesses of the integrationist and agenda-setting approaches, I argue in
particular for the need to develop the potential of the transformative
approach. In order to develop its currently underspecified potential, I
consider the benefits of integrating theories of democratic inclusion into
this mainstreaming model. I suggest that, augmented by a commitment
to democratic inclusion, this transformative model of mainstreaming is
best placed to respond to theincreasingly importantdemands of
diversity. For while the concept of mainstreaming has recently been
invoked in relation to anti-racism and disability policies (see Shaw 2004,
56), little has been done in terms of developing diversity mainstream-
ing, as opposed to gender mainstreaming, strategies to date.
Gender mainstreaming is widely perceived, within the European
Union and among international organizations, to be a new equality
strategy. There has been considerable progress in developing main-
streaming as a set of tools and methods (Yeandle et al. 1998), yet the
transformative potential and theoretical coherence of mainstreaming as
an equality strategy has been obscured by the piecemeal implementa-
tion of mainstreaming tools formulated within specific policy contexts
(Hoskyns 1992). There have, of course, been discussions of gender
mainstreaming in relation to various theoretical literatures: notably,
feminist theory (Cockburn 1991, Stratigaki 2004, Walby 2004), theo-
ries of organizational practice (Rees 1998, Rubery 2002), social move-
ment theory (Pollack and Hafner-Burton 2000), legal theory (Beveridge
and Nott 2002), and transnational policy diffusion (True and Mintrom
2001). Yet there have been relatively few sustained attempts to consider
mainstreaming in the context of a diversity agenda or in relation to
democratic theory. This article attempts to address this absence.
I suggest that, at a time when EU directives require member states to
promote equality in relation to sexual orientation, age, and religion, in
addition to race, gender, and disability, it simply doesnt make sense to
look at gender equality in isolation from other forms of equality. Equality
can no longer be considered in isolation from diversity. Understanding
what mainstreaming might entail in the context of diversity and not just
gender represents a significant challenge. Given the plurality of equality
agendas held by diverse groups and the difficulty of ascertaining these
by bureaucratic mechanisms, the role of inclusive deliberation should
be stressed. This transforms mainstreaming from a technocratic tool
into an institutional manifestation of deliberative democracy.
368 Squires
Mainstreaming as a Gender Equality Strategy
Accounts of mainstreaming vary. Mainstreaming is variously under-
stood to entail mainstreaming equal opportunities, equal treatment,
womens perspectives, gender, gendered perspectives or, more recently,
diversity. It is claimed to be a policy to promote equality between
men and women (EU COM 96, 67 final). It is the systemic integration
of the respective situations, priorities and needs of women and men
in all policies and with a view to promoting equality between women
and men and mobilizing all general policies and measures specifically
for the purpose of achieving equality by actively and openly taking
into account, at the planning stage, their effects on the respective
situation of women and men in implementation, monitoring and
evaluation (Commission of the European Communities 1996, 2). It
is efforts to scrutinize and reinvent processes of policy formation
and implementation across all issue areas to address and rectify per-
sistent and emerging disparities between men and women (True and
Mintrom 2001, 28). It is a means to reorganize, improve, develop
and evaluate policy processes in order to incorporate a gender equality
perspective (Council of Europe 1998, 23). The sheer diversity of
definitions of mainstreaming, possibly attributable to its rapid ascen-
dancy and lack of ownership (Beveridge and Nott 2002, 299), ren-
ders the concept somewhat vague in practice.
Nonetheless, I would suggest that there are three analytically distinct
ways of conceptualizing mainstreaming, informed by three distinct
theoretical frameworks, which I have previously defined as inclusion,
reversal, and displacement (Squires 1999). Those pursuing a strategy
of inclusion usually aspire to objectivity (whether cognitive or
moral), conceive of people as autonomous, and espouse an equality
politics (and are often labeled as liberal feminist). Those pursuing a
strategy of reversal usually adopt an interpretative methodology, talk
of Woman or women, and espouse a difference politics (and are
often labeled as radical feminist). Those pursuing a strategy of dis-
placement adopt a genealogical methodology, speak of subject positions
and of gendering (as a verb) rather than gender (as a noun), and
espouse a diversity politics (and are often labeled as postmodern).
The strategy of inclusion seeks gender-neutrality; the strategy of
reversal seeks recognition for a specifically female gendered identity;
and the strategy of displacement seeks to deconstruct those discursive
regimes that engender the subject.
The place of mainstreaming in relation to this threefold typology is
rather complex. I would suggest that mainstreaming is widely conceived
to represent a displacement of the equality/difference debate, and as
such might best be viewed as a strategy of displacement. However, I
Is Mainstreaming Transformative? 369
would also suggest that mainstreaming itself is variously conceived,
such that it entails within its conceptual boundaries this same three-
fold typology. As such, it is best viewed not as resolution or displacement
of the equality/difference debate, but as yet another manifestation of
it. Let me briefly outline each approach in turn.
Mainstreaming as a Strategy of Displacement
Debates about equality within feminist writings have been shaped by
a perception, frequently referred to as Wollstonecrafts dilemma
(Pateman 1989,19697), that equality and difference are antagonis-
tic aims. Those committed to liberal principles of equality have
argued for the need to transcend sexist presumptions about gender dif-
ference, to grant women equal rights with men, and to enable women
to participate equally with men in the public sphere. From this per-
spective, gender difference appears to be inextricable from sexism
(Fraser 1997, 100). By contrast, those who adopt a difference per-
spective feel that in the context of a patriarchal society, the pursuit of
equality will inevitably result in requiring everyone to assimilate to
the dominant gender norm of masculinity. The central normative
issue here is whether gender equality requires de-gendering or the
equal valuation of different contributions by women and men.
Yet it is now increasingly accepted that equality and difference are
only incompatible if equality is understood as sameness (Bacchi
1999, 266; Lister 1997, 96; Squires 1999,12732). While equality is
understood in this way, gender consistently emerges as a problem of
difference: Equality as sameness is a gendered formulation of equality,
because it secures gender privilege through naming women as differ-
ence and men as the neutral standard of the same (Brown 1995, 153).
Neither the sameness nor the difference perspectives therefore entail
a transformation of the norms of equivalence themselves. For this,
we need to render visible the ways in which particular institutions
and laws perpetuate inequality by privileging particular norms. This
is what I label a diversity perspective, as distinct from both the equality
and difference perspectives that constitute Wollstonecrafts dilemma.
One can see the same three approaches manifest in gender equal-
ity strategies. Teresa Rees, for example, suggests that one can iden-
tify three phases in the European Commissions approach to gender
equality over the last three decades: equal treatment in the 1970s,
positive action in the 1980s, and gender mainstreaming in the 1990s
(Rees 2002, 48). These three approaches, which Rees labels tinker-
ing, tailoring, and transforming, respectively, map fairly
neatly onto the three strategies of inclusion, reversal, and displace-
ment outlined above. Equal treatment is a legal redress to treat
men and women the same. Positive action recognizes that there are
370 Squires
differences between men and women and that specific measures are
required to address disadvantages experienced by women as a con-
sequence of those differences.
2
Mainstreaming ideally should
involve identifying how existing systems and structures cause indi-
rect discrimination and altering or redesigning them as appropriate
(Rees 2002, 4648). The aim of the mainstreaming strategy is to
counteract gender bias within existing systems and structures: it
addresses those very institutionalized practices that cause both
individual and group disadvantage in the first place (Rees 2000, 3).
It is because it takes a systems approach that it is felt to have more
transformative potential than previous equality policies. It takes us
beyond the classic opposition between equality of opportunity and
equality of outcome, as embodied in equal treatment and positive
action, by focusing on the structural reproduction of gender inequal-
ity and aiming to transform the policy process such that gender bias
is eliminated.
In this way, equal treatment, positive action, and gender main-
streaming can be viewed as distinct approaches to equality, which
emerge incrementallyin large part developing from and improv-
ing upon the earlier approach(es). The three approaches are, how-
ever, most commonly viewed by equality professionals as
cumulative and complementary rather than as competing or incom-
patible. Rees, for example, clearly states that mainstreaming is a
long-term strategy that needs to be accompanied by the secure
underpinning of equal treatment legislation and positive action
measures (Rees 1999, 166). This suggests that many advocates of
gender equality strategies may be committed to a pragmatic
endorsement of whichever perspective seems likely to generate the
best results in any given circumstances. Equality strategies then
become justificatory strategies rather than normatively incom-
patible commitments.
Three Varieties of Mainstreaming
However, while one can conceptualize mainstreaming as a strat-
egy of displacement, I would also suggest that one finds the three
strategies of inclusion, reversal, and displacement manifest within
mainstreaming practices themselves.
For example, accounts of how mainstreaming has emerged as a
notable policy innovation, and what it entails, vary significantly. Some
commentators argue that a small number of key actors in the
European Commission envisioned the strategy (Booth and Bennett
2002, 440). Others suggest that increased political opportunities and
mobilizing structures for social movements have been central (Pollack
and Hafner-Burton 2000, 434). Still others emphasize the role of
Is Mainstreaming Transformative? 371
transnational networks and international nongovernmental organizations
(True and Mintrom 2001, 2829). These three accounts of the deriva-
tion of mainstreaming generate three distinct correlative accounts of the
nature of mainstreaming. Christine Booth and Cinnamon Bennett talk
of mainstreaming equal opportunities (2002, 431). Mark Pollack
and Emilie Hafner-Burton talk of mainstreaming gender (2000,
432). Jacqui True talks of mainstreaming a gender-equality pers-
pective (2003, 371). In other words, one might suggestrather
schematicallythat those who perceive mainstreaming to be a product
of bureaucratic policy process conceive of it as a way of mainstreaming
formal equality of opportunities, while those who perceive mainstream-
ing to be a product of womens movement campaigning conceive of it
as a way of mainstreaming womens voices, and those who perceive
mainstreaming to be a product of transnational norm diffusion con-
ceive of it as an open-ended and potentially transformative project.
However, rather than pitting these explanations against one
another, one might reasonably suggest that all are relevant. True and
Mintrom, for instance, find that the higher the level of democracy in
a country, the greater the presence of women in positions of state
power, and the higher the proportion of women gaining formal edu-
cation, the greater the likelihood that its government will adopt a
gender mainstreaming strategy (2001, 4449). This indicates that
gender mainstreaming is most likely to be adopted when key experts
are present within the state, when there are appropriate political
opportunities for social movement participation, and when transna-
tional womens networks are effective at an international level. This
suggests in turn that mainstreaming might be most likely to be a truly
transformative strategy when technocratic expertise, social move-
ment participation, and transnational networks are all in place. This,
in turn, suggests that there is a place for equal treatment and positive
action within mainstreaming, at least on pragmatic grounds.
Notwithstanding the intermingling of these three models of main-
streaming in practice, a survey of the literature on mainstreaming to
date indicates that it is analytically useful to understand approaches
to mainstreaming via a threefold typology, labeled as integration-
ist, agenda-setting, and transformative approaches (Jahan 1995,
126). The first approach is now fairly widely accepted to entail a
focus on experts and the bureaucratic creation of evidence-based
knowledge in policy-making, while the second model is perceived as
entailing a focus on the participation, presence, and empowerment
of disadvantaged groups (usually women in this context) via consul-
tation with civil society organizations (see Beveridge and Nott 2002,
301; Lombardo 2003). The features of the third, transformative,
model of mainstreaming are much less easy to discernin theory or
372 Squires
in practice. While scholars have repeatedly advocated a transforma-
tive model of mainstreaming in theory, they have usually focused
their attention on the pros and cons of the integrationist and
agenda-setting models in practice, prolonging the hold of Woll-
stonecrafts dilemma on gender debate. Given the existence of these
three distinct conceptions of mainstreaming, it becomes clear that
while mainstreaming might on the one hand be taken to represent a
displacement of the equality/difference dichotomy, it might also on
the other hand be viewed as a catch-all concept that incorporates the
tension within its boundaries.(Table 1)
I would suggest that of the three analytically distinct conceptual-
izations of mainstreaming, only the transformative conceptualiza-
tion represents a displacement of the equality/difference dichotomy.
Yet elements of all three analytical conceptualizations might co-exist
within the actual implementation of the strategy. Indeed, one can
see elements of each within many of the definitions of mainstream-
ing that have been developed to date. For instance, the group of spe-
cialists that informed the Council of Europe debate on
mainstreaming identified three key aspects of mainstreaming: a set
of techniques or tools, integration of a gender perspective, and a
political process of ownership (see Booth and Bennett 2002, 439). I
take these three aspects as deriving from the three different concep-
tualizations of mainstreaming outlined above, which suggests that
while analytically distinct, these three understandings of main-
streaming can co-exist at a policy level. Moreover, comparative
research into the implementation of mainstreaming strategies sug-
gests that different definitions of mainstreaming are used according
to institutional context (see Yeandle et al. 1998). This has led some
scholars to suggest that the three approaches to mainstreaming
should be viewed as complementary rather than competing. In this
way, mainstreaming ceases to be understood as a distinctive equality
strategy that moves beyond the previous strategies of equality of
opportunity and positive action, and comes to be viewed as a broad
strategy that entails the incorporation of the other two strategies as
and when appropriate.
Table 1. Mainstreaming in Relation to the Inclusion, Reversal, and Trans-
formation Typology
Inclusion Reversal Displacement
Gender perspective Equality Difference Diversity
Equality policy Equal opps. Positive action Gender mainstreaming
Mainstreaming Integrationist Agenda-setting Transformative
Is Mainstreaming Transformative? 373
While accepting this pragmatic conclusion, it is important nonethe-
less to be clear about the potential strengths and weaknesses of the three
approaches, in order both to evaluate which mainstreaming approach is
likely to be most useful in any given context, and to ascertain whether
there are principled as well as pragmatic grounds for arguing that there
is a place for equal treatment and positive action within mainstreaming.
Evaluating the Three Mainstreaming Models
Many articulations of mainstreaming are primarily either integra-
tionist or agenda-setting, and manifest specific problems relating to
each.(Table 2) Integrationist mainstreaming relies on experts within
existing bureaucracies to pursue neutral policy-making. The main
concern here is that of rhetorical entrapment. Agenda-setting main-
streaming relies on womens groups within civil society to articulate
their group perspectives. The main concern here is that of reification.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Integrationist Model
One of the key strengths of the integrationist model of main-
streaming is its effectiveness in allowing gender experts an important
role in the policy formation process (Woodward 2003). This in turn
ensures that policy-making is based on gendered knowledge,
rather than on ideology or stereotypes (Beveridge and Nott 2002, 301).
However, to be effective, gender mainstreaming must be understood
and implemented by the regular actors in the policy-making process.
Table 2. Mainstreaming Strategies
Main
streaming Inclusion Reversal Displacement
Model Integrationist Agenda-setting Transformative
Actors Experts Identity groups Political citizens
Aims Neutral
policy-making
Recognizing
marginalized
voices
Denaturalizing and thereby
politicizing policy norms
Processes Bureaucratic Consultative Deliberative
Indicators Policy
instruments
Politics of
presence
Cultural transformation
Strengths Effective
integration
Group
perspectives
recognized
Sensitive to diversity
Weaknesses Rhetorical
entrapment
Reification,
women only
Complexity, lack of
specificity
374 Squires
It must, as Mieke Verloo points out, convince these actors that policy-
makers are a part of the problem without alienating them from the
mainstreaming project. In order to do so, it needs to resonate with
the existing frames within which regular actors operate: it needs to
seduce them (Verloo 2001, 9). Frame extension and bridging is
needed to bring the goal of gender equality into alignment with the
existing frames and norms of politicians and civil servants. In the
context of contemporary governance, this usually means that gender
equality is argued to be better for both women and men, to improve
productivity, and to facilitate better, more modern, government.
Here, mainstreaming becomes a way of thinking about users as dis-
tinct groups with differing needs, characteristics, and behavior,
which matters if one is concerned about delivering customer and user
satisfaction. The business case for mainstreaming is frequently the
only case offered for why gender equality matters: as the UK
Women and Equality Unit states on its website, unfair discrimina-
tion is plainly wrong. It stops people realizing their potential, and
prevents businesses from using skills and talents to good effect...dis-
crimination in employment has a huge price, beyond the tragic cost
to individuals experiencing discrimination. It affects our productivity
and profitability. The best (business and service providers) already
know that good employment practices, based on equality and diver-
sity, give them the competitive edge (WEU, http://www.womenand-
equalityunit.gov.uk/equality/matter.htm).
The necessity of engaging in this process of frame bridging means
that there is always a danger of rhetorical entrapment (Verloo 2001,
10). There is also the danger that, once accepted as a norm that reso-
nates with the dominant policy frame, mainstreaming will be adopted as
a technocratic tool in policy-making, depoliticizing the issue of gender
inequality itself. Tellingly, Gender Impact Assessments have largely been
introduced where they are not too demanding in terms of costs, time,
and expertise (Verloo 2001, 15). This demand to limit the scope of
mainstreaming tools such that they fit easily within existing policy pro-
cesses potentially delimits the potential of mainstreaming itself. It raises
questions about the political accountability of experts, reduces the scope
for wider consultation with non-experts, and so reduces the likeli-
hood that the policy agenda will reflect the particular experiences and
concerns of women that do not resonate with the pre-existing policy
framework. Its strength lies in its ability to realize effective integration;
its weakness lies in its tendency to fall into rhetorical entrapment.
Strengths and Weaknesses of the Agenda-Setting Model
The key strength of the agenda-setting model, by contrast, lies in
its aspiration to recognize the perspectives and concerns of women
Is Mainstreaming Transformative? 375
outside the policy-making elite, countering the top-down approach
to agenda-setting and problem solving. Rather than relying on
bureaucratic policy instruments, this approach focuses on the impor-
tance of consultation with non-governmental organizations and
social movements (see Donaghy and Kelly 2001). The potential
weakness of this agenda-setting model is that, in focusing on par-
ticular organizations as representative of womens views, this strategy
might privilege certain gendered identities over others, entrenching
political opportunities in structures that require one to speak as a
woman first and foremost. The concern is that this may formalize
and freeze identities that are actually subject to constant change and
thereby undermine solidarity across groups. As one critic notes, a
focus on affirming identity produces debilitating political fragmen-
tation, diverts attention from widening material inequality, and leads
to a fetishism of identity groups, reinforcing the tendency of such
groups to become exclusionary to outsiders and coercive to insiders
(Kiss 1999, 194). Others have argued that the retribalization
inherent in group-specific claims erodes a sense of public-spiritedness
(Elshtain 1995, 74) and endangers national identity (Miller 1995,
132). Even those sympathetic to a politics of recognition, which
shares the same normative principles as agenda-setting mainstream-
ing, express concerns about its potential to reify identity, which may
obscure struggles within groups (see Fraser 2000). So, while the
strength of this model is its ability to recognize group perspectives
from outside the existing policy-making elite, its weakness is its ten-
dency to reify group identities, obscuring both intra-group divisions
and inter-group commonalities.
The Strengths and Weaknesses of the Transformative Model
So, while the weakness inherent in the integrationist model is the
danger of rhetorical entrapment, the weakness inherent in the
agenda-setting model is the danger of reification. The weaknesses
inherent in these two models suggest that there are good reasons to
consider the transformative model of mainstreaming as the way for-
ward, ideally avoiding the problems of both rhetorical entrapment
and reification, while still promoting equality via the systematic inte-
gration of diverse perspectives into the policy-making process. The
clear weakness of this model is, of course, its lack of specificity. This
lack of specificity takes two forms: practical and conceptual. Its lack
of practical specificity arises from the fact that it remains primarily
theoretical, with very few practical features or concrete articulations.
Its lack of conceptual specificity arises from its theoretical commitment
to denaturalizing and thereby politicizing policy aims, rather than
establishing and implementing alternative policy aims in their place.
376 Squires
In this sense, the transformative model does not have a conception of
equality (or a prior conception of the good).
Another concern is that the introduction of mainstreaming may be
used to deflect attention away from issues of the presence of women
in decision-making processes. Over the last fifteen years, for exam-
ple, the European Union has pursued strategies of both gender main-
streaming and gender-balanced decision-making, but has rarely
articulated the nature of the relation between the two. Some theorists
suggest that the commitment to the former may now be eclipsing the
commitment to the latter (see Krook 2005). Nonetheless, this con-
cern pertains to all three models and, I would suggest, one of the
greatest strengths of this transformative model is that it is best
placed, of the three models, to address the emergent diversity
agenda. For this reason, it is worth beginning to outline what the
model might practically entail. I suggest that the transformative
model of mainstreaming should draw upon the resources developed
within democratic theory. But let us first briefly consider the signifi-
cance of the emergent concern with diversity for mainstreaming
practices.
Diversity Mainstreaming?
It has long been accepted that one significant challenge for con-
temporary equality theorists is to engage with the intersecting hierar-
chies of gender, race, economic class, sexuality, religion, disability,
and age. As Patricia Hill Collins suggests, viewing gender within a
logic of intersectionality redefines it as a constellation of ideas and
social practices that are historically situated within and that mutually
construct multiple systems of oppression (Hill Collins 1999, 263).
This discursive shift brought diversity to the fore as central to the
theoretical conceptualization of equality.
Meanwhile, contemporary equality policies in the first world tend
to focus on issues of cultural and political inequality rather than ine-
qualities in distributional goods. Those who are considered to be
unequal are increasingly seen to be ethnic minorities, disabled, the
elderly, gays and lesbians, religious minorities, and so on, rather than
the poor. As a consequence, we have witnessed the emergence of a
commitment to pursuing and theorizing equality in a way that
acknowledges and celebrates differences. While attempts to address
economic inequalities have traditionally focused on distributive
issues, seeking to erase the (economic) differences between people as
the means of securing their equality, attempts to address cultural and
political inequalities usually entail calls that (cultural) differences be
recognized and respected, rather than denied or eroded, as a precondition
Is Mainstreaming Transformative? 377
for securing their equality. Equality now appears, in both policy and
theory debates, to require a respect for diversity.
Given the current normative concerns and legal requirements to
consider equality in relation to various strands, including age, dis-
ability, race, religion, sexuality, and gender, mainstreaming will also
need to speak to diversity. Interestingly, diversity management
emerged as a central equality strategy at more or less the same time
as gender mainstreaming, yet there have been few attempts to con-
sider the theoretical interconnections between the two, or to develop
a coherent theoretical approach to diversity mainstreaming.
Given that international, regional, national, and local institutions of
governance are increasingly attempting to negotiate the twin
demands of diversity management and gender mainstreaming, there
is a real need for a little theoretical guidance as to how these two
might co-exist.
For example, the principles of equal treatment and non-discrimi-
nation are at the heart of the European Social Model, and gender
equality in particular has long been recognized as one of the EUs
core objectives (see Rossilli 2000). This commitment to gender equal-
ity has included the adoption and promotion of gender mainstreaming
strategies. The Council of Europe endorsed gender mainstreaming in
1998, defining it as the (re)organisation, improvement, develop-
ment and evaluation of policy processes, so that a gender equality
perspective is incorporated in all policies at all levels at all stages, by
the actors normally involved in policy making (Council of Europe
1998, 15). Yet the adoption of Article 13 of the EC Amsterdam
Treaty in 1997 further empowered the European Community to take
action to deal with discrimination relating to race or ethnic origin,
religion or belief, age, disability, and sexual orientation. This pro-
vides the framework for an integrated equality strategy based on
the premise that equal treatment and respect for diversity are in the
interests of society as a whole (EC Green Paper 2004, 10) Accord-
ingly, and in addition to its mainstreaming strategy, the European
Commission launched a five-year, EU-wide information campaign,
For DiversityAgainst Discrimination, in June 2003, aiming to
promote the positive benefits of diversity for business and for soci-
ety as a whole (EC Green Paper 2004, 13). In other words, both the
diversity and gender mainstreaming discourses have been actively
adopted and disseminated by the EU.
Meanwhile, the UK government adopted gender mainstreaming as
its gender policy in 1998 (Cabinet Office 1998), and since then it has
been developing a series of policy instruments to implement this policy.
Its approach to gender mainstreaming is perhaps best exemplified
through the work of the Women and Equality Unit (WEU; see Beveridge
378 Squires
et al. 2000; Squires and Wickham-Jones 2002 and 2004). Meanwhile,
the government has a final deadline of 2006 for legislation imple-
menting European directives on equal treatment on the basis of race
and ethnic origin (Council Directive 2000/43/EC of 20 June 2000,
[2000] OJ L180/22) and age, disability, religion, and sexual orienta-
tion (Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27 November 2000, [2000]
OJ L303/16). In this context, it plans to establish a single Commis-
sion for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR) to oversee its new inte-
grated approach to equality and diversity. The equality and diversity
discourse is also prevalent throughout the wider society: 2002 saw
the formation of the Equality and Diversity Forum to promote
dialogue across the equality strands; the Learning and Skills Council
offers Equality and Diversity Guidance; the Advisory, Conciliation,
and Arbitration Service (ACAS) has equality and diversity advisers;
major banks have equality and diversity strategies; and most uni-
versities now have equality and diversity teams. The establishment
of the CEHR will further institutionalize the equality and diversity
discourse that has emerged so swiftly onto the policy agenda of the UK.
This suggests that regional and national governments are attempt-
ing to negotiate both diversity management and gender mainstreaming
under a broad commitment to equality and diversity. When evalu-
ating the strengths and weaknesses of the three models of gender
mainstreaming, one of our concerns might therefore reasonably be the
extent to which these models are capable of mainstreaming with rela-
tion to all of the various equality strands, and not just gender.
Yet there are concerns about the emergence of the diversity
agenda that need to be considered. While the shift from the pursuit
of equality to a celebration of equality and diversity could be
viewed as a positive policy response to the long-standing theoretical
concerns with inter-sectionality, it is worth noting that diversity
management has its roots in corporate human resource management
and is here conceived of primarily as a means to produce economic
productivity rather than social justice (Wrench 2003). Diversity initi-
atives are widely argued to improve the quality of organizations
workforces and act as a catalyst for a better return on companies
investment in human capital. They are also argued to help businesses
to capitalize on new markets, attract the best and the brightest
employees, increase creativity, and keep the organization flexible (see
Cartwright 2001, Price 2003, Thompson 1998). In this context,
some theorists adopt a highly skeptical view of diversity, locat-
ing the emergence of diversity management within the logic of
Taylorized capitalism (Hennessy 2000) and bemoaning the replace-
ment of a moral issue by a business strategy (Wrench 2003, 10).
Given this, any attempt to find a possible synergy between diversity
Is Mainstreaming Transformative? 379
management and gender mainstreaming must necessarily proceed
with caution.
It is been suggested that mainstreaming might allow for the recog-
nition of cross-cutting diversity in a manner that neither the equal
treatment nor the positive discrimination models do, and that limit-
ing mainstreaming to gender equality is conceptually flawed, given
the diversity among women and men (Rees 2002, 54). This is an
important claim, but one that applies comfortably only, I would sug-
gest, to the third model of mainstreaming.
Given the nature of the integrationist model, the pursuit of equal-
ity and diversity from this framework is likely to rely upon diver-
sity experts, and to adopt the language of diversity management
employed within the corporate sector.
4
To conceive of diversity
mainstreaming from this perspective is to focus attention on the mar-
ket and to embrace the neo-liberal rhetoric of economic competitive-
ness. Its strength would be that it resonates with the dominant logic
of government, but its weakness would be that it ceases to be about
gender justice and instead focuses on individuals inclusion in the
sphere of employment.
On the other hand, the pursuit of equality and diversity via the
agenda-setting model of mainstreaming is likely to entail widespread
consultation with a whole range of (frequently competing and con-
flicting) identity groups. The inevitable negotiations that will result
around perceived hierarchies of oppression may well lead to frag-
mentation and the further erosion of a sense of public-spiritedness.
For example, many feminists have suggested that multiculturalism
and feminism not only stand in tension to each other, but that multi-
culturalism is bad for women. Susan Moller Okin famously argued
that multiculturalism frequently entails allowing exemptions to uni-
versally applicable rules, and in most cases these exemptions allow
for greater inequality between women and men than does the univer-
sal rule. She therefore argued that we must decide whether to priori-
tize cultural group rights or womens equality (Okin 2000; see also
Nussbaum 1999). To conceive of diversity mainstreaming from a
group rights perspective is to focus attention on cultural identity and
to embrace a potentially essentialist affirmative politics of authentic-
ity. Its strength would be that it might create new political opportu-
nity structures that would empower the spokespersons of particular
groups, but its weakness would be that it reduces the incentive for
people to speak across groups and thereby makes the pursuit of gen-
uine diversity more difficult.
What then would the transformative model of mainstreaming
entail with relation to the pursuit of equality and diversity? I
would suggest that it would require, minimally, that greater attention
380 Squires
be paid to democratic inclusion within the mainstreaming process
than has currently been the case.
Inclusive Deliberation and Diversity Mainstreaming
At the heart of the mainstreaming process is a concern to deter-
mine, scrutinize, and transform the norms of equivalence currently
used to evaluate competing equality claims, such that they cease to
reproduce structural inequalities. As Monica Mookherjee rightly
insists, rectification of unequal circumstances cannot be achieved by
applying preconceived interpretations of the term equality itself. This
is because a necessary, if not sufficient, condition of equality is the
enabling of excluded groups to unsettle and destabilize meanings and
interpretations which the institutional culture has hitherto taken as
universal and complete (Mookherjee 2001, 69). Enabling excluded
groups to unsettle institutionally accepted conceptions of equality will
require a parity of participation, which makes democratic inclusion
central to both the meaning and realization of equality.
5
Political theorists have recognized that democratic debate and
decision-making are themselves necessary preconditions for impar-
tial equality policies. Iris Young, for example, argues that the ide-
ology of merit seeks to depoliticize the establishment of criteria
and standards for allocating positions and awarding benefits, and
proposes, in its place, that democratic decision-making about the
criteria for the filling of jobs and offices is a crucial condition of
social justice (Young 1990, 192200). This argument can be broad-
ened, such that democratic decision-making is viewed as a crucial
condition of social justice in relation to the establishment of any
criteria of evaluation.
It therefore makes sense for theories of mainstreaming to engage
with theories of deliberative democracy, which have attempted to
explore discursive mechanisms for the transmission of public opinion
to the state (Dryzek 2000, 162). Advocates of deliberative democ-
racyin a move akin to that made by advocates of mainstreaming
suggest that the idea of democracy revolves around the transformation,
rather than simply the aggregation, of preferences. The basic impulse
behind deliberative democracy is the notion that people will modify
their perceptions of what society should do in the course of discussing
this with others. The point of democratic participation is to manufac-
ture, rather than to discover and aggregate, the common good. The
ideal is one of democratic decision-making arising from deliberative
procedures that are inclusive and rational (Miller 2000, 142). A deliber-
ative decision will, says Melissa Williams, have taken all relevant evi-
dence, perspectives, and persons into account, and will not favor some
Is Mainstreaming Transformative? 381
over others on morally arbitrary grounds (Williams 2000). Legitimacy
here requires not only a lack of bias, but also inclusivity.
This suggests that the commitment to impartiality be retained, but
that the process for grounding impartiality is transformed. The
project, as articulated by Shane ONeill, is to conceive of how we
might reflect critically, and impartially, on principles of justice with-
out abstracting from concrete needs and interests that are particular
to some social group or other (ONeill 1997, 55). His suggestion is
that this will be possible only if we can ground impartiality not in a
hypothetical contract but rather in a conception of a reasonable yet
open and unrestricted dialogue in the public domain (ONeill 1997,
56). Similarly, Williams argues that one of the central aims of delib-
erative theory is to redeem the ideal of impartiality by defining polit-
ical processes in a manner which avoids bias against valid social
interests (Williams 2000, 126).
In other words, we find in the deliberative democracy literature
very similar concerns to those within the mainstreaming literature,
though the language is different: both focus on the rule-formation
process and aim at impartiality through inclusivity. It is for this rea-
son that it makes sense to think about mainstreaming with relation
to deliberative democracy. This recommendation needs to be tem-
pered by the significant feminist critiques of communicative rational-
ity (see Meehan 1995), including in particular the gender-blindness
of Habermass work (Benhabib 1992); his lack of attention to his
third type of rationality, the aesthetic-expressive (Coole 1996, Sitton
2003, Squires 1998); and his restrictive formulation of the public
sphere (Everingham 1994, Fraser 1996). Accepting the gravity of
these critiques, an appeal to deliberative democracy would ideally be
grounded in a non-Habermassian dialogical ethics, in which consen-
sus presupposes communication, not vice versa.
6
What deliberative
democrats offer theorists of gender mainstreaming is a concern with
the quality and form of engagement between citizens and participa-
tory forums, stressing in particular the importance of political equal-
ity and inclusivity, and of unconstrained dialogue (Smith 2005, 39)
Deliberative democrats, like gender mainstreaming theorists, suggest
that if the decision-making process is inclusive and dialogue uncon-
strained, then a greater understanding between different perspectives
is more likely to be realized, and outcomes more widely accepted by
participants are likely to be achieved.
The emphasis that deliberative democrats place on inclusion and
dialogue offers rich resources to counter the technocratic tendency in
the integrationist model of mainstreaming. Whereas the integration-
ist model emphasizes the importance of gender expertise and creates
an elite body of professional gender experts, a deliberative rendering
382 Squires
of transformative mainstreaming would emphasize the importance of
dialogue with diverse social groups. This is particularly significant
given that the move to consider equality and diversity rather than
simply gender equality renders the process of mainstreaming infi-
nitely more complex. Deliberative innovations such as citizens
juries, consensus conferences, deliberative opinion polls, and deliber-
ative mapping are growing in number and significance (see Smith
2005, 3955). Evidence suggests that these mechanisms do indeed
facilitate the capacity to produce recommendations on complex pub-
lic policy issues that are informed by a wide variety of experiences
and viewpoints (Smith 2005, 55). For this reason, gender main-
streaming theorists have much to gain from exploring the possible
synergies between deliberative innovations and their own equality
strategies.
Moreover, if theories of deliberation have much to offer theories
of mainstreaming, then the reverse might also be true. For although
deliberative democrats have placed great emphasis on inclusion and
deliberative decision-making, they have had relatively little to say
about the practical institutional arrangements that might facilitate
such inclusive deliberation: as Graham Smith rightly notes, the
deliberative democracy literature remains highly abstract and fails
to engage with the messy and more detailed task of institutional
design (Smith 2003, 79). Indeed, when one does look at the institu-
tional arrangements proposed by deliberative democrats, they
appear to embody not simply the dialogical conception of impartial-
ity, but rather a two-track model in which the monological and the
dialogical have distinct roles, located within clearly demarcated
political practices (see Squires 2002, 13356, for a fuller discussion
of this point).
For example, Habermas suggests that legitimacy is based on ratio-
nally motivated agreement that is produced in un-deformed public
spheres through actual processes of deliberation. The general public
sphere is not a mere back room of democratic politics, but rather
an impulse-generating periphery that surrounds the political centre:
in cultivating normative reasons, it affects all parts of the political sys-
tem without intending to conquer it. In other words, he draws a
clear distinction between un-deformed, informal, or weak public
spheres where public opinion may be formed, and the strong,
arranged, formal sites of institutionalized dialogue, which must be
open to influence from the weak public spheres turning influence into
a jurisgenerative communicative power (Habermas 1996, 147).
This implies that political decisions in complex and pluralistic societ-
ies can be rational and hence legitimate in a deliberative democratic
sensethat is, rationally authored by the citizens to whom they are
Is Mainstreaming Transformative? 383
addressedif institutionalized decision-making procedures follow
two tracks. Political decisions must be both open to input from an
informal, vibrant public sphere (contexts of discovery) and appropri-
ately structured to support the rationality of the relevant types of dis-
courses and to ensure implementation (contexts of justification). This
two-track model of deliberative democracy distinguishes between
communication oriented toward mutual understanding on the one
hand, and instrumental action and politics on the other.
However, while the deliberative democracy literature has focused
on the importance of active civil society and the reinvigoration of the
public sphere, there is surprisingly little attention as to how the delib-
erations from within civil society are to be transmitted to the more for-
mal arena of political decision-making. In one of the rare exceptions,
Smith maps out three models for the transmission of public opinion
into decision-making: mediation, citizens forums, and citizen initia-
tives and referendums (Smith 2003, 80). Mediation brings together
different parties who are in dispute and aims to achieve resolution of
conflict such that all parties involved are satisfied and in agreement as
to the way forward (Smith 2003, 81). Citizens forums include deliber-
ative opinion polls (in which a cross-section of the population is asked
to discuss an issue of public concern and the individual views are
recorded), and citizens juries (in which a selection of citizens are asked
to come to a collective decision on a specified issue after a period of
deliberation) (2003, 8687). Citizen initiatives and referendums allow
citizens to vote directly on policy issues (2003, 93). Smith suggests that
there is no single best design, and that the models need not be
thought of in isolation, but could be combined.
I would suggest, further, that these mechanisms should be consid-
ered with relation to mainstreaming policies, and that the potential of
integrating these deliberative transmission mechanisms into a trans-
formative model of mainstreaming be explored. This would generate
a model of mainstreaming that is deliberative, rather than bureau-
cratic or consultative; that aims primarily to denaturalize and thereby
politicize policy norms, rather than to pursue neutral policy-making
or to recognize marginalized voices. The strengths of this potential
model are that it would be sensitive to diverse citizen perspectives
without reifying group identities, and that it would allow for delibera-
tions within civil society to be transmitted to the formal arena of
political decision-making without becoming rhetorically entrapped.
This vision of mainstreaming thereby shifts our focus away from
the substantive theorization of equality and toward a consideration
of procedural norms. However, procedural concerns cannot supplant
substantive concerns, for substantial economic equality may well be
necessary for us to be political equals. This demands that debates
384 Squires
about equality be iterative processes, for while fair procedures are
needed to define what substantial equality entails, some form of sub-
stantial equality may be required to secure fair procedures. This in
turn suggests that there may indeed be principled grounds for retain-
ing a place for equal opportunities and positive action within our
transformative model of mainstreaming.
Conclusion
I have suggested that strategies of inclusion, reversal, and displace-
ment each generate a distinctive conception of mainstreaming; what is
being mainstreamed are equal opportunities, womens perspectives, or
complex equality (which recognizes diversity), respectively. These three
conceptions of mainstreaming entail three different understandings as
to how mainstreaming should proceed: via bureaucratic policy tools,
via consultation with womens organizations, or via inclusive delibera-
tion. When conceptualized as a means of pursuing equal opportunities
via bureaucratic policy tools, the potential of mainstreaming is con-
strained by its individualism and elitism. Here, mainstreaming becomes
entrapped within a liberal egalitarian approach to equality, which oper-
ates within a marketized redistributive paradigm. When conceptualized
as a means of pursuing womens perspectives via consultation with
womens organizations, the potential of mainstreaming is constrained
by its essentialism and fragmentation. Here, mainstreaming becomes
delimited by an identity politics approach that pursues equality via the
recognition of authentic voices, often at the expense of redistributive
concerns. I have argued that mainstreaming is best understood as a
transformative strategy when it is conceptualized as a means of pursu-
ing complex equality via inclusive deliberation. Finally, I have suggested
that deliberative mechanisms, such as citizens forums, could be useful
in augmenting this transformative model of mainstreaming.
There are limitations to the ways in which mainstreaming has been
conceived and implemented to date, but the potential for developing
this approach to equality in the context of diversity (rather than simply
gender) and in the light of deliberative democracy (rather than techno-
cratic modernization) remains strong.
NOTES
1. Thanks to Sylvia Walby, Jo Shaw, Alison Woodward, Jane Mansbridge,
and two anonymous references for their helpful comments on earlier ver-
sions of this paper.
2. The justification of positive action does not require the recognition of
difference, and it may be defended in terms of correcting for past unequal
Is Mainstreaming Transformative? 385
treatment (see Rachels 1978). Nonetheless, a recognition of difference is
most likely to lead to the support of positive action policies, and the imple-
mentation of such policies frequently results in the entrenchment of group
identities that do reify difference.
3. The 1998 Society for Human Resource Managements Survey of
Diversity Initiatives found that 84 percent of human resource professionals
at Fortune 500 companies said that their top-level executives thought
diversity management to be important.
4. The assumption, implicit in this argument, is that the criteria of equiv-
alence, and the conception of the good upon which these rest, will be a
product of democratic deliberation. In this way, transformative mainstream-
ing works to politicize and thereby denaturalize hegemonic equality criteria,
but does not itself entail alternative criteria. This makes it a procedural
model at heart.
5. Thanks to Zeev Emmerich for this point.
REFERENCES
Armstrong, Chris. 2003. Opportunity, Responsibility and the Market:
Interrogating Liberal Equality. Economy and Society 32 (3): 41027.
Bacchi, Carol Lee. 1999. Women, Policy and Politics: The Construction of
Policy Problems. London: Sage.
Benhabib, Seyla. 1992. The Generalized and the Concrete Other. In Situ-
ating the Self. Cambridge: Polity Press, 14877.
Beveridge, Fiona, S. Nott, and K. Stephen. 2000. Mainstreaming and the
Engendering of Policy-Making: A Means to an End? Journal of Euro-
pean Public Policy 21 (4): 36180.
Beveridge, Fiona, and Sue Nott. 2002. Mainstreaming: A Case for Opti-
mism and Cynicism. Feminist Legal Studies 10:299311.
Booth, Christine, and Cinnamon Bennett. 2002. Gender Mainstreaming
in the European Union: Towards a New Conception and Practice of
Equal Opportunities? The European Journal of Womens Studies 9
(4): 43046.
Breitenbach, Esther, Alice Brown, Fiona Mackay, and Janette Webb, eds. 2002.
The Changing Politics of Gender Equality in Britain. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
Brown, Wendy. 1995. States of Injury: Power and Freedom in Late Moder-
nity. New Jersey: Princeton University Press.
Cartwright, Roger. 2001. Managing Diversity. Capstone Express Exec.
Cockburn, Cynthia. 1991. In the Way of Women. Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Coole, Diana. 1996. Habermas and the Question of Alterity. In Habermas
and the Unfinished Project of Modernity, ed.Maurizio Passerin DEntreves
and Seyla Benhabib. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Council of Europe. 1998. Gender Mainstreaming, available at http://
book.coe.int/gb/cat/liv/htm/l1324.htm.
Dryzek, John. 2000. Deliberative Democracy and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Elshtain, Jean. 1995. Democracy on Trial. New York: Basic Books.
386 Squires
Everingham, Christine. 1994. Motherhood and Modernity. Milton Keynes:
Open University Press.
Fraser, Nancy. 1996. Rethinking the Public Sphere: A Contribution to the
Critique of Actually Existing Democracy. In Habermas and the Public
Sphere, ed. Craig Calhoun, 10942. Cambridge: MIT Press.
. 2000. Rethinking Recognition. New Left Review 3:10720.
Habermas, Jurgen. 1996. Between Facts and Norms. Cambridge, MA:
MIT.
Hennessy, Rosemary. 2000. Profit and Pleasure: Sexual Identities in Late
Capitalism. New York: Routledge.
Hill Collins, Patricia. 1999. Moving Beyond Gender: Intersectionality and
Scientific Knowledge. In Revisioning Gender, ed. Myra Marx Ferree,
Judith Lorber, and Beth Hess. London: Sage.
Hoskyns, Catherine. 1992. The European Communitys Policy on Women in
the Context of 1992. Womens Studies International Forum 15 (1): 2128.
Howard, Melanie, and Sue Tibballs. 2003. Talking Equality: What Men and
Women Think About Equality in Britain Today. The Future Foundation.
Jacquot, Sophie. 2003. Sequences of Policy Change: European Gender Equal-
ity Policies and the Emergence of the Gender Mainstreaming Principle,
19891996. Paper presented at the ECPR General Conference, Marburg.
Available at http://www.essex.ac.uk/ecpr/events/generalconference/papers/.
Jahan, Rounaq. 1995. The Elusive Agenda: Mainstreaming Women in
Development. London: Zed Books.
Kiss, Elizabeth. 1999. In Democracys Edges, ed. Ian Shapiro and Casiano
Hacker-Cordon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Krook, Mona. 2005. Europeanizing Efforts to Promote Women in Poli-
tics? Paper presented at the Fourth European Consortium of Political
Research Young Europeanization Network Research Meeting, Brussels,
28 January 2005.
Lister, Ruth. 1997. Citizenship: Feminist Perspectives. Basingstoke: MacMillan.
Lombardo, Emanuela. 2003. Integrating or Setting the Agenda? Gender
Mainstreaming in the Two European Conventions on the Future of the EU
and the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights. Paper presented at the
ECPR General Conference, Marburg. Available at http://www.essex.ac.uk/
ecpr/events/generalconference/papers/.
Mazey, Sonia. 2000. Introduction: Integrating Gender-Intellectual and Real
World Mainstreaming. Journal of European Public Policy 7 (3): 33345.
Meehan, Johanna, ed. 1995. Feminists Read Habermas. London & New
York: Routledge.
Miller, David. 1995. Citizenship and National Identity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Mookherjee, Monica. 2001. Justice as Provisionality: An Account of Con-
trastive Hard Cases. Critical Review of International Social and Politi-
cal Philosophy 4 (3): 67100.
Nussbaum, M. 1999. Sex and Social Justice. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Okin, Susan Moller. 2000. Is Multiculturalism Bad for Women? In Is Mul-
ticulturalism Bad for Women?, ed. Joshua Cohen et al., 726. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Is Mainstreaming Transformative? 387
ONeill, Shane. 1997. Impartiality in Context: Grounding Justice in a Plu-
ralist World. New York: SUNY.
Pateman, Carole. 1989. The Disorder of Women: Democracy, Feminism
and Political Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Pollack, Mark, and Emilie Hafner-Burton. 2000. Mainstreaming Gender in
the European Union. Journal of European Public Policy 7 (3): 43256.
Price, Alan. 2003. Human Resource Management in a Business Context.
Thomson Learning.
Rachels, James. 1978. What People Deserve. In Justice and Economic
Distribution, ed. J. Arther and W. H. Shaw, 15063. Prentice-Hall.
Rees, Teresa. 1999. Mainstreaming Equality. In Engendering Social Pol-
icy, ed. Sophie Watson and Lesley Doyal. Buckingham: Open University
Press.
. 2002. The Politics of Mainstreaming Gender Equality. In
Breitenbach et al., ed., 4569.
Rossilli, Mariagrazia, ed. 2000 Gender Policies in the European Union.
New York: Peter Lang.
Rubery, Jill. 2002. Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality in the EU:
The Impact of the EU Employment Strategy. Industrial Relations Jour-
nal 33 (4): 500522.
Shaw, Jo. 2004. Mainstreaming Equality in European Union Law and Poli-
cymaking. Report published by the European Network Against Racism
(ENAR).
Sitton, John. 2003. Habermas and Contemporary Society. New York: Pal-
grave.
Smith, Graham. 2003. Deliberative Democracy and the Environment. London:
Routledge.
. 2005. Beyond the Ballot: Democratic Innovations from Around the
World. London: The Power Inquiry.
Spelman, Elizabeth. 1988. Inessential Woman: Problems of Exclusion in
Feminist Thought. Boston: Beacon.
Squires, Judith. 1998. In Different Voices: Deliberative Democracy and
Aestheticist Politics. In The Politics of Postmodernity, ed. James Good
and Irving Velody, 12646. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
. 1999. Gender in Political Theory. Cambridge: Polity Press.
. 2002. Deliberation and Decision-Making: Discontinuity in the
Two-Track Model. In Democracy as Public Deliberation: New Perspec-
tives, ed. Maurizio Passerin dEntreves, 13355. Manchester: Manchester
University Press.
Squires, Judith, and Mark Wickham-Jones. 2002. Mainstreaming in West-
minster and Whitehall: From Labours Ministry for Women to the
Women and Equality Unit. Parliamentary Affairs 55 (1): 5770.
. 2004. New Labour, Gender Mainstreaming and the Women and
Equality Unit. British Journal of Politics and International Relations 6
(1): 8198.
Stratigaki, Maria. 2004. The Co-optation of Gender Concepts in EU Poli-
tics: The case of Reconciliation of Work and Family. Social Politics
11(1): 30 56.
388 Squires
Thompson, N. 1998. The Organisational Context. In Promoting Equal-
ity: Challenging Discrimination and Oppression in the Human Services.
London: Macmillan.
True, Jaqui. 2003 Mainstreaming Gender in Global Public Policy. Inter-
national Feminist Journal of Politics 5 (3): 36896.
True, Jacqui, and Michael Mintrom. 2001. Transnational Networks and
Policy Diffusion: The Case of Gender Mainstreaming. International
Studies Quarterly 45:2757.
United Nations. 1997. Mainstreaming the Gender Perspective into All Policies
and Programmes in the UN System. ECOSOC, July 1997, Chapter IV.
Verloo, Mieke. 2000 Gender Mainstreaming: Practice and Prospects.
Report (EG (1999) 13).
. 2001. Another Velvet Revolution? Gender Mainstreaming and the
Politics of Implementation. IWM Working Paper, no.5. Available at
http://www.iwm.at/p-iwmwp.htm#Verloo.
Verloo, Mieke et al. 1998. Gender Mainstreaming: Conceptual Frame-
work, Methodology and Presentation of Good Practices. Final Report of
Activities of the Group of Specialists on Mainstreaming (EG-S-MS).
Walby, Sylvia. 2004. The European Union and Gender Equality: Emergent
Varieties of Gender Regime. Social Politics 11 (1): 420.
Williams, Melissa. 2000. The Uneasy Alliance of Group Representation and
Deliberative Democracy. In Citizenship in Diverse Societies, ed. Will
Kymlicka and Wayne Norman, 12454.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Woodward, Alison. 2003. European Gender Mainstreaming: Promises and
Pitfalls of Transformative Policy Making. Review of Policy Research 20
(1): 6588.
Wrench, John, 2003. Managing Diversity, Fighting Racism or Combating
Discrimination: A Critical Exploration. Council of Europe and European
Commission Research Seminar, Budapest 1015 June 2003. Available at
http://www.gleiche-chancen.at/htm/Wrench_budapest.pdf.
Yeandle, Sue, Chris Booth, and Cinnamon Bennett. 1998. Criteria for Suc-
cess of a Mainstreaming Approach to Gender Equality. CRESR,
research report.
Young, I. 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.