## _wp16155 ## Source details **Canonical URL:** [_wp16155](https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/_wp16155.pdf) ## Other formats - [Markdown version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/_wp16155.pdf.md) - [Structured JSON version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/_wp16155.pdf.json) --- ### I. Introduction — scope and motivation - Gender budgeting in Europe uses fiscal policy and administration to advance gender equality and women’s development, focusing largely on the expenditure side of the budget, with some incorporation into revenue and welfare policies. - Drivers and concerns: - Structural reforms, retrenchments to social protection systems, and recent unemployment trends suggest women are at heightened risk of poverty in a number of European countries. - Need to incorporate gender-related goals in budgeting amid continued austerity. - Analytical sequence surveyed in the chapter: - EU influence on gender equality policy across Europe. - Case studies of significant gender budgeting initiatives (Western Europe and emerging markets). - Treatment of revenue policy in gender budgeting. - Impact of financial crises, recessions, and austerity on gender equality. - Role of civil society. - Observations to inform further research and application. ### II. The EU’s Gender Equality policy — evolution and influence - Historical milestones: - First EU gender directive in 1975 on the gender pay gap. - Post-1995 Beijing Conference: EU endorsed gender mainstreaming. - 1999 Treaty of Amsterdam included promotion of equality and elimination of discrimination between men and women among EU’s tasks. - 2006 Recast Gender Directive consolidated provisions on access to employment, promotion, vocational training, working conditions (including pay), and social security schemes. - Aggregate influence and concerns: - EU influenced national gender-equality legal frameworks via Employment and Social Affairs acquis communautaire. - Some backsliding from full compliance post-accession observed. - Concern over weakening of EU social agenda and downgrading of gender equality in EU institutions and policy frameworks. ### III. The European Employment Strategy (EES) — trajectory and implications - Timeline and shifts: - Launched 1997; equal opportunity initially one of four pillars. - 1998: instruction to mainstream gender equality. - 2000: targets—women’s employment at 60 percent; men’s at 70 percent. - 2003 onward: gender equality progressively sidelined; by 2010 left largely in preamble. - Consequences: - Gender equality objectives co-opted by other policy goals (demographics, labor flexibility). - Increased female labor market integration not matched by major change in domestic division of labor. - Post-2008 shift toward gender-neutral neoliberal approaches that may be regressive for gender equality. ### IV. European countries by development status and regional statistics - Development classification used: Advanced economies, Emerging markets, Low income (Moldova in 2014). - Labor and earnings indicators (regional summary): - Labor force participation of women is on average about two-thirds that of men. - Unemployment rates for women and men are about even on average. - Hourly wage gap: women earn on average about 80 percent of men. - Fiscal context and selected regional aggregates (2012–2015 unless otherwise indicated): - Total revenue: 40.4 (percent of GDP). - Total expenditure: 42.9 (percent of GDP). - Overall balance: -2.5 (percent of GDP). - Gross debt: 61.9 (percent of GDP). - Education expenditure: 5.4 (percent of GDP). - Health expenditure: 6.0 (percent of GDP). - Key regional development and inequality indicators preserved verbatim: - Regional average GDI: 0.980. - Regional average Gini coefficient: 31.8. - Regional average gross secondary enrollment female-to-male ratio: 0.99. - Regional average female labor force participation rate (ages 15-64): 0.83. - Regional mean monthly earnings (female-to-male ratio): 0.77. ### V. Cross-cutting findings on scope, coverage, and limits - Scope and sectoral focus: - Majority of initiatives focus on expenditure side, mostly social sectors (education, health, social inclusion). - Exceptions where revenue/taxation analyzed: Austria, Spain, Finland, Ireland (studies or objectives noted). - Coordination and capacity: - Coordination between gender equality goals and gender budgeting often weak; Sweden and Finland cited as better coordinated. - Gender expertise often concentrated in equality divisions rather than budget departments; many administrators lack capacity for meaningful gender analysis. - Decentralization and effectiveness: - Decentralization has driven many subnational initiatives; subnational governments often seen as effective arenas for gender budgeting. - Budget reform as entry point: - Budgetary management and governance reforms have provided frameworks for introducing gender budgeting (e.g., Austria), though gender dimensions can be sidelined during reform. - Macro-level gaps: - Practices often do not address macro-level budget decisions (public expenditure cuts, revenue policy) that have significant gender impacts. - Role of donors and civil society: - Donor support has driven initiatives, notably in former Soviet and Eastern European states; civil society remains a key actor. ### VI. Key country and jurisdictional case studies (selected findings) - Austria — institutional embedding and revenue policy focus - Institutional features: - Gender budgeting constitutionally and legislatively embedded; integrated into major federal budget reform and performance-oriented budgeting. - Regulatory impact assessments require assessment of ‘effective’ equality for new laws and large projects. - Each budget chapter must identify a gender equality objective as part of outcome orientation. - Implementation status and metrics: - 2013 draft budget: 123 outcome objectives; 28 were gender equality objectives, each with an average of two to three indicators. - 2013 reform requires assessment of de-facto equality impacts in regulatory impact assessments. - Capacity and evaluation: - 2015 evaluation: budget personnel committed but lacked capacity for meaningful gender analysis. - Taxation and gender policy measures (as of 2016): - Austria adopted individual taxation in 1972. - Specific tax structure preserved verbatim: - Reduced entry-level tax rate: 25 percent (previously 36.5 percent). - Tax-free earning level (Steuerfreibetrag): EUR 11,000 unchanged. - Entry rate of 25 percent applies to EUR 18,000. - Rates rise thereafter through five levels to the highest marginal tax rate of 55 percent applying to earnings over EUR 1 million. - Distributional relief estimates: - Reduction of standard tax rates results in relief of 1.3 percent for the highest incomes and up to 3.26 percent for low and middle incomes that exceed the tax threshold. - Accounting for social security contribution refund (negative tax), incomes just over the lower earnings limit will benefit from the highest relief of 4.22 percent. - Child-related allowances (preserved values): - Sole earner benefit: EUR 494 per year. - Child allowance introduced in 2009: EUR 220 per child, per year; if both parents claim, EUR 132 per parent per child. - From 2016, child allowance increases to EUR 440 per year, per child: - If both parents claim, each eligible to claim EUR 300 per child. - If only one parent claims, amount due will be EUR 440. - Belgium — law-driven methodology and operational categories - Legal basis and application: - Law of January 12, 2007 mandates verification of Beijing commitments, integration of gender dimension into federal policies, sex-disaggregated data collection, and application to public procurement. - 2011 manual defines three budgetary categories for classification and treatment. - Three budgetary categories (verbatim descriptions and examples): - Category 1: budgetary allocations related to internal functioning of government (no action required). Examples include IT operational expenses, real estate leasing costs, interest on late payments, personnel costs. - Category 2: budgetary allocations aimed at achieving gender equality (to be included in the gender note). Examples include refuge services for domestic violence victims, grants to organizations serving marginalized women and men. - Category 3: public policy measures directed to sizeable populations likely to have gendered impacts — require gender analysis documented as a “gender comment.” - Monitoring and recent metrics: - Percentage of budgetary allocations not categorized rose from 1.2 percent in 2013 to 8.5 percent in 2015. - Percentage of items listed as Category 3: 10.5 percent in 2013 and 10.1 percent in 2015. - Category 2 allocations: small increase from 0.6 percent in 2013 to 0.9 percent in 2015 (excerpt notes “0.9 percent in 2015”). - Sweden — long-standing mainstreaming and JamKas tool - Institutional context: - Gender mainstreaming since 1994; Budget Bill appendix on distribution between women and men introduced in 1988 and attached to Budget Statement since 2003. - Statistics Sweden: gender equality unit since 1982; Ordinance on Official Statistics (1994) mandates sex-disaggregation. - JamKas methodology (as described): - i) inventory and prioritization of gender equality relevance; - ii) analysis of how gender equality is effected by budgetary item under review; - iii) survey of current gender patterns in selected program or sector; - iv) with reference to national gender equality policy objectives, assess potential impact of proposals; - v) examine alternative solutions if negative impacts are anticipated. - Recent developments: - 2014–2016: new government declared itself a feminist government; JamKas identified as main instrument. - From 2016, annual budget circular to include instructions: gender impact analysis at early stage, sex-disaggregated data use, devise new gender equality indicators. - Berlin — sustained subnational practice and a 2013 “steering” tool - Features and uses: - Gender budgeting practiced in Berlin for 12 years with year-on-year increases in gender information in the budget. - 2016/17 budget: departmental chapters include sex-disaggregated breakdown of public officials and mean monthly salary disaggregated by sex. - Steering tool applied to contracted services, subsidies, and grants showing beneficiaries disaggregated by sex over three years and targets for two years ahead. - Strengths and limits: - Strengths: parliamentary and Senate mandate; formal structures; collaborative learning approach. - Limits: focus largely on beneficiary sex-disaggregation; concentration of gender expertise in Equality Division rather than Finance Department. - Andalucía (Spain) — G+ methodology, legal backing, and measurable outcomes - Legal framework: - 2003 law required regional budget to present a Gender Impact Report and set up a Gender Impact Commission. - 2007 law on Gender Equality (Article 8 & 10) and 2010 Finance Law mandated Gender Impact Report attached to finance bill. - G+ Program (three-stage methodology): - Identification/classification of programs on G+ scale (g0 to G+); drafting Strategic Guidance Document (DOE G+) for non-g0 programs; ongoing maintenance/updates. - Gender Impact Report organized with adapted 3R audit: “Reality,” “Representation,” and measures in upcoming budget. - Coverage and audits: - Close to 75 percent of budgetary programs ranked as G+ for potential to effect gender equality. - 2013 audits: five G+ programs assessed; four used sex-disaggregated data; four provided gender-related training; one carried out gender analysis of target population. - Reported outcomes and data improvements: - Increase in female university professors from 13 percent in 2008 to 20 percent in 2015. - As of 2014: women occupy 51 percent of senior positions within the regional administration; 33 percent of High Court positions; 42 percent of posts in municipal councils. - Of 282 statistical activities in 2012 program, 129 are disaggregated by sex. - Almost 75 percent of budget staff incorporate sex-disaggregated data into reporting. - Over a 22 percent increase in number of gender-relevant indicators used in 2015 budget compared to 2014. - Current audit (2015-2016) evaluating impact of 26 budget programs; public consultation noted as missing to date. - Albania — EU-driven program and medium-term budget integration (preserve numeric values) - Legal basis and actions: - Council of Ministers Decision nr. 465, “Decision on the Introduction of Gender Mainstreaming in the Medium Term Budget Program,” adopted July 2012. - Decision 465 actions include identification of gender equality objectives with targeted outcomes and indicators; setting gender equality criteria for Regional Development Funds; alignment with National Strategy on Gender Equality; ministerial responsibilities; roll-out strategy for line ministries by 2013. - Integration with PFM: - Gender budgeting integrated into Public Finance Management Strategy, 2014-2020. - As of 2014, all Ministries mandated to identify gender equality objectives and corresponding measures in annual budget plans; gender budgeting standard element of performance monitoring. - 2015 budget allocations (Table 4 values preserved): - Agriculture, Rural Development and Water Administration — Rural Development — Subsidies to female household farmers — 100m LEK — 3.25 - Agriculture, Rural Development and Water Administration — Agricultural Information and Advisory Services — Information and advice to female household farmers — 20m LEK — 7.6 - Social Welfare and Youth — Employment, Qualification and Vocational Education — Vocational education and training for females; employment schemes supporting female job seekers — 10m LEK — 2.7 - Social Welfare and Youth — Social Inclusion — Policy support for gender related issues — 11m LEK — 10.7 - Social Welfare and Youth — Social Care — Services and financial support to females and female households in financial distress, abuse, or member of marginalized social group. — 90m LEK — 0.4 - European Integration — Institutional Support for EU Integration Process — Ensuring equal rights/Opportunity to being informed about EU integration process. — 28.7m LEK — 6.6 - Culture — Art and Culture — Equal opportunities and rights in accessing specific programs and projects — 10m LEK — 1.2 - Interior Affairs — State Police — Support Services — Equal opportunities in enrollment to programs — 23.3m LEK — 1.9 - Economic Development, Tourism, Trade and Entrepreneurship — Support for Economic Development — Financial support schemes for female entrepreneurs — 110m LEK — 9.0 - Implementation note: nine gender equality objectives identified for first round; close match to National Strategy objectives. - FYR Macedonia — strategy, pilots, and constraints - Legal and institutional basis: - Strategy on Gender Responsive Budgeting published July 2012; legal basis in the Law on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men (2012); regulated by Strategy on Gender Equality, 2013-2020. - Principal provisions: systematic inclusion of equal opportunities in all budget processes; oversight committee; civil society consultation requirement; gender-disaggregated data gathering by state agencies. - Implementation approach: - Short-term measures included instructions in Handbook on Strategic Planning and Budget Circular. - Ministry of Labor and Social Policy to lead; pilots in multiple ministries and agencies. - Phased implementation: second phase beginning in 2017; third phase in 2019. - Early assessments: - Akcija Zdruzenska assessment (July 2012–November 2013) found little measurable progress. - 2014 budget lacked sex-disaggregated output indicators; implementation unclear. - Systemic constraints: limited capacity in strategic planning and indicator identification; mid-year budget amendments undermine targets. - Ukraine — donor-supported multi-year program aligned with PFM reform - Program and partners: - Multiple initiatives since 2003; donors: UN Women, Sida, European Union, Friedrich Ebert Foundation. - Current major program: five-year “Gender Budgeting in Ukraine” funded by Sida; Ministry of Finance leads. - Approaches and accomplishments: - Oblast-level demonstration projects and civil society engagement secured ring-fenced funding for health and education priorities. - UN Women and civil society established a Bureau of Gender Strategies and Budgeting; UN Women assisted in methodology to analyze economic effect of gender policies across 27 regions. - Historical funding trend (Women’s Consortium of Ukraine, 2011): modest growth until 2008, then cuts of between 25 percent and 50 percent in 2009 due to global crisis; total funding was 40-50 percent of costed needs for program delivery. - Alignment and goals: - Objectives include increased economic efficiency/effectiveness in budget allocations that consider different needs of both genders; reflect gender equality objectives in budget policies at national and oblast levels; encourage civil society and media engagement. - Project aligns with budget reform, decentralization, and results-based budgeting. ### VII. Taxation, revenue policy, and gender — background and country studies - Background and reform context: - Tax codes reflect history, legal tradition, political structure, and economic base and are resistant to change. - Late-20th-century reforms largely eliminated explicit gender bias (reversal of coverture; move from joint to individual taxation in many countries). - Exceptions: Germany, France, Portugal retain forms of joint taxation; Germany’s “income splitting” favors couples with large intra-household income differentials. - Sales-type taxes (VAT) and implicit biases: - VAT has no explicit gender bias but design choices (reduced rates on care-related goods/services) can benefit women and women-headed households. - High VAT and consumption taxes reduce real wages and may dampen labor supply. - Empirical labor-supply and effective tax rates: - Average effective tax rates evaluated at mean earnings for the woman are below 50 percent in all 26 EU-SILC countries, and below 30 percent in 15 of them. - Median METR evaluated between zero and average earnings is below 50 percent in 23 of 26 countries and below 30 percent in 14. - OECD (2012) confirms higher tax rates on secondary earners reduce women’s labor force participation. - Country studies and government-commissioned analyses: - Austria: Ministry studies asking “Is the Austrian tax system gender neutral?” (2002, 2006, 2010, 2016); adopted a behavioral gender equality objective in revenue policy. - Spain: Equal Opportunities Strategic Plan, 2014-2016 committed to analysis of taxation and public benefits and differential effects of social security. - Finland: study covering 1993–2012 (Riihela and Viitamaki, 2015) with findings including an 8.5 percentage-point decrease in taxation of earned income and little change for low-income people; a decrease of some seven-percentage-points in combined tax on earned and capital income benefited women slightly more than men. - Ireland: ESRI study on gender impact of tax and benefit policy changes over 2009–2013 (Keane et al., 2014) using micro-simulation: - Singles: loss between 9 and 10 percent for both men and women (2008–2013). - Couples, full income sharing: reduction just under 12 percent (working-age no children); couples with children and both working full time: greatest losses at 13 percent. - Couples, no income sharing: women lost 15 percent vs. men lost 10 percent. - Policy changes progressive under full income sharing; at individual level within couples women lost larger proportion of income than men, with women in poorest quintile losing most. - Implication: gender budgeting ex-ante can use methods like micro-simulation to bound policy impacts; revenue policy analysis is an emerging component of gender budgeting efforts. ### VIII. Role of civil society in gender budgeting - Civil society contributions: - Key drivers of government-led gender budgeting initiatives; provide gender expertise to economic policy and evidence-based analysis. - Push for wider spectrum of data (sex-disaggregated) and dissemination that educates policymakers and citizens. - Illustrative organizations: - United Kingdom’s Women’s Budget Group (WBG): - Members: academics, activists, NGOs, trade unionists, students. - Activities: analysis of budget statements, press releases, in-depth analyses; informed 2004 Spending Review via pilot findings. - Critique of austerity: argued 2010 budget would hit women and children, reduce women’s labor market participation, and increase fiscal deficit pressures. - Swedish Women’s Lobby: - Umbrella organization of 35+ member organizations; began national budget analysis in 2007. - Found inadequate sex-disaggregated statistics and lack of gender-aware impact analysis; welcomed increased use of gender statistics in 2016 budget. - La Plataforma ¡Impacto de Género YA! (Spain): - Formed 2007 to challenge failure to publish Gender Impact Assessment of national budget. - Legal challenge led to annual Gender Impact Assessment production; critical of 2016 budget for cuts and downgraded equality infrastructure. - Civil society roles include litigation, monitoring government reporting, proposing alternative assessments, and demanding sex-disaggregated data and specified budget allocations. ### IX. Cross-case observations and policy implications (recommendations and priorities) - Focus and coverage: - Recommendation priority: extend gender-budgeting analysis beyond expenditure to revenue and macro-level fiscal choices (taxation, public expenditure cuts) because they have major gendered effects. - Coordination and capacity building: - Strengthen coordination between gender equality goals and gender budgeting (good practice examples: Sweden, Finland). - Invest in capacity building within finance and budget departments to perform gender analysis rather than concentrating expertise solely in equality divisions. - Data and indicators: - Enhance sex-disaggregated data collection and use; develop specific gender equality indicators tied to budget outcomes. - Monitoring, evaluation, and transparency: - Commission independent evaluations where gender budgeting has been in place for several years (e.g., Austria, Belgium, Berlin, Andalucía) to assess concrete gender equality outcomes. - Publish clear Gender Impact Reports with specified budget allocations to enable assessment of implementation likelihood. - Subnational engagement and decentralization: - Encourage subnational governments as effective arenas for gender budgeting where spending authority is devolved. - Role of donors and civil society: - Leverage donor support to build institutional capacity and civil society engagement, especially in transition and EU-accession contexts. - Austerity response: - Explicitly assess gender impacts when designing austerity measures and structural reforms to avoid regressive outcomes for women. ### X. Appendix A snapshot (selected jurisdictional indicators preserved) - Jurisdictions with gender budgeting initiatives and start years (selected): - Albania: Yes — start year 2012. - Austria: Yes — start year 2004. - Belgium: Yes — start year 2004. - Finland: Yes — start year 2006. - Iceland: Yes — start year 2006. - Macedonia, FYR: Yes — start year 2012. - Sweden: Yes — start year 2002/2014. - Ukraine: Yes — start year 2003. - Andalucia: Yes — start year 2003. - Berlin: Yes — start year 2002. - Selected binary indicators preserved (examples): - Focus on spending: all listed jurisdictions — Yes. - Spending focus on education and health: all listed jurisdictions — Yes except Austria: No (per table). - Focus on revenue (selected): Finland: Yes; Iceland: Yes; other listed jurisdictions largely No. - Gender budgeting has constitutional standing: Austria: Yes; Andalucia: Yes; others: No. - Ministry of Finance lead entity: Albania: Yes; Austria: Yes; Belgium: Yes; Finland: Yes; Iceland: Yes; Macedonia, FYR: Yes; Ukraine: Yes; Andalucia: Yes; Berlin: Yes; Sweden: No. - Note: Appendix entries are presented verbatim from source table. *Source: _wp16155 (IMF working paper content provided).* ### References ............................................................................................................. ### _wp16155 - References ### Document location - References ................................................................................................................................................. 53 ### Tables listed - 1. EU Policy Mechanisms and Milestones ............................................................................................. ...5 - 2. European Gender and Income Equality Indicators ............................................................................ ...9 - 3. European Fiscal Indicators ................................................................................................................. ..10 - 4. Albania: Gender Budgeting Programs, Budget 2015 ......................................................................... ..30 ### Figures - Figure *Source: _wp16155 - References* ### 1. European Countries by Level of Economic Development ............................................................... ### 1. European Countries by Level of Economic Development ### I. Introduction — scope and motivation - Gender budgeting in Europe uses fiscal policy and administration to advance gender equality and women’s development, focusing largely on the expenditure side of the budget, with some incorporation into revenue and welfare policies. - Combined effects of structural reforms, retrenchments to social protection systems, and recent trends in unemployment suggest women are at heightened risk of poverty in a number of European countries, increasing the need to incorporate gender-related goals in budgeting amid continued austerity. - The paper surveys gender budgeting initiatives in Europe, documents institutional and legislative developments, and highlights the need for evaluations of gender budgeting’s impact on gender equality outcomes. - The analysis sequence: - Overview of EU influence on gender equality policy across Europe. - Case studies of significant gender budgeting initiatives (Western Europe and emerging markets). - Treatment of revenue policy in gender budgeting. - Impact of financial crises, recessions, and austerity on gender equality. - Role of civil society. - Observations to inform further research and application. ### II. The EU’s Gender Equality policy — evolution and influence - Historical milestones: - First EU gender directive in 1975 on the gender pay gap. - Post-1995 Beijing Conference: EU endorsed gender mainstreaming. - 1999 Treaty of Amsterdam included promotion of equality and elimination of discrimination between men and women among EU’s tasks. - 2006 Recast Gender Directive consolidated provisions on access to employment, promotion, vocational training, working conditions (including pay), and social security schemes. - Aggregate influence: - EU has positively influenced gender equality policy within Member States and across European countries that have formal relations with the EU. - Legislative harmonization via the Employment and Social Affairs Chapter of the acquis communautaire legitimized women’s claim to genuine equality. - Some countries retreated from full compliance post-accession; nonetheless, EU norms have pushed gender-related legal frameworks forward. - Concern: weakening of EU social agenda and gender equality focus, with an observable downgrading of gender equality in EU institutions and policy frameworks. ### III. The European Employment Strategy (EES) — trajectory and implications - EES timeline and changes: - Launched in 1997; equal opportunity initially one of four pillars. - 1998: instruction to mainstream gender equality in Strategy’s guidelines. - 2000: EU Council targeted women’s employment at 60 percent and men’s at 70 percent. - 2003: framework abandoned; gender equality relegated to one of ten guidelines. - 2005: gender equality reduced to a principle in the preamble of Broad Economic Policy Guidelines. - 2010: post-crisis framework left gender equality sidelined to the preamble, with focus on men’s employment. - Consequences and critiques: - Co-option/transformation of gender equality ideals to satisfy other policy objectives (demographic pressures, labor flexibility, “Make Work Pay”). - Increased female labor market integration has not produced major change in domestic division of labor; dependence on public policy remains high for further progress. - Post-2008 evidence suggests gender equality policies have been largely abandoned in favor of market-expanding, gender-neutral neoliberal approaches that may be regressive for gender equality. ### IV. European countries by development status and gender inequality — key descriptors - Development classification (IMF/WEO): Advanced economies, Emerging markets, Low income (Moldova in 2014). - Labor and earnings indicators (regional summary highlights from Table 2 and text): - Labor force participation of women is on average about two-thirds that of men. - Unemployment rates for women and men are about even on average. - Hourly wage gap: women earn on average about 80 percent of men. - Fiscal context (from Table 3 summary): - Public sector in Europe tends to be large relative to GDP (revenues and expenditures as shares of GDP). - Some advanced economies have public sectors exceeding one-half of national income; almost all countries have public sectors >30 percent of national income. - Some countries have gross debt to GDP ratios over 100 percent. ### V. Key statistics preserved from the source (selected figures) - Regional averages and notable values (from Tables 2 and 3): - Regional average GDI: 0.980. - Regional average Gini coefficient: 31.8. - Regional average gross secondary enrollment female-to-male ratio: 0.99. - Regional average female labor force participation rate (ages 15-64): 0.83 (interpreted in table context as 63.4 percent female participation relative metric—preserve table layout constraints). - Regional mean monthly earnings (female-to-male ratio): 0.77 (regional average noted as 0.77 in table footings). - Fiscal aggregates (regional average, 2012-2015 unless otherwise indicated): - Total revenue: 40.4 (percent of GDP). - Total expenditure: 42.9 (percent of GDP). - Overall balance: -2.5 (percent of GDP). - Gross debt: 61.9 (percent of GDP). - Education expenditure (regional average): 5.4 (percent of GDP). - Health expenditure (regional average): 6.0 (percent of GDP). ### VI. Case studies — institutional approaches and findings - Austria — institutional embedding and early findings - Summary points: - Gender budgeting in Austria is constitutionally and legislatively embedded; integrated into a major federal budget reform and performance-oriented budgeting. - Regulatory impact assessments require assessment of ‘effective’ equality between men and women for new laws, regulations, directives, and large government projects. - Main methodological tool: identification of a gender equality objective for each budget chapter as an integral element of performance-oriented budgeting. - Weakness: built-in disincentive to identification of transformative gender equality objectives; limited gender-analysis capacity among budget personnel. - Timeline and legal/institutional measures: - March 2004: Ministerial Council decision; Ministry of Finance issued guidelines and pilot projects; inclusion in budget documentation for Federal Finance Acts 2005/2006 and 2007/2008. - 2006: regulation introduced legal basis for “gender audits.” - 2007: constitutional amendment and legislation set scope/timeframe for budget reform; Article 13 para. 3 and Article 51 para. 8 reference effective equality and outcome orientation. - By 2009: binding Medium Term Expenditure Framework and strategy report; performance/outcome-oriented budgeting and accrual accounting by 2013. - 2013 reform of regulatory impact assessment introduced requirement to assess de-facto equality impacts. - Implementation details: - Annual budget organized on three levels: chapter, global, and detail budgets. Each chapter has up to five outcome objectives; one must address gender equality. - 2013 draft budget included 123 outcome objectives; 28 were gender equality objectives, each with an average of two to three indicators. - 2014 onward: outcome and target information at budget chapter level, including gender equality outcomes, recorded on a dedicated website and updated annually (site indicated in source: www.wirkungsmonitoring.gv.at). - Evaluation findings: - 2015 evaluation: budget personnel expressed commitment but largely lacked capacity for meaningful gender analysis. - Hammerschmid and Grunwald (2014) evaluation: respondents viewed gender equality as unrealistic to give equal weight among objectives at early reform stage; gender equality targets poorly specified; lack of data undermined evaluation of gender objectives. - Belgium — law-driven methodology and operational categories - Summary points: - Belgium institutionalized gender budgeting via law in 2007, mandating methodologies and processes to integrate gender into federal policies, sex-disaggregated data collection, alignment with the Beijing Platform for Action (BPfA), and application to public procurement. - Strength: alignment of gender equality objectives with BPfA. - Implementation has been hampered by political discontinuities during the last decade. - Timeline and institutional measures: - 2001: co-hosted high-level gender responsive budgeting conference during EU Presidency. - Pilot project led to 2007 legislation: law of January 12, 2007 on verifying Beijing commitments and integrating gender dimension into federal policies. - 2010: interdepartmental coordination group established by royal decree; methodology and a 2011 manual developed in collaboration with the Institute for the Equality of Women and Men. - Methodology — three budgetary categories (per the 2011 manual and legislation): - Category 1: budgetary allocations related to internal functioning of government (no action required). Examples: IT operational expenses, real estate leasing costs, interest on late payments, compensation for rental property damage, personnel costs (salaries, training), although personnel costs have gender dimensions. - Category 2: budgetary allocations aimed at achieving gender equality (to be included in the gender note). Examples: refuge services for domestic violence victims, grants to organizations serving marginalized women and men, labor market activation schemes targeted at particular groups of women. - Category 3: public policy measures directed to sizeable populations likely to have gendered impacts — require gender analysis documented as a “gender comment.” - Budget cycle responsibilities: - Dossier managers indicate category when requesting budgets; Budget and Management departments compile gender notes and gender comments; Federal Public Service Budget and Management Control compiles aggregate gender notes/comments for budget documentation. - Recent commitments and monitoring: - Federal Plan on gender mainstreaming (2015-2019) renews government commitments; ministers commit to integrate gender perspectives in distinct policy areas (examples: Minister of Finance on personal income tax and pension savings incentives; Minister of Civil Service on pay scales and teleworking; Minister of Justice on prison policy and matrimonial/inheritance law reform). - Institute evaluations focus on methodology application rather than outcomes due to limited data. Example metrics: - Percentage of budgetary allocations not categorized rose from 1.2 percent in 2013 to 8.5 percent in 2015 (interpreted as methodological application gaps with new government incoming). - Percentage of items listed as Category 3: 10.5 percent in 2013 and 10.1 percent in 2015. - Small increase in Category 2 allocations from 0.6 percent in 2013 to (value cut off in source excerpt; methodology reporting continues in source). *Source: _wp16155 - 1. European Countries by Level of Economic Development (IMF working paper content provided).* ### 0.9 percent in 2015. These figures, particularly those related to Category 3 are disappointing, ### C. Sweden ### Summary - Nordic countries were pioneers of gender budgeting in Europe; the Nordic Co-operation provided the framework for early initiatives. - A joint project was launched in 2004 with Finland, Iceland, Norway, Denmark and Sweden all undertaking pilot projects over a two-year period. - Sweden has a long-standing commitment to gender equality and gender mainstreaming, including capacity building for government officials, development of methodologies and tools, and production and management of sex-disaggregated data. - Sweden continuously refocuses its efforts and seeks improvements "relative to its own standing." ### Historical context and institutional developments - Women in Sweden have enjoyed individual or separate income tax assessment since 1971. - The Equal Opportunities Law came into force in 1980. - Efforts to incorporate a gender equality perspective in economic policy date to the late 1980s; in 1988 a special appendix was introduced into the Budget Bill to show the distribution of economic resources between women and men. - Since 2003, this appendix has been attached to the Budget Statement. - Statistics Sweden has had a gender equality unit since 1982 and has published Women and Men in Sweden, Facts and Figures at regular intervals since 1984. - In 1994, the Ordinance on Official Statistics mandated that all official statistics related to individuals are to be disaggregated by sex. - A review of the Budget Bill in 2006 found the use of sex-disaggregated data needed improvement; Statistics Sweden produced guidance to ensure tables and graphs related to individuals be based on sex-disaggregated data in the 2007 Budget Bill (Sweden Government Offices, 2006). - Gender mainstreaming has been in operation in Sweden since 1994. - The Ministry of Finance initiated the project, An Equal Share, in 2002; it was wound up in 2004 and gender budgeting was subsumed into the Plan for Gender Mainstreaming, 2004-2009. - A 2006 government bill resulted in drafting new national gender equality objectives; in 2007 the new Ministry of Integration and Gender Equality was established. - In 2012 the government produced a five-part Gender Mainstreaming Plan. ### Case study: 2014–2016 developments - Following elections in September 2014 the new government declared itself a feminist government and outlined its intention to institute gender budgeting in the program for government presented to Parliament by the Prime Minister. - Given its minority status the government did not succeed in passing the 2015 budgetary bill, which would have seen a significant increase in funds to address a number of gender equality related areas. - The government identified the analytical tool, JamKas, as its main instrument for revitalized gender budgeting; JamKas dates from the JamStod work of 2007 and has been updated. ### JamKas methodology (as described) - Covers the following activities: - i) inventory and prioritization of gender equality relevance; - ii) analysis of how gender equality is effected by budgetary item under review; - iii) a survey of current gender patterns in the selected program or sector; - iv) with reference to national gender equality policy objectives, assess the potential impact of proposals; - v) examine alternative solutions if negative impacts are anticipated. - The addition of step v) emphasizes the imperative of proposing solutions when initial analysis points to potential negative impacts. - JamKas is applied to all budgetary measures and is based on a gender impact assessment; it also encompasses elements from tools used in Belgium and Andalucía focusing on determining gender relevance and prioritizing measures with the strongest and most immediate impact on gender equality. ### Budget process integration and data requirements - From 2016, the annual budget circular will include instructions on the application of gender budgeting throughout the budget process. - Requirements set out in the circular include: - gender impact analysis to be carried out at the early stage of new budget proposals; - sex-disaggregated data are to be used; - new gender equality indicators are to be devised to reflect current status. - The initiative is intended to strengthen gender mainstreaming in the budgetary process by improving internal management and control, improving methodology (JamKas), better use of sex-disaggregated data, and resulting in more advanced gender equality impact analysis. *Excerpt from _wp16155 — C. Sweden* ### 2003. In the early years, in addition to senior personnel from both Senate departments, the ### _wp16155 - 2003. In the early years, in addition to senior personnel from both Senate departments, the ### Berlin: evolution and features of gender budgeting - Timeline and institutionalization - New “steering” tool introduced in 2013; demonstrated in the Senate of Berlin budget 2016/17. - Gender budgeting practiced in Berlin for 12 years, with sustained year-on-year increases in gender information in the budget. - Key uses and content in the 2016/17 budget (Senate Department of Labor, Integration and Women) - Opening chapter includes a section outlining the role of gender budgeting and describes it as a “Ministerial control function” complementing “principles of sustainable fiscal policy.” - Each departmental chapter begins with sex-disaggregated breakdown of public officials and mean monthly salary disaggregated by sex, accompanied by an explanation attributing gaps to: - predominance of men in higher salary brackets; and - women taking maternity leave interrupting career progression. - The “steering tool” applied to contracted services, subsidies, and grants (e.g., return-to-employment training, migrant advice, supports for women starting small businesses, women’s refuges): - shows number of beneficiaries disaggregated by sex over a three-year period and project targets for the ensuing two years; - includes analysis indicating whether sex-distribution of beneficiaries matches target groups and planned measures to “steer” outcomes toward gender equality. - Strengths and limits - Strengths: clear parliamentary and Berlin Senate mandate; formal structures with Ministry of Finance in lead; collaborative approach emphasizing learning-by-doing; sustained political and bureaucratic commitment. - Limits: approach remains largely focused on disaggregating beneficiaries by sex (ten-year path dependency); gender expertise concentrated in the Equality Division (Senate Department for Labor, Integration and Women) while day-to-day operations fall to the Senate Department of Finance, which lacks equivalent gender expertise; gender analysis weak in places. ### Germany (national context) - Aggregate picture - Significant gender budgeting activity at Land, district, and municipal levels; none at central level. - Germany commissioned a national feasibility study on gender budgeting (Färber, 2006); official response called for “further fundamental clarification” and left open revisiting the subject in context of broader federal budget reform. - Explanatory factors for Germany’s path (comparison with Austria; Quinn, 2015) - i) Absence of ongoing administrative reform limited opportunity to “piggy-back” gender budgeting onto managerial/technical innovation. - ii) Germany’s budget orientation toward the household (Haushalt) makes the individual-focused gender equality lens less translatable. - iii) Federal system devolving delivery to lower levels meant national government could devolve gender budgeting. ### Andalucía: legal basis, methodology (G+), and outcomes - Legal and institutional framework - 2003 law on Fiscal and Administrative Measures established requirement that regional budget present a Gender Impact Report and set up a Gender Impact Commission within the Ministry of Finance. - 2007 law on Gender Equality: Article 8 mandates publication of the Gender Impact Report for the draft finance bill; Article 10 mandates collection and management of sex-disaggregated and gender relevant data. - Finance Law of 2010 mandates that the Gender Impact Report be attached to the annual budget law. - Statute of Autonomy mandates Gender Impact Assessment for all new laws and provisions, including the finance bill. - G+ Program methodology (introduced 2007; DOE G+ operational in 2010) - Three-stage methodology: identification/classification of budgetary programs on G+ scale (g0 to G+); drafting Strategic Guidance Document (DOE G+) for each non-g0 program (a “living” document recording objectives, indicators, evaluation); ongoing maintenance and updates year-on-year. - Gender Impact Report organized using adapted 3R gender audit methodology: “Reality,” “Representation,” and measures in upcoming budget. - Institutional change and capacity - Ministry of Finance leads; organizational change focus on values, priorities, stereotypes, and expert technical assistance; G+ Fund introduced in 2010. - As of September, 2015: - “upwards of 50 percent” of those in charge of budgets trained in use of sex-disaggregated data; - 2012 audit: 93 percent of Ministry of Finance staff knew of gender budgeting; 64 percent knew of one or more tools; 30 percent of staff directly involved in budgeting activities knew the G+ scale rating of their program. - Coverage and limitations - Gender budgeting does not cover revenue side due to limited regional revenue competence; 2012 Gender Impact Report provides breakdown of regional taxes and tax credits indicating number of women and men who paid or benefited. - Gender Impact Report functions as a status report rather than an analysis of the degree to which gender equality objectives met their goals. - Close to 75 percent of budgetary programs ranked as G+ for potential to effect gender equality, but ranking does not guarantee delivery on potential. - Audits and measurable outcomes - Provision for gender audits enacted in 2013; five G+ programs assessed for effectiveness and mainstreaming (report published October 2015). - Four of the programs use sex-disaggregated data and four provided gender-related training to staff; only one carried out a gender analysis of its target population. - 2013 audit noted: more nursery places in state schools; increase in women entering self-employment and cooperatives; increased focus on combating violence against women; increased employment rate among women in rural areas; increase in women in positions of responsibility. - Results reported elsewhere: - expansion of after school services for children; - increase in female ownership of agricultural holdings; - a top-up from the Regional Government of the State pension; - increase in female university professors from 13 percent in 2008 to 20 percent in 2015 (Gender Impact Report, 2016). - As of 2014: women occupy 51 percent of senior positions within the administration of the Regional Government; 33 percent of the positions on the High Court; 42 percent of posts in municipal councils (Gender Impact Report, 2015). - Data improvements: - Of 282 statistical activities in the Statistics and Cartography Program for 2012, 129 are disaggregated by sex. - Almost 75 percent of budget staff incorporate sex-disaggregated data into reporting. - Over a 22 percent increase in the number of gender-relevant indicators used for the 2015 budget compared to the 2014 budget. - Current audit (2015-2016) evaluating impact of 26 budget programs; planned public consultation to engage civil society noted as missing to date. ### Albania: legal instruments, alignment with EU accession and program budgets - Drivers and alignment - Initiative driven by EU candidacy and UN Women support; influenced by Austria’s model. - Gender budgeting aligned with government’s gender equality strategy and the National Strategy for Gender Equality and Eradication of Gender Based Violence and Domestic Violence 2011-2015. - Legal basis and action plan - Council of Ministers Decision nr. 465, “Decision on the Introduction of Gender Mainstreaming in the Medium Term Budget Program,” adopted July 2012. - Decision 465 actions for Medium-Term Budget Program preparation: - identification of gender equality objectives with targeted outcomes and indicators; - setting gender equality criteria for distribution of Regional Development Funds; - alignment with National Strategy on Gender Equality; - ministerial responsibilities for implementation; - strategy to roll out gender budgeting across all line ministries by 2013. - Decision drew stimulus from a September 2011 study visit to Austria. - Integration with PFM - Gender budgeting integrated into Public Finance Management (PFM) Strategy, 2014-2020. - As of 2014, all Ministries mandated to identify gender equality objectives—and corresponding measures and activities—within annual budget plans; gender budgeting made a standard element of performance monitoring. - 2015 implementation: nine gender equality objectives identified for first round; close match to National Strategy objectives. - Table 4 (Albania: Gender Budgeting Programs, Budget, 2015) — budget allocations (preserve numeric values as in source) - Agriculture, Rural Development and Water Administration — Rural Development — Subsidies to female household farmers — 100m LEK — 3.25 - Agriculture, Rural Development and Water Administration — Agricultural Information and Advisory Services — Information and advice to female household farmers — 20m LEK — 7.6 - Social Welfare and Youth — Employment, Qualification and Vocational Education — Vocational education and training for females; employment schemes supporting female job seekers — 10m LEK — 2.7 - Social Welfare and Youth — Social Inclusion — Policy support for gender related issues — 11m LEK — 10.7 - Social Welfare and Youth — Social Care — Services and financial support to females and female households in financial distress, abuse, or member of marginalized social group. — 90m LEK — 0.4 - European Integration — Institutional Support for EU Integration Process — Ensuring equal rights/Opportunity to being informed about EU integration process. — 28.7m LEK — 6.6 - Culture — Art and Culture — Equal opportunities and rights in accessing specific programs and projects — 10m LEK — 1.2 - Interior Affairs — State Police — Support Services — Equal opportunities in enrollment to programs — 23.3m LEK — 1.9 - Economic Development, Tourism, Trade and Entrepreneurship — Support for Economic Development — Financial support schemes for female entrepreneurs — 110m LEK — 9.0 ### FYR Macedonia: early-stage strategy, pilots, and implementation challenges - Background and drivers - EU candidate status (June 2014) and UN Women regional program support. - 2012 legislation on equal opportunities signaled preparation of a Strategy on Gender Responsive Budgeting. - Strategy and institutional arrangements - Strategy on Gender Responsive Budgeting published July 2012; legal basis in the Law on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men (2012) and regulated by the Strategy on Gender Equality, 2013-2020. - Principal provisions: systematic inclusion of equal opportunities in all budget processes; set up of oversight committee; requirement to consult with civil society; call for gender-disaggregated data gathering by state agencies. - Strategy focused on three strategic areas: - i) introducing a gender perspective in programs and budgets at central and local level; - ii) improving legal framework for gender responsive budgeting; - iii) strengthening institutional mechanisms and capacity building. - Implementation approach and pilots - Short-term measures: instructions for gender budgeting included in the Handbook on Strategic Planning and in the Budget Circular. - Ministry of Labor and Social Policy tasked to lead; pilot programs/sub-programs in Ministry of Labor and Social Policy, Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry and Water, Employment Agency, and Ministry of Health to develop sex-disaggregated output indicators. - Phased implementation: second phase beginning in 2017; third phase in 2019. - UN Women supports civil society capacity building for local gender analysis and engagement. - Early assessments and constraints - Akcija Zdruzenska assessment (July 2012–November 2013) pointed to little measurable progress. - 2014 budget lacked sex-disaggregated output indicators; unclear if pilot projects were implemented. - Systemic challenges identified: limited capacity in strategic planning and indicator identification; budget amendments mid-year undermine target realization; pilot rollout extends over multi-year medium-term cycles (selected institutions: 2013 pilots to 2016; 2014 additions to 2017). - Rural development findings - Women face barriers: not owning land disqualifies eligibility for grants/subsidies despite ten-point lead; complex application processes; communication systems favor men. - Recommendations include infrastructural investments (sidewalks, bus shelters, water supply) to benefit women. - Roles and supports - Ministry of Labor and Social Policy coordinates and reports annually; Interdepartmental Advisory and Consultative Group provides guidance and monitoring. - Ministry of Finance included instruction on gender budgeting in Budget Circular and reviews Gender Budget Statements from pilot institutions. - UN Women provides external consultant support and gender expertise. ### Ukraine: donor-supported, multi-year program integrating with PFM reform - History and resourcing - Multiple initiatives since 2003; donors include UN Women, Sida, European Union, Friedrich Ebert Foundation. - Current major program: five-year “Gender Budgeting in Ukraine” funded by Sida; Ministry of Finance leads. - Project intended to build on previous national and regional experience and to align with public administration and budget reform. - Approaches and accomplishments - Early emphasis on oblast-level demonstration projects and civil society engagement; local lobbying secured ring-fenced funding for health and education priorities. - UN Women and Friedrich Ebert Foundation established a network and the Bureau of Gender Strategies and Budgeting (initially ten experts from Poltava, Zhitomir, Kharkiv, L’viv, Lutsk). - UN Women assisted Ministry for Social Protection to develop methodology to analyze economic effect of gender policies and to track allocations to gender equality activities across 27 regions. - Women’s Consortium of Ukraine (2011) documented funding trends (2007–2010): modest growth until 2008, then cuts of between 25 percent and 50 percent in 2009 due to global crisis; total funding was 40-50 percent of costed needs for program delivery. - UN Women analysis (2012): gender mainstreamed into 10 percent of 244 officially registered development projects; of 33 international NGOs, 12 ran specific gender projects; three agencies allocated 2 to 12 percent of project funding toward gender equality. - Current goals and alignment - Gender budgeting project objectives: increased economic efficiency and effectiveness in budget allocations that consider different needs of both genders; reflect gender equality objectives in budget policies and allocations at national and oblast levels; encourage civil society and media engagement. - Project aligns gender budgeting with ongoing reforms: achieving acquis-level human rights/equality, budgetary reform, decentralization; emphasis on results-based budgeting, medium-term financial planning, and improved links between financial resources and priority tasks. - Institutional and capacity considerations - Ministry of Finance aims to synchronize gender budgeting methodologies with budget reform methodologies. - Project partnership among project team, Friedrich Ebert Foundation, and UN Women leverages historical knowledge and gender expertise. - Challenge: deterioration of gender machinery (inactive working groups; irregular Inter-Agency Council meetings); line ministries selected for relevance to gender equality are Social Policy, Youth and Sports, Economic Development and Trade, Health, and Education. ### Cross-case observations and conclusions - Scope and sectoral focus - Majority of gender budget initiatives focus on the expenditure side, mostly in social sectors where gender relevance is most evident. - Exceptions: some countries have analyzed revenue policy gender impacts (Sweden, Austria; more recently Finland, Spain, Ireland). - Coordination and alignment - Coordination between gender equality goals and gender budgeting often weak; aligning them could improve outcomes (Sweden and Finland cited as better coordinated; Ukraine as a target). - Capacity, expertise, and mainstreaming limits - Gender mainstreaming is ambitious and under-resourced in many contexts; layering gender budgeting onto weak gender mainstreaming has been challenging. - Administrators often do not seek out or sufficiently use gender expertise; gender expertise commonly concentrated in equality divisions rather than budget departments. - Decentralization and effectiveness - Decentralization has fueled many subnational gender budgeting initiatives; many experts argue subnational governments are where gender budgeting can be most effective, especially where spending authority is devolved (e.g., Belgium, Germany). - Budget reform as an entry point - Budgetary management and governance reforms have provided useful frameworks and stimuli for introducing gender budgeting, though the gender dimension can receive less weight during reform (example: Austria). - Gaps in macro-level engagement and representation - Current gender budgeting practices often do not address macro-level budget decisions (cuts to public expenditure, revenue policy) which have important gender impacts, especially during austerity. - Despite emphasis on women’s participation, little space is routinely created for women’s representation within government-led gender budgeting institutions. - Role of donors and civil society - Donor requirements and support have driven many initiatives, particularly in former Soviet and Eastern European states, activating civil society and democratic engagement; civil society remains a key actor but is sometimes under-engaged in formal oversight processes. *Source: Excerpt from IMF working paper content provided in the supplied PDF chapter/section.* ### Introduction ### Introduction ### Overview - The tax code reflects a country’s history, legal tradition, political structure, and economic base (Grown, 2010) and is resistant to change, including changes to accommodate gender equality. - Tax analysis typically focuses on distributional effects (vertical and horizontal equity, ability to pay) and efficiency/incentive effects (impacts on labor supply, saving and investing, and risk-taking). - Incidence and incentive effects can be examined from a gender-differentiated perspective, with personal income taxes and social security contributions being central concerns. - Studies examine: - Distributional differences in how personal income taxes fall on women and men given different positions in the income distribution, labor supply, or wages. - Differences for taxpayers with equivalent incomes in use of deductions and tax preferences. - Behavioral responses of women and men to income taxes, including labor supply responses to changes in net wages and the effective cost of unpaid labor (De Henau, et al., 2010). ### Section plan - Background discussion on late-20th-century tax reforms that contributed to gender equality. - Case study: Austria’s gender budget program and Ministry of Finance tax-related gender equality objective. - Trends in Western Europe extending gender budgeting to revenue policy. ### Key citation note - See Meghir and Phillips (2009) for an extensive overview. --- ### Background: historical reforms and gender implications - Stotsky (1996) discusses explicit and implicit gender bias in tax systems, particularly personal income tax, and surveys reforms in developed and developing countries. - Most European countries reformed tax codes to eliminate explicit gender bias in the 1970s and 1980s: - Reforms included granting the wife the right to sign tax forms (e.g., France and the United Kingdom). - Husbands lost entitlement under tax law to their wife’s non-labor income (e.g., the United Kingdom). - These reforms reversed the doctrine of “coverture” and removed obstacles to a woman’s legal and economic independence. - Shift from joint taxation (family as unit) to individual taxation (individual as unit) reduced implicit disincentives for secondary earners: - Under joint taxation, progressive marginal tax schedules often raised marginal rates on secondary earners (predominantly women), disincentivizing work. - Germany, France, and Portugal still use forms of joint taxation; Germany’s “income splitting” privileges couples with higher incomes and large intra-household income differentials, reinforcing the male breadwinner model (Betzelt and Bothfeld, 2010; Palier and Thelen, 2010). - Sales-type taxes (VAT and excises): - No explicit gender bias from taxation on sale of goods and services, but implicit biases can arise from design choices (Grown and Valodia, 2010). - Reduced VAT rates (zero-rating, exemption, lower rates) on products used in provision of care would help women and women-headed households. - High VAT and consumption taxes reduce real wages and may dampen labor supply (OECD, 2011). - VAT may distort market purchase versus household production decisions, potentially reducing women’s labor supply. - Macroeconomic trade-off: - Decisions to increase tax revenue in fiscal constraint can finance social programs enabling women to better balance paid and unpaid work and mitigate poverty risk. - Transition economies (former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe): - Tax reforms emphasized transparency and efficiency—reducing tax evasion and addressing employment incentives—motivated by EU tax harmonization. - Emphasis on redistributing tax burden between personal/labor income and consumption/environmental taxes focused on equity in ability to pay; gender considerations did not feature prominently (Rastrigina and Verashchagina, 2015). - Allowances and benefits: - Some governments introduce biases favoring traditional division of labor via joint assessment of household income. - Empirical findings on work incentives for secondary earners: - Studies show that, before childcare expenses, work pays even for the average secondary earner (Rastrigina and Verashchagina, 2015; OECD, 2012). - Average effective tax rates evaluated at mean earnings for the woman are below 50 percent in all 26 EU-SILC countries, and below 30 percent in 15 of them. - The median value of the marginal effective tax rate (METR) evaluated between zero and average earnings is below 50 percent in 23 of 26 countries and below 30 percent in 14 (Bettio and Verashchagina, 2009). - Use of fiscal stimuli: - Fiscal stimuli to encourage women’s employment have not been used extensively in Europe in recent decades. - Bettio and Verashchagina (2009) show in eight European countries with middle-to-low female employment rates, the tax burden for secondary earners and lone mothers diminished only marginally over 2001-2008. - Labor supply elasticity and secondary earner taxation: - OECD (2012) confirms higher tax rates on secondary earners reduce women’s labor force participation. - European Commission (EC, 2013, p. 45) notes secondary earners often face disincentives to return to work or increase hours. - Empirical studies find higher labor supply elasticity for low-income earners, particularly women with children (Meghir and Phillips, 2009). - Higher tax burden on secondary workers may disproportionately harm their employment outcomes. --- ### Gender budgeting and tax policy: emerging trend - Recent trend: incorporating revenue policy focus into government gender budget initiatives. - Austria identified a gender equality objective in revenue policy; Spain, Finland, and Ireland committed to studies on gender aspects of revenue policy. --- ### Austria: individual taxation, gender objectives, and reforms - Austria adopted individual taxation in 1972, early relative to many European countries. - Individual taxation broadened horizontal equity and supported women’s economic independence. - A “splitting” system (as in Germany, Luxemburg, Portugal) was considered but rejected due to disproportionate benefits to higher income earners and disadvantage to single people. - Impact on women’s labor market participation: - Dr. Edeltraud Lachmayer (Gender Mainstreaming Group, Austrian Ministry of Finance) notes lack of childcare provision and prevailing traditional views mitigated the reform’s incentive to increase women’s paid work. - The reform was not framed explicitly as a gender equality reform; substantive labor market changes took over a decade to manifest. - Ministry of Finance studies: - Regular studies titled “Is the Austrian tax system gender neutral?” conducted first in 2002 and updated in 2006, 2010, and 2016. - The first study revealed a male bias: tax reductions for high incomes privileged men, who comprise 90 percent of the high-income group. - The Ministry introduced controlling procedures for tax reform and the national budget to avoid unintentional gender bias; procedures were later deemed too time consuming and not used for long. - Behavioral focus and gender equality objective: - Most Austrian studies focused on distributional impacts but not behavioral impacts. - The Gender Mainstreaming Group proposed a gender equality objective aimed at influencing behavior: that the tax system supports a better distribution of paid and unpaid work between women and men. - The objective aligns with concerns about women’s undue burden of unpaid care work and the view that equal distribution of paid and unpaid work is necessary for full gender equality (references: Pearson and Elson, 2015; Rubery, 2015; Barry and Conroy, 2014). - The objective is multi-year; successive budget cycles introduce and refine measures toward progressive realization. - Specific tax measures contributing to the objective (as of 2016): - Reduced entry-level tax rate: 25 percent (previously 36.5 percent). - Flatter progression with tax-free earning level (Steuerfreibetrag) of EUR 11,000 remaining unchanged. - Entry rate of 25 percent applies to EUR 18,000. - Rates rise thereafter through five levels to the highest marginal tax rate of 55 percent applying to earnings over EUR 1 million. - Given that 70 percent of those in employment who earn less than the tax-free basic personal allowance of EUR 11,000 are employed on a part-time basis, the reform creates greater incentive to increase part-time hours toward full-time. - Expected outcome: supports a better distribution of paid work between men and women and contributes to reduction in the gender pay gap. - Distributional relief estimates: - Reduction of standard tax rates results in relief of 1.3 percent for the highest incomes and up to 3.26 percent for low and middle incomes that exceed the tax threshold. - Accounting for the social security contribution refund (the so-called negative tax), incomes just over the lower earnings limit (Geringfügigkeitsgrenze) will benefit from the highest relief of 4.22 percent. - Because higher incomes receive relatively less relief and given current income differentials, the gap between net disposable incomes of men and women will decline. - Child-related allowances in Austria: - Majority of child benefits are cash transfers; two tax allowances for children remain: - Sole earner benefit: EUR 494 per year, applicable to sole earners and single parents, with supplement for more than one child. Partner of sole earner must earn no more than EUR 6,000 per year. - Child allowance introduced in 2009: EUR 220 per child, per year; if both parents claim, EUR 132 per parent per child. - From 2016, child allowance increases to EUR 440 per year, per child: - If both parents claim, each eligible to claim EUR 300 per child. - If only one parent claims, amount due will be EUR 440. --- ### Government-commissioned gender and revenue studies: Spain, Finland, Ireland - Spain - Equal Opportunities Strategic Plan, 2014-2016 (Government of Spain, 2014) committed to analysis of taxation and public benefits to assess influence on women’s labor market participation and “professional prospects.” - Study also to examine differential effects of social security regulations, particularly related to part-time work. - Three ministries responsible: Ministries of Employment and Social Security, Public Administration, and Health, Social Services and Equality. - The study is part of broader objectives on workplace equality and fighting pay discrimination. - Finland - Study covering 1993 to 2012 published late 2015 (Riihela and Viitamaki, 2015). - Motivated by recognition that tax policy decisions may affect economic equality between men and women and need for analysis to underpin policy and develop research. - Focused on changes in income and consumption taxes and accounted for changes in income levels, income distribution, and demography. - Findings: - Taxation of earned income decreased by some 8.5 percentage points, with women and men faring more or less equally. - Increase in taxation on capital income affected those with high incomes, a higher share of whom were men. - Changes in tax rules resulted in little or no change for low-income people, implying this group had a disproportionately low share of overall benefit from a lower tax regime. - A decrease of some seven-percentage-points in the combined tax on earned and capital income benefited women slightly more than men. - Consumption taxes: - Assessing gender equality impact is challenging due to inability to allocate taxes to individuals. - Many up-and-down changes in VAT cancelled each other out; ratios of taxes on consumption stayed almost unchanged during the period. - Executive summary notes a change in the structure of consumption and propensity to consume: share of tax-free consumption increased and share of food and goods with a standard VAT decreased. - The report queries whether the body provides details on which goods changed and whether gender implications can be inferred. - Ireland - Study by the Economic, Social and Research Institute on gender impact of tax and benefit policy changes over 2009 to 2013 (Keane et al., 2014). - Period characterized by successive austerity budgets. - Method: micro-simulation model on a large-scale nationally representative sample to isolate impact of changes in income tax, welfare benefits, property tax, and public sector pay; distinguished policy impacts from changes in employment, unemployment, or pre-tax incomes. - Changes in disposable income measured against base year 2008 and compared to 2013. - Findings for singles: - No sizeable gender difference; loss of between 9 and 10 per cent for both men and women. - For single men and women without children, losses greater at the bottom income quintile (driven by social welfare reductions) and at the top quintile (driven by taxation and public sector pay changes). - Couples scenarios (two assumptions tested): - Full income sharing: - Couples of working age with no children experienced a reduction of just under 12 per cent. - Couples with children and both partners working full time experienced the greatest losses at 13 per cent. - No income sharing (individual incomes only): - Women in working-age couples lost more: 15 per cent loss for women versus 10 per cent loss for men. - Most of the gap due to changes in child benefit and social welfare reductions. - Income-distribution impacts: - Assuming full income sharing, tax and benefit changes in 2009-2013 budgets were progressive across the income distribution. - Looking at individual incomes within couples, women lost a larger proportion of their income than men across the income distribution, with women in the poorest income quintile losing most. - Limitations and methodological notes: - Study did not account for differential impact of cuts in public services nor impact of changes in indirect taxation; work is ongoing to incorporate these dimensions. - Neither full income sharing nor no income sharing is likely accurate; the approach provides approximate bounds on policy impact. - The method is useful for gender budgeting ex-ante and for building gender impact assessment into the budgetary process. *Source: _wp16155 - Introduction* ### Introduction ### Introduction ### Role of civil society in gender budgeting - Civil society has been a key driver of gender budgeting in Europe, contributing to the emergence of government-led gender budgeting initiatives at national and regional levels. - Civil society applies gender expertise to standard economic policy by analyzing: - how men and women contribute to and are impacted by the economy; and - factors that inhibit or enhance the participation of both men and women toward realizing the country’s full economic potential. - The analysis is evidence-based, pushes for use of a wider spectrum of data in economic policy making, and is oriented toward sustainable economic growth and prosperity for all. - Three main contributions of civil society groups: - Framed as gender mainstreaming, the reach of gender budgeting has largely been restricted to public expenditure, leaving many facets of fiscal policy unexamined. - The depth and caliber of the analysis renders the relevance of gender to economic policy indisputable. - Dissemination among academics, policy-makers, public representatives, and citizens has elevated the debate and educated the debaters. ### United Kingdom’s Women’s Budget Group (WBG) - Profile and mandate: - Best-known civil society organization promoting a gender equality perspective to all fiscal and budgetary policies. - Members include academics, activists, leaders of equality-focused NGOs, trade unionists, and students. - Fundamental concern: well-being of women and children, particularly those living in—or at risk of—poverty. - Vision: a “gender equal society in which women’s financial independence gives them greater autonomy at work, home, and in civil society.” - History and government engagement: - Formed in the late 1980s during the Thatcher government. - HM Treasury had a Memorandum of Agreement with WBG during the Blair government; HM Treasury described WBG as a “key feature of the consultation process with respect to gender.” - WBG provided guidance to a gender budgeting pilot involving three government ministries; findings informed the 2004 Spending Review and are documented in HM Treasury 2004 report, “Gender Analysis of Expenditure Project.” - Methodology and activities: - Collaborative model of analysis covering government economic policy, highlighting social and gender equality implications. - Institutional practice of gathering to view the Chancellor’s budget statements live, issuing press releases and subsequent in-depth analyses. - Early 2000 analysis organized around three themes: - delivering growth and macroeconomic stability; - promoting individual economic security; - increasing national levels of employment and productivity. - Policy emphases included: considering human costs of growth strategies; basing tax and benefit modernization on the individual rather than the household; full employment targets accounting for women’s education/training, National Childcare Strategy, and inclusive active labor market policies. - Assessments of austerity and later budgets: - After the 2010 coalition government austerity budget, WBG emphasized the obligation on government to carry out a gender impact assessment (gender equality duty). - WBG argued the 2010 budget would likely see a fall in women’s participation in the labor market, loss of many women’s talents to the economy, and resultant loss of earnings that would trigger increases in the cost of tax relief and/or means-tested tax credits and benefits, increasing the budget deficit. - 2015 Autumn Statement analysis: used the Chancellor’s theme of security to critique the government for failing to invest in women’s security; Members of Parliament referenced WBG’s analysis noting recent tax and benefits changes hitting women three times harder than men, a gender pay gap of 19.2 percent, cuts to services and social infrastructure, and a weakening of women’s employment rights and opportunities. ### Swedish Women’s Lobby - Profile and mandate: - Founded in 1997 as a politically and religiously independent umbrella organization of over 35 member organizations. - Mission: strengthen women’s position in society; founded on a feminist platform; bases activities on CEDAW and the Beijing Platform for Action. - Aims to mainstream a woman’s perspective into all political, social, and economic policies and contexts. - Budget analysis and findings: - Began analysis of the national budget in 2007 to assess government promises to bring a gender equality perspective to the budget. - Found that while the budget demonstrated awareness of gender-related problems and articulated gender equality objectives, the use of sex-disaggregated statistics was inadequate and a gender-aware impact analysis of economic policy proposals had not been employed. - 2016 budget analysis: welcomed increased use of gender statistics, commended the government’s commitment to “launching” the concept of gender budgeting in Sweden. - Welcomed specific measures: cutting back of tax credits, lowering of tax on pensions, increase in childcare allowance, addition of a reserved month of parental leave. - Called on the government to monitor carefully the long-term impact of tax cuts on both women and men and noted strengthening of the infrastructure to better manage gender equality. ### La Plataforma ¡Impacto de Género YA! - Formation and legal context: - La Plataforma Impacto de Género Ya formed in 2007 as a grouping of feminist and women’s collectives, issue-based associations, and regional forums. - Initially challenged the Spanish government’s failure to publish a Gender Impact Assessment of the national budget. - Legal obligation articulated in the Gender Impact Assessment Law of 2003 and mandated via the Equality Law of 2007. - La Plataforma’s 2007 legal challenge was initially rejected by the public prosecutor but later accepted as legally competent by the Audiencia Nacional. - Since then, the Spanish government has produced an annual Gender Impact Assessment; La Plataforma has issued responses and its own gender-perspective assessments of budget proposals. - Concerns in relation to Spain’s 2016 Budget: - Overall slow rate of job growth; recovery in employment not proportional to GDP. - Context: loss of almost 3 million jobs in Spain between 2008 and 2012 and an unemployment rate of 24.4 percent in March 2012. - At the time of Budget 2016 preparation, women made up about half of the unemployed. - Concern over a planned 21.7 percent cut in the level of unemployment benefit. - Coverage gap among unregistered unemployed: 2014 figures show 63.8 percent of unemployed men were covered by unemployment insurance, while 54.2 percent of unemployed women were covered. - La Plataforma’s 2016 Budget focus areas: - employment—continued slow growth of jobs and cuts to unemployment protection; - downgrading of women’s equality infrastructure and resources; - insufficient protection and support for women victims of domestic violence; - suspension of the law that would have extended paternity leave. - Assessment of government Gender Impact Report: - La Plataforma welcomed incorporation of a Gender Impact Report into the Budget as a “significant improvement.” - Concerned that failure to identify required budgetary allocations made it impossible to gauge implementation likelihood and the scope and evolution of gender equality policy over the years. ### Conclusion: status and lessons on gender budgeting in Europe - Sustained support: - Gender budgeting has enjoyed sustained support across Europe for more than a decade and a half. - National and regional governments have legislated for gender budgeting (e.g., Austria, Belgium, and Andalucía); many have initiated changes to budget institutions (e.g., Albania, Belgium, and Iceland); others have recommitted to marrying equality policy with economic policy (e.g., Sweden, Finland, and Iceland). - Scope and limitations: - Government-led gender budget initiatives are most commonly implemented within gender mainstreaming frameworks. - Practice across Europe is almost exclusively associated with the expenditure side of the budget, particularly expenditure related to delivery of public services. - Exceptions: Austria’s Ministry of Finance specified a tax-related gender equality objective within an institutionally robust gender budget program; some countries have acknowledged extending gender budgeting to taxation. - Taxation and implicit biases: - Personal income taxes in most European countries are gender neutral and largely individual-based. - Secondary earners, majority women, often face disincentives to entering or increasing labor market participation. - Benefit assessment commonly uses joint income assessment, creating implicit gender bias. - Sales-type taxes can have implicit gender bias; applying reduced VAT rates on products used in the provision of care would help women, particularly women-headed households. - Decisions on tax increases can have differential burdens on men and women and affect social programs that help women balance paid and unpaid work. - EU influence and risks: - The European Union has had a positive influence on gender equality policy across Member States and other European countries with formal relations. - Indications of a weakening of the EU social agenda do not bode well for gender equality policy, including gender budgeting innovations. - Austerity and gender impacts: - Policymakers have not taken sufficient account of gender equality in the design of recent austerity measures. - Structural reforms, retrenchment of social protection systems, and changes in unemployment for women since 2011 suggest women are at heightened risk of poverty, increasing the need to take gender into account in budgeting amid continued austerity. - Coordination, capacity, and levels of government: - Coordination between gender equality goals and gender budgeting could be greatly improved; Sweden and Finland are cited as good examples, and Ukraine aims to work toward this coordination. - Budget administrators are not sufficiently seeking out or using gender expertise in fiscal policy-making. - Budgetary and governance reforms, including decentralization, have stimulated the introduction of gender budgeting in several countries; many experts believe regional and local governments are where gender budgeting can be most effective. - Impact and evaluation: - Gender budgeting has been important in developing gender equality policy, notably in newly independent former-Soviet countries, and in activating civil society. - Many initiatives have not been in place long enough to evaluate concrete gender equality outcomes. - Significant legislative, administrative, and methodological changes in budget institutions have been undertaken; if maintained and acted upon, these provide a framework for ongoing consideration of gender equality in budget formulation and execution. - Where gender budgeting has been in place for a number of years (e.g., Austria, Belgium, Berlin, Andalucía), governments should commission independent evaluations so lessons can feed into ongoing work. *Source: _wp16155 - Introduction* ### References ### _wp16155 - References ### Major themes in the cited literature - Gender budgeting and gender mainstreaming: multiple papers and reports on conceptual frameworks, practical guides, and country experiences (examples: Elson 1998; Quinn 2009; Sharp 2003; Schmitz 2006). - Taxation and gender equity: conceptual and empirical analyses of tax systems and gender (examples: Stotsky 1996; De Henau, Himmelweit, and Santos 2010; Grown 2010). - Impacts of economic crisis and austerity on gender equality: analyses of recessionary effects and policy responses in Europe (examples: Barry 2014; Rubery and Rafferty 2014; Karamessini and Rubery 2014). - Country-specific gender budgeting practices and evaluations across Europe, including Austria, Finland, Iceland, Sweden, Germany, Belgium, Spain (Andalucia), UK, and multiple EU-level assessments (examples: Färber et al. 2006; Iceland Government of 2011; Sweden Government Offices 2006; Steger 2010). - Institutional and legal frameworks for gender budgeting: discussions of constitutional standing, incorporation into budget or finance laws, and roles of Ministries of Finance and other ministries (examples: German Federal Ministry of Finance BGBl II Nr. 289/2009; Nordic Council of Ministers reports). - Role of civil society, international organizations, and donors in supporting gender budgeting initiatives (examples: Network of legal experts in the field of gender equality (NLEGE) 2014; Nordic Council of Ministers 2015). ### Appendix A: Gender Budgeting in Europe — data snapshot (selected fields by jurisdiction) - Jurisdictions covered: Albania; Austria; Belgium; Finland; Iceland; Macedonia, FYR; Sweden; Ukraine; Andalucia; Berlin. - Does the government have a gender budgeting initiative - Albania: Yes - Austria: Yes - Belgium: Yes - Finland: Yes - Iceland: Yes - Macedonia, FYR: Yes - Sweden: Yes - Ukraine: Yes - Andalucia: Yes - Berlin: Yes - If yes, start year - Albania: 2012 - Austria: 2004 - Belgium: 2004 - Finland: 2006 - Iceland: 2006 - Macedonia, FYR: 2012 - Sweden: 2002/2014 - Ukraine: 2003 - Andalucia: 2003 - Berlin: 2002 - If any, end year - (No explicit end years provided in the table for the listed jurisdictions.) - Supported by international organizations or bilateral aid agencies - Albania: Yes - Austria: No - Belgium: No - Finland: No - Iceland: No - Macedonia, FYR: Yes - Sweden: No - Ukraine: Yes - Andalucia: No - Berlin: No - Tied to MDGs or national development plan or gender equality strategy - Albania: Yes - Austria: No - Belgium: Yes - Finland: No - Iceland: Yes - Macedonia, FYR: Yes - Sweden: No - Ukraine: Yes - Andalucia: Yes - Berlin: No - Focus on spending - All listed jurisdictions: Yes (Albania; Austria; Belgium; Finland; Iceland; Macedonia, FYR; Sweden; Ukraine; Andalucia; Berlin) - Spending focus on key human development (education and health) - Albania: Yes - Austria: No - Belgium: Yes - Finland: Yes - Iceland: Yes - Macedonia, FYR: Yes - Sweden: Yes - Ukraine: Yes - Andalucia: Yes - Berlin: Yes - Spending focus on physical infrastructure (transport, water, electricity, and energy) - All listed jurisdictions: Yes - Spending focus on justice and security (violence against women, judicial assistance) - All listed jurisdictions: Yes - Spending focus on jobs, entrepreneurship, wages etc - All listed jurisdictions: Yes - Structural reforms in spending (subsidies, transfers, incentive or distributional objectives) - Albania: Yes - Austria: Yes - Belgium: No - Finland: Yes - Iceland: Yes - Macedonia, FYR: Yes - Sweden: Yes - Ukraine: No - Andalucia: No - Berlin: No - Focus on revenue - Albania: No - Austria: No - Belgium: No - Finland: Yes - Iceland: Yes - Macedonia, FYR: No - Sweden: No - Ukraine: No - Andalucia: No - Berlin: No - Personal income tax focus - Albania: No - Austria: No - Belgium: No - Finland: Yes - Iceland: No - Macedonia, FYR: No - Sweden: No - Ukraine: No - Andalucia: No - Berlin: No - Other tax focus, including general or selective sales and trade - Albania: No - Austria: No - Belgium: No - Finland: Yes - Iceland: No - Macedonia, FYR: No - Sweden: No - Ukraine: No - Andalucia: No - Berlin: No - Broad statement of goals of Minister of Finance - All listed jurisdictions: Yes - Gender budgeting statement in budget documentation - Albania: Yes - Austria: Yes - Belgium: Yes - Finland: Yes - Iceland: Yes - Macedonia, FYR: Yes - Sweden: Yes - Ukraine: No - Andalucia: Yes - Berlin: Yes - Gender budgeting circular or related to instruct the bureaucracy - Albania: Yes - Austria: Yes - Belgium: Yes - Finland: Yes - Iceland: Yes - Macedonia, FYR: Yes - Sweden: Yes - Ukraine: No - Andalucia: Yes - Berlin: Yes - Gender budgeting in planning and programming - Albania: Yes - Austria: Yes - Belgium: Yes - Finland: Yes - Iceland: Yes - Macedonia, FYR: Yes - Sweden: Yes - Ukraine: No - Andalucia: Yes - Berlin: Yes - Gender budgeting outcome report or audit - Albania: Yes - Austria: Yes - Belgium: No - Finland: Yes - Iceland: Yes - Macedonia, FYR: No - Sweden: Yes - Ukraine: No - Andalucia: Yes - Berlin: Yes - Explicit reporting on gender equality spending - Albania: Yes - Austria: Yes - Belgium: No - Finland: Yes - Iceland: Yes - Macedonia, FYR: No - Sweden: Yes - Ukraine: No - Andalucia: Yes - Berlin: Yes - Gender budgeting has constitutional standing - Albania: No - Austria: Yes - Belgium: No - Finland: No - Iceland: No - Macedonia, FYR: No - Sweden: No - Ukraine: No - Andalucia: Yes - Berlin: No - Gender budgeting is incorporated in organic budget or other finance laws - Albania: No - Austria: Yes - Belgium: No - Finland: No - Iceland: Yes - Macedonia, FYR: No - Sweden: No - Ukraine: No - Andalucia: Yes - Berlin: No - Ministry of Finance lead entity - Albania: Yes - Austria: Yes - Belgium: Yes - Finland: Yes - Iceland: Yes - Macedonia, FYR: Yes - Sweden: No - Ukraine: Yes - Andalucia: Yes - Berlin: Yes - Other ministries play consequential role and which - All listed jurisdictions: Yes - Subnational government involvement - Albania: No - Austria: Yes - Belgium: No - Finland: No - Iceland: Yes - Macedonia, FYR: Yes - Sweden: Yes - Ukraine: Yes - Andalucia: No - Berlin: No - Significant encouragement or participation of civil society - Albania: No - Austria: Yes - Belgium: No - Finland: Yes - Iceland: Yes - Macedonia, FYR: Yes - Sweden: Yes - Ukraine: Yes - Andalucia: No - Berlin: Yes *Source: _wp16155 - References (PDF).* --- _Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2016/_wp16155.pdf_