Gender Mainstreaming oder Mainstream ohne Gender? Wirtschaftspolitische Steuerung in der Europäischen Union: geschlechterblind und gleichstellungsriskant

Gender Mainstreaming oder Mainstream ohne Gender? Wirtschaftspolitische Steuerung in der Europäischen Union: geschlechterblind und gleichstellungsriskant Der Artikel leistet einen Beitrag zur Bilanz 20 Jahre nach Amsterdam mit einer kritischen Bestandsaufnahme des Stellenwerts von Gleichstellungspolitik im Bereich der Budget- und Wirtschaftspolitik. Im Mittelpunkt steht dabei die Frage, welchen Einfluss der gleichstellungspolitische Ansatz des Gender Mainstreaming (GM) in der budget- und wirtschaftspolitischen Steuerung innerhalb der EU innehat und gleichzeitig umgekehrt, welchen Einfluss die Budget- und Wirtschaftspolitik der EU, mit besonderem Fokus auf die wirtschaftspolitische Steuerung (Economic Governance), auf Gleichstellung hat. Die Analyse zeigt, dass Gleichstellungspolitik in der EU und gleichstellungspolitische Errungenschaften in der Krise sind. Das ist nicht nur auf die Wirtschafts- und Finanzkrise zurückzuführen, sondern ist vielmehr auch in den zu kurz greifenden gleichstellungspolitischen Konzepten und in der weiterbestehenden „strategic silence“ in Bezug auf Gleichstellungsaspekte in der EU-Wirtschaftspolitik im Rahmen der Economic Governance angelegt. Gleichstellungspolitische Errungenschaften sind durch geschlechterblinde Politiken und die zunehmende Macht männlich dominierter und maskulin strukturierter Institutionen gefährdet. Im Artikel werden aufbauend auf die Einsichten in die Defizite der bisherigen GM- und Gleichstellungspolitik Ansatzpunkte für die theoretische Weiterentwicklung und praktische Geschlechterpolitik vorgestellt, die die Schwachstellen und blinden Flecken überwinden sollen. Eine vom Alltag der Lebensrealitäten her gedachten Transformation muss auf drei Ebenen erfolgen, eine Neukonzeptualisierung von Ökonomie und der Wirtschaftspolitik in Richtung Ver- und Vorsorgende Wirtschaft (Care Ökonomie), eine emanzipatorische Transformation von Staatlichkeit in Richtung Geschlechterdemokratie und ein Ausbau geschlechtergerechter partizipatorischer Institutionen und Entscheidungsprozesse. Nur wenn diese drei Ebenen gleichzeitig im Blick sind, können gleichstellungspolitische und emanzipatorische Konzepte und Strategien wirksam werden. (Autorenreferat)The article contributes to the stock-taking of 20 years after Amsterdam by critically focusing on the role of gender equality in budgetary and economic policies at the EU level. It analyses not only the influence of Gender Mainstreaming on budgetary and economic policies but also vice versa, the influence of economic and budgetary policies – in particular the EU economic governance – on gender equality. The analysis shows that EU gender equality policies and gender equality achievements are experiencing a crisis. This is not only due to the current economic and financial crisis, but rather due to limited gender equality concepts as well as the continued “strategic silence” and absence of gender equality aspects in EU economic policies and economic governance. Progress in gender equality is threatened by the increasing power of male dominated and masculine structured institutions. Based on the insights on the deficits of gender mainstreaming and gender equality policies so far, the article presents key starting points for a theoretical development and practical gender equality policies to overcome the weak points and blind spots. A transformation – based on the realities of everyday life – needs to focus on three levels simultaneously, namely a new conceptualization of economics and economic policies in the direction of a care economy, the emancipatory transformation of the state towards gender equality democracy and the development of gender-just, participatory institutions and decision making processes. Gender equality and emancipatory concepts and strategies can only become effective if transformations at these three levels are taken into account simultaneously. (author's abstract

Developing a sustainability science approach for water systems

We convened a workshop to enable scientists who study water systems from both social science and physical science perspectives to develop a shared language. This shared language is necessary to bridge a divide between these disciplines’ different conceptual frameworks. As a result of this workshop, we argue that we should view socio-hydrological systems as structurally co-constituted of social, engineered, and natural elements and study the “characteristic management challenges” that emerge from this structure and reoccur across time, space, and socioeconomic contexts. This approach is in contrast to theories that view these systems as separately conceptualized natural and social domains connected by bi-directional feedbacks, as is prevalent in much of the water systems research arising from the physical sciences. A focus on emergent characteristic management challenges encourages us to go beyond searching for evidence of feedbacks and instead ask questions such as: What types of innovations have successfully been used to address these challenges? What structural components of the system affect its resilience to hydrological events and through what mechanisms? Are there differences between successful and unsuccessful strategies to solve one of the characteristic management challenges? If so, how are these differences affected by institutional structure and ecological and economic contexts? To answer these questions, social processes must now take center stage in the study and practice of water management. We also argue that water systems are an important class of coupled systems with relevance for sustainability science because they are particularly amenable to the kinds of systematic comparisons that allow knowledge to accumulate. Indeed, the characteristic management challenges we identify are few in number and recur over most of human history and in most geographical locations. This recurrence should allow us to accumulate knowledge to answer the above questions by studying the long historical record of institutional innovations to manage water systems

Balancing open science and data privacy in the water sciences

Open science practices such as publishing data and code are transforming water science by enabling synthesis and enhancing reproducibility. However, as research increasingly bridges the physical and social science domains (e.g., socio-hydrology), there is the potential for well-meaning researchers to unintentionally violate the privacy and security of individuals or communities by sharing sensitive information. Here, we identify the contexts in which privacy violations are most likely to occur, such as working with high-resolution spatial data (e.g., from remote sensing), consumer data (e.g., from smart meters), and/or digital trace data (e.g., from social media). We also suggest practices for identifying and addressing privacy concerns at the individual, institutional, and disciplinary levels. We strongly advocate that the water science community continue moving toward open science and socio-environmental research and that progress toward these goals be rooted in open and ethical data management.by Udit Bhatia et al