‘Mainstreaming’ equality came to international prominence in the
mid-1980s. This approach of promoting equality contrasts with
anti-discrimination laws designed to protect the rights of individuals in that it is concerned with transforming public decision-making processes and resource allocation. It requires making the concerns and experiences of hitherto marginalised and discriminated groups an integral dimension of the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of all policies
and programmes. This holistic approach has developed rapidl
y and has been endorsed and adopted by countries and supranational organisations around the world. However, despite its widespread acceptance, in the two decades since mainstreaming came to international prominence, there have been very few detailed evaluations of the various approaches developed in different countries.
A survey of the published literature reveals that some countries
and organisations have favoured a 'light-touch' approach to
mainstreaming - based upon enabling legal and institutional
mechanisms, whereas others have adopted a more regulatory
approach with an emphasis on monitoring, compliance and legal
enforcement. This paper is concerned with an example of the latter
approach. The 'Section 75' statutory equality duty, as set out in the
Northern Ireland Act (1998) has been described as 'unique and
world leading'. It requires strategic practice that compels public
sector agencies to mainstream equality. It is singular in both its
broad scope and its use of strong regulatory and monitoring
mechanisms. Here we contrast the N.I. duty with an extensive
range of international approaches to mainstreaming, and examine
the way in which the S.75 duty has been implemented. Our
discussion reveals that whilst the initial operationalisation of the
pioneering N.I. equality duty has impacted upon its overall
effectiveness, it nevertheless has great utility. Important lessons
can be learned from the Northern Ireland experience, lessons that
can inform the contemporary approach to promoting equality in a
variety of national and international contexts. Moreover, the
evidence set out in this paper indicates that in several respects,
the N.I. duty reflects the future trajectory of international approaches to promoting equality
