GENDER GAP IN BRAZILIAN STATES AND STAKEHOLDER ANALYSIS OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR WOMEN’S RIGHTS

Abstract

This paper aims to analyze the gender gap in Brazilian states and the actions of stakeholders of the National Council for Women’s Rights (NCWR). Two research was conducted in two steps. In the first step, a gender gap index in Brazilian states was calculated based on the Global Gender Gap Report (GGGR) methodology, prepared by the World Economic Forum. In the second, the NCWR stakeholders were mapped, and their performance was analyzed, considering the gender gap indexes obtained in the first step and the theoretical framework supported by stakeholder analysis models. The political and economic dimensions presented the worst performance. The Brazilian states with the best general indexes were Amapá, Distrito Federal, and Maranhão, and the worst were Mato Grosso, Minas Gerais, and Paraná. On the other hand, NCWR stakeholders acting in public policies related to the economic and political dimensions do not seem to have great relevance and influence capacity. Evidence indicates a concentration of policy efforts in areas where the country has good GGGR indicators (health and education).

Keywords:
gender; inequality; public policies; stakeholder; political representativeness

Resumo

O objetivo deste artigo é analisar a desigualdade entre homens e mulheres nas unidades federativas brasileiras e a atuação dos stakeholders do Conselho Nacional dos Direitos da Mulher (CNDM). Para tal, realizaram-se duas etapas de pesquisa. A primeira é baseada no cálculo de um índice sobre a disparidade entre gêneros nos estados brasileiros a partir da metodologia aplicada no Global Gender Gap Report (GGGR), elaborado pelo Fórum Econômico Mundial. Na segunda, foram mapeados os stakeholders do CNDM e analisada sua atuação diante das lacunas enfatizadas na primeira fase do estudo, à luz de referencial teórico amparado em modelos de análise de stakeholders. No Brasil, as dimensões que apresentaram o pior desempenho foram a política e a econômica, sendo as unidades federativas que obtiveram os melhores índices gerais Amapá, Distrito Federal e Maranhão, e os piores, Mato Grosso, Minas Gerais e Paraná. Por outro lado, os stakeholders do CNDM que atuam nas políticas públicas ligadas às dimensões econômica e política parecem não ter grande relevância e capacidade de influência. As evidências indicam que existe concentração de esforços em políticas nas áreas em que o país apresenta bons indicadores no GGGR, como saúde e educação.

Palavras-chave:
gênero; desigualdade; políticas públicas; stakeholders; representatividade política

Resumen

El objetivo de este artículo es analizar la brecha de género en las unidades federativas brasileñas y las acciones de los stakeholders del Consejo Nacional para los Derechos de la Mujer (CNDM). Con este fin, se realizaron dos etapas de investigación. La primera se basa en el cálculo de un índice sobre la brecha de género en los estados brasileños a partir de la metodología aplicada en el Global Gender Gap Report (GGGR), preparado por el Foro Económico Mundial. En la segunda etapa, se mapeareon los stakeholders del CNDM y se analizó su desempeño en vista de las brechas destacadas en la primera fase del estudio, a la luz del marco teórico respaldado por los modelos de análisis de stakeholders. En Brasil, las dimensiones de peor desempeño fueron la política y la económica, las unidades federativas que obtuvieron los mejores índices generales fueron Amapá, Distrito Federal y Maranhão, y las peores fueron Mato Grosso, Minas Gerais y Paraná. Por otro lado, los stakeholders del CNDM que actúan en políticas públicas relacionadas con las dimensiones económica y política no parecen tener gran relevancia e influencia. La evidencia indica que hay una concentración de esfuerzos en políticas en áreas donde el país tiene buenos indicadores de GGGR (salud y educación).

Palabras clave:
género; desigualdad; políticas públicas; stakeholders; representatividad política

1. INTRODUCTION

The gender gap can be understood as any difference or as the set of differences between women and men with regard to their actions in society, with different understandings of this theme being found in the literature.

Several international indexes seek to measure the gender gap through a series of indicators. The Gender Inequality Index (GII), prepared by the United Nations Development Program (UNDP), uses indicators related to reproductive health, empowerment (political and educational) and economic condition. The Gender Development Index (GDI), also developed by the United Nations, measures gender inequality through three dimensions: health, knowledge and standard of living (United Nations Development Programme, 2019). O Global Gender Gap Report (GGGR), in turn, treats the gender gap as the set of differences linked to issues of health, education, economics and politics (World Economic Forum [WEF], 2018). Note that there are similarities regarding the dimensions considered in the calculation of international gender gap indices.

The GGGR has been published annually, since 2006, by the World Economic Forum (WEF) and analyzes gender parity across countries through four dimensions: economic participation and opportunity, school participation, health and survival, political empowerment. In the 2018 edition of GGGR, Brazil was in the 95th ranking of gender parity, among 149 classified countries. In South America, Brazil occupies the penultimate position among the 11 countries classified in the GGGR, ahead of Paraguay, 104th place globally. Although Brazil is well placed in the dimensions of school participation, health and survival, in the other two dimensions performance was below the global average.

The “economic participation and opportunity” dimension considers variables related to female participation in the labor market and equal pay. In this dimension, Brazil ranked 92nd in 2018. Data from the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics (Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística [IBGE], 2018) on gender statistics show that the average income of women in that year was BRL 1,764.00, while the average income of men was BRL 2,306.00 in the same period, that is, a difference of approximately 23.5% in favor of males. Another fact that helps to understand Brazil’s position in this dimension is that only 39.1% of managerial positions were held by women, which together with data on average income, indicates a gap between genders.

In the “political empowerment” dimension of the GGGR, Brazil had the worst performance, ranking 112th. This dimension considers the difference between the number of men and women who occupy important positions in politics. In the global ranking of women in national legislatures of the Inter-Parliamentary Union (2019), Brazil ranks 134th among 192 countries, a result obtained due to the low representation of women in the national legislature. Of the 513 federal deputies elected in 2018, only 77 were women (15%), and of the 81 acting senators, only 12 were female (14.8%). Considering that women represent 51.03% of the Brazilian population, according to the 2010 IBGE census, these data reveal that the country is far from having an equal political representation between genders.

In order to mitigate gender differences in Brazil, in 2003 the government instituted the National Secretariat for Policies for Women (SPW), body responsible for coordinating national gender equality policies. The main tool used by the SPW to bridge the gender gap is the National Policy Plan for Women (NPPW), whose last edition was launched in 2013 and was in force until 2015. Before the SPW, in 1985, the National Council for the Rights of Women was created (NCRW), by Law 7,353, of 29 August, the first national body to be charged with promoting public policies aimed at eliminating discrimination against women and current member of the SPW. These institutions articulate a dialogue between federal, state, municipal governments and civil society. In the NPPW Articulation and Monitoring Committee, for example, government sectors at the federal level participate - as ministries, General Secretariat of the Civil House, Institute of Economic and Applied Research (Ipea) and National Indian Foundation (Funai) -, in addition to representatives of social movements and government mechanisms for state and municipal policies for women. We observed that in the NPPW I, a network of actions and services was foreseen to expand state capacity in states and municipalities, giving the policy the status of transversality with coverage at the three levels of government.

Given the scenario presented and the limited literature on the issue of gender and public policies in Brazil compared to studies carried out in developed countries (Anglade, Useche & Deere, 2017; Desposato & Norrander, 2008; Rad, Bayazidi, Delavari & Rezaei, 2016), this study seeks to analyze the inequality between men and women in the Brazilian federative units and the performance of the NCRW with a focus on its stakeholders, defined by Freeman (1984) as actors who influence or are influenced by an organization. For this purpose, the research was carried out in two stages. The first consists in the elaboration of a ranking of the gap between genders in Brazilian states along the lines of the GGGR. The second stage seeks to complement the first through the identification and characterization of NCRW stakeholders and their actions in view of the ranking dimensions. After all, it is believed that a more detailed look, which investigates the interested actors, on the reality of the states and the performance of the entity responsible for national public policies dedicated to the topic can contribute to a better understanding of the classification of Brazil in the GGGR and provide evidence for an adequate prognosis.

Analyzing gender gap in Brazil at two levels (national and state) allows for a more comprehensive study of the country’s reality. The ranking of gender parity in Brazilian federative units provides an overview of local specificities, while the analysis of NCRW’s stakeholders focuses on the arena responsible for the elaboration of national policies that should guide the performance of state and municipal governments. Whereas the national gender policy guidelines established by NCRW - among which to guarantee the allocation and execution of resources in Multi-Annual Plans, Budget Guidelines Laws and Annual Budget Laws for the implementation of policies for women - should be followed by the federal units, the state ranking can shed light on the scope of national gender disparity policies.

To fulfill the proposed objectives, in addition to this introductory section, this study contains two sections dedicated to the theoretical framework, a section on the research methods employed, another for results and discussion and finally, one for the conclusions, in which suggestions for future studies are also pointed out.

2. ACTIONS OF THE NATIONAL SECRETARIAT FOR POLICIES FOR WOMEN AND OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL ON WOMEN’S RIGHTS

Although much still needs to be done so that there is parity between men and women in Brazilian society, gender issue has long been considered by the federal public sphere. In 1985, Law 7,353, of 29 August, the NCRW created the first national character body been in charge of promoting public policies aimed at eliminating discrimination against women. At the time, the council was linked to the Ministry of Justice, but enjoyed financial and administrative autonomy, which gave it more freedom to act in favor of gender equality. However, the NCRW’s strength has waned over time with changes in the political landscape and the changing of parties in the presidency (Macaulay, 2010).

In 2002, at the end of Fernando Henrique Cardoso’s second term, the State Secretariat for Women’s Rights was created (Sedim), through Law No. 10,539, of September 23, with the aim of elaborating and putting into practice the political reforms necessary for greater parity between men and women in the country. Sedim was created with a special character and did not change the reality of NCRW. Such a change took place at the beginning of the government administration of the Labour Party (Partido dos Trabalhadores - PT), in 2003, when Law No. 10,683 created the SPW, which replaced Sedim and became part of its basic structure, NCRW, now as an advisory body.

The first NPPW, published in 2004, emerged as SPW’s main tool to bridge the gender gap in Brazil. Its scope has a series of recommendations and standards that seek to ensure that women’s rights are respected. The NPPW has three editions, the last of which was published in 2013.

With the Dilma Rousseff government, started in 2010, SPW underwent a series of modifications aimed at improving it, but it was also during this period that the secretariat suffered the loss of ministry status, which led to a reduction in power, scope and autonomy. Provisional Measure No. 696, of October 2, 2015, ended the Ministry of Women, integrating it with the Ministry of Women, Racial Equality, Youth and Human Rights (MWREYHR), along with other departments. In turn, after the impeachment of Dilma, under the government of Michel Temer, Law No. 13,341, of September 29, 2016, extinguished the MWREYHR and transferred all its duties to the Ministry of Justice and Citizenship, except those related to youth policies. Currently, under the administration of Jair Bolsonaro, NCRW is active and integrates the structure of the Ministry of Women, Family and Human Rights (MHR).

3. STAKEHOLDERS ANALYSIS MODELS

Understanding the dynamics between stakeholders and how these actors can influence public policy can represent the difference between a successful and an unsuccessful plan. Thus, several studies have devoted themselves to finding ways to classify these actors, among which are the studies by Savage, Whitehead and Blair (1991), Mitchell, Agle and Wood (1997) and Gomes, Liddle and Gomes (2010).

In the understanding of Savage et al. (1991), stakeholders can be classified according to their potential for threat or cooperation, being divided into four groups: supportive stakeholders, with high potential for cooperation and low threat; marginal stakeholders, endowed with low potential for threat and cooperation; non-supportive stakeholders, with high threat potential and low cooperation; and mixed blessing stakeholders, characterized by high potential for threat and cooperation.

The proposal by Mitchell et al. (1997) takes into account more intrinsic aspects of stakeholders, classifying them according to the presence or absence of three attributes: power exercised (coercive, normative or utilitarian), legitimacy and urgency of their demands. Actors with only one of the three attributes are called “latent” and are divided into “dormant”, who only have power without actually exercising it; “discretionary”, they detain legitimacy and remain inert due to the lack of power and urgency; and “demanding”, characterized by making a splash with the urgency of their demands. Those actors with two of the three characteristics in question are the “expectants” and are divided into “dominants”, who have power and legitimacy and can act in an impactful way; “dangerous”, carrying urgency and able to use forms of coercive power to achieve their goals; and “dependents”, seen as those who have urgency and legitimacy, but depend on the power of other actors to be heard. Finally, stakeholders with power, legitimacy and urgency are the “definitive”, that need to be observed with greater care, since their actions can greatly influence the reality of the object of study in stakeholder analysis.

Based on research related to public policies whose object of study was the governments of England and Brazil, Gomes et al. (2010) developed a stakeholder analysis model that is based on the actors’ attitude towards decisions made by public policy or by the organization under analysis. In this way, stakeholders can be “collaborators”, who help the government to implement their plans; “regulators”, who manage the capital invested in government plans; “agenda developers”, responsible for setting topics to be followed, “legitimizers”, who offer the public power the right to act on their behalf, and “controllers”, capable of limiting actions by formal or informal means.

Thus, we propose an approach to stakeholder analysis that takes into account, simultaneously, the three models referenced. Thus, it is possible to verify: the attitude (positive, negative or ambiguous) of the actors in relation to politics, Thus, it is possible to verify: the attitude (positive, negative or ambiguous) of the actors in relation to politics.

4. METHODOLOGICAL PROCEDURES

This study has a quantitative and qualitative nature, since the first stage of the research is based on the calculation of an index on the gender gap in Brazilian states and the second in the gathering of qualitative information, interviews and documents from the federal agency responsible for women’s policies: NCRW. Thus, the work seeks to explore and describe the situation of gender parity in the various units that integrate Brazil, more complete task by joining quantitative and qualitative tools (Sampieri, Collado & Lucio, 2006).

For the first stage, in the construction of the index for the Brazilian federative units, we sought to replicate the methodology used by the WEF in the preparation of the GGGR 2018, which is the same used since the beginning of the international study, in 2006. However, as the report works with countries, scope adjustments were necessary, i.e., scale reduction from national to state level, in order to consider the reality of Brazilian federative units. In addition, other modifications were necessary, since not all variables used in the original study were available at the state level (Box 1). With the calculation of the index for the Brazilian states and the Federal District, a ranking was developed regarding the level of parity between genders in the federative units.

Box 1 lists the four sub-indexes considered in the study, the variables used in GGGR 2018, the variables after adaptation for the case of Brazilian federative units and the sources used for data collection. In the variables of the sub-indexes “health and survival” and “level of education”, there was no change other than the scope. In the sub-index “economic participation and opportunity”, three variables were adjusted because there is no data available regarding the performance of the federation units. Instead of the survey used by the WEF to measure the salary gap between women and men within the same position, the average female salary divided by the male one was used. Another variable that needed to be adjusted was the female monetary gains over the male ones, which include income in addition to the salary - for the states, the female salary gain in all jobs was considered divided by the male counterpart. Finally, the total number of women in employment or self-employment divided by the total number of men in the same position replaced the number of female legislators, officials and managers divided by the male counterpart.

In the fourth sub-index, “political empowerment”, the variable of women with seats in parliament over male parliamentarians was divided into three new variables, which represent the legislative power in Brazil: female federal deputies on male federal deputies, female state/district deputies on the male counterpart and female senators on male senators. This same sub-index also included the presence or absence of a secretariat dedicated exclusively to gender, taking a value of 1 (parity) for units with a dedicated secretariat, 0.5 for units with a secretariat that divides the gender issue with other guidelines and 0 (disparity) for units that do not include the gender issue in any Secretary, variable based on the importance of female representation in senior government officials (Desposato & Norrander, 2008).

Box 1
Variables used to calculate the national ranking and their respective sources

To elaborate the gender parity ranking, the four steps of the GGGR were followed. The first step was to collect data and its transformation into proportions, except in the case of the variable of presence of secretariat dedicated to women, with this transformation being necessary so that the differences between men and women were taken into account, and not the absolute values. Then, by truncating the variables to a reference point for equality generally set to 1, but which was 0.944 in the case of the female to male birth rate, considering that more male individuals are born, and 1.06 for female life expectancy over male. It should be noted that, in cases where the value for women was higher than for men (proportion greater than 1), the value considered was 1, and an absolute parity index was not calculated, which punishes any difference between genders, but one that allows the observation of all points where women are disadvantaged and, consequently, display a path for parity to exist. Third, the sub-indexes were calculated using a weighted average. The standard deviation of the collected data was calculated and this value was divided by 0.01, so that the values were standardized to reflect the variation, in terms of standard deviation, that a change of 1% would entail and consider relative values instead of absolute ones. These values, calculated in a preliminary manner, were applied as weights of the weighted average performed to calculate the weights used in a new weighted average that, finally, calculates the final index, made using an arithmetic average of the four sub-indexes.

After the elaboration of the gender parity ranking of the federative units in Brazil, the second stage of the research began, which consists of investigating the role of the federal agency responsible for policies for women: SPW, its board and NCRW. In this phase, we collected secondary (documents) and primary (interviews) data). Documents directly or indirectly linked to SPW and NCRW were gathered, such as internal regulations, statutes, conference proceedings and minutes of meetings promoted by agencies. We conducted the interviews, in person or by conference call, with counselors and former NCRW counselors, between April and June 2018. We conducted seven interviews, based on a semi-structured interview script, totaling 245 minutes and 59 seconds of audio, which implies an average duration of 35 minutes.

The recorded and transcribed interviews were examined through content analysis (Bardin, 2009), in which we sought to classify common themes raised by the respondents in different subcategories, each representing a group of similar observations, the main categories were derived from the questions themselves based on the theoretical framework. Allied to the documentary analysis, the content analysis strengthened the identification of the NCRW stakeholders and allowed the measurement of more details for the classification of these actors. Finally, the information from the state gender parity ranking, the lines of action of the III NPPW and the analysis of stakeholders from the NCRW were compared.

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The GGGR provides a diagnosis of the situation of gender distinctions in different countries, taking into account the four sub-indexes presented. In the 2018 edition, Brazil ranked 95^th out of 149 countries, a position below average, even though it managed to appear in the ranking, according to the study, closing the gaps in health and survival and education level. Such a position indicates a performance far below the ideal in the other sub-indexes. In economic participation and opportunity, the country ranked 92^nd position, with 64.5% of the gender gap covered, and in political empowerment, it occupied 112th position, with 10.1% of the difference covered. Melo (2011) points out that, despite the other dimensions, political participation is the only one in which there is no evidence of improvement in the 2010 GGGR and that in this topic lies the largest gender disparity in Brazil. The biggest gap in the political dimension is still observed in the 2018 edition and a stagnation in the economic dimension is noticed. In adapting the GGGR methodology to the case of Brazilian federative units, it was possible to compare the national result with the reality experienced in each of its parts.

Table 1 shows the Brazilian federative units organized according to their performance in the final gender parity index, along with performance and placement in each of the four sub-indexes. The three states with the smallest gap between men and women, based on the most recent data available, were Amapá, Distrito Federal and Maranhão, while the three with the highest inequality were Mato Grosso, Minas Gerais and Paraná. A common point with the three federal units best positioned in the ranking and a potential explanation for these results was the above-average performance in the sub-indexes of economic participation and opportunity and political empowerment, the latter standing out for displaying the same three units as the first placed in its partial ranking, leveraged by the presence of a secretariat dedicated to gender in all of them.

Table 1
Final and partial ranking of the gender gap in Brazilian states

	Final Index		Health and Survival		Degree of Education		Economic Participation and Opportunity		Political Empowerment
States	Rank	Index	Rank	Index	Rank	Index	Rank	Index	Rank	Index
Amapá	1	0.7375	27	0.9441	10	0.9535	2	0.7511	2	0.3012
Distrito Federal	2	0.7346	9	0.9602	4	0.9606	7	0.7294	3	0.2881
Maranhão	3	0.7283	26	0.9468	25	0.9268	11	0.7205	1	0.3190
Sergipe	4	0.7201	16	0.9578	21	0.9410	1	0.7588	6	0.2227
Rio Grande Do Norte	5	0.7187	19	0.9567	23	0.9355	15	0.7052	4	0.2775
Acre	6	0.7151	10	0.9601	19	0.9413	16	0.7048	5	0.2543
Mato Grosso Do Sul	7	0.7071	13	0.9596	17	0.9464	12	0.7133	7	0.2092
Roraima	8	0.7062	12	0.9597	16	0.9466	3	0.7502	9	0.1683
Rio Grande Do Sul	9	0.6991	14	0.9596	5	0.9583	19	0.7029	8	0.1757
Pernambuco	10	0.6977	23	0.9534	15	0.9467	5	0.7386	10	0.1521
Rio De Janeiro	11	0.6954	7	0.9606	13	0.9507	8	0.7287	14	0.1414
São Paulo	12	0.6925	22	0.9547	6	0.9559	13	0.7124	11	0.1471
Amazonas	13	0.6914	2	0.9642	2	0.9688	18	0.7032	17	0.1296
Paraíba	14	0.6880	18	0.9568	26	0.9229	9	0.7263	12	0.1460
Alagoas	15	0.6880	25	0.9508	14	0.9497	6	0.7323	20	0.1190
Bahia	16	0.6855	24	0.9526	18	0.9460	14	0.7074	16	0.1358
Pará	17	0.6841	21	0.9562	24	0.9334	17	0.7042	13	0.1427
Piauí	18	0,6841	6	0.9608	27	0.9011	4	0.7489	18	0.1256
Espírito Santo	19	0.6803	15	0.9580	11	0.9533	25	0.6737	15	0.1361
Tocantins	20	0.6787	4	0.9617	22	0.9395	20	0.6926	19	0.1208
Goiás	21	0.6733	5	0.9613	12	0.9510	23	0.6821	21	0.0988
Santa Catarina	22	0.6724	11	0.9599	8	0.9549	21	0.6916	23	0.0834
Ceará	23	0.6683	20	0.9567	20	0.9412	10	0.7232	27	0.0523
Rondônia	24	0.6668	1	0.9643	3	0.9609	26	0.6438	22	0.0982
Paraná	25	0.6635	17	0.9570	7	0.9551	22	0.6853	25	0.0564
Minas Gerais	26	0.6630	8	0.9605	9	0.9536	24	0.6821	26	0.0560
Mato Grosso	27	0.6628	3	0.9634	1	0.9718	27	0.6343	24	0.0817

• Source: Elaborated by the authors.

The performances of the federative units coincide with those of the country in the sense of being positive in matters of health and education, despite not having the parity observed in the original work, and negative with regard to economics and politics. The general movement of good results in health and education causes these sub-indexes to lose weight in the calculation of the general index, since they present little variation, that is, less standard deviation - for this reason, positive performances on economic and political issues have a major impact on the overall ranking. The situation in Amapá illustrates this point, since the state was in the last position (27^th) in health and survival and the 10^th in education, but reached first place in the general ranking thanks to the 2nd position obtained in the two remaining sub-indexes. According to Melo (2011), Brazil’s unsatisfactory result in female political participation, together with economic participation, was decisive for the country’s poor performance in the GGGR. Although it also presents significant differences in health and education between the best placed countries and the last ones in the international ranking, the political dimension, because it presents the greatest variations, is the one that had the greatest weight in the final result of the index, as it happens in this work. Therefore, there is an intrinsic weakness in the GGGR: the great influence of the dimension on political empowerment on the final index.

Figure 1 shows all federative units and all sub-indexes considered, with the border being the representative of gender parity and the center of the graph the representative of the disparity. The results in health and education were better and with less variation, while the results in economics and politics were worse, especially in the latter, and more varied.

Figure 1
Federative units according to their performance in the sub-indexes

By illustrating the similarity between performance at the state level and national performance, Figure 2 summarizes the Brazilian results at GGGR 2018, which has good performances in health and education, but which are still far from ideal in terms of politics and economics.

Figure 2
Brazilian Performance at GGGR 2018

In 2019, some figures demonstrated the gender gap in politics: 17 federal units never had a female governor; 18 states have no female representative in the Senate; and Brazil ranked 134^th place, among 192 countries, in the mapping of female representativeness in the national legislature made by the Inter-Parliamentary Union (2019), although parliamentary quotas are in effect. Maranhão, ranked first in the political empowerment ranking, it has an index of only 0.3190, that is, even the best performance among the federative units is low.

In view of this scenario, government participation is essential for the reduction and eventual elimination of the gender gap, and this participation occurs through public policies, which find their main place for discussion and promotion at SPW. Within the secretariat, the main space for discussing the problems faced by the female population is the NCRW - which has a structure that equally contemplates representatives of civil society, bringing these actors closer to the center of power - and government representatives, 41 of whom are board members, of whom 16 are representatives of the federal government, 21 are representatives of civil society entities, 3 are women with a notorious knowledge of gender issues and work in the fight for the promotion and defense of women’s rights and 1 is an emeritus advisor.

Having the participation of organized female civil society offers more chances for an effective gender policy, and the Council is an appropriate place for this type of representation (Fox & Lawless, 2012). According to interviewee 6, the NCRW “[...]was always ahead of organizing, debating, making commissions, and really encouraging, so that the conference happens in a very participatory, very democratic way”, referring to national conferences in which the guidelines of the National Policy Plans for Women are defined.

The national plan, designed with the direct participation of the council’s stakeholders, was designed to address the gender gaps present in the country. Within the III NPPW there are chapters that encompass each of the four sub-indices covered in the ranking, with this relationship being defined as follows: sub-index of health and survival and Chapter 3: Women’s integral health, sexual and reproductive rights; education level sub-index and Chapter 2: Education for equality and citizenship; sub-index of economic participation and opportunity and Chapter 1: Equality in the world of work and economic autonomy; and political empowerment sub-index and Chapter 5: Strengthening and participation of women in spaces of power and decision.

Whereas the NCRW has an influence on the construction of the NPPW, studying its stakeholders can indicate the paths for the elaboration of more fruitful public policies that are in accordance with the public agency’s objective of eliminating discrimination against women in Brazil, ensuring their free participation in politics, economics and culture.

Box 2 presents the 50 NCRW stakeholders, who may or may not be bodies of which advisers are part, mapped and classified by the analysis of documents and the content of the interviews, according to the studies by Mitchell et al. (1997), Savage et al. (1991) and Gomes et al. (2010).

Box 2
Classification of NCRW stakeholders

The board has 10 stakeholders classified as “definitive”, those who have the power, legitimacy and urgency, these being the actors with the greatest potential to influence or be influenced by the actions of NCRW. In this category, the government is found in its federal, state and municipal spheres, including being represented by the Civil House of the Presidency of the Republic, by the Special Secretariat for Family Agriculture and Agrarian Development, Ministries of Education and Health, in addition to civil society.

Classified as “dependent”, with legitimacy and urgency, but who have no power, there are 26 actors, the largest group among the mapped stakeholders. This group was formed almost exclusively by female civil society entities, cited by the interviewees as sources of positive pressure for the full functioning of the NCRW, and are understood as supportive stakeholders in the classification by Savage et al. (1991). For interviewee 3, the council is a space that “brings together various ministries and representatives of civil society, that is, it is really a space for dialogue, articulation and getting to know who has a saying in the agenda”. For respondent 2, “there is no public policy without the participation of civil society”. The interviewees’ statements reiterate the importance of the NCRW for the development of the gender agenda in national public policies, in particular as a channel for the inclusion of women, through collective representations of civil society, in a decision center that has a power that such entities do not enjoy. In this way, the important issues for Brazilian women gain strength in the government and can become the object of more targeted and effective public policies.

Five stakeholders, class entities, appear as “demanding”, as they have only urgency in their demands. Private companies appear as “dormant”, since they have power, but do not look at the gender issue urgently and legitimately, just observing the situation so that they can adapt to any changes in legislation.

“Dominants” are those with the power and legitimacy to act, but who do not because they do not deal with the matter urgently. The eight actors in this category, in the case of NCRW, are public entities that ended up not implementing gender policies, although the transversality of this type of policy is clear in documents such as the III NPPW.

According to Souza (2006), a basic feature of public policy is the recognition of a problem so that solutions start to be sought, these solutions need to bypass barriers of the public administration and society. In the case of gender policies, some of the problems that must be observed and addressed by public managers are the plastered structure of public administration, the lack of funding and the conservatism of society.

Regarding the daily life of NCRW, interviewee 4 states that “what hinders the functioning of the council are more internal bureaucratic issues of the Secretariat for Policies for Women”, while interviewee 3 says that the money for the gender cause “is still a very small budget, compared to other ministries or even other groups in situations of vulnerability”. Such barriers, together with the lack of urgency or power of the stakeholders involved, hinder Brazil’s progress towards equality between genders. It is known that these are problems crystallized at the roots of Brazilian public administration and difficult to solve, since major structural reforms are complex, costly and time-consuming, so the manager needs to find creative solutions to use the budget efficiently and simplify bureaucratic processes in the area that is their responsibility. Interviewee 6 replies that another point of negative pressure is “society, a very conservative and sexist society”, issue that perhaps can be resolved, gradually, with policies aimed at raising awareness about the importance of public policies aimed at women and the growth of female participation in important public positions. An alternative to strengthen the gender issue as a whole in Brazil is to strengthen the NCRW, which, in the words of interviewee 5, “represents [...]the gathering of political forces, the voices of women to keep women’s agendas alive, women’s agendas for public policies and society”.

As the results of the national gender parity ranking proved to be, in a way, uniform in all federative units in the country, it is possible that the negative pressure points present in the federal public administration and in society are some of the many barriers faced for the promotion of a gender parity policy at the state level. The dimension of political participation and opportunity appears as the topic on which there was more variation between the federative units, which suggests themes for future research on the subject with a view to reducing the gender gap.

With this information, it is possible to affirm that public gender policies focused on health and education have had an effect or that the nature of these two points suggests a better distribution of these fundamental rights between genders. This does not mean that such aspects should be left aside by the public sphere, but that related policies can take on a new role in maintaining the current situation and correcting any flaws, while policies aimed at other sub-indexes must be more incisive in the sense of including more and more women in the economy and politics.

Box 3 shows the joint analysis of NCRW stakeholders, the lines of action found in the III NPPW and the sub-indexes considered in the calculation of the national gender parity ranking. The chapter of the national plan corresponding to the health issue has more than twice the average lines of action in the other chapters, which means that health was the cornerstone of the latest edition of the NPPW. Fortunately, Brazil has been able to offer the female portion of its population equal conditions in terms of health, and it is important that health-focused gender policies continue to exist. However, the prioritization of health can assume a maintaining character of the current situation, whereas policies related to other sub-indexes, with the exception of the issue of education, which also has a good level in the federative units and in the country, they lack more incisive policies to combat inequality and to insert women in important spaces still frequented by a male majority.

Box 3
Joint analysis of the III NPPW with the ranking results and the NCRW stakeholders

In relation to the best performance in the dimensions of health and education and inferior performance in terms of political and economic participation, the homogeneity in the results obtained by the federative units in the gender parity ranking may be rooted in the states’ adherence to national programs, such as the NPPW, which focus on health and education at the expense of other policies.

Another point to be highlighted is the classification of the NCRW stakeholders that were defined in the NPPW as SPW collaborators for the implementation of the lines of action in each chapter. For the purposes of this study, the actors with the greatest number of appearances, among the various public agencies designated in the NPPW, were selected as the responsible entityl. While the Ministry of Health (MS) and the Ministry of Education (MEC) are classified as definitive stakeholders, the Ministry of Labor and Employment (MTE), extinct during the administration of Jair Bolsonaro, it was classified as dominant, and the National Secretariat for Policies to Promote Racial Equality (Seppir), as dependent. Definitive stakeholders have the necessary attributes to exercise full influence, whereas the dominant ones lack urgency and the dependents lack the power to influence public policy.

Because it is dominant, the MTE does not address the gender issue urgently, which can be interpreted as an explanation for the still notable inequality in economic aspects. An example of the lack of urgency in this ministry is the fact that the Gender and Race Pro-Equity program, main public policy designed to reduce the gender gap in the labor market (Pinto, Andrade & Luz, 2009), was created in 2005 by the SPW, and not by the MTE. While not lacking the urgency needed to leverage gender parity in the economic sector, the MTE is also classified as a supportive stakeholder and collaborator, since it contributes in some aspects to the Gender Equality Program. As it has favorable ratings according to the stakeholder classification methods in addition to that by Mitchell et al. (1997), the intensification of the policies already implemented by the MTE and the discussion of gender in this ministry are ways to make it a definitive actor, more engaged with equality between women and men in the economy.

Seppir, SPW’s main ally in the lines of action related to women’s political empowerment, was classified as a dependent stakeholder, with legitimacy and urgency in their demands, but which lacks the power to seek them, which makes it difficult to take actions aimed at reducing the gender gap in Brazilian politics, which tend to be ideas never put into practice. The inclusion of more and more women in national politics is a way of empowering public gender policies, since the female presence in prominent positions in politics acts as a catalyst for policies aimed at women (Desposato & Norrander, 2008).

Among the lines of action provided for in the III NPPW, there are projects that directly involve the Pro Gender Equity and Race program and Law No. 12,034/2019, government actions aimed at reducing gender inequality in the economy and politics, areas that presented the worst performances in the federative units and in the country as a whole. Action line 1.1.4, from “Chapter 1 - Equality in the world of work and economic autonomy”, seeks to “expand the Gender and Race Pro-Equity Program and actions aimed at promoting women and changing the dynamics of discrimination in the workplace” (SPW, 2013) and has Seppir’s main support body, which may, due to the lack of power of this stakeholder, explain the low result of this initiative and attest to the importance of better managing relations with this actor. In the case of political participation, represented in the III NPPW by “Chapter 5 - Strengthening and participation of women in spaces of power and decision”, the line of action involving the parliamentary quota law for women is number 5.4.1: “contribute to the TSE for the application, inspection and monitoring of Law 12,034/2009” (SPW, 2013, p. 56), that does not have stakeholders to be reached, which may be an explanation for the project’s inefficiency in all federative units.

6. CONCLUSIONS

Through the joint study of the gender parity ranking in the Brazilian federative units with the analysis of stakeholders of the National Council for the Rights of Women and the lines of action of the III National Plan of Public Policies for Women, it was noticed that the focus of public gender policies in the country is focused on the areas of health and education, where the smallest gaps exist between men and women, while economic participation and opportunity, as well as political empowerment, sub-indexes with the worst performance in the ranking of states and in the GGGR, do not receive the same treatment. In addition to the smaller number of NPPW lines of action dedicated to the less developed sub-indexes in Brazil, the stakeholders involved in articulating the actions of these topics - Ministry of Labor and Employment, in the case of the economy, and National Secretariat for Policies to Promote Racial Equality, on the political issue - are not classified as definitive. The Ministry of Labor and Employment lacks urgency in gender demands, and the National Secretariat for Policies to Promote Racial Equality, of power, while the Ministries of Health and Education have the power, legitimacy and urgency to act with greater impact on gender issues.

Health and survival and education are important sub-indexes that should continue to receive attention and investment. However, in order for the gender gap in Brazil to close, a greater volume of public policies aimed at economic participation and opportunity and the political empowerment of women will be necessary. In addition to increasing the number of government actions focused on gender, care is needed with the quality of these projects, considering the cases of the Gender and Race Pro-Equity Program and Law No. 2,034 / 2009, respectively aimed at economic participation and political representation of women, who have not met all of their objectives and need revisions to achieve them.

Among the Brazilian federative units, those that obtained the first positions (Amapá, Distrito Federal and Maranhão) stood out for having better performance in political and economic issues, despite such performances being far from gender equality. The ones ranked the lowest in turn (Mato Grosso, Minas Gerais and Paraná), were among the worst positions in these two items. A limitation of this study was the absence of an in-depth analysis of the reasons that lead federative units to occupy the first or last positions in the ranking, but future studies can fill this gap.

Finally, this analysis raised a series of questions that can be answered in future studies, among them the investigation of the best or most viable ways to make public policies effective in reducing inequality between genders in Brazil, the in-depth study of the reasons that led the Pro-Gender and Race Equity Program and Law No. 2,034/2009 to show results below expectations, research on the limitations faced by MTE and Seppir to promote the dimensions of economic participation and opportunity and political empowerment, the inclusion of Hardy’s (1996) categories for analysis of NCRW stakeholders and the improvement of the gender parity ranking of the federative units through the addition of new variables or new sub-indices, which take into account, for example, issues of violence against women.

REFERÊNCIAS

• Anglade, B., Useche, P., & Deere, C. D. (2017). Decomposing the gender wealth gap in Ecuador. World Development, 96, 19-31.
• Bardin, L. (2009). Análise de conteúdo Lisboa, Portugal: Edições 70.
• Desposato, S., & Norrander, B. (2008). The gender gap in Latin America: contextual and individual influences on gender and political participation. British Journal of Political Science, 39(1), 141-162.
• Fox, R. L., & Lawless, J. L. (2012). Entrando na arena? Gênero e a decisão de concorrer a um cargo eletivo. Revista Brasileira de Ciência Política, 8, 129-163.
• Freeman, R. E. (1984). Strategic management: A stakeholder approach Boston, MA: Pitman.
• Gomes, R. C., Liddle, J., & Gomes, L. O. M. (2010). A five-sided model of stakeholder influence. Public Management Review, 12(5), 701-724.
• Hardy, C. (1996). Understanding power: bringing about strategic change British Journal of Management, 7(1), S3-S16.
• Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística. (2018). Estatísticas de gênero: indicadores sociais das mulheres no Brasil Brasília, DF: Autor.
• Inter-Parliamentary Union. (2018). Women in national parliaments Recuperado de https://data.ipu.org/women-ranking?month=9&year=2019
  » https://data.ipu.org/women-ranking?month=9&year=2019
• Lei Lei nº 7.353, de 29 de agosto de 1985 (1985). Cria o Conselho Nacional dos Direitos da Mulher. Brasília, DF. Recuperado de http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/LEIS/1980-1988/L7353.htm
  » http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/LEIS/1980-1988/L7353.htm
• Lei Lei nº 10.539, de 23 de setembro de 2002 (2002). Dispõe sobre a estruturação de órgãos, cria cargos em comissão no âmbito do Poder Executivo Federal, e dá outras providências. Brasília, DF. Recuperado de http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/LEIS/2002/L10539.htm
  » http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/LEIS/2002/L10539.htm
• Lei Lei nº 10.683, de 28 de maio de 2003 (2003). Dispõe sobre a organização da Presidência da República e dos Ministérios, e dá outras providências. Brasília, DF. Recuperado de http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/LEIS/2003/L10.683.htm
  » http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/LEIS/2003/L10.683.htm
• Lei Lei nº 12.034, de 29 de setembro de 2009 (2009). Altera as Leis nº 9.096, nº 9.504 e nº 4.737. Brasília, DF . Recuperado de http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2007-2010/2009/Lei/L12034.htm
  » http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2007-2010/2009/Lei/L12034.htm
• Lei Lei nº 13.341, de 29 de setembro de 2016 (2016). Altera as Leis nº 10.683 e nº 11.890 e revoga a Medida Provisória nº 717. Brasília, DF . Recuperado de http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2015-2018/2016/Lei/L13341.htm
  » http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2015-2018/2016/Lei/L13341.htm
• Macaulay, F. (2010). Trickling up, down, and sideways gender policy and political opportunity in Brazil. In. N. Lebon, & E. Maier (Eds.), Women’s activism in Latin America and the Caribbean: engendering social justice, democratizing citizenship (pp. 273-288). New Jersey, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
• Medida Medida provisória nº 696, de 2 de outubro de 2015 (2015). Extingue e transforma cargos públicos e altera a Lei nº 10.683. Brasília, DF . Recuperado de http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2015-2018/2015/Mpv/mpv696.htm
  » http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_Ato2015-2018/2015/Mpv/mpv696.htm
• Melo, H. P. (2011). Uma avaliação do desempenho brasileiro no Global Gender Gap Index do Fórum Econômico Mundial. Caderno Espaço Feminino, 24(2), 537-552.
• Mitchell, R. K., Agle, B. R., & Wood, D. J. (1997). Toward a theory of stakeholder identification and salience: defining the principle of the who and what really counts. Academy of Management Review, 22(4), 853-886.
• Pinto, E. L., Andrade, H., Jr., & Luz, R. P. (2009). Pró-equidade de gênero: incorporando políticas de ação afirmativa no mundo do trabalho. Revista do Serviço Público, 60(4), 401-413.
• Rad, E. H., Bayazidi, Y., Delavari, S., & Rezaei, S. (2016). Gender gap and inequality in health professionals’ income in Iran. Medical Journal of Bakırköy, 12(2), 74-79.
• Sampieri, R. H., Collado, C. F., & Lucio, P. B. (2006). Metodologia da pesquisa São Paulo, SP: McGraw-Hill.
• Savage, G. T., Nix, T. W., Whitehead, C. J., & Blair, J. D. (1991). Strategies for assessing and managing organizational stakeholders. Academy of Management Executive, 5(2), 61-75.
• Secretaria de Políticas para as Mulheres. (2013). Plano Nacional de Políticas para as Mulheres Brasília, DF : Autor .
• Souza, C. (2006). Políticas públicas: uma revisão da literatura. Sociologias, (16), 20-45.
• United Nations Development Programme . (2019). Human Development Report 2019 New York, NY: Autor.
• World Economic Forum. (2018). Global Gender Gap Report 2018 Geneva, Switzerland: Autor.

• [Translated version] Note: All quotes in English translated by this article’s translator.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  05 May 2021
• Date of issue
  Mar-Apr 2021

History

• Received
  02 Nov 2019
• Accepted
  17 Sept 2020