Strong Messages, Straightforward Approaches, and (Hopefully) Better Implementation
Earlier this year, USAID launched the 2023 Gender Policy. We reached out to thought leaders for their perspectives on what the new Gender Policy gets right — and what’s still on their wish lists for improvement. For our first interview in this series, we spoke with Wade Channell, former USAID Sr. Economic Growth Advisor for Gender.
What themes in this policy are you most excited about?
Locally Led
The past few years have seen a fresh wave of concerns from the Global South (and kindred spirits in the “North”) about “de-colonializing” development to ensure attention to priorities of putative “beneficiaries” of development largesse. USAID has fought this battle before (anyone remember the 30% local requirement of the Obama administration?) with varying degrees of success. The Great Expat Savior Syndrome seems to be an occupational hazard, but the 2023 policy reinforces the need for working with our local counterparts to hear and effectuate their desires and needs. Stated as stand-alone principles, they are also woven into discussions throughout the document.
Collaboration
Another pathology often afflicts the international development community: I call it the “Lone Ranger Syndrome.”
Another pathology often afflicts the international development community: I call it the “Lone Ranger Syndrome.” Despite our very limited resources (no matter how much better they have been in recent years), it is not uncommon to portray our individualized efforts as “The Solution.” (I’ve seen this in numerous organizations—not just USAID.) The fact is every problem we seek to address is far larger than the resources of any—and possibly all—who offer assistance. The policy does not make that mistake. In fact, it explicitly notes that “[t]he Agency is not suggesting that it, or any other entity, can ‘bestow’ empowerment upon others.” No, this is a group effort at which USAID can excel given its thought leadership and convening power.
Behavioral Norms
Gender inequality, as the policy makes clear, results from norms that generate inequitable and inappropriate behaviors. The policy sagely targets behaviors without villainizing those perpetrating and perpetuating those behaviors. It also questions the norms behind the behaviors, opening opportunities for individuals and communities to reconsider whether existing norms are producing the kind of world we want for those we love. We know that gender discussions often generate opposition and defensive reactions by those who feel blamed or shamed. The policy avoids the blame game and simply encourages development of new behaviors that serve us all better.
Gender-Based Violence
The policy’s emphasis on addressing gender-based violence is much stronger than in any earlier work of this sort—as it should be. As gender expert Linda Scott has noted, violence is the means by which gender inequality is enforced. Few gender equality goals can be achieved without addressing violence, and not just against women. The policy makes very clear that men are also subject to violent enforcement of dysfunctional norms, and in doing so widens the potential pool of advocates and allies to eliminate such violence. Gender-based violence is a human issue that affects all people – the policy treats this with the gravity it merits.
Structural Change
Structural change is clearly identified as the necessary road to equitable gender norms. Although I would prefer a more specific discussion of a systems approach to structural change, the policy allows for users to address this objective through any appropriate means without limitation. Tactics aside, recognition that gender dynamics have been incorporated into institutional structures is essential to achieving transformative changes in organizations and societies. Attention to this issue echoes and builds upon the important work of Engendering Industries, USAID’s groundbreaking work in reforming the underlying structures that constrain or promote gender progress.
Evidence and Endnotes
Due to a lack of data, until recently, many of the benefits that gender champions believed would accrue in a more inclusive, gender-equal world were, to some extent, theoretical. That has changed. We now have evidence to prove that gender equality matters for democracy, economic growth, education, peace, health, and other components of human welfare. With 250 endnotes of some of the best and most recent research and findings in academic and popular studies, the policy provides this evidence in abundance—nothing short of a dream for researchers, advocates, and activists.
The policy provides sufficient evidence that it should now be considered malpractice per se to implement a program without regard to gender.
Accountability—Putting Policy into Practice
There is no accounting without counting, and that requires qualitative indicators. The full USAID gender architecture has been committed for years to the endless task of developing and refining meaningful indicators. The policy has both embraced and expanded this commitment.
It is not enough to have fine statements of objectives, evidence of benefits, and poignant appeals to human rights for an institution such as USAID to achieve a significant impact. If the policy had stopped here, it would be little more than yet another laudable thought piece. For me, the most exciting segment of the document is “Policy into Practice.” This is where USAID takes responsibility and commits to accountability for actually changing the status quo.
For me, the most exciting segment of the document is “Policy into Practice.”
Many readers may lose interest as the discussion turns to potentially yawn-inducing discussions of mission orders and hiring gender advisors. Yet these few pages are the true heart of the policy. The policy describes in simple terms the process for ensuring that USAID adopts both the internal operations and the external programs to accomplish the vision of an equitable world so clearly enunciated throughout.
Thanks to the Women’s Entrepreneurship and Economic Empowerment Act of 2018, doing a gender analysis to guide strategy, programs, and activities is not just a good idea, it’s the law. This section of the policy translates that legal mandate into practical actions, especially when combined with ADS 205. USAID further commits itself to training its entire workforce in fundamental tenets of gender equality, which, obviously, is a necessary pre-requisite to thoughtful gender analysis and gender-aware program design. In keeping with the principle that policies without funding are merely platitudes, this policy mandates that funding be specifically attributed to achieving gender goals and objectives. And to ensure meaningful data, the policy returns once again to a mandate that all people-level activities collect sex-disaggregated data, a long-standing policy observed as much in the breach—until now—as in compliance.
Additional programmatic guidance and food for thought are presented toward the end of the document by addressing—with practical recommendations for action—“Why Gender Matters to USAID Programs” across 14 sectors of development practice, such as economic growth, global health, and education. Although necessarily brief, these vignettes repeat and reinforce the core tenets of the policy and help the reader to understand what gender equality looks like in action.
How do you see this as different or updated from the previous policy?
Definitions
Anyone involved in gender work is well aware of the battles over term definitions. Clear definitions are essential to mutual understanding and effective work, even if not all agree on the goals. The policy has done an excellent job of providing clear explanations—not merely dictionary definitions—of “gender” and various elements of gender equality work. These definitions are in line with those used by the international gender specialist community and go a long way to distinguishing between “gender” and “sex”—terms that are often inappropriately interchanged.
Breadth
The policy is unapologetically inclusive of the LGBTIA+ community. Gender concerns go well beyond binary thinking on masculine and feminine to incorporate a full array of gender and sexual expression and orientation. Even better, the text is replete with attention to other areas of discrimination that overlap and intersect with gender disparities, from ethnicity to disability. As such, this document serves to support often disconnected efforts for greater equity and equality for humanity.
Men and Boys
Sadly, gender is often perceived as an issue of men versus women, especially by those who mistakenly believe that we live in a zero-sum world where gains by one must come through losses by the other. This policy makes no such mistake. The text makes evident that gender equality benefits all people, regardless of sex or gender. It also points out ways in which restrictive gender norms harm men and boys. While many of the most obvious ills of gender equality disproportionately hurt females, the dysfunctional equations of opportunity and well-being must be addressed on all sides. The policy opens that door for deeper consideration.
Anything else you’d like to share?
I admire and appreciate the new policy. It solidifies years of hard-fought efforts to advance gender equality. I was part of that fight, and I am still awed by the grit, commitment, and efforts of my friends and colleagues throughout my time at USAID. This policy is something we can all be proud of.
That said, there are some additions I would like to see, and some weaknesses that are not fully addressed. This is less a criticism than a wish list; I know that such documents must be brief if anyone other than a paid researcher is going to read them. I also note that my suggestions derive from my own specialized personal and professional interests. These are not universal by any means but hopefully will be useful to my colleagues who fashion strategies and design programs. With that proviso in mind, I offer the following observations and suggestions.
Who are the Gatekeepers?
The 2012 policy and the accompanying ADS 205 generated a great deal of appropriate excitement among the numerous gender specialists and champions at implementing organizations, such as contractors and grantees. Throughout my time at GenDev, I heard from colleagues outside of USAID that procurements were hitting the streets with little to no gender requirements. Somehow, those responsible for ensuring compliance with policies and mandates evidently were not getting the message, and gender-blind or deeply diminished work continued to be procured. The 2023 policy indicates that contract and award officers (essentially, the Office of Acquisition and Assistance) will be responsible for stopping any gender-bereft acquisitions until corrected. But this was at least theoretically true in previous years.
What is being done now to ensure effective accountability for USAID’s own compliance with law and policy?
What is being done now to ensure effective accountability for USAID’s own compliance with law and policy? I would note that implementing partners can play an important role here (as they have in the past) by alerting appropriate USAID officials if a procurement is issued without proper compliance.
What’s the Business Case?
I should start by admitting my bias—I am an economic growth specialist who has spent his entire career arguing the economic benefits of changes I promoted (including the economic benefits of the rule of law and democracy). The policy makes a very strong case that gender equality is a basic human right, and I agree. It also mentions economic benefits, but these could be much stronger. With Wall Street scions demanding greater diversity and fund managers creating specialized funds for inclusive corporations because they are more profitable, there are well-established grounds for promoting gender equality as an investment as well. For some, this means the difference between simply agreeing with the ideals of equality versus investing their funds and reforming their organizations to achieve it.
For some, this means the difference between simply agreeing with the ideals of equality versus investing their funds and reforming their organizations to achieve it.
One of the most important advances in women’s economic empowerment thinking from 2016 to 2020 was the redefinition of “business enabling environment” to move beyond mere laws and regulations (which are important but require massive governmental efforts) to recognize employer practices and their role in retarding or enervating positive change. Unlike laws, company policies can be revised without having to launch years-long legislative programs. There is power and funding in the private sector to drive the equality agenda. The policy does mention employer practices very briefly, but this theme gets no serious discussion. In fairness, the policy does not delve into the roles of government, business, and civil society as it is focused on the role of USAID itself. Perhaps that should be reconsidered.
Trade
Okay, I know this is yet another economic growth issue and the policy is not just an economic growth document, but the gender impact of trade is far from trivial. Whether trade policy’s effect on products (virtually all of which have various gender imbalances) or the use of sextortion by border agents, women are most often at a disadvantage in the world of trade. Perhaps a separate section would be worthwhile.
Emotional Literacy and Awareness
One of the under-recognized gender differences is the disparate levels of emotional awareness and health (let alone emotional intelligence) between genders. Overall, men are not effectively trained to recognize or manage emotions but instead tend to be encouraged to deny, dismiss, or repress them. From my perspective,[1] attaining a greater level of healthy masculinity in our world will require helping men and boys to develop deeper emotional awareness and capacity. Is it truly surprising that male rage in America has been producing almost two mass shootings a day for the past several years? Intimate partner violence is not simply a physical behavior, it is an emotional behavior. Incorporating a separate focus on emotional health—not simply mental health—could be translated into primary and secondary educational programs on emotion and its role in our lives, including how to manage unpleasant emotions without hurting others.
Moving Beyond Encouragement
The 2023 policy requires a basic level of gender training but only encourages training beyond that. USAID staff are not actually required to use that knowledge by being involved in production of a gender analysis (which can be shunted off to the Gender Advisor or an implementer) or other gender-aware efforts. Requiring more than this minimum is problematic as a practical matter, and yet cannot be achieved through other means. Unless career advancement includes a requirement to promote gender equality, as examined in annual reviews or other promotion-related assessments, the likelihood of individual behavior change will be diminished. This is not new: USAID’s Engendering Utilities and its counterpart Engendering Industry have for years been helping businesses recognize the importance of changing promotion criteria to achieve gender goals.
At this point, I’ve gone on long enough. I assume most of you have given up already. Nor do I blame you. So, let me summarize: I love this policy.
There can always be improvements and enhancements, but the Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Policy of 2023 goes a very long way in leading the Agency and its many partners toward accomplishing the vision of a positive gender-equal world.
[1] Full disclosure: I am dedicating a significant portion of this chapter of my life to promotion of healthy masculinity. While that has many facets, I cannot escape – based on research and personal experience (not all positive) – the losses that men suffer through stunted emotional development. Much of this, I believe, is due to ongoing emphasis on a warrior ethos that perpetuates power inequalities and violence. It seems to be very much connected with patriarchy, a mal-adaptive coping mechanism from the pre-modern world no longer needed in our own.
Wade Channell, JD, is an international development and gender specialist. After eight years of practicing law in his early professional life, Wade has spent the past 30 years working with or for USAID to address development issues, including business regulation, rule of law, judicial reform, economic growth, and women’s economic empowerment. While at USAID, he served as the Senior Economic Growth Advisor for Gender in the Office of Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment (GenDev) and served as the de facto technical leader for the U.S. Government’s Women’s Global Prosperity Initiative (W-GDP). Wade has lived in Brazil, Guinea-Bissau, Croatia, and Belgium and has worked in more than 60 countries. Having retired in 2021, he recently began building Damn Fool Productions to support the development and dissemination of media promoting healthy masculinity.
