IMPACT
The intersectional gender budgeting approach presented in this article invites more fundamental changes to existing budget processes with more inclusive public participation, institutional changes and reallocating resources within government, less dependence on quantifiable and discrete categorizations, and possibilities for corrective actions. Gender budgeting is currently not effectively embedded in budget processes, nor is it achieving its intended outcomes, and therefore a different approach is needed. The new approach does not require increasing governments’ spending and has the potential for long-term benefits and savings. The article explains how intersectionality should be applied, warning against misappropriation by governments when it becomes a ‘catch-all’ or umbrella term to group all forms of inequality together, reproducing marginalization at the intersections.
ABSTRACT
This article examines the major gender budgeting initiatives instigated by national governments and considers their different institutional bases and design features and their compatibility with intersectional analyses. Can existing approaches adapt to also address multiple, concurrent, and intersecting inequalities and power imbalances related but not limited to race, class, gender identity, sexuality, ethnicity, First Nations and Indigenous personhood, disability, age, religion, language, region, and parental status? The author argues that more fundamental reconceptualizations of the budget process are needed because intersectionality is not just an ‘add-on’. Existing gender budgeting initiatives would also benefit from more qualitative, dynamic, and inclusive methods. A model for future intersectional budgeting is proposed.
Acknowledgements
Thank you to Public Money & Management’s anonymous reviewers who pushed me even when I did not want to be pushed, although I appreciate it now! Assistant Professor Gordana Richardson (formerly Subotic) provided essential research assistance in the early stages.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).