State Capability in WEGE:

Worldwide comparison with a structure-based approach

Christine Scheidegger

Institute for Political Science

University of St Gallen

Rosenbergstrasse 51

CH-9000 St Gallen

Switzerland

European Conference on Politics and Gender, 21–23 March 2013,

Barcelona (Universitat Pompeu Fabra)

Version March 2013 Do not quote Do not cite Do not circulate

What sorts of institutional arrangements do states use to deliver women’s or gender

equality policies? This empirical article discusses results of a worldwide comparison

of current state capability for women’s empowerment and of promotion of gender

equality (WEGE) policies. State capability in WEGE is the entirety of all women’s

policy agencies (WPAs) in one state. State capability in WEGE is measured

over the occurrence of different kinds of WPAs in four sectors of governmental

action: executive, legislative, judiciary, and outside (E, L, J, and O). WPAs are

the structural basis of the typology of current state capability in WEGE. Analysis

of most actual and comprehensive data for 151 states reveals that states employ

a wide variety of state capability in WEGE. Meaning there are different types of

combinations of WPAs. Currently, states use 13 different types of state capability

in WEGE. There is one state without any sort of state capability in WEGE.

16 per cent of states employ WPAs in all four sectors: E, L, J, and O. Along

the occurrence of the sectors this type is called Type ELJO. Bi-sectoral and tri-

sectoral state capabilities are common. Many types entail a heterogeneous cluster

of states. Despite the empirical relevance of structural complexity, there are global

blueprints of current state capability in WEGE.

Abbreviations

MSSD Most similar system design

MDSD Most different system design

RNGS Research Network on Gender Politics and the State

SSA specific state apparatus

SSC permanent and specific state capability

SSCW permanent and specific state capability in WEGE

SWO State-run Women’s Organisation

WEGE Women’s Empowerment and Promotion of Gender Equality

WPA Women’s Policy Agency

WPAs Women’s Policy Agencies

Introduction

In the last 50 years states created particular structures assigned to deliver policies

for women’s empowerment and of promotion of gender equality (WEGE). Those

particular state structures are called Women’s Policy Agencies (WPAs). They

became a standard feature of modern statehood (Berkovitch 1999, 163-164). After

a long series of in depth-case studies the author of this paper argues that it is

time to compare all those WPAs in a holistic structure-based approach on a global

level. The research question is: What sorts of institutional arrangements do states

use to deliver women’s or gender equality policies? The author defines the entirety

of all WPAs in one state as the permanent and specific state capability (SSC) in

WEGE in this state. This empirical article discusses results of a comparison of

current state capability in WEGE in 151 states.

Over the decades a wide range of WPAs emerged (McBride and Mazur 2010;

Squires 2007; Testolin 2001; Sawer 1996). To name a few, there is the Ombuds-

man for Equal Treatment in Austria, the Bundestag Committee for Family Af-

fairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth in Germany, the Parity Observatory in

France, the Ministry for Women and Equality in UK, the Office on Violence against

Women in Department of Justice in the United States and the Federal Commission

for Women’s Affairs in Switzerland. The author of this article regards all those

structures in the state as WPAs.

However, this ethnocentric selection of examples of WPAs should not lead to

the assumption that WPAs are an “European” or “Western” phenomenon. On

the contrary, this research starts – infused by Berkovitch’s notion about WPAs –

from the assumption that WPAs are a global phenomenon. More so, the thesis of

the author is that the larger phenomenon – the state capability in WEGE – is a

global phenomenon as well. Whether permanent and specific state capability in

WEGE is a globally available phenomenon is tested with a large scale comparison

of currently occurring WPAs.

Previous research does rarely study several WPAs per state, nor are WPAs

conceptualised as a globally available phenomenon. A framework for global com-

parisons taking all WPAs per state into account is lacking entirely. Therefore a

particular framework is developed consisting of a typology incorporating all WPAs

1

in a particular state. The framework covers the situation at the end of the first

decade of the 21st century in 151 states. For the comparison the most actual and

most comprehensive data are used. They consist of nominal cross-sectional data

about the situation for the time period 2007 to 2010 in all states on four continents

and six states on the African continent1.

The framework uses the attribution of different kinds of WPAs to four sec-

tors of governmental action. The four sectors are the three primary branches

of government; executive, legislative, and judiciary. There is a fourth sector of

governmental action outside of those three. The author calls this sector outside,

because its WPAs do not fit into one of the three primary branches of government.

Those Women’s Policy Agencies have a particular independence from the primary

branches of government.2

Every WPA can be classified according to a sociological classification scheme

(Lamnek 2000, 333-334). This classification distinguishes different kinds of WPAs

along the scope of the entity and its location inside the state and public adminis-

tration. For each state it is possible to determine the type of SSA by counting the

occurrence of different kinds of WPAs in the four sectors. This structure-based

approach is used to estimate the permanent and specific state capability of current

states in WEGE.

Typology has been built inductively with a non-linear approach to theorizing

(Ackerly and True 2010, 80). Iterating between data, making sense of data by con-

ceptualizing relevant theoretical dimensions and entities and developing graphical

representations and regular contra-factual thinking (Ragin and Sonnett 2005) pro-

vided a framework for the institutional structures of current WEGE policies of

states. This framework is now applicable for large scale comparison as well, as for

sample selection. It can be used as a starting point for in-depth case studies of

comparable types of permanent and specific state capability in WEGE as well as

to conduct research on more distant types of SSA.

The article consists of six sections. The first section defines important concepts

like specific state apparatus (SSA) and permanent and specific state capability.

147 states in the African continent are excluded.2The degree of independence varies from state to state and is not taken into account in the

framework.

2

The second section discusses the departures of the author from previous research.

The third reviews the used methods and data. The section afterwards introduces

the framework for global comparison of the permanent and specific state capabil-

ity in WEGE. The fifth section contains the main points of the argument: the

empirical occurrence of different types in 151 states, the absent types, and the

global blueprints of current state capability in WEGE. The sixth section gives a

summary.

Important Concepts

This section defines important concepts like specific state apparatus (SSA), Women’s

Policy Agency (WPA) and permanent and specific state capability in WEGE and

their interrelations.

Specific state apparatus (SSA) in WEGE is the operational concept. It is the

term standing for the abstract concept permanent and specific state capability in

WEGE, which is only indirectly operationalized. SSA, as the entirety of all WPAs

in one state, is measured per state over the composition with different kinds of

WPAs in state and public administration.

Permanent and specific state capability is the theoretical concept describ-

ing precisely a phenomenon from which WPAs are the observable manifestation.

WPAs are permanent and specific units in a state. Permanent means bureaucratic

entity on a lasting legal basis. The circumscription stands in contrast to tempo-

rary entities like a round table or a working group. With specific is meant that a

particular state entity is explicitly designed to deliver WEGE policies. WEGE is

the main duty of this particular entity.3

Capability of state in WEGE means ability of a state to act. Here, state

capability in WEGE is understood as the “ability of the state to get things done

in pursuance of state-defined objectives and goals” (Cheung 2008, 122). In this

sense, state capability means the structural potential of states to take action in a

3It may even be the case that this particular entity did not exist before the assignation ofthis duty. Usually specific entities have no or only a few other duties, often in connection tofurther societal inequalities like poverty, discrimination of disabled persons or age discrimination.Unspecific entities in the state and public administration are for instance the ministry of financeand a chamber in the parliamentary assembly.

3

certain area. The area here is Women’s Empowerment and Promotion of Gender

Equality (WEGE) as it was defined above. Site of WPAs are the state and public

administration. Here, not covered are WPAs existing in companies, associations,

and international organizations, as well as in trade unions, churches, public or

private enterprises.

There is need for render more precisely several terms. Permanent and specific

state capability and specific state apparatus in WEGE are terms created by the

author due to a critic on the term women’s policy machinery (WPM) used in the

literature.4 There, WPM is used inconsistently and has two meanings. First, it

denominates a particular sort of WPA, usually the national machinery or national

lead agency (Jahan 2008, 2). Second, it denominates all WPAs in a particular

state forming together a mechanism. The term specific state apparatus borrowed

on the second meaning, but is more explicit, precise and systematic, than the

general usage in the literature.

Literature Review

Women’s Policy Agencies are quite popular in research (Goertz and Mazur 2008).

A large part of previous research is carried out in in-depth case studies of single

states or a comparison of a small number of single states (McBride and Mazur 2010;

Outshoorn and Kantola 2007; Haussman and Sauer 2007; McBride Stetson and

Mazur 1995). Those RNGS-studies5 provide a rich picture of the similarities and

differences in a number of OECD-states for a wide range of policy issues (Mazur

2001; Stetson 2001; Weldon 2002; Joyce 2004; Lovenduski 2005; Haussman and

Sauer 2007).6 The similar system approach makes qualitative methods fruitful in

such a sample selection. In addition to those sound methodological decisions the

RNGS-scholars decided to focus on one WPA per state and debate. Interaction

of different WPAs or – as a prerequisite – a panoramic view of all the WPAs in a

particular state was not employed in the RNGS framework.

4See Scheidegger (2014b, chapter 1.1).5The authors in the Research Network on Gender Politics and the State (RNGS) apply a

more or less similar approach described in detail in (Mazur 1999).6Covered are: gender related topics like paid labour, abortion, violence against women, pros-

titution, political representation and the state as such.

4

Entirety of all Women’s Policy Agencies per state is rarely studied. First, there

is a need for conceptual enlargement, before such a task is feasible. A promising

trail in this direction is the term ‘gender equality architecture’ introduced by the

GEAR campaign for a more inclusive UN gender equality approach (GEAR). The

concept became broadened by Walby et al. (2012, 448-451). Gender equality archi-

tecture in their circumscription comprehends state units (the WPAs), “the law”

(rules and institutions) (Walby et al. 2012, 449), and institutions engaged with

ethnic, race, and class relations (quasi-governmental and state-based institutions),

and institutionalized civil society forums. Further on it should entail institutions

usually not included like governmental policy units (e.g. Department for Busi-

ness, Innovation and Skills) or specialist courts which are dealing with for instance

employment as a relevant gender issue (Walby et al. 2012, 448-451).

The author of this paper focuses on a particular aspect inside the gender equal-

ity architecture. The structural part is at the centre of attention. With permanent

and specific structures in the state and public administration there is an explicit

border between unspecific and specific state action, which is intended to cease

in the conceptualization of Walby et al. (2012). And the author does explicitly

exclude quasi-state units as not part of the state.7

Even more, a framework for comparison of all WPAs per state, the specific

state apparatus (SSA) of states, is lacking entirely. Such a framework, covering

all WPAs per state, is introduced below. This framework is not policy-oriented as

much of previous research is. The starting point of this paper is Berkovitch’s notion

of WPAs as a standard feature of modern statehood (Berkovitch 1999, 163-164).

From the sample of OECD-states usually studied8 the impression could arise that

WPAs are an European phenomenon. The framework is developed on the basis

that specific state apparatus could be a global phenomenon. This is done to test

the notion empirically. This paper gives a short answer to what extend SSA are

global phenomenon. It is clearly not an European phenomenon.

Until now research classified parts of state apparatus in WEGE, mainly single

7Inactivity of states should become visible. Quasi-state structure may be used to concealstate accountability.

8Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy,Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom, United States of America(McBride Stetson and Mazur 1995; Haussman and Sauer 2007).

5

WPAs (Borchorst 1999, 169; Testolin 2001; Goetz 2004, 2-3; Outshoorn and Kan-

tola 2007, 3). The idea seems to be new to build a typology of the specific state

apparatus in WEGE as a whole over the composition of the formal structures of

different kinds of WPAs.

The aim of this research is to develop a new framework for understanding insti-

tutional differences and similarities of states worldwide. It should be a conceptual

framework to understand institutional variation across nations. For comparative

purposes it is necessary to compare similar entities. By having a comparable set

of different kinds of WPAs existing specific state apparatus can be compared. By

comparing specific state apparatus over their formal structures a mosaic part of

the whole interacting process is taken under a magnifying lens.

A broader picture becomes possible with the description of the global situa-

tion of permanent and specific state capability by types. The intention is to go

beyond limitation of existing samples of cases. The aim is a closer representation

of what states believe they have currently in place as permanent and specific state

capability assigned to deliver a part of WEGE policies. Mapping of specific state

apparatus on the basis of the composition of their formal structures is a way to deal

with empirical complexity of the potential state capability in the field of WEGE

policies.

The typology of specific state apparatus is built over different kinds of WPAs

per state. Different WPAs form a complex set of political opportunity structures.

Each kind of WPA has its strengths and weaknesses. By privileging the coexis-

tence of different kinds of WPAs it becomes analysable that the working together

may balance the weaknesses of the employed WPAs (Squires 2007, 66-67). A spe-

cific state apparatus with WPAs in several sectors of governmental action is more

likely more forceful than a specific state apparatus with WPAs in only one sector

of governmental action. Due to the interdependent nature of gender inequality

(Ballmer-Cao 2000) a specific state apparatus may be more successful in reaching

its aims if it covers several sectors of governmental action.

6

Methodology and Data

This subsection describes used methods and data to build the typology of specific

state apparatus. In sum, an inductive approach was used in a non-linear approach

to theorizing (Ackerly and True 2010, 80). The typology of specific state apparatus

has been built by a secondary analysis of existing data. Beginning with an induc-

tive approach on existing data an empirically driven answer has been searched for.

On a conceptual level typology has been built over the four main dimensions in

the material.

It was planned to cluster the nominal cross-sectional data about state capability

in WEGE with the aid of software (SPSS) into types. Clustering and classification

and software were intended to work as an auxiliary mean. However, the clustering

by SPSS did not deliver meaningful results and was unstable. An alternative

procedure by classification algorithms (CHAID, QUEST) was even less convincing.

In the end, the conceptual importance of the four sectors of governmental action

has to be taken seriously: executive (E), legislative (L), judiciary (J) branches of

governments and units outside (O) of public administration. The sectors were al-

ready delivered by the classification of WPAs of Jahan (2008), which was available

for the states to report their units. Then, typology was built over the occurrence

of different kinds of WPAs in the four sectors. With this conceptual approach a

conceptually meaningful typology emerged.

Building typologies is one of the important non quantitative means of knowl-

edge generation of social science (Wienold 2007, 679; Recker 2000, 683). Building

a typology has been used as a specific “method of investigation” (Marshall 1998,

292). It is applied as a heuristic device to sort peculiarities of real world phenom-

ena into a simplified representation (Marshall 1998, 292). A typology is sorting an

area of items along specific criteria into groups, the types (Recker 2000, 683).

Data

The data used for building the new typology of current SSA come from a survey

appraised by UN DAW. The answers of the states were summarised by consultants

to six regional reports (Tsikata 2010; Tavares da Silva 2010; Abdurazakova 2010;

Fernos 2010; Division 2010; Jad 2010). The UN member states were invited to

7

comment on the findings of the regional reports and their presentation in the

regional reports (Jahan 2010, 3-4; UN DAW 2009; UN DAW 2011). In this sense,

the reports represent what states beliefs to have in place. It is the first time that

this sort of data is published for such a wide range of states. Earlier reports (2004

and 1998) did not entail this sort of data (UN DAW 2005; 1998).

The unit of analysis is the specific state apparatus of a state. A single case

is a state or a territory. State is used as generic term for state and territory.

Territory is a political entities which is not widely recognised by other states9 or

an entity which is part of another state10. As far as those territories reported

data they are covered in the analysis. The six territories included in this way are:

American Samoa, Cook Islands, Hong Kong, Macao, Palestine, Puerto Rico. They

are marked with an asterisk (*) to indicate their different quality.

Strengths and Limits of Typology

An inductively won typology of specific state apparatus over their composition

with different kinds of WPAs has limits. Major points are the quality of the used

data, their stability and the access to data. If the used data do not include all

the existing WPAs, then the found picture is at best incomplete. Further on, for

future research the comparability with the results here are not given, if there are

changes in the reporting of the states.

Another point is the applicability of such a synchronically typology to earlier

and later points in time in the historical process. With the synchronically design

a maximum of cases is taken into account. On the other hand, the inductive ap-

proach made it possible to capture a phenomenon otherwise most likely overlooked

by a deductively developed typology. For instance the Type SWO.11

The exploratory stage of research on specific state apparatus in general and

especially in a global perspective made it risky to use a deductive approach. How-

ever, the inductively generated framework does not foreclose the possibility to

develop an analytical typology of specific state apparatus in the future.

9“de facto sovereignty or independence but are not widely recognised diplomatically by otherstates” (Wikipedia 2011, 1). Like for instance: Kosovo or Palestine.

10American Samoa is for instance part of the USA.11Further examples are discussed in (Scheidegger 2014b).

8

Framework for State Capability in WEGE

This section introduces the developed typology of specific state capability in WEGE,

the specific state apparatus, on a conceptual level. It explains the usage of capital

letters, the four building principles, the reasons for them and the possibility space

of the new typology of specific state apparatus in WEGE.

Typology of specific state apparatus is built over the four sectors of govern-

mental action grouping 13 different kinds of WPAs (see Table 1). The four sectors

executive (E), legislative (L), judiciary (J), and outside (O) structure the typology

of specific state apparatus. Table 1 shows for each kind of WPA where it is located

in the four sectors of governmental action. The different kinds of WPAs exist only

in one sector. The classification of different kinds of WPAs fulfils the three criteria

of a sociological classification (Lamnek 2000, 333-334): completeness, unambigu-

ousness and exclusiveness. That implies that the classification is complete since

it entails all currently existing sorts of WPAs. It is unambiguous and exclusive.

This means that a unit is without doubt attributed to only one category.

Chain of Capital Letters Indicates the Name of the Type

Further on, the typology fulfils the same criteria. A specific state apparatus of

a particular state can only be attributed to one type of SSA, the attribution is

unambiguous and all SSA are attributable. One sector consists of three to four

different kinds of WPAs. The typology is built on the occurrences of different

kinds of WPAs in each sector. The chain of capital letters indicates the occurring

sectors of governmental action. Not occurring sectors are not mentioned. The

chain of capital letters indicates the name of the type. For instance, the Type EO

embraces cases which have their WPAs in the executive (E) and the outside (O)

sector. Table 1 shows that there are four different kinds of WPAs in sector E:

Unit in Top Level Government (E1), Ministry or Minister (E2), Unit in a Ministry

(E3), Coordinating Body (E4) and three different kinds of WPAs in sector O:

Commission (O1), State-run Women’s Organisation (O2), and Monitoring Body

(O3). A specific state apparatus of the Type EO has any of those kinds of WPAs.

The capital letter and a particular number identify a particular kind of WPAs.

The numbers are not used for the typology. In minimum there have to be two

9

Sec

tor

Shor

tF

orm

Kin

dof

WP

As

Shor

tD

escr

ipti

onE

xecu

tive

Bra

nch

E

E1

Unit

inT

opL

evel

Gov

ernm

ent

Unit

par

tof

top

leve

lof

gove

rnm

ent

E2

Min

istr

yor

Min

iste

rM

inis

try

orhig

hle

vel

resp

onsi

ble

E3

Unit

ina

Min

istr

yE

nti

tyin

Min

istr

yE

4C

oor

din

atin

gB

ody

Wor

ks

wit

hin

and

bey

ond

adm

inis

trat

ion

Legis

lati

ve

Bra

nch

LL

1C

omp

eten

ceC

entr

efo

rL

egis

latu

reE

xp

erti

sefo

rL

egis

lati

veA

ssem

blies

L2

Leg

isla

tive

Com

mit

tee

Focu

ssed

spec

ialisa

tion

L3

Leg

isla

tive

Cau

cus

Net

wor

kfo

rw

omen

(’s

issu

es)

Judic

ial

Bra

nch

JJ1

Hum

anR

ights

Body

Hig

hly

spec

ialist

pro

fess

ional

sJ2

Equal

ity

Auth

orit

yP

rofe

ssio

nal

orla

yp

erso

ns

judic

iary

J3

Wor

kin

gG

roup

inJudic

iary

Exch

ange

and

stru

ctura

lch

ange

Outs

ide

of

Pri

mary

Bra

nch

es

OO

1C

omm

issi

onA

dvis

ory

and

/or

advo

cacy

O2

Sta

te-r

un

Wom

en’s

Org

anis

atio

nSta

teco

ntr

olle

dw

omen

’sor

ganis

atio

nO

3M

onit

orin

gB

ody

Know

ledge

gener

atio

n

Tab

le1:

Diff

eren

tK

inds

ofW

omen

’sP

olic

yA

genci

es(W

PA

s)in

Sec

tors

ofG

over

nm

enta

lA

ctio

n.

10

WPAs; one kind in the executive sector (E) and one in the outside sector (O) to

have a specific state apparatus of the Type EO.

The typology rests on four building principles, which are explained in the fol-

lowing. Table 2 shows all 17 types and gives the occurrence of the sectors. Type

SWO is special in several ways. It is explained further below.

Occurrence of Different Kinds of WPAs in a Particular Sector The first

building principle is: Typology is fundamentally built on occurrence of different

kinds of WPAs in a particular sector. This building principle is illustrated at the

case of Iceland. The specific state apparatus of Iceland has a Unit in a Ministry

(E3), an Equality Authority (J2) in the judiciary, and a Commission (O1). E3

is part of the sector executive (E), J2 is part of the sector judiciary (J) and O1

is part of the sector outside (O). Taken together in a chain of capital letters Ice-

lands specific state apparatus has the sector pattern EJO. This means, the state

apparatus in WEGE of Iceland is of the Type EJO.

The rudimentary form of the sector pattern is called the basic type. Rudimen-

tary means that each capital letter occurs only once. For instance, the specific

state apparatus of Iceland has the pattern of the basic type EJO. All the absent

kinds of WPAs are not relevant for the attribution to the type.

A Sector Occurs if there is at Least one WPA in a Particular Sector

The second building principle is: Occurrence of a sector is given, if there is at

least one WPA in a particular sector. All further WPAs in this sector do not add

information for the attribution to types. For the attribution to a type it does

not matter if there are one or several WPAs in a particular sector. The decisive

information is if there is at least one WPA in a particular sector. The underlying

assumption is that it is easier to have a second WPA in a sector than to establish

the first WPA in a sector.

For example the specific state apparatus of Sri Lanka has two different kinds

of WPAs in sector E: a Ministry or Minister (E2) and a Unit in a Ministry (E3),

beside an Equality Authority (J2) and a Commission (O1) in sector J and O. The

possibility of different kinds of WPAs in a particular sector is represented by a

chain of the capital letter of these sectors: EEJO in the case of Sri Lanka. The

11

Occurring Sectors Type LabelE L J O Type ELJOE L J Type ELJE L O Type ELOE J O Type EJO

L J O Type LJO. . . O2 Type SWOE L Type ELE J Type EJE O Type EO

L J Type LJL O Type LO

J O Type JOE Type E

L Type LJ Type J

O Type OType Zero

Table 2: Possible Types of Specific State Apparatus (Possibility Space).

specific state apparatus of Iceland and Sri Lanka exhibits both the characteristics

of the Type EJO. Both states have the same basic type; they have the same type

of SSA. That means those two states have a similar state apparatus in WEGE.12

That the specific state apparatus of Sri Lanka has more than one kind of WPA in

a sector (E2 and E3) is not relevant for the attribution to the type.

Privileging Quality of WPA before Quantity The third building principle is

about the counting of WPAs: Different kinds of WPAs are counted. The quantity

of the same kind of a specific WPA is not counted. Occurrence of several units

of the same kind of a WPA is not used for attributing cases to types. If a state

has several units of the same kind of WPA, then this particular kind of WPA is

still counted as one. The idea is similar to the one with the counting of different

sectors. It is assumed that it is easier to establish a second or a third unit of a

12If they would even have the same kinds of WPAs, then they would not only share the sametype, they would have an identical state apparatus in WEGE measured over the composition withdifferent kinds of WPAs. Identical combinations of WPAs are discussed elsewhere Scheidegger(2014a).

12

particular kind of WPA, than another kind of a WPA in the same sector. In sum,

the main achievement is to establish the first unit of a particular kind of a WPA

in a sector. In this sense, the typology of specific state apparatus measures the

heterogeneity of WPAs and not the nominal number of the same kind of WPAs.

Occurrence of Dimension Plus Area does not count The last building

principle is: The occurrence of a sector is privileged before the occurrence of

different kinds of WPAs in a sector. One can illustrate this on the case of Peru.

Peru’s specific state apparatus has eight different kinds of WPAs: E2, E3, E4, L1,

L2, J2, O1, and O3.13 This gives the pattern of sectors EEELLJOO. Basically, the

specific state apparatus has the four sectors ELJO. Therefore Peru is attributed

to the Type ELJO. The dimension plus area, the occurrence of several kinds of

WPAS in the same sector, is neglected for the attribution to types.

The second, third and the fourth building principle simplify institutional com-

plexity of specific state apparatus to make them comparable.

Rationale For Building Principles

Why is the typology build on the occurrence of different sectors and different

kinds of WPAs within sectors? In this conceptualisation states have a range of

four sectors to act on behalf of WEGE policies. The idea behind privileging

sectors is to weight the range of areas states are able to act. In this sense, the

typology measures the degree of structural impact of the idea of promotion of

women and gender equality. By weighting the occurrence of two sectors higher

than the occurrence of two different kinds of WPAs in one sector, it is assumed

that state action in all four sectors represents a more comprehensive approach to

fight women’s oppression than state action in fewer sectors.

By mapping the occurrence of different sectors a maximal selectivity is achieved

to distinguish between different sorts of specific state apparatus. Similar specific

state apparatus in the sense of using the same composition of sectors may have

more similar interaction problems than specific state apparatus with other compo-

sition of sectors. To have the composition of sectors at the centre of the typology

13Full name of different kinds of WPAs and a short circumscription is given in Table 1.

13

makes it conceptually easier to conduct research on the real world functioning of

specific state apparatus as a whole. In this sense the typology delivers a starting

point for research on the interplay of their parts – one of the lacune of previous

research (Jahan 2010, 4).

Possibility Space

Following from the building principles of the typology there is a particular possi-

bility space. There are 16 (= 24) possibilities that a specific sector occurs once or

not. Due to conceptual considerations there is one enlargement of this 16 folded

typology. State-run Women’s Organisation (SWO) is a particular kind of WPAs

(see Scheidegger (2013)). That is why, the possibility space of the new typology

of specific state apparatus in WEGE is 17 folded (= 24+1). One for every basic

type.

The occurrence of a SWO may have a larger impact on the specific state ap-

paratus as a whole than other kinds of WPAs. Therefore SSAs with occurrence

of a SWO are taken together in a separate type, the Type SWO. It is the only

type where the chain of capital letters does not specify the occurring sectors. In

this type the number of sectors is not predefined by the type. It is open to the

individual case of specific state apparatus how many sectors there are present next

to the O given by the O2, the SWO.14 Therefore Table 2 exhibits in the case of

Type SWO only dots in the sector E, L, and J, whereas other types indicate the

occurrence or absence of a particular sector.

Current State Capability in WEGE

This section gives the cross-national evidence of currently occurring types of spe-

cific state apparatus and it discusses the absence of particular types. Table 3

shows the possibility space of the typology of current state capability in WEGE

and the occurring and non-occurring types. There are 17 types possible. Those

17 possible types are the basic types, meaning that all cases in a basic type have

the same pattern of sectors. States do not use the whole possibility space actually.

14Details for the individual case are covered in Scheidegger (2014b).

14

There are 13 types of specific state apparatus employed by the 151 states of the

sample. This is a wide range of types. That means, current SSAs are marked by

institutional heterogeneity.

Table 3 assorts the types into groups according to the number of occurring

sectors of a SSA. In group one all four sectors E, L, J, and O occur. This is the

most comprehensive type of SSA. It is a quadro-sectoral SSA. In group two three

sectors out of four occur. There are four possible types with such a tri-sectoral

SSA. However, only three types have empirical cases in the year 2010. Type LJO

is missing. The third group is a special case as it assembles all the specific state

apparatus with a SWO. In this type there are zero, one, two, three or four sectors

in an individual case. Group four entails two of possible four sectors. There are

six types with a bi-sectoral SSA. For two types there are no empirical cases in the

year 2010: Type LJ and Type LO. Group five has one sector. There are four types

with a uni-sectoral specific state apparatus. No empirical case have the Type J.

Group six has zero sectors. Because in Type Zero are the SSA of states without

any WPAs after the definition used by the author. In sum over all types, a specific

state apparatus can be zero-, uni-, bi-, tri-, or quadro-sectoral.

The possibility space of the 16 types15 with zero to four occurring sectors E, L,

J, and O, means that each sector may occur eight times. All eight possible types

with sector E have empirical cases. Types with sector L, J or O are less in use

than types with sector E. Sector O has six types with empirical cases. Of the eight

possibilities for sector L and J there are only five with empirical cases. All missing

types have in common that they have no sector E. In sum, types with a sector E

are more widely used than types without a sector E.

Not Occurring Types

There are four types with no empirical cases in 2010: Type LJO, LJ, LO, and J.

No state has a specific state apparatus with those particular patterns of sectors.

Their absence follow a particular archetype: All types without cases have no sector

E. Some may argue that it is speculative to think about types without empirical

cases. Whereas other may argue that counter-factual thought experiments and

15In this argument, the 6th type, Type SWO is not taken into account as it has anotherconstruction logic than the other types.

15

Type Label No. Occurring Sectors Empirical Incidence 2010Type ELJO quadro-sectoralType ELJ tri-sectoralType ELO tri-sectoralType EJO tri-sectoralType LJO tri-sectoral missingType SWO individual caseType EL bi-sectoralType EJ bi-sectoralType EO bi-sectoralType LJ bi-sectoral missingType LO bi-sectoral missingType JO bi-sectoralType E uni-sectoralType L uni-sectoralType J uni-sectoral missingType O uni-sectoralType Zero no sectors occurring

Table 3: Types, Number of Sectors (Comprehensiveness of SSA) and Incidence.

some consideration about non-occurring cases may add substantially to the general

picture.16 Therefore the absent types are explored a bit more in this subsection.

The executive branch of government seems to be central for permanent and

specific state capability in WEGE. Dealing with women’s empowerment and gender

equality states select some kinds of WPAs more often than other kinds of WPAs.

The observation is that there are no empirical cases in the Types LJO, LJ, LO,

and J in 2010. It seems to be illogical for states to have an specific state apparatus

with two or three kinds of WPAs in the legislative and the judiciary and nothing

in the executive branches of government. The absence of the Type J may suggest

that a solitary kind of WPAs in this sector is not an entry point for a specific state

apparatus. Empirical absence of those types supports appraisals of the strong

dominance of the executive sector (Jahan 2010) in WEGE.

16Charles Ragin names the phenomenon that some cases do not occur limited diversity (Ragin2000). Among others, feminist scholar see themselves often in the position to point out, that ina particular place and time women are missing, women are very rare or that men are rarely seenin a certain place.

16

Number of Occurring Sectors

Table 4 shows that there is a remarkable pattern in regard to number of occurring

sectors of current specific state apparatus. States use the full range of possible

smaller and bigger types of specific state apparatus. That means there are cases

for non-sectoral, uni-, bi-, tri-, and quadro-sectoral SSAs. There is no bulk. The

distribution of states into types is quinto-modal. Quinto-modality shows that there

is a cluster for each group with the same number of sectors. There are not a larger

number of states in types with more sectors than in types with fewer sectors. Half

of states have between zero and two sectors and the other half has three or four

sectors. Tri-sectoral and bi-sectoral SSA are slightly more widespread than the

uni- or quadro-sectoral SSAs.

Distribution of Cases into Types

An even distribution of cases to types would signify that there are in average 8.8

cases per type. Frequencies of different types of SSA differs from this statistical

constant as Table 4 shows. The number of cases in the occurring basic types varies

between one and twenty-four cases. There is no even distribution of types. Type

ELJO, E, EO, ELO and EJO are widespread. Each of them has between 13–16

per cent of cases. Six types have between one and six cases. That are for each

0.7–4 per cent of all studied states. In between are the two types SWO and EJ.

They have between seven and eight per cent of the cases. The more widespread

types are all with sector E. That means sector E is not only more widely used, it

is also more often in use. In this sense, states are unevenly distributed into types

and between types.

Types in Detail

The next subsection reviews the single types in detail. Table 4 shows the empirical

relevance of the different types and Table 5 displays which states have which type

of SSA. An alphabetically sorted list of states and their attribution to types of

SSA is available in the Appendices on pages 31–34.

Around 16 per cent of the states in the global sample have the most compre-

hensive type of specific state apparatus (Type ELJO), which covers all four sectors

17

Frequency Percent Cum. Percent Sector SizeType ELJO 24 15.9 100.0 15.9Type ELJ 5 3.3 84.1

29.7Type ELO 20 13.2 80.8Type EJO 20 13.2 67.5Type SWO 13 8.6 54.3 8.6Type EL 6 4.0 45.6

26.6Type EJ 11 7.3 41.7Type EO 22 14.6 34.4Type JO 1 0.7 19.9Type E 24 15.9 19.2

19.3Type L 1 0.7 3.3Type O 3 2.0 2.6Type Zero 1 0.7 0.7 0.7Total 151 100.0 100.0

Table 4: Distribution of Cases into Types.

of governmental action. The states with this quadro-sectoral type of SSA vary in

their geographical location. Type ELJ has much less states, but they are more

concentrated on the Eurasian continent. Type ELO has a bigger geographical

area of catchment than Type ELJ. However, that states like Belgium, Bhutan,

Iran, Israel, Russia and Uruguay have a similar specific state apparatus is sur-

prising. Type EJO is geographically more diverse. There are well known good

performers in gender equality policies like Australia and Sweden next to laggards

like Switzerland and the United States of America.

Type SWO is a special type and the states are heterogeneous. From the 43

states with a limited democratic governmental system in 2010 (before the Arabic

Uprising) 13 employ a SWO. That signifies only 30 per cent showing the Type

SWO. In other word, the large majority of limited free states in the global sample

does not employ a SWO.17 Employment of a SWO is a possibility for such states.

But this possibility is far from being a dominant strategy.

Type EL is one of the less widely used types. The sample of states having

this type of SSA is geographically diverse. Much more in use is the Type EO.

17For the African continent the quality of data is highly insufficient. There is at least one casewith a SWO for the 25 limited democratic governmental systems.

18

An eminent number of states with this type are islands. But with Mongolia there

is also a state without any border to a sea. Type JO is hold only by one state

(Ecuador). It is one of the three rare cases of types without sector E. That there

is only a small number of states having this type adds a further aspect to the

empirical dominance of the sector E.

Type E is one of the two most widely used types (16%). The empirical weight of

Type E is striking. More than halve of the states with this type are island states or

small states, which are usually excluded from large scale comparisons.18 However,

there are also spacious states like Canada, Iraq and Sudan in this cluster. Canada

which is often cited as a better performing state in international comparisons of

WEGE policies is not alien in this rudimentary type of SSA. Canada is a federal

state with heterogeneous policy environments. The typology of SSA counts only

state structures on the national level.19

Type L is the second type with only one case (Georgia) and one of the three

types without a sector E. This type as well as the Type O has only a small number

of cases. This supports the claim that sector E is empirically and conceptually of

large importance in 2010.

Type Zero has one case at the end of the first decade of the 21st century

(Monaco). Monaco has according to the used definition of WPAs currently no

WPA. This should not be conflated with having not reported any WPAs.20 Monaco

took part in the survey of the UN DAW and reported one unit. This unit did

not fulfil the criteria to become classified as a permanent and specific state unit

assigned to deliver WEGE policies.

18Threshold is often by 500’000 inhabitants. For instance Ulfelder (2011, iii).19Subnational units are excluded from the classification of different kinds of WPAs. In the case

of Canada as well as other federal states this exclusion may underestimate the comprehensivenessof the SSA. Heterogeneity of federal states makes it likely that some parts of the federal stateare underestimated with this measurement, whereas other parts of the same federal state maybe overestimate in regard to the comprehensiveness of its SSA.

20Non reporting states or states about which there are no information in the data are excludedfrom analysis. This does not foreclose the possibility that they have WPAs. This is especiallythe case for states on the African continent, which are excluded because there is no public accessto the regional report of UN ECA (Tsikata 2010; UN DAW 2011). For instance for the case ofUganda it is known that there is a wide range of state structures in WEGE (Kwesiga 2003, 207).

19

Typ

eSta

tes

and

Ter

rito

ries

*

Typ

eE

LJO

Bra

zil,

Col

ombia

,C

osta

Ric

a,C

roat

ia,

Cypru

s,C

zech

Rep

ublic,

Dom

inic

anR

epublic,

El

Sal

vador

,F

rance

,G

reec

e,G

uat

emal

a,H

unga

ry,

India

,Ir

elan

d,

Luxem

bou

rg,

Pan

ama,

Per

u,

Philip

pin

es,

Puer

toR

ico*

,Ser

bia

,Slo

vakia

,Sou

thK

orea

(Rep

ublic

ofK

orea

),Spai

n,

and

Ukra

ine

Typ

eE

LJ

Afg

han

ista

n,

Fin

land,

Lat

via

,P

olan

d,

and

Rom

ania

Typ

eE

LO

Arg

enti

na,

Ban

glad

esh,

Bel

arus,

Bel

gium

,B

huta

n,

Bos

nia

and

Her

zego

vin

a,C

ook

Isla

nds*

,G

erm

any,

Indon

esia

,Ir

an,

Isra

el,

Mal

aysi

a,P

ortu

gal,

Russ

ia,

Suri

nam

e,T

aji

kis

tan,

Thai

land,

Turk

ey,

Unit

edK

ingd

om,

and

Uru

guay

Typ

eE

JO

Aust

ralia,

Aze

rbai

jan,

Bulg

aria

,E

gypt,

Hon

dura

s,H

ong

Kon

g*,

Icel

and,

Kaz

akhst

an,

Mal

ta,

Mex

ico,

Mol

dov

a,N

epal

,N

icar

agua,

Par

aguay

,Sri

Lan

ka,

Sw

eden

,Sw

itze

rlan

d,

Tunis

ia,

Unit

edSta

tes,

and

Ven

ezuel

a

Typ

eSW

OC

amb

odia

,C

hin

a,C

uba,

Lao

s,L

ibya

,M

yanm

ar,

Nor

thK

orea

,P

ales

tine*

,Syri

a,T

urk

men

ista

n,

Unit

edA

rab

Em

irat

es,

Uzb

ekis

tan,

and

Vie

tN

amT

yp

eE

LB

ahra

in,

Bol

ivia

,K

yrg

yzs

tan,

Leb

anon

,M

aced

onia

,an

dM

onte

neg

ro

Typ

eE

JA

ust

ria,

Den

mar

k,

Eas

tT

imor

,E

ston

ia,

Fij

i,L

ithuan

ia,

Net

her

lands,

New

Zea

land,

Nor

way

,Slo

venia

,an

dT

rinid

adan

dT

obag

o

Typ

eE

OA

lban

ia,

Alg

eria

,B

arbad

os,

Bel

ize,

Bru

nei

,C

hile,

Ital

y,Jam

aica

,Jap

an,

Jor

dan

,K

irib

ati,

Mal

div

es,

Mon

golia,

Mor

occ

o,N

auru

,O

man

,P

akis

tan,

Pap

ua

New

Guin

ea,

Qat

ar,

Sam

oa,

Ton

ga,

and

Van

uat

uT

yp

eJO

Ecu

ador

Typ

eE

Am

eric

anSam

oa*,

Andor

ra,

Anti

gua

and

Bar

buda,

Arm

enia

,B

aham

as,

Can

ada,

Dom

inic

a,G

renad

a,G

uya

na,

Hai

ti,

Iraq

,K

uw

ait,

Lie

chte

nst

ein,

Mar

shal

lIs

lands,

Mic

rones

ia,

Pal

au,

Sai

nt

Kit

tsan

dN

evis

,Sai

nt

Luci

a,Sai

nt

Vin

cent

and

the

Gre

nad

ines

,Sin

gap

ore,

Sol

omon

Isla

nds,

Sudan

,T

uva

lu,

and

Yem

enT

yp

eL

Geo

rgia

Typ

eO

Mac

ao*,

San

Mar

ino,

and

Sau

di

Ara

bia

Typ

eZ

ero

Mon

aco

Tab

le5:

Att

ributi

onof

Sta

tes

toT

yp

esof

SSA

.

20

Global Blueprints

There are four global blueprints of current specific state apparatus (SSA). First of

all, all states in the sample have a SSA. There is only one case (Monaco) having

an SSA without any kind of WPA. Meaning there is no permanent and specific

state capability in WEGE in 0.7 per cent of cases. In other words, specific state

apparatus are a globally available phenomenon. Permanent and specific state ca-

pability in WEGE is not constricted to Europe or OECD-states. Second, states

employ a wide range of different types of SSA. 13 of 17 types are in place cur-

rently. They vary in their empirical importance, but there is complex institutional

heterogeneity observable.

Thirdly, states prefer one sector of governmental action conceptually and em-

pirically over the other three: sector E. Conceptually, there are four different kinds

of WPAs in sector E, whereas there are three different kinds of WPAs in each of

the other sectors. Empirically, all types with sector E are in use. All absent types

have no sector E. Occurring types without E have fewer cases than types with sec-

tor E. And last but not least, there is a remarkable heterogeneity of the samples of

states having the same type of SSA. Ukraine, Singapore, Brazil and Spain have all

the same quadro-sectoral type of SSA, the most comprehensive one, Type ELJO.

Those heterogeneous state samples offers researchers a wide range of challenging

research questions.21

Conclusion

This article departs from previous research on WPAs (McBride and Mazur 2010;

Outshoorn and Kantola 2007; Haussman and Sauer 2007; McBride Stetson and

Mazur 1995). It takes all WPAs in one state into account from an institutional

perspective instead of an in-depth case research on a single WPA per state from a

policy perspective. In contrast to a sample of OECD-states this research covers a

much larger sample: 151 states. The research design is extensive, cross-sectional,

and synchronic. The research question is: What sorts of institutional arrangements

21For instance reasons for historical origins, path dependencies, interaction similarities, Mostsimilar system design and Most different system design, sample and case selection.

21

do states use to deliver women’s or gender equality policies?

The framework for global comparison of current permanent and specific state

capability in WEGE provided in this article is based on the structural composition

with different kinds of WPAs. The framework is formed as a typology distinguish-

ing 17 types of permanent and specific state capability in WEGE. 16 types are

given through the occurrence of four sectors of governmental action. The sectors

are: executive (E), legislative (L), judiciary (J), and outside (O). Because of con-

ceptual differences one type is added to those 16 types: Type SWO forms an own

type of SSA, due to the particular features of a SWO.

The worldwide comparison with the most actual and most comprehensive data

shows that states employ currently 13 different types. The framework captures a

wide range of institutional heterogeneity and reveals several blueprints of current

state behaviour towards WEGE. The four types without empirical cases (LJO,

LJ, LO, and J) have in common that there are no WPAs in the executive sector

of governmental action. All types with WPAs in sector E are in use by current

states and they are more widely used than other types. In this sense, there is an

empirical dominance of the executive sector in current specific state apparatus.

States employ less WPAs in the legislative and judiciary sector of governmental

action, than in the outside sector.

States use the whole spectrum of the typology. 46% of states have an SSA with

less than three sectors. A large number of SSAs are quite small. Bi-sectoral and

tri-sectoral SSAs are used slightly more frequently than in halve of the states. A

lot of island states are present in two smaller types; Type EO and Type E.

The states with the same type of SSA are in general rather heterogeneous. For

instance is Sweden in the same type as laggards in WEGE policies like Switzerland

or the United States of America. For future research those unusual samples of

states provide the opportunity for challenging comparisons.

In sum, separation of different types is possible and theoretically gainful. States

use a wide range of different types of specific state apparatus. 151 states are

attributed to those types. In general, states cover mainly the sector E and to less

extend sector O. The states showing the same type of specific state apparatus are

in general rather heterogeneous in their geographical location, economic level and

political system.

22

References

Abdurazakova, Dono, 2010: Strengthening National Mechanisms for Gender

Equality and the Empowerment of Women: National Mechanisms for Gen-

der Equality in South-East and Eastern Europe, Caucasus and Central Asia.

Regional Study. United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (ECE), UN

DAW.

Ackerly, Brooke and True, Jacque, 2010: Doing feminist research in political &

social science. Palgrave, Basingstoke.

Ballmer-Cao, Thanh-Huyen, 2000: Sozialer Wandel und Geschlecht. Zur Gleich-

stellungsfrage in der Schweiz. Paul Haupt Verlag, Bern.

Berkovitch, Nitza (Ed.), 1999: From Motherhood to Citizenship. Women’s Right

and International Organizations. The Johns Hopkins University Press, Balti-

more.

Borchorst, Anette, 1999: Equal status institutions. In: Bergqvist, Christina et al.

(Ed.), Equal Democracies? Gender and Politics in the Nordic Countries, 167–

189, Scandinavian University Press, Oslo.

Cheung, Anthony B.L., 2008: The story of two administrative states: state ca-

pacity in Hong Kong and Singapore. In: The Pacific Review, Volume 21 (2):

121–145.

Division, Social Development, 2010: Strengthening National Mechanisms for Gen-

der Equality and the Empowerment of Women: Regional Study - Asia and

Pacific. May 2010. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia

and the Pacific (ESCAP), Bangkok.

Fernos, Maria Dolores, 2010: National mechanisms for gender equality and the

empowerment of women in Latin America and the Caribbean region, Volume

102 von mujer y desarrollo. United Nations Economic Commission for Latin

America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), Santiago.

23

GEAR: Gear up: Building a United Nations that Really Works for All Women.

UN Gender Equality Architecture Reform Campaign (GEAR).

Goertz, Gary and Mazur, Amy G., 2008: Politics, Gender, and Concepts: Theory

and Methodology. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Goetz, Anne Marie, 2004: Advocacy Administration in the context of Economic

and Political Liberalisation. Prepared for “The role of national mechanisms in

promoting gender equality and the empowerment of women: achievements, gaps

and challenges”. 29 November 2004 - 2 December 2004. Rome, Italy. Division

for the Advancement of Women (DAW), New York, EGM/National Machin-

ery/2004/EP.1.

Haussman, Melissa and Sauer, Birgit (Eds.), 2007: Gendering the State in the Age

of Globalisation: Women’s Movements and State Feminism in Postindustrial

Democracies. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham.

Jad, Islah, 2010: Strengthening National Mechanisms for Gender Equality and

the Empowerment of Women: National Mechanisms for Gender Equality in the

ESCWA region. United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Western

Africa (ESCWA).

Jahan, Rounaq, 2008: National Mechanisms for Gender Equality and the Em-

powerment of Women: An Overview of Critical Issues for Review. Prepared for

the Division for the Advancement of Women by Rounaq Jahan. Division for the

Advancement of Women (DAW), New York.

Jahan, Rounaq, 2010: Strengthening National Mechanisms for Gender Equality

and the Empowerment of Women: A Global Synthesis Study. United Nations

Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW), New York.

Joyce, Outshoorn (Ed.), 2004: The Politics of Prostitution: Women’s Movements,

Democratic States and the Globalisation of Sex Commerce. Cambridge Univer-

sity Press, Cambridge.

Kwesiga, Joy C., 2003: The national machinery for gender equality in Uganda:

institutionalized gesture politics? In: Rai, Shiri M. (Ed.), Mainstreaming gen-

24

der, democratizing the state? Institutional mechanisms for the advancement of

women, 203–222, Manchester University Press, Manchester, Published for and

on behalf of the United Nations.

Lamnek, Siegfried, 2000: Eintrag “Klassifikation”. In: Reinhold, Gerd (Ed.),

Soziologie-Lexikon, 4. edition, 333–334, Oldenbourg, Munchen.

Lovenduski, Joni (Ed.), 2005: State Feminism and Political Representation. Cam-

bridge University Press, Cambridge.

Marshall, Gordan, 1998: Entry “ideal type”. In: Marshall, Gordan (Ed.), Oxford

Dictionary of Sociology, 2 edition, 292–293, Oxford University Press, Oxford.

Mazur, Amy, 1999: Feminist Comparative Policy: A New Field of Study. In:

European Journal of Political Research, Volume 35 (4): 483 – 506.

Mazur, Amy (Ed.), 2001: State Feminism, Women’s Movements, and Job Training:

Making Democracies work in a global economy. Routledge, New York.

McBride, Dorothy E. and Mazur, Amy G. (Eds.), 2010: The Politics of State Fem-

inism: Innovation in Comparative Research. Temple University Press, Philadel-

phia, PA.

McBride Stetson, Dorothy and Mazur, Amy G., 1995: Comparative State Femi-

nism. Sage Publications, London.

Outshoorn, Joyce and Kantola, Johanna (Eds.), 2007: Changing State Feminism.

Palgrave Macmillan, Hampshire.

Ragin, Charles C., 2000: Fuzzy-set social science. The University of Chicago Press,

Chicago.

Ragin, Charles C. and Sonnett, John, 2005: Between Complexity and Parsimony:

Limited Diversity, Counterfactual Cases, and Comparative Analysis. In: Kropp,

Sabine and Minkenberg, Michael (Eds.), Vergleichen in der Politikwissenschaft,

180–197, VS Verlag fur Sozialwissenschaften, Wiesbaden.

25

Recker, Helga, 2000: Eintrage “Typologie”, “Typus”. In: Reinhold, Gerd (Ed.),

Soziologie-Lexikon, 4. edition, 683, Oldenbourg, Munchen.

Sawer, Marian, 1996: Femocrats and Ecorats: Women’s Policy Machinery in Aus-

tralia, Canada and New Zealand. Occasional Paper. United Nations Research

Institute for Social Development (UNRISD), Geneva.

Scheidegger, Christine, 2013: Comparing WPAs Globally: Classification for the

21st century. In: todo, Volume todo: todo.

Scheidegger, Christine, 2014a: Diversity in SSA: todo. In: todo, Volume todo:

todo.

Scheidegger, Christine, 2014b: Women’s Policy Machineries in Comparison: Bricks

for Equal Gender Relations. todo, todo.

Tavares da Silva, Maria Regina, 2010: Strengthening National Mechanisms for

Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women: National Mechanisms for

Gender Equality in EU Member States and Candidate Countries and other

Developed Economies of the UNECE Region. Regional Study. United Nations

Economic Commission for Europe (ECE), UN DAW.

Squires, Judith, 2007: The New Politics of Gender Equality. Palgrave Macmillan,

Basingstoke and New York.

Stetson, Dorothy McBride (Ed.), 2001: Abortion Politics, Women’s Movements,

and the Democratic State: A Comparative Study on State Feminism. Oxford

University Press, Oxford.

Testolin, Giorgia, 2001: Handbook on National Machinery to promote gender

equality and action plans: Guidelines for establishing and implementing Na-

tional Machinery to promote equality, with examples of good practice. Council

of Europe, Strasbourg.

Tsikata, Dzodzi, 2010: Strengthening National Mechanisms for Gender Equality

and the Empowerment of Women. Regional study: Africa. Unpublished. United

Nations Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW), New York.

26

Ulfelder, Jay, 2011: Description to Dataset “Country Memberships in Se-

lected Intergovernmental Organizations and Accession to Selected Regional and

Global Treaty, 1955–2010: Description”. ICPSR 30541. Inter-university Consor-

tium for Political and Social Research, http://www.icpsr.umich.edu(accessed:

20121223).

UN DAW, 1998: National Machineries for gender Equality. Report. Expert Group

Meeting 31 August - 4 September 1998. Santiago, Chile. United Nations Division

for the Advancement of Women(DAW) and Economic Commission for Latin

America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/

news/natlmach.htm (accessed: 20100824).

UN DAW, 2005: The Role of National Mechanisms in Promoting Gender Equality

and the Empowerment of Women. Report of the Expert Group Meeting. Rome,

Italy. Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW), http://www.un.org/

womenwatch/daw/egm/nationalm2004/documents.html (accessed: 20100825),

EGM/National Machinery/2004/Report.

UN DAW, 2009: Questionnaire for collection of information and data

to support regional studies on national mechanisms for gender equal-

ity. Part of the research project: Strengthening national mechanisms

for gender equality and the empowerment of women. Division for the

Advancement of Women (DAW), http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/

TechnicalCooperation/tcprog_strengthening.htm (accessed: 20100826).

UN DAW, 2011: Division for the Advancement of Women (DAW),

http://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/TechnicalCooperation/tcprog_

strengthening.htm (accessed: 20110110).

Walby, Sylvia, Armstrong, Jo and Strid, Sofia, 2012: Intersectionality and the

Quality of the Gender Equality Architecture. In: Social Politics, Volume 19 (4):

446–481.

Weldon, Laurel, 2002: Protest, Policy, and the Problem of Violence Against

Women: A Cross-national Comparison. Pittsburgh University Press, Pitts-

burgh.

27

Wienold, Hanns, 2007: Eintrag “Typus”. In: Fuchs-Heinritz, Werner, Hautmann,

Rudiger, Rammstedt, Otthein and Wienold, Hanns (Eds.), Lexikon der Sozi-

ologie, 4., grundlegend uberarbeitete edition, 279, VS Verlag fur Sozialwis-

senschaften, Wiesbaden.

Wikipedia, 2011: List of sovereign states. Wikipedia, the free encyclo-

pedia, http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Staaten_der_Erde (ac-

cessed: 20110203).

28

About the Author

Christine Scheidegger studied Political Science and Gender Studies at the Univer-

sities of Berne, Basle, Lund (Sweden) and St. Gallen. Her diploma thesis gives an

overview about the existence of cantonal gender equality agencies and the cantonal

gender equality policy in federal Switzerland in the last 30 years. Her dissertation

is about permanent and specific state capability in WEGE policies in a worldwide

perspective.

Address of Correspondence

Christine Scheidegger, Institute of Political Science, University of St Gallen, Rosen-

bergstrasse 51, CH-9000 St Gallen, Switzerland. Phone: +41 (0)71 224 21 25,

E-Mail: christine.scheidegger@gmx.ch.

29

Appendix

30

State and Territory* Type of SSAAfghanistan Type ELJAlbania Type EOAlgeria Type EOAmerican Samoa* Type EAndorra Type EAntigua and Barbuda Type EArgentina Type ELOArmenia Type EAustralia Type EJOAustria Type EJAzerbaijan Type EJOBahamas Type EBahrain Type ELBangladesh Type ELOBarbados Type EOBelarus Type ELOBelgium Type ELOBelize Type EOBhutan Type ELOBolivia Type ELBosnia and Herzegovina Type ELOBrazil Type ELJOBrunei Type EOBulgaria Type EJOCambodia Type SWOCanada Type EChile Type EOChina Type SWOColombia Type ELJOCook Islands* Type ELOCosta Rica Type ELJOCroatia Type ELJOCuba Type SWOCyprus Type ELJOCzech Republic Type ELJODenmark Type EJDominica Type EDominican Republic Type ELJO

Table 6: Alphabetical Attribution of States and Territories* to Types (page I).

31

State and Territory* Type of SSAEast Timor Type EJEcuador Type JOEgypt Type EJOEl Salvador Type ELJOEstonia Type EJFiji Type EJFinland Type ELJFrance Type ELJOGeorgia Type LGermany Type ELOGreece Type ELJOGrenada Type EGuatemala Type ELJOGuyana Type EHaiti Type EHonduras Type EJOHong Kong* Type EJOHungary Type ELJOIceland Type EJOIndia Type ELJOIndonesia Type ELOIran Type ELOIraq Type EIreland Type ELJOIsrael Type ELOItaly Type EOJamaica Type EOJapan Type EOJordan Type EOKazakhstan Type EJOKiribati Type EOKorea, North Type SWOKorea, South (Republic of Korea) Type ELJOKuwait Type EKyrgyzstan Type ELLaos Type SWOLatvia Type ELJLebanon Type EL

Table 7: Alphabetical Attribution of States and Territories* to Types (page II).

32

State and Territory* Type of SSALibya Type SWOLiechtenstein Type ELithuania Type EJLuxembourg Type ELJOMacao* Type LMacedonia Type ELMalaysia Type ELOMaldives Type EOMalta Type EJOMarshall Islands Type EMexico Type EJOMicronesia Type EMoldova Type EJOMonaco Type ZeroMongolia Type EOMontenegro Type ELMorocco Type EOMyanmar Type SWONauru Type EONepal Type EJONetherlands Type EJNew Zealand Type EJNicaragua Type EJONorway Type EJOman Type EOPakistan Type EOPalau Type EPalestine* Type SWOPanama Type ELJOPapua New Guinea Type EOParaguay Type EJOPeru Type ELJOPhilippines Type ELJOPoland Type ELJPortugal Type ELOPuerto Rico* Type ELJOQatar Type EO

Table 8: Alphabetical Attribution of States and Territories* to Types (page III).

33

State and Territory* Type of SSARomania Type ELJRussia Type ELOSaint Kitts and Nevis Type ESaint Lucia Type ESaint Vincent and the Grenadines Type ESamoa Type EOSan Marino Type LSaudi Arabia Type OSerbia Type ELJOSingapore Type ESlovakia Type ELJOSlovenia Type EJSolomon Islands Type ESpain Type ELJOSri Lanka Type EJOSudan Type ESuriname Type ELOSweden Type EJOSwitzerland Type EJOSyria Type SWOTajikistan Type ELOThailand Type ELOTonga Type EOTrinidad and Tobago Type EJTunisia Type EJOTurkey Type ELOTurkmenistan Type SWOTuvalu Type EUkraine Type ELJOUnited Arab Emirates Type SWOUnited Kingdom Type ELOUnited States Type EJOUruguay Type ELOUzbekistan Type SWOVanuatu Type EOVenezuela Type EJOViet Nam Type SWOYemen Type E

Table 9: Alphabetical Attribution of States and Territories* to Types (page IV).

34