Gender Politics in the Expanding European Union: Mobilization, Inclusion, Exclusion

By Silke Roth

In May 2004, after bringing their legislation into accordance with EU regulations, ten more countries joined the European Union. The contributors to this volume assess the impact of this historical development on gender relations in the new and old EU member states. Instead of focusing on either western or eastern Europe, this book investigates the similarities and differences in diverse parts of Europe. Although initially limited, gender equality was part of the original framework of the European Union, an organization often more open than national governments to feminist demands, as this volume illustrates with case studies from eastern and western Europe. The enlargement process thus provides some important policy instruments for increasing equality between men and women.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Berghahn Books
• Release date: Sep 1, 2008
• ISBN: 9780857450708

Book preview

INTRODUCTION

GENDER POLITICS IN THE EXPANDING EUROPEAN UNION

Mobilization, Inclusion, Exclusion

Silke Roth

Since 1957, when Belgium, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Italy, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands formed the European Economic Community (EEC) later renamed the European Union (EU), this supranational opportunity structure has been an important resource for the promotion of gender equality in member states and candidate countries. At least discursively, the EU endorses gender equality as a fundamental value and demands that its member states embrace this principle. This volume addresses the impact of EU accession on member states as well as the European Union from a gender perspective. Each enlargement—western in the 1970s, southern in the 1980s, northern in the 1990s, and most recently eastern—broadened and deepened gender policies either in the EU or in the member states or in both to various extents. In 1973 Denmark, Ireland, and the United Kingdom joined the European Communities; in 1981 Greece followed; in 1986 Portugal and Spain became members; in 1995 Austria, Finland, and Sweden joined the EU; in 2004 Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Poland, Slovakia, and Slovenia became part of the EU; and most recently, in 2007 Bulgaria and Romania followed. In contrast to the other former socialist countries, due to German unification, East Germany joined the EU already in 1990. So far, gender equality policies have been neglected in research concerning EU expansion, whereas analyses of European women's movements and gender equality politics tended to concentrate either on the old EU member states or on the experiences of women in the former socialist countries, but rarely brought them together. This book seeks to fill these gaps, by assessing gender equality policies and feminist mobilization in both old and new member states, as well as in a candidate country, Turkey. It needs to be kept in mind that the EU is not identical with Europe, as Switzerland does not belong to the EU whereas the candidacy of Turkey and thus the boundaries of Europe are highly contested.

The contributions in this volume comprise fresh scholarship that challenges previous assessments of the impact of the EU and shows that it is a contradictory process. The successes of women's movements and activists at the EU level are juxtaposed with the lack of clarity, effective implementation, and enforcement of directives—in old and new member states. Furthermore, successful EU integration and economic development might go hand in hand with considerable disadvantages for women. The case studies also address the tensions between top-down reforms and grassroots autonomous movements. And it is also considered that while transnational women's movements provide important networking opportunities, East-West relations have not always been easy. Employing a social constructivist approach, the authors in this volume address the importance of framing and agenda setting at both the EU level and the domestic level. As the contributions to this volume emphasize, the relationship between the EU and its member states is interactive and dynamic. The EU is at the same time shaped by and shaping member states as well as candidate countries, whereas domestic politics remain of crucial importance regarding the adoption and implementation of EU regulations.

In this introduction, firstly, I review the impact of the EU on domestic gender equality policies and conclude that it differs by country as well as by policy area and has changed over time. Secondly, I show how the transformation process and the enlargement process in Central Eastern Europe intersected and how this affected the status of women. Thirdly, I discuss the role of women's networks and feminist mobilization in the EU and the enlargement process. Finally, I give an overview of the book.

The European Union as Political Opportunity Structure for Feminist Mobilization and Gender Equality

The EU is acknowledged as a supranational institution influencing gender equality policy in its member states—as well as in candidate countries—even against their preferences (Ellina 2003). Although the initial gender equality legislation of the EEC was an unintended side effect (e.g., Hoskyns 1996, Berkovitch 1999) and was initially restricted to questions of equal pay, it nevertheless provided the foundation for later gender equality legislation. Because France was at that time the only country with an equal pay provision among the founding members and was concerned that this might be a potential barrier to fair and equal competition among member states, it demanded the inclusion of such a provision (Cichowksi 2002, 222). Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome (1957), guaranteeing equal pay for equal work, could be used for national equal pay campaigns and provided a starting point for further sex equality legislation. Despite its limitations, the EU therefore provided a favorable venue for women's interests—often more open to feminist demands than national governments. Over time, EU policies on women's rights became broader, eventually addressing the reconciliation of employment with family life and, more recently, gender mainstreaming (for overviews see Ellina 2003; Hantrais 2000a; Hoskyns 1996).

In the 1970s and 1980s, in addition to striving for gender equality in terms of equal pay, the European Commission addressed other aspects of gender inequality, which led to the adoption of a number of directives addressing tax and social security measures, child care facilities, education, and training opportunities (see chapters by Wahl, Morgan, and Zippel). These directives were accompanied by positive action programs on behalf of women. However, the member states decide how they allocate the available resources such as structural funds to gender equality.

In the 1980s and 1990s, European women were not only dissatisfied with respect to the achievement of EU women's rights, but they also found favorable opportunity structures to strengthen a broader policy frame. European women's groups became more and more involved in international women's networks, and the UN conferences contributed to the emergence and consolidation of an international network (Keck and Sikkink 1998). At the Fourth World Conference of Women in Beijing in 1995, gender mainstreaming was formally adopted. In the same year, Austria, Finland, and Sweden joined the EU. Finland and Sweden in particular had a strong existing commitment to equal opportunities and considerable experience in mainstreaming gender in their national policies (Pollack and Hafner-Burton 2000; Hellgren and Hobson in this volume).

Due to the northern enlargement of the EU in 1995, the proportion of women in the European parliament increased. Furthermore, within the commission a number of feminists ensured that gender mainstreaming entered and stayed on the agenda of the EU (Mazey 2000). Women's activism and international networks like the European Women's Lobby played a central role in the expansive development of EU sex equality legislation and the introduction of gender mainstreaming (Helferrich and Kolb 2001; Cichowski 2002). The impact on the member states varied, depending on the gender equality policies already in existence. For example, in Ireland and Spain EU membership contributed to strengthening gender equality policy (see chapters by Cullen and Valiente in this volume). In contrast, the Nordic countries (Sweden and Finland) had more to give than to gain from joining the EU. In particular, the euro-skeptic Swedish women feared that joining the EU would have a negative impact on gender equality in their country and therefore successfully sought to export Swedish gender equality policies (see Hellgren and Hobson in this volume). Their access to the EU as well as the UN conferences played a crucial role for strengthening the EU's position on women's equality (Ellina 2003).

The impact of EU policies varies not only in member states, but also in different areas (employment, reconciliation of work and family life, sexual harassment, etc.). Due to this variation, it is therefore not surprising that the assessment of the importance of the EU for gender equality policies in the member states also differs. Some see it as extensive, others as limited (for a discussion see Walby 2004, 5ff.). As Elman (1996a) emphasizes, the importance of gender equality in the economic sphere cannot be underestimated, but it is crucial to address issues such as reproductive rights and violence against women in order to overcome women's subordination. Walby (2004, 6–7) distinguishes several major limitations: the primary concern with standard employment; taking the male life course as the norm; the uneven implementation of EU Equality Directives due to national differences; the neglect of key areas of gender inequality such as sexual preference, abortion, and violence against women; soft (i.e., nonbinding) rather than hard law interventions; decreasing support for gender equality; and the underrepresentation of women in the convention.

The inclusion of gender equality in Article 2 of the Treaty of Amsterdam (1997) can be seen as a high point of the gender equality strategy (Walby 2004, 7). Furthermore, the adoption of gender mainstreaming in the Amsterdam treaty represents a new strategy that shifts attention from equality of treatment to equality of impact, and has the potential to transform government and policy making (Beveridge, Nott, and Stephen 2000, 286). In contrast to affirmative action and to singling out women's issues, gender mainstreaming is the (re)organisation, improvement, development and evaluation of policy processes, so that a gender equality perspective is incorporated in all policies at all levels and at all stages, but the actors normally involved in policy making (Council of Europe 2000, 15). Gender impact assessment is a tool of mainstreaming. It requires that every planned policy has to be assessed as to what influence it might have on women, men, and gender relations in general. Furthermore, it needs to be emphasized that gender mainstreaming and affirmative action are two complementary strategies. Gender mainstreaming does not replace, but supplements affirmative action.

Gender mainstreaming plays a crucial role in the discourse of transnational European women's organizations (Ferree and Pudrovska 2006), but it is also a controversial strategy. While some argue that it is undermining positive action (Stratigaki 2005), others suggest that the combination of gender mainstreaming with policy instruments in the context of the Open Method of Coordination (OMC) could promote the introduction of new proactive gender measures in the CEECs [Central and Eastern European Countries] (Velluti 2005, 224). The Open Method of Coordination is a new form of nonbinding normative system that employs nonbinding objectives and guidelines to affect change in social policy and other areas (Trubek and Trubek 2005), but it does not put serious pressure on governments (Pascall and Lewis 2004). In order to be successful, gender mainstreaming needs to include activists and experts from a wide range (Van der Molen and Novikova 2005). Furthermore, because of the increased complexity and diversity across the EU due to enlargement, it [is] increasingly evident that there are problems with the ‘one size fits all’ approach adopted by the European Council of Ministers in its recommendations to member states (Fagan et. al 2005, 587). Gender mainstreaming can have negative impacts and contribute to de-gendering, the covering up of gender specific differences (see Stratigaki 2005, Kakucs and Pető in this volume). This means that gender mainstreaming can undermine feminist approaches. In their assessment of the National Reform Programme reports of the twenty-five member states released in 2005, Fagan, Grimshaw, and Rubery (2006) conclude that the removal of the gender equality guideline resulted in less attention to gender. But gender mainstreaming also provides a key step to pursue women's projects and issues and provided women's projects and women's movements in the new member states with legitimacy and international attention. The EU approach to gender equality thus both represents a hybrid model—as Ferree argues in this volume—encompassing principles of liberalism and social democracy as well as innovative ideas of the global women's movements. It encompasses opportunities as well as threats to feminist achievements.

Winners or Losers? The Impact of the Transformation Process and EU Accession on Women

In order to understand the impact of the EU accession process on gender relations in the twelve new member states that have joined the EU since 2004, it is crucial to keep in mind that transformation and EU accession are two intersecting processes. Women have often been labeled losers of the transformation process (for a critical discussion of this assessment see Ghodsee 2004). In the first half of the nineties, in almost all transformation countries, employment and revenues declined and the Gross National Product dropped. Unemployment affected women more than men because they were strongly represented in shrinking sectors, in particular the public sector, and many women shifted their work into the informal sector (Einhorn 1993; Domsch, Ladwig, and Tenten 2003). The rise of nationalism was accompanied by a return to traditional roles, and women were directly or indirectly encouraged to return to the role of housewives and full-time caregivers (Pollert 2003). However, there is evidence for a more equal division of care work in the new member states (Pascall and Lewis 2004, 376).

Despite high education and extensive skill training, women faced explicit discrimination in hiring, particularly age discrimination (Heinen and Portet 2002). Pollert (2003, 336) summarizes these developments as follows: The capitalist transformation not only failed to maximize the female human resource legacy left by the communist regimes, but damaged it. In addition, the transition to democracy also resulted in a decrease in women's political participation. When the parliaments gained real power during the process of democratization of Eastern Europe, the percentage of female members of parliament dropped between 1980 and 1990 on average from 27 percent to 8 percent. However, while the numbers of women in government and parliaments dropped, there was a sharp increase in their participation in civil society. The advocacy of women's groups and networks resulted in some improvement with respect to women's participation (Chołuj and Neusüß 2004) and after the initial drop, the proportion of women in parliaments in the CEE countries started to rise again to an average of 17 percent in 2002 (Sloat 2004).

Before the agreements were signed, the candidate countries had to meet the Copenhagen criteria from 1993 (acquis communautaire) requiring political reforms, economic transformations, and social policy changes. The accession countries had to adjust their legal and institutional frameworks to accelerate the transition to a market economy, and strengthen human rights standards as well as democratic, civic, and political policies and practices. Miroiu (2006, 90) refers to the import of EU equality legislation as costless room-service state feminism— by this she means the offer of a gender-sensitive legislation for CEE countries through the authority of international political actors…before internal public recognition of such a need. However, gender equality came relatively late onto the agenda of negotiations for entry to the EU. Much greater priority was placed on social and economic reforms based on neoliberal principles that are characterized by an implicit antiequality bias, whereas the mechanisms that are needed to ensure effective implementation of EU gender equality directives were weak (Chołuj and Neusüß 2004).

The candidate countries did not adhere equally to the political, economic, and social EU norms—in particular, gender norms—nor did the EU hold them accountable to each of these aspects to the same degree (Pollert 2003). The EU as well as the governments of the candidate countries did not take active steps to counteract the increasing unemployment of women and the increasing lack of day care facilities. Three years before EU enlargement, gender mainstreaming was still notably absent from policies towards Central and East European countries (Bretherton 2001).

However, even if the EU paid less attention to the adoption of gender mainstreaming and provided fewer resources to women's projects, the fact that gender mainstreaming was a part of the acquis communautaire and could be used by activists in the accession countries to demand the establishment of gender offices and the adoption of gender equality legislation (see the contributions by Regulska and Grabowska, Hašková and Křížková, and Kakucs and Pető in this volume). This meant for the activists that gender issues and feminist demands obtained more legitimacy as well as resources, although opportunities to systematically integrate gender during the pre-accession period have been missed (Bretherton 2001).

Thus from a gender perspective, the EU expansion is contradictory. On the one hand, national adaptation to the ostensibly gender-neutral political and economic standards of the EU led to an exclusion of women from labor markets and the public sphere. On the other hand, the (at least formally) explicit commitment to gender mainstreaming as an integral part of the EU policies provided some important policy instruments in the enlargement process for both increasing equality between men and women and fighting against exclusion based on ethnic, geographical, and social origin (see Hellgren and Hobson in this volume).

Due to the fact that some of the new EU members have conservative governments, the EU represents an important ally in the fight for gender equality and antidiscrimination policies in those countries. But it is important to ask not only how the accession has affected women's NGOs and women's movements in the new member states, but also what impact the new member states might have on gender issues in the EU. Will gender equality be strengthened through the Eastern expansion in 2004 because of the high employment orientation in the former socialist countries? Or, due to the conservative governments and attacks on reproductive rights in some of these countries (for example, Poland) should we expect it to result in a backlash? Shortly after Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU in January 2007, a caucus of right-wing parties in the European Parliament was formed. In addition to homophobic and racist attitudes, such parties tend to promote traditional gender relations, i.e., women's roles as mothers and caregivers and their exclusion from the public sphere.

Given these developments, how will EU expansion shape gender equality policies in the EU? In a collaborative effort, interventions at different levels— individual, household, civil society, and the state—need to be explored, in order to develop an improved gender regime for combining paid and unpaid care and other work that overcomes the shortcomings of the old regimes of both East and West (Pascall and Lewis 2004). The outcome will depend on the interaction of transnational opportunity structures (EU, UN), domestic politics, and local and transnational feminist mobilization. In order to take advantage of the potential for strengthening workplace gender equality legislation as well as gender equality overall, and to avoid a backlash on sexuality, reproductive rights, and family policies, women's NGOs, networks, and movements from the old and the new member states need to share resources and strategies. Keck and Sikkink (1998, 12) describe a boomerang pattern that can be employed when the channels between states and their domestic actors are blocked. Zippel (2004 and in this volume) employs the concept of the ping-pong effect and argues that activists not only use supranational opportunity structures in order to influence policies at the national level, but they also shape supranational organizations—like the EU—in member states. Furthermore, it must be kept in mind that state-movement interaction shapes states as well as social movements (Banaszak, Beckwith, and Rucht 2003).

Mobilizing for Gender Equality—Women's Nongovernmental Organizations and Networks

The opportunities and constraints of women's nongovernmental organizations in the accession countries varied in different stages of the European Union expansion process (Roth 2007). During the accession process, women's nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in the Central and Eastern European (CEE) states were able to use the EU for putting pressure on national governments to introduce gender equality legislation and regulations (see contributions by Regulska and Grabowska, Hašková and Křížková, and Kakucs and Pető in this volume).

The European Women's Lobby (EWL), an umbrella organization of feminist and women's NGOs, has been crucial for bringing women's issues to the EU agenda (Helferrich and Kolb 2001). The EU provides the European Women's Lobby with access, credibility, legitimacy, and resources. Since 2000, the EWL addressed EU enlargement as an area of concern that is reflected in its annual reports. However, since the EWL can spend the funding provided by the European Commission only on behalf of the member states, it lacked funds to support or carry out any activities on enlargement issues. Thus with respect to the new member states, the lobby can be most effective after expansion has occurred, which also changed the composition of the EWL. In 2007, it comprised members from twenty-three EU member states (Poland, Slovenia, Cyprus, and Romania were not regular EWL members) and several EU candidate states (Croatia, Republic of Macedonia, Turkey) as well as associate members from Cyprus, Georgia, Morocco, and Romania.

Women in Central and Eastern Europe also started organizing networks among themselves. The KARAT coalition of women's NGOs in Central and Eastern European countries formed during the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing in 1995 in response to the invisibility of the CEE/CIS (Commonwealth of Independent States) region at this international forum (Marksova-Tominova 2006). The goal of the coalition is to advocate for the regionally specific needs of women. In 1997, the KARAT Coalition was formally established by representatives of ten CEE countries in Warsaw. Since then KARAT has concentrated on monitoring the responses of the CEE/CIS governments to their international commitments, especially those made at the Beijing conference. In 2002, lobbying at the EU level was added to the activities of the coalition. The KARAT coalition decided against joining the EWL because they felt it was important to develop a dialogue and agenda of women in the CEE/CIS countries without the participation of Western women. However, these two transnational networks collaborate.

Overall, the expectations of activists in the accession countries were modest, and they realized that they needed to use the accession phase in order to put pressure on the governments to introduce gender equality and antidiscrimination legislation (Roth 2007). They saw EU accession as an opportunity to improve national legislation and make governments and the public more gender sensitive. At the same time, activists realized that it was important to defend achievements under the socialist regime—for example, legal, safe, and free abortion; free contraception and reproductive health care; subsidized child care; and extensive family leave—all of which were undermined to a greater or lesser degree by the EU minimal standards on these issues. Variations with regard to women's issues and gender equality among the old member states were noted— for example, the Scandinavian countries were much more advanced than Germany. The employment rates in the former socialist countries resembled the high employment of the Nordic countries much more than the lower overall employment rate and higher rate of part-time employment in other European countries (Fagan et al. 2005). Furthermore, it needs to be emphasized that with each enlargement the EU became more demanding, and that with respect to human rights it does not live up to its own standards (Williams 2004, see also Aldikaçti-Marshall in this volume). Since the governments in the candidate countries felt that they needed to address women's issues, the accession process had a positive effect by bringing gender into the public debate in the East and impacting legislation. However, Pollert (2003, 347) warns that gains in equal opportunities achieved in the pursuit of another agenda—EU membership— might weaken the commitment of governments.

The fact that women's issues were seen as European improved their standing among those who were pro-EU, and governments felt that they needed to give at least lip service to these standards. The progress in the implementation of gender equality policies is monitored in National Action Plans. The combination of losses in the public sphere (labor market and political participation), contacts with Western feminists, as well as the top-down gender reforms in the context of EU accession all contributed to feminist mobilization. EU membership has resulted in losses of funding, but at the same time gave access to EU funds (Roth 2007). Furthermore, women's organizations from the new members states can now fully participate in the European Women's Lobby and thus attempt to impact EU gender policies, for example, with respect to reproductive rights. In addition, they can use the European Court of Justice to address violations of EU standards in their countries. To what extent a cross-national convergence of feminist mobilization will occur remains to be seen. An analysis of feminist mobilization in old member states indicates that reproductive rights is an area in which convergence can be noted, while prostitution is an area that is characterized by greater diversity, indicating that the national level is an important intervening variable in transnational feminism (McBride and Mazur 2006).

As the chapters in this volume demonstrate, feminist mobilization played a crucial role in shaping gender equality politics at the EU level and domestic level. Activists benefited from a combination of the participation in transnational networks and domestic grassroots mobilization. While the EU offers important political opportunities, the domestic level is a crucial factor for the success (or failure) of feminist mobilization, in particular with respect to the implementation of gender equality policies, in old as well as new member states.

Inclusion and Exclusion in EU Equality Politics

After the losses during the transformation period, the EU accession process has resulted in the adoption of gender equality legislation and the introduction of a women's machinery. Overall, the biggest progress has been made during the accession period. This makes it important to observe (and support) future member states such as Croatia or Turkey. A couple of years after the accession, some activists from the new member states stated that they wished that the pressure in the accession process to adapt to EU standards on their countries had been as strong as it is currently on Turkey, because this is the magic moment when doors did open to them (Roth 2007).

Whereas gender equality policies have been on the agenda of the EU from the beginning and have been broadened during the past fifty years, as the contributions to this volume show, the record of the EU with respect to ethnic minority groups is not as strong (Williams 2004). A comparison of gender and ethnic mobilization shows that the extent the EU represents a source of leverage politics depends on the national context. As Hellgren and Hobson (in this volume) demonstrate, the EU frameworks open new opportunities for leverage politics while closing off others. Class rather than race provides the crucial framework in the European context (Ferree in this volume). Furthermore, the EU must be understood as a hybrid model incorporating two competing orientations—liberalism and social democracy. This hybridity on the one hand offers opportunities—for example, strong antidiscrimination laws and policies—while on the other hand a neoliberal discourse brings risks for vulnerable groups (see Ferree in this volume).

Overview of the Book

The chapters in the first part of the book—Broadening Gender Equality Policies: The Role of the EU—discuss the increasing scope of gender equality politics in a comparative perspective. Initially restricted to workplace equality issues such as equal pay, the removal of barriers to employment or careers, and nondiscrimination, over time substantive barriers to women's equality such as the unequal division of labor in care work; lack of childcare, parental leave, or flexible working-time arrangements; and sexual harassment have been acknowledged and addressed. Furthermore, gender mainstreaming has been introduced.

Angelika von Wahl's contribution analyzes the development of a supranational and distinctive EU equal employment regime and notes that equal employment policies developed in response to women's movement organization and that only some EU equality laws are new to the new member states that joined the EU since 2004. She discusses the variety and diffusion of gender policies in three new member states (Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic) and the theoretical implications for the study of enlargement or accession.

Kimberly Morgan shows that despite a lack of an EU-wide consensus, the role of the EU in work-family policy has been transformed. Her chapter traces the Europeanization of work and family policy, from the equal opportunity measures of the early 1970s, to the childcare and parental leave directives of the 1990s, to the Open Method of Coordination in more recent years. Morgan concludes that the progress in the area of care policies is due to the work of feminists and other activists at the EU level. However, she also emphasizes that the similar mobilization at the domestic level is critical.

Kathrin Zippel demonstrates how advocates won the discursive struggle over what constitutes sexual harassment at the EU level. Her analysis of framing processes and discursive politics indicates that political actors at the EU as well as at the member state level have used various frames for sexual harassment in order to pursue their aims. Zippel notes a lack of effective implementation and enforcement mechanisms, but also notes that the struggle led to important national debates and awareness of the issue and to the binding EU 2002 Equal Treatment directive.

The second part of the book—The EU Accession Process: Six Case Studies from West and East—surveys the effects of EU accession and includes three case studies from old member states (Ireland, Spain, and Germany) and three from new member states (Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary). Women's movements and gender equality policies in founding members such as France and Italy, or in member states that joined the EU later, such as Britain, have been extensively studied (see for example Stetson and Mazur 1995; Elman 1996b; Hantrais 2000b; Liebert 2003; Banaszak, Beckwith, and Rucht 2003). The choice of Ireland, Spain, and Germany seems particularly instructive for a comparison with the new member states. Like Poland, Spain and Ireland are Catholic countries, which is of high significance with respect to reproductive rights in particular, as well as gender relations overall. Furthermore, Spain shares with the former socialist countries an undemocratic past. EU accession and the democratization process in Spain were closely related. It should also be kept in mind that EU membership of Spain, Portugal, and Greece was encouraged in order to support democratization processes—whereas the new member states faced much closer scrutiny until accession was granted, and Turkey is still denied membership (see Aldikaçti-Marshall in this volume). Germany represents a special case, since through unification the East German state ceased to exist while its former citizens became EU members.

Pauline P. Cullen shows that although the impact of EU membership on Ireland's economic development cannot be underestimated, the same is not the case for gender equality politics. In the fourth richest country of the world women suffer from significant pay reduction for motherhood, and the childcare costs are the highest in Europe. Ireland—together with Sweden and Great Britain—was one of the few old EU member states that invited free movement of labor from the new member states. Women constitute almost half of these migrants and are filling the gap that the care deficit produced. Cullen's chapter analyzes to what extent the National Women's Council of Ireland is able to effectively represent the diversity of women in Ireland.

Celia Valiente's chapter describes how Spain—once a laggard—has become a vanguard in European gender equality policies, due to the influence of the EU as well as favorable domestic developments such as secularization, the increasing strength of the women's movement and the activities of gender equality institutions, and the support of the social democratic government formed in 2004. However, Valiente points out that despite these impressive achievements, the deficit of implementation is a pending problem.

The chapter by Ingrid Miethe differs in several respects from the other contributions in this volume: it provides an analysis of the relationship between the feminists from West and East Germany, it focuses on the academic sphere, and it concentrates on the time prior to EU enlargement. However, these aspects are well chosen, because German unification represents an informal and precocious eastern EU enlargement and because the institutionalized framework of academia represents an important context of contemporary women's movements, not only in Germany. In addition to presenting a unique case, Miethe's chapter analyzes the tensions between Eastern and Western feminists and therefore also serves as an introduction to the following chapters that survey the mobilization for gender equality in some of the new member states. Poland, the Czech Republic, and Hungary were chosen because they represent some of the most advanced of the new member states.

Joanna Regulska and Madga Grabowska analyze how the accession process affected the mobilization of Polish women's and feminist NGOs and the construction of new political spaces. Transnational cooperation enabled Polish activists to create new political spaces and to resist the state at home. As the chapter shows, the greatest gains with respect to gender equality legislation were made prior to accession.

Similarly, the chapter by Hana Hašková and Alena Křížková indicates that the preparation for EU accession was the most important legitimizing force to promote gender equality in the Czech Republic, while the Beijing World Women's Conference provided crucial networking opportunities. The accession process resulted in the professionalization of women's civic groups, and gender mainstreaming offers the potential to promote gender and women's equality, although it needs to be activated.

In their analysis of the impact of EU Accession, Noémi Kakucs and Andrea Pető address the paradoxes of the institutionalization of gender equality in Hungary. Gender mainstreaming was introduced through top-down reforms in order for Hungary to be eligible for EU accession. Although equal opportunity policies were introduced, positive action was missing, and regardless of the institutionalization of a women's machinery, a gender perspective was subordinated to presumably more important social and economic concerns. Kakucs and Pető conclude that without high-level mobilization and strong pressure from women's organizations, little change can be expected.

The third and last part of the book—Inclusion and Exclusion in EU Equality Politics—goes beyond the boundaries of the EU as well as gender issues. Gül Aldikaçti-Marshall analyzes the impact of the EU candidacy on women's mobilization in Turkey. She points out that the EU has increased the demands on candidate countries over time, that the application of a democratic threshold has been inconsistent, and that the extent to which directives have been implemented varied among member states. However, Turkey's goal to join the EU has provided Turkish feminists with important political opportunities, tracking and demanding the implementation of amended laws as well as putting new issues on the agenda.

Framing processes play a crucial role in the chapter by Zenia Hellgren and Barbara Hobson who analyze the gender and ethnic minority claims in Swedish and EU frames. They point to the hierarchies of equality in EU law regarding discrimination with respect to gender and ethnicity. As Hellgren and Hobson