Challenges in Implementing the Feminist Approach in Governance

Feminist scholars and practitioners have long argued that good governance cannot be gender-neutral. When policies ignore the lived experiences of women and gender minorities, they end up reinforcing the very inequalities they claim to address. Yet, despite decades of advocacy, the feminist approach to governance remains more of an aspiration than a reality for most public institutions. Understanding why this approach is so difficult to implement is the first step toward building systems that are genuinely inclusive and equitable.

The weight of patriarchal norms 🔗

One of the most stubborn obstacles to implementing the feminist approach in governance is the persistence of patriarchal norms – deeply entrenched social beliefs that assign unequal roles, powers, and values to different genders. These norms do not simply exist in social settings; they are baked into administrative structures, bureaucratic cultures, and institutional expectations.

According to UNICEF India, most women and girls in India do not fully enjoy many of their rights due to deeply entrenched patriarchal views, norms, traditions, and structures . This is not just a social problem – it directly shapes how governance institutions are built and who gets to lead them.

Within public administration, even as women become involved and employed in politics on a much larger scale than in years prior, they remain confined to areas deemed “feminine” in a predominantly masculine, male-driven system . Men tend to dominate economics, finance, and security portfolios, while women are steered toward social welfare and education – a pattern that reflects societal stereotypes more than merit or choice.

The problem becomes even more visible when formal policies try to intervene. Research published in Feminist Economics on the Panchayat Act in Haryana and Himachal Pradesh found that gender-based seat reservation policies are more effective in empowering women leaders in regions where restrictive patriarchal norms are less entrenched. In parts where patriarchal norms are more persistent, the policy achieves comparatively limited success . In other words, laws alone cannot override culture – they must be accompanied by active efforts to change the attitudes and systems that sustain inequality.

Institutional resistance to change 🔗

Even when the political intent to reform exists, public institutions themselves often become sites of resistance. Bureaucracies are, by design, conservative structures that prioritise continuity and established procedures. Introducing feminist principles – which require rethinking power, accountability, and participation – therefore runs against the institutional grain.

Despite compelling evidence supporting gender-inclusive governance, implementation faces substantial challenges: entrenched systems naturally resist fundamental changes to power structures, many governance systems lack gender-disaggregated data needed to identify disparities, gender initiatives often receive inadequate funding and staffing, and progress toward gender equality can trigger reactionary backlash responses.

This institutional resistance is not always overt. It can manifest as indifference – procedural delays, insufficient budget lines, or the sidelining of gender focal points within ministries. Historically, patriarchal cultures and practices have undermined gender equality in public administration. While women are well-represented in public administration in many countries, they remain significantly outnumbered by men in leadership and decision-making positions. According to the UNDP’s Gender Equality in Public Administration (GEPA) report, a lack of data and measures to assess gender equality in public administration has further hampered progress .

Institutional resistance is also compounded by what scholars call “gender ghettos” – a phenomenon observed when well-meaning policy reforms are structurally isolated. As documented by NYU’s Wagner School, many gender equality initiatives have resulted in tiny and underfunded gender entities with massive and un-implementable social change mandates . Without mainstream integration and commensurate resources, such entities become symbolic rather than transformative.

Limited awareness and gender blindness in policy 🔗

A significant challenge that often goes unacknowledged is the widespread lack of awareness about what gender-sensitive governance actually means – among citizens, civil servants, and even elected representatives. This is what policy analysts describe as gender blindness: designing and evaluating policies without accounting for the differential impacts on different genders.

Systems and processes influenced by patriarchal values and beliefs do not automatically promote processes that are gender-just and sensitive. Discrimination against women on the basis of socially constructed gender roles and norms prevents women from enjoying full human rights. When decision-makers are not trained to recognise these dynamics, they tend to treat “standard” policy as neutral – even when it is not.

The consequences of gender blindness are measurable. As highlighted by policy analysts, despite India producing the highest percentage of women STEM graduates globally at 40%, their representation in STEM jobs remains low at just 14% . Policies that fail to investigate why this gap exists – whether it is due to workplace culture, care burdens, or hiring biases – cannot address the problem. Similarly, in the 18th Lok Sabha, only 74 women were elected, making up 13.6% of the total seats, reflecting their marginal presence in the nation’s highest decision-making body . This underrepresentation directly affects the depth and priority given to gender-sensitive policymaking.

Structural and resource-related barriers 🔗

Beyond attitudes and awareness, there are concrete structural barriers that prevent the feminist approach from taking root. These include inadequate infrastructure, lack of gender-disaggregated data, and insufficient financial commitment to gender initiatives.

The data gap 🔗

Effective governance requires evidence. Without reliable, sex-disaggregated data, policymakers cannot identify where gender disparities exist or measure whether interventions are working. As noted in discussions on gender budgeting, ensuring sex-disaggregated data in gender-neutral sectors remains a major challenge . When data systems are designed without a gender lens, invisible inequalities remain invisible – and therefore unaddressed.

The resource challenge 🔗

Financial commitment is another structural test. Feminist initiatives require sustained investment – in training officials, building gender-responsive infrastructure, and monitoring outcomes. However, gender programmes are frequently among the first to face budget cuts or low allocations. As the Brookings Institution observes, where political commitment is weaker, gender budgeting risks becoming a box-ticking exercise with little impact on spending or policy design .

India introduced its first Gender Budget Statement in 2005-06, a milestone in mainstreaming gender into fiscal policy. Yet the journey from statement to substance has been uneven. Despite the government’s annual promises and large budget allocations, real progress often falls short . For instance, 80% of women are involved in agriculture, but only 13.9% of landowners are women, and major agricultural schemes remain under Part B of the gender budget without dedicated provisions for women farmers . This mismatch between stated commitment and actual allocation reveals a structural gap that cannot be resolved by good intentions alone.

The unpaid care burden 🔗

A less-discussed structural barrier is the unequal distribution of unpaid care work. According to the United Nations in India, unpaid care duties remain a significant barrier, with women spending on average 352 minutes per day on unpaid work . This invisible labour restricts women’s ability to participate in governance, pursue higher roles in public administration, or engage meaningfully in political life – and most policy frameworks simply do not account for it.

Weak political will and tokenism 🔗

Perhaps the most consequential challenge is inconsistent political will. Feminist governance reform requires sustained, top-level commitment – not just during election cycles or international commitments, but across administrations and institutions. When political will is absent, gender-related reforms are treated as optional additions rather than foundational priorities.

Gender budgeting may not always align with political priorities, resulting in insufficient support. Its integration should extend across all ministries, including infrastructure and rural development, ensuring gender-sensitive allocations in every government initiative. Without this integration, gender concerns remain siloed in social welfare departments, disconnected from the larger machinery of governance.

There is also the risk of tokenism – appointing women to visible but powerless positions, or passing legislation that looks progressive on paper without providing the enforcement mechanisms and resources that make it effective. As analysed by scholars at ISPP, despite clauses advocating equal wages, women’s rights as independent workers were often overlooked or inadequately implemented . Laws exist on the books, but systemic follow-through is weak.

The POSH Act (Prevention of Sexual Harassment) is a telling example. Research published in PLOS Global Public Health found that the implementation of the Prevention of Sexual Harassment (POSH) Act, 2013 – enacted to ensure a safe and secure working environment for women – is compromised by systemic and structural inequities evident in tokenistic and inadequate implementation . A law without implementation support is largely symbolic.

The role of civil society and advocacy in overcoming barriers 🔗

Governments cannot be the only actors responsible for change. Civil society organisations, feminist scholars, and grassroots advocacy groups play an irreplaceable role in pushing for reform, holding institutions accountable, and building awareness at the community level.

Public leadership is essential in social change and pivotal in transforming social and institutional norms related to gender inequality, going well beyond equal representation. It must embrace the potential for all public leaders, of all genders, to become agents of change who challenge gender injustices and institutionalise gender-transformative policies.

This is why sustained advocacy matters. Policy analysts at the Rising Powers Initiative argue that India must work toward fostering a culture of gender equality through education and awareness programs that challenge traditional patriarchal norms and promote the value of women’s contributions to society . This cannot happen through isolated campaigns – it requires a coordinated, long-term effort that involves government ministries, educational institutions, media, and community leaders simultaneously.

States that have taken this multi-actor approach seriously show what is possible. According to research on state-level gender budgeting, states like Kerala and Odisha exemplify how gender-responsive budgeting can move beyond symbolic allocations to drive real social and economic empowerment of women, with the success depending on strong political will, institutional capacity, and local participation .

Intersectionality: A challenge within the challenge 🔗

Implementing the feminist approach becomes even more complex when we account for intersectionality – the recognition that gender does not operate in isolation. A woman’s experience of governance is also shaped by her caste, class, religion, disability, and location. A policy that benefits urban, educated women may have little relevance to, or may even disadvantage, Dalit women in rural areas.

Feminist governance must therefore move beyond a single-axis understanding of gender. Child marriage persists at a rate of 23%, and almost 49% of women aged 15 to 49 lack decision-making power over how to spend their own money . These statistics reflect layered disadvantages that a simple “women’s policy” cannot adequately address. Gender-sensitive governance must be intersectional governance – designed with the awareness that inequality operates across multiple dimensions at once.

Education, training, and institutional reform as pathways forward 🔗

Addressing all of these challenges ultimately requires a combination of education, institutional reform, and sustained political commitment. None of these elements work effectively in isolation.

Training public officials in gender analysis, unconscious bias, and intersectionality is essential. Capacity building through ongoing training of officials at both national and subnational levels has been critical for applying gender-responsive approaches and ensuring commitments turn into action. However, uneven training coverage and frequent staff turnover weaken institutional memory. This points to the need for institutionalised, continuous training rather than one-off workshops.

On the structural side, mandatory gender impact assessments – evaluating how proposed policies will affect different genders before implementation – can prevent gender-blind decisions from becoming entrenched. The UNDP’s GEPA report recommends that governments challenge and reform the overall workplace culture in public administration, penalise sexism and harassment in institutional cultures, and promote work-life balance for women and men – all of which are enabling conditions for the feminist approach to function.

The feminist approach does not ask governance to become something entirely foreign. It asks that governance become more fully itself – more accountable, more representative, and more responsive to all the people it is meant to serve. The challenges are real, but they are not insurmountable. What they require is not just policy, but political courage and sustained collective will.

What do you think? Given that even well-intentioned gender policies can fail when institutional culture remains patriarchal, what specific steps should public administrators take to move beyond tokenism toward substantive change? And how can citizens and civil society hold governments accountable for implementing the feminist approach not just in law, but in practice?

References

1. https://www.unicef.org/india/what-we-do/gender-equality
2. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13545701.2023.2168025
3. https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2021-12/UNDP-UPitt-2021-Gender-Equality-in-Public-Administration-Executive-Summary-EN2.pdf
4. https://wagner.nyu.edu/files/academics/GLOB1-GC2390.pdf
5. https://www.drishtiias.com/daily-updates/daily-news-editorials/gender-sensitive-policy-making
6. https://www.shankariasparliament.com/current-affairs/gender-budgeting-in-india
7. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/embedding-gender-equality-in-indias-fiscal-framework-the-role-of-gender-budgeting/
8. https://www.cbgaindia.org/research/gender-responsive-budgeting/
9. https://india.un.org/en/172095-gender-equality-and-youth-development
10. https://www.ispp.org.in/unveiling-the-impact-of-public-policies-on-womens-equality-in-india/
11. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11932463/
12. https://www.risingpowersinitiative.org/publication/indias-gender-policy-successes-shortcomings-and-the-way-forward/
13. https://inclusiveias.com/gender-budgeting-upsc/
14. https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2021-12/UNDP-UPitt-2021-Gender-Equality-in-Public-Administration-EN3.pdf