Draft not for quotation
Dr. Marjorie Lister
EUSA Annual Conference 
March 31-April 2, 2005

	
                Gender and European Union Development Policy

Introduction 
New approaches to international development, from the first ‘women in development’ 
strategies of the l970s to the empowerment and mainstreaming approaches of the 
l990s, have consistently pushed the boundaries of recognizing gender-based 
disadvantage and promoting more gender equality. But despite the passing of over 
three decades since gender aware approaches began to emerge in development policy, 
gender remains a marginalised area in standard development theory (Baylies 2002). 
Gender awareness is even more unusual in the foreign policy and security discourses 
which have come to accompany development policy ever more closely today 
(Maxwell 2005) but which are outside the main focus of this paper.  This paper 
analyses the context surrounding the inclusion of gender in EU development policy, 
and the principal steps the EU has taken towards including gender equality in its 
development policy.  

Gender and the EU

Gender has recently become an issue of increasing interest and importance to EU 
policy-makers. Despite the existence of pressure groups like the European Women’s 
Lobby,  the European Women Lawyers Association, and Women  in Development 
Europe, within the EU women as a group have not been mobilised  around gender or 
other issues. Therefore in practice women lack political power at the European level. 
Moreover, important theoretical debates surrounding European integration, including 
federalism and neo-functionalism, have typically been gender blind. They have failed 
to show how the process of European integration would affect the respective interests 
of women and men.  These theories usually failed even to question of different roles 
of women and men in the construction of Europe.     
  
The first basis of gender equality in the European Union lay in the constitutive treaty 
of the European Economic Community.  In a notable and progressive step, Article 
119 of the 1957 Treaty of Rome provided for equal pay for women and men for equal 
work, as France had already done. But the justification for this action was to 
harmonize labour costs, not to achieve gender equality. The debates surrounding the 
establishment of Treaty of Rome and Article 119 took into account the needs of the 
labour market, but never considered the interests of women (Hoskyns l996).  
Nevertheless, this debate did occur within the framework of an ongoing international 
post- World War II discourse of expanding human rights (Shaw 2002), a discourse 
which was not specifically designed to expand women’s rights but applied in general 
terms to women as well as men.     

Leon et al  argued that the pursuit of gender equality within the EU “rapidly (sic) 
developed into a social policy objective in its own right” (Leon et al 2003). But in 
actuality, even by 1988 the speech by Commission President Delors reintroducing 
social policy into the EU completely left out gender (Hoskyns 1996).  EU Social 
Affairs Commissioner Anna Diamantopoulou announced in 2003 that measures to 
implement equal treatment between women and men in the access and supply of 
goods and services (notably insurance and pensions) were the first ever EU steps to 
promote gender equality beyond the fields of pay, employment and social security. 
(European Parliament Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities 
2003a) (emphasis added).         

Thus, gender equality as a policy objective in the European Union has developed  
slowly over almost four decades. Commission President Prodi acknowledged in 2000 
that while the EU had made progress in terms of employment rights for women, 
progress in political terms still needed to be made (Prodi 2000)   Despite some gains 
for women in Europe from the EU, often from decisions of the European Court of 
Justice, the EU’s policies on gender have been relatively limited (Hoskyns 2000).  For 
instance,  EU support for ‘positive discrimination’ in favour of women in employment 
to offset past discrimination, and measures to combat sexual harassment in the 
workplace have been very partial (European Commission 2000a).

Like the Millennium Development Goals, the EU’s gender policies have suffered 
from a ‘top down’ or elitist manner of policymaking (Mazey 2002). They centred on 
law, employment and infrastructure issues.  These policies benefited mainly middle 
class and professional women rather than grassroots organizations and poor or 
socially excluded women.   Immigrant women and men, for instance, have often had 
their social and family reunification rights subordinated to immigration control issues 
in the EU. Even feminist movements in Europe have been slow to take up the 
concerns of immigrant and black women (Kofman l999).  However, the Community 
Framework Strategy on Gender Equality 2001-2005 does include the objective of 
supporting the human rights of women, especially migrant and ethnic minority 
women, including the sphere of asylum and immigration. It also includes objectives of 
incorporating gender analysis into development programmes and fighting human 
trafficking for sexual exploitation (European Commission 2000a). 

There is no doubt that a commitment to gender equality today comprises part of the 
European Union acquis, the acquired rights and benefits of the European political 
construction.  The EU’s foundational treaties and official statements and 
communications show, if not  rapid,  at least a forward-moving, development and 
enhancement of ideas of gender equality.   The ‘equal pay for equal work’ clause of 
the Treaty of Rome, no more than a slender historical thread supporting the EU’s 
gender equality regime (Shaw 2002),  was significantly expanded in the  l992 Treaty 
of Maastricht’s Article 141.  This article specified not only equal pay for  women and 
men for work of equal value,  but also equal treatment of men and women in matters 
of employment and occupation. It also allowed for ‘positive actions’ to make it easier 
for the under-represented sex to pursue a vocational activity or to compensate for 
disadvantages in professional careers.

Following the l995 Beijing Fourth World Conference on Women –in which the EU 
played a significant role in drafting the platform of action- the EU has progressively 
committed itself to gender equality as a goal and to gender mainstreaming as a tool 
for accomplishing this goal (European Commission 2003a).  Mainstreaming is a 
leading but controversial policy for incorporating gender considerations into all 
aspects of development.  Gender mainstreaming emerged as a reaction to the 
perception that ‘women in development’ offices within agencies were under resourced 
and marginalized while ‘women in development’ projects and policies were too 
narrowly focussed on women, to the neglect of men and the relations between the two 
genders.  Gender mainstreaming implies that both women and men should be 
involved in planning and setting the development agenda, so that the interests and 
needs of both sexes are met in practice (Arnfred 2002).   The obstacles to gender 
mainstreaming have ranged from outright resistance to a lack of accountability and 
competition from issues like race, age, and disability.       

In the run-up to the Treaty of Amsterdam, the EU continued to elaborate its gender 
agenda.  The September l995 Communication from the European Commission to the 
Council and the Parliament on “Integrating Gender issues in Development 
Cooperation” was followed in l996 by a Commission Communication “Incorporating 
Equal Opportunities for Women and Men into all Community policies and activities.”  
The European Council recommendation “On the balanced participation of women and 
men in the decision making process” specifically referred to the Beijing Platform for 
Action. It argued that balanced participation was a requirement for democracy and 
would result in more justice and equality in the world for both sexes (European 
Council 1996).  This gender balance in decision-making however has not yet been 
achieved; it was notably lacking in the creation of the new European Constitution (see 
below). 

The 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam progressed the European Union’s gender policy at the 
constitutive or Treaty level by reiterating previous Treaties’ provisions on gender 
equality in employment and making the promotion of equality and the elimination of 
inequalities between the sexes an aim for the Community in all of its actions.  The 
Amsterdam Treaty also introduced a non-discrimination clause allowing the Council 
of Ministers (but only under unanimity) to take action to prevent discrimination in 
terms of sex, race, ethnity, religion, disability, age or sexual orientation. These 
principles appeared in much the same form again in 2000 in the Treaty of Nice.   

It is interesting to note that unlike the usual process whereby EU policymaking 
principles and practices- and member states’ political and financial interests – 
strongly affect development cooperation (Lister 2002), in this instance the direction of 
influence was reversed.  That is, the policy of gender mainstreaming started in 
development and then flowed through into the EU more generally. The Commission’s 
communiqués of l995 and l996 mentioned above both focus on gender mainstreaming 
in the context of development and external relations. The latter one is often but 
erroneously (Wank 2003) considered to have given gender mainstreaming the wider 
applicability it achieved in later EU policies such as the  Council Recommendation on 
the balanced participation of women and men in the decision making process (l996) 
and the  Community Framework Strategy on Gender Equality 2001-2005. The 
Community Framework Strategy explicitly recognized its debt to the influence of the 
Beijing Platform for Action and to previous EU gender initiatives in the fields of 
external relations and development cooperation (European Commission 2000a).   
 
Within the EU structure, some member states have been more supportive of gender 
equality issues than others.  The British and Austrian EU presidencies of l998, and 
more generally the policies of Sweden, the Netherlands, the UK and France have been 
progressive towards gender issues; whereas Italy Ireland Greece and, in the case of 
development, the Portuguese Commissioner, were less favourable (Pollack and 
Hafner Burton 2000).   In the European Commission, female commissioners like 
Anna Diamantopoulou (quoted earlier) and the Equality Group of Commissioners led 
by President Santer kept gender issues on the EU agenda if not at the centre of EU 
concerns.  The role of his successor in 2004, Commission President Barroso, in 
progressing gender equality has yet to be evaluated.  

Another institution encouraging the EU to implement gender equality policies is the 
European Parliament’s Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities 
(FEMM).   Since l999 the 41-member Committee, chaired by Anna Karamanou and 
subsequently by Anna Zaborska, has been active in monitoring the Commission’s 
performance on gender issues. The Committee has  expressed strong views on 
subjects including the gender provisions of the planned European Constitution (for 
which it proposed numerous amendments), the  rights of women who live in rural 
areas of the EU,  the problems of women in Iraq and Afghanistan, and measures such 
as gender sensititive budgeting (European Parliament Committee on Women’s Rights 
and Equal Opportunities 2003b).

The European Constitution 

The European Convention began in 2002 to draft a new constitutional treaty for the 
European Union which could ultimately have a huge impact on all aspects of Union,  
including its structure and competences (European Convention 2003). The central 
problematique of the Convention was to create a stronger federal core for the EU as it 
enlarged to encompass 25 member states, whilst maintaining as much national 
autonomy for the member states as possible.  The President of the Convention, 
Giscard d’Estaing, frequently compared the importance of the European 
Constitutional Convention to that of the US Constitutional Convention in the late 18th 
century.  As in the case of its US counterpart, neither development policy nor gender 
played an agenda-setting role in the debates.   

The latter omission is not surprising given the under-representation of women in the 
Convention process. The 12-member Presidium which managed the preparation of the 
Draft Constitutional Treaty, for instance, included only one woman, who was not 
among the Chairman (sic) or two Vice-Chairs (Lister 2003).  For the Convention as a 
whole, as of February 2003, only 18 out of the 105 representatives were women. 
Some countries such as France and Denmark sent no women at all as full members 
(Leon et al 2003). 

This under-representation of women in the important constitutional process is 
completely at odds with the European Union’s explicit recognition of the importance 
of involving women in decision-making.  The European Council observed in l996  
that the ‘balanced participation of women and men in the decision-making process 
was a requirement for democracy  (European Council l996), and the European 
Commission, subsequently set  in 2000 a target of  40% women members for its 
expert groups and committees as women (Leon et al 2003).   Like the drafting 
process, the gender content of the Draft Constitutional Treaty attracted criticism.  
According to Presidium member Klaus Hansch, the battle over gender was not so 
much to expand the provisions in the Constitution, but just to maintain what already 
exists in the EU (European Parliament Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal 
Opportunities 20003a).     

Gender equality provisions in the Constitutional Treaty are substantial and include:   
the equality of women and men as one of the Union’s objectives; the positive 
obligation for mainstreaming equality; the fight against discrimination based on sex, 
ethnicity, and so forth; the commitment to equal pay, opportunities and treatment in 
matters of employment;  and measures against human trafficking. The incorporation 
into the Constitution of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (2000) also includes 
equality and human dignity as rights. Nevertheless, the first sixteen Articles of the 
Constitution mention gender equality only once and don’t list it among the Union’s 
‘core values’ in Article 2.  Despite the expression of gender equality values and 
provisions in the constitution, some analysists still doubt the EU’s political will to 
enforce and implement them (Leon et al 2003). Gender failed to percolate through to 
the sections on education, health, violence, asylum, citizenship, budgeting, defence 
and security policy (Wank 2003), or to agriculture and fisheries, or environment. 
Neither are the EU’s institutions required to have any specific gender balance. 

Gender balance in decision-making is not the only area that of the Constitution that 
has suffered from some policy gap between rhetoric and reality. The Convention was 
originally supposed to simplify and consolidate the EU’s treaty basis, thereby making 
it  closer and more  comprehensiveble to the citizen.  But in the end, the new 
Constitution was noted by Presidium member Gisela Stuart to be so complex it would 
be very hard for anyone outside the debates to make sense of it (Stuart 2003). 
No doubt the complexity of the proposed Constitution combined with the difficulty of 
meeting the expectations of the many states involved contributed to the failure of the 
negotiations in December 2003.  The success of the Irish presidency in reviving the 
treaty during the first half of 2004 was widely remarked.  The constitutional treaty 
was signed in October 2004 by the EU heads of state and government, but its 
ratification is still subject to a series of referenda in ten of the member states*, as well 
as parliamentary ratification in the others. 


*Already approved by Spanish voters in February 2005.   


Gender and Development in the EU

The inclusion of the gender dimension in EU development policy dates back to the 
Third Lome Convention (Lome III) signed in 1984. The Lome III agreement 
explicitly incorporated women for the first time into EU development policy, under 
the title ‘Cultural and Social Co-operation.’ The EU’s policy owed a considerable 
debt to the welfare approach to women in development (Turner l999).  Women were 
to be taken account of  in the sectors of  project appraisal, health, training, and 
production –and, in an arguably patronising phrase - in view of ‘the arduous nature of 
their tasks.’(Lome III, Article 123). However, the new recognition of women  in the 
Lome III text, was extremely low-key. Unlike the fight against desertification and the 
expansion of fisheries, the references to women were not listed by the official ACP-
EU journal The Courier at the time as counting among the ‘milestones’ of  Lome III 
(The Courier l985).  These gender-aware inclusions helped the EU keep pace with the 
wider international discourse and  occurred in the same year that the UN General 
Assembly mandated UNIFEM, the United Nations Fund for Women, to ensure 
women were included in development programmes (Sandler l997).   

The Fourth Lome Convention signed in l989 showed considerable progress on gender, 
with a sub-section devoted to ‘Women in Development’ and many more references to 
women in terms of human rights,  participation in economic and social processes, 
access to education and training,  welfare and environmental management. Lome IV 
took a step towards acknowledging the centrality of women’s activities to the success 
of development (the efficiency approach).  The failings of Lome IV lay in the lack of 
references to gender in the crucial areas of trade, structural adjustment, and Stabex 
(the fund to stabilise export earnings from commodities).  Moreover, Lome IV 
suffered from the absence of specific mechanisms for putting its gender aspirations 
into practice (Arts 2001).    
    
The Barcelona Declaration of l995 which established the Euro-Mediterranean 
Partnership between the EU and eleven southern Mediterranean states, plus the 
Palestinian Authority, made  positive references to women. A reference to non-
discrimination on the basis of sex appeared as a part of human rights-although there 
was no specific reference to women’s rights.  Nor were there any references to 
mainstreaming or expanding women’s rights in terms of health, reproduction or 
eradicating labour market discrimination (Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou 2002).   
Women’s key role in development was briefly recognized in the Barcelona 
Declaration under Economic Cooperation (and just above fish), but references to 
gender were conspicuously absent in the Social, Cultural and Human Affairs section 
of the Declaration.  In practice, women’s participation in politics decision-making and 
in formulating the Barcelona process was minimal.  No provisions for funding 
women’s projects through the European Investment Bank, and no regional 
programme solely for women were included under the EuroMediterranean (MEDA I 
or II) aid allocations. No provisions for gathering gender disaggregated data were 
included; neither did national indicative programmes show more than a partial and 
piecemeal attempt at addressing women’s needs (Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou 2002).  

While the Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou report for the Committee on Women’s Rights and 
Equal Opportunities of the European Parliament quoted above paid serious attention 
to gender issues, this was exceptional.  Neither the European Commission’s report on 
“Reinvigorating the Barcelona Process” (2000) nor the European Parliament’s Nair 
Report (2001) on the Commission’s document gave more than the sketchiest attention 
to gender.  Gender issues have got ‘a foot in the door’ of EuroMediterranean 
cooperation, but these issues are still far from the heart of the relationship.* 

The Cotonou Agreement of 2000 represented a step forward in gender terms from 
both the previous Lome and Barcelona processes.  Cotonou for the first time adopted 
an explicit gender and development approach, recognizing the importance both of the 
empowerment of women and the corollary of the appropriate involvement of men in 



*EU-Mediterranean cooperation itself seems increasingly far from the heart of EU politics and from 
the heart of the Middle East peace process (Peel 2004).  
all aspects of the development process (Equilibres & Populations, undated).  
Nevertheless, specific mechanisms for incorporating gender and even specific 
references to gender in the fields of economic cooperation, trade, structural 
adjustment and tourism are still lacking.  Thus, the Cotonou Agreement could be said 
at best to have partially mainstreamed gender. Constraints on gender mainstreaming 
in EU development policy include the lack of gender expertise in the Development 
Directorate-General, the lack of commitment by many officials to the goal and the 
lack of adequate funding for gender training and implementation (Pollack and Hafner 
Burton 2000).

Neither has gender reached the mainstream of  the much-vaunted political dialogue of 
the Cotonou Agreement.  Enhanced political dialogue between the EU and the now 79 
developing country members* of the African, Caribbean and Pacific States (ACP) 
was supposed to be a key feature of Cotonou.  The idea of a new and more open 
political dialogue has even been associated with turning the Agreement into the kind 
of equal partnership which has persistently escaped EU-developing country relations 
in practice (Lister l997).    However the positive potential of an expanded political 
dialogue has not so far been realized. The ngo activist Nancy Kwachingtwe asserted: 
“It is difficult to shake off the image that political dialogue will simply be more of the 
same-  meetings, summits and conferences that deliver little (Kachingwe 2003, 27).    
Problems over the organization of the two sides of the dialogue, the addition of new 
actors including non-state actors, and above all the imposition of sanctions for 
violations of ‘essential elements’ of the treaty, particularly by Zimbabwe, have 
overshadowed much of the discussion (Mackie 2003).    Gender issues have been 
notable mainly by their absence from the dialogue (Painter and Ulmer 2002).  

According to the EU, the strategy of gender mainstreaming “is a long-term step-by- 
step approach based on integrating gender issues into both policy and practice. 
(European Commission 2003a)  The European Union has to some extent recognized 
the necessity of special measures for women in addition to gender mainstreaming 
(European Commission 2003c). Therefore the Draft Regulation on Promoting Gender 
Equality in Development Cooperation 2004-2006 supplements its gender 
mainstreaming strategy with specific measures for women (European Commission 
2003a).  This could be seen as mainstreaming plus.  However, the Commission’s 
determination can be questioned: for its much-vaunted  programme to complement 
and support existing gender polices and catalyse new ones, 9 m euros were made 
available (European Commission 2003c, European Commission 2005), equivalent to 
just .0012% of the development budget for 2003.  The Annual |Report for 2004 shows 
that the cross-cutting theme of ‘women in development’ attracted 2.53 m euros or  a 
mere .00032% of total development assistance (European Commission 2004).   
Compared with the EU’s pledge of $460 m euros to fight AIDS, tuberculosis and 
malaria (European Commission 2004), the funds for fighting gender inequality are 
miniscule.       

It’s possible that the beginning of the 21st century marked the high water point for
gender and development in EU policy.  In the Consultation on the Future of EU 
Development Policy (2005), for instance, gender isn’t absent, but neither is it central 


*Cuba is a member of the ACP Group since 2000, but not a Cotonou signatory.

to the vision of the European Commission.  The Consultation focussed on issues such 
as poverty security, trade, and environment. Gender only appeared in section 8, as just 
one of the ‘EU values’ (p. 12) to be discussed with developing countries.   The 
document recognized the need for synergy between different aspects of EU external 
policies in terms of trade, peace, poverty and inequality, but without mentioning 
gender (p. 3). But synergies between gender and the environment, and gender and 
peace are of crucial importance.   The document noted that the mainstreaming of four 
so-called cross-cutting themes of gender equality, human rights, children’s rights and 
the environment remained merely a good intention within programming documents 
rather than a reality (European Commission 2005, p. 12).  The EU seems even to be 
unsure of what its cross-cutting themes are.  The 2004 Annual Report listed them 
under seven categories: human rights, democracy, gender sensitivity (italics added), 
children’s rights, conflict prevention and crisis management, environment, good 
governance and institution/capacity building (European Commission 2004, 51).

Conclusion
The European Union has gradually taken on board the objective of gender equality in 
its array of internal and external policies.  From Article 119 of the 1957 Treaty of 
Rome which guaranteed equal pay to men and women, to the Treaty of Maastricht in 
l992, gender equality was a low-key issue in the EU.  In development policy, the role 
of women was first recognized in the Third Lome Convention between the EU and the 
African, Caribbean and Pacific States in 1984, the same year that the United Nations 
Fund for Women was established to ensure women were included within development 
programmes.

By 1989, the Fourth Lome Convention showed much more awareness of women’s 
essential roles in development.  The Beijing Fourth World Conference on Women in 
l995 pushed gender awareness further to the front of international and EU attention.
The EU’s Treaty of Amsterdam (l997) made the elimination of gender inequalities an 
aim for the European Communities in all of its actions. The Cotonou Agreement of 
2000, which replaced the Fourth Lome Convention, tried to put gender into the
mainstream of the partnership of the EU and ACP countries, but like the Treaty of 
Amsterdam fell short by not establishing explicit mechanisms for achieving gender 
equality. More recently the proposed European Constitutional Treaty has consolidated 
rather than expanded gender equality in the EU – and the process of writing the treaty 
has not involved the equal participation of women. 

The enhanced political dialogue of the Cotonou Agreement so far has not focussed on 
gender issues, whilst the European Commission admitted that gender mainstreaming 
in development has remained merely a good intention.  Neither has the level of 
funding of gender initiatives been sufficient to change deep-rooted gender 
inequalities.  In contrast to the Beijing-plus 10 process which is reviewing the 
international gender agenda, the consultation process for the future of EU 
development cooperation in 2005 put gender into a subsidiary rather than a central 
role. Unless it devotes greater attention to this issue, European development 
cooperation risks entering a period of ‘gendersclerosis’ or stagnation in promoting 
gender equality            


 References
Arnfred, S. (2002) “Questions of Power” in Discussing Women’s Empowerment, Sida, 
Stockholm, no. 3, pp. 73-87.

Arts, K. (2001) “Gender Aspects of the Cotonou Agreement” Position Paper of 
WIDE, 2001, www.eurosur.org/wide

Baylies, C. (2002) “Feminist Scholarship in Development Studies”, E-paper 2, Centre 
for Interdisciplinary Gender Studies, University of Leeds, UK.

The Courier (l985) “Milestones in ACP-EU Cooperation”, no. 89, January- February, 
p. 32.

Equilibres & Populations (undated) “Position of the NGO contact group 
Development: Theme: Gender and Development”,  Paris. 

European Commission (2000a) “Communication from  the Commission to the 
Council, the European Parliament , the Economic and Social Committee and the 
Committee of the Regions, Towards a Community Framework Strategy on Gender 
Equality 2001-2005”  COM (2000) 335 final Brussels 7.6.2000. 

European Commission (2000b) “Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament 
and Council, amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the Implementation of the 
principle of equal treatment of men and women as regards access to Employment, 
vocational training, and working conditions”, COM 2000 334 final, Brussels 7 June.

European Commission (2002) Annual Report 2001 on the EC development policy and 
the implementation of the external assistance, Luxembourg. Office of Official 
Publications of the EC.   

European Commission (2003a) Gender Equality in Development Cooperation,  
Brussels, DE119, September.

European Commission (2003b) Annual Report 2003 on the EC development policy 
and the implementation of external assistance in 2002, Luxembourg. Office of 
Official Publications of the EC.   

European Commission (2003c) “Commission acts to promote gender equality in 
development co-operation”, Press Release IP/03/1174, 25 August.  

European Commission (2004) Annual Report 2004 on the European Community’s 
development and external assistance  Brussels, October. 

European Commission (2005) Consultation on the Future of EU Development Policy: 
Issues Paper,  DG Development,  07.01.

European Convention(2003) “Draft Treaty Establishing a Constitution for Europe”, 
18 July,  www.european-convention.eu.int.

European Council (l996) “Council Recommendation of 2 December l996 on the 
balanced participation of women and men in the decision-making process”, Official 
Journal L, 319  10.12.96  pp. 0011-0015,

European Parliament Committee on Women’s Rights and  Equal Opportunities 
(2003a) Gender Equality Newsletter,  no. 5, October,  p.1. 

European Parliament Committee on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities 
(2003b), Homepage,   www.europarl.eu.int/commitees/femm_home

Hoskyns, C.  (l996)  Integrating Gender: women, law and politics in the European 
Union, Verso, London, l996.

Hoskyns, C. (2000) “Integrating Gender in the EU”, paper to Women’s Studies 
Seminar Series, February 9, 2000, University of Bradford, UK. 

Kachingwe, K. (2003) “An elusive reality….political dialogue in the Cotonou 
Agreement”, The Courier, Brussels, no. 200, September –October, pp. 27.

Kofman, E. (l999) “Gender, Migrants and Rights in the European Union” in Fenster, 
T. ed., Gender, Planning and Human Rights,   London and New York, Routledge.

Kratsa-Tsagaropoulou, R. (2002) Report on EU policy towards Mediterranean 
partner countries in relation to the promotion of women’s rights and equal 
opportunities in these countries (2001/2129/(INI),  European Parliament Committee 
on Women’s Rights and Equal Opportunities, 23 January.  A5-022/2002 Final.  

Leon, M., Mateo Diaz, M. and Millns, S. (2003) “(En)Gendering the Convention: 
Women and the Future of the European Union” , paper to ECPR Conference, 
Marburg, Germany 18-21, Sept. 

Lister, M. (l997)  The European Union and the South,  Routledge, London and New 
York, l997.

Lister, M. (2002) “The EU’s Relations with Developing States” in Gower, J., ed,  
The European Union Handbook, 2nd ed., London, Fitzroy Dearborn. 

Lister, M. (2003) “Gender, development and EU foreign policy”, in Mollett, H., ed.  
Europe in the World, London, BOND.

Mackie, J. (2003) “Partnership and Political Dialogue under the Cotonou Agreement”, 
The Courier,  Brussels, no. 200, September –October, pp. 30-33.. 

Mazey, S. (2002) “Gender Mainstreaming Strategies in the EU”, Feminist Legal 
Studies, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 227-240.

Maxwell, S. (2005) “The Washington Consensus is dead! Long live the meta-
narrative!” ODI Working paper 243,   London, ODI,  January. 

Painter, G. and Ulmer, K. (2002) “Everywhere and Nowhere: Assessing Gender 
Mainstreaming the European Community Development Cooperation”, One World 
Action and APRODEV, October.  

Peel, Q. (2004) “A big idea that Europe won’t buy”, Financial Times,  February 5, p. 
17.  

Pollack, M. and Hafner Burton, E., (2000) Mainstreaming gender in the European 
Union”, European Journal of Public Policy,, vol. 7, no. 3, pp. 432-56.

Prodi, R. (2000) “Shaping the new Europe”, Speech to the European Parliament, 
Strasbourg, 15 February. 

Sandler, J. (l997) “Unifem’s experiences in Mainstreaming for Gender Equality”. 
www.unifem.org/index,  Nov. 27. 2003.

Shaw, J. (2002) “The European Union and Gender Mainstreaming”, Feminist Legal 
Studies, vol 3, no. 10, pp. 213-226.

Stuart, G. (2003) “Enlargement and the near abroad: will Europe be distracted, ODI 
and APGOOD seminar, House of Commons, July 1.

Turner, E. (l999) “The EU’s Development Policy and Gender” in Lister, M., New 
Perspectives on European Union Development Cooperation, Westview, Boulder and 
Oxford.

Wank, C. (2003) “Different Conceptualisations of Gender Mainstreaming in Different 
Institutional Settings” Paper presented to the Gender Politics section of the ECPR 
General Conference, Marburg, September 18-20.




1