A feminist critical discourse analysis of

Sida’s gender ideology

By: Clara Viklund Bornhauser

Supervisor: Tomas Kjellqvist

Södertörn University/ School of Natural Science,
Environmental Studies and Technology
Bachelor’s Thesis 15 credits
Development and International Cooperation SS 2020
Acknowledgment

Thank you Tomas Kjellqvist for being my reliable supervisor. I truly appreciated your expertise
and valuable advice. Thank you Clas Lindberg for supporting and believing in me all these
years! Thank you Fred Saunders for the interesting and fruitful discussion at the final seminar. I
also want to thank Rickard Lalander who gave me important feedback when I started this
journey.

December 2020

Clara Viklund Bornhauser

1
Abstract
This study offers a feminist critical discourse analysis of how Sida’s discourses can be viewed as
consolidating a gender ideology and power asymmetries in gendered social orders. Critical
discourse analysis (CDA) and feminist critical discourse analysis (FCDA) offer the theoretical
and methodological framework to the investigation of gender ideology in Sida’s discourses.
Postcolonial theory offers an additional theoretical framework with explanatory understandings
of the ideological assumptions identified.

According to the findings and in the light of chosen theories, this study suggests that a gender
ideology that is underpinned by colonial and capitalist ideologies can be identified in Sida’s
discourses. The results show that analyzes of how power systems operate in complex ways to
produce gendered inequalities are not accounted for by Sida, whereby their contestation and
transformation is hindered. It is also suggested that Sida, in complicity with other actors in the
international development arena, has appropriated and distorted feminist concepts in a way that
conceals dominant group interest and power dynamics. By shifting the focus away from such, it
is further argued that Sida risks reproducing colonial images of underdevelopment and
vulnerability as inherent to marginalized groups and as especially inherent to women.

This study further suggests that Sida’s consolidating of power asymmetries in discourses is
partially explained by the intertwining of institutions and discourses in the international
development arena. The reasons behind the power of the identified discourses are argued to serve
the maintenance of global hierarchies based on constructions of race and sex, in order to ensure a
status quo in the capitalist process of accumulation by dispossession, which continues to benefit
wealthy northern countries like Sweden.

Keywords:

Postcolonial theory, International development cooperation, empowerment, intersectionality,

power systems

2
Index
Acknowledgment 1
Abstract 2

Introduction 4

Previous studies- FCDA in the international development arena 5

Theoretical and methodological frameworks: CDA, FCDA and postcolonial theory 9

Six principles of FCDA 11
Postcolonial theory as a theoretical framework 13
Method- Gee’s tools of inquiry 15
Selections and delimitations of Material - Different parts of the feminist critical discourse analysis 19

Critical reflection of theory and method 20

Analysis and Results 22

Gender as a synonym to sex? 22
Empowerment without Power? 27
FCDA of thematic overview: Supporting women’s Economic Empowerment: Scope for Sida’s
engagement 31
A feminist critical discourse analysis of a project document granted by Sida 33
Discussion of findings 37

Conclusion 40

References 41

3
Introduction

Discourse analysis is according to Gee the study of how language is used in order to say and do
things, as well as enact different identities (Gee 2014a, p.9). A feminist critical discourse
analysis (FCDA) according to Lazar, further focuses on challenging discourses that consolidate
power asymmetries in gendered social orders. The objective is thereby to foster more just
societies (Lazar 2018, p.703- 708). Discourses can be underpinned by ideologies which can be
seen as sets of values and beliefs that are set in place by dominant social groups in order to
sustain power ( Flowerdew & Richardson 2018, p.34). “Gender” is by FCDA considered an
ideological structure and practice which stratifies people into a binary of men and women in a
social system of Patriarchy (Lazar 2018, p.704). Patriarchy is at the same time interlocking in
complex ways with other power systems with complex and context-specific effects on the ways
different individuals experience oppression (Mills 2008). Such systems and structures are
according to scholars and civil society offering important explanations to inequalities and
poverty.

The discourses in international development policy dealing with gender relations and
inequalities have changed over time and reflect changing explanations to poverty and inequalities
in societies. They have been criticized by scholars and civil society for various reasons and
alternative understandings of reality and discourses driven by them have influenced these
international discourses in different ways. The changes in discourses over time reflect such
influence as well as the negotiations of definitions due to conflicting interests of different actors
at play.

In the 1970s international- and donor agencies used a discourse of “women in development”
(WID). According to Charlesworth, the approach came to be criticized as deficient as it narrated
women as “a special interest group within the development sphere needing particular
accommodation” (Charlesworth 2005, p.2), not disputing the sustained biases in the existing
structures of development. It was assumed that when societies became industrialized and
modernized all would benefit equally if only women were equally integrated into the system
(Rathgeber 1989, p.4-6). A system that according to Pala (1977) was also criticized for
recreating dependency of marginalized counties and especially African countries on countries
that were industrialized. The WAD perspective emerged as a critique to WID and focused more
on the relationship between women and development processes. An analysis of gender
constructions and relations as a dimension to women's lower status, as well as of other factors to
women's oppression such as class and race was still widely missing (Rathgeber 1989, p.9-10).
Finally, the GAD perspective emerged with the idea of focusing on the construction of and the
relationship between gender. The GAD perspective is today widely adopted through "gender

4
mainstreaming" as a technique for responding to inequalities between women and men in
international institutions (Charlesworth 2005, p.2). The method, which has also been adopted by
Sida, has nevertheless been criticized for lacking the nuanced analysis that was expected when it
first emerged.

Different discourses in the international development arena are still criticized by scholars for not
considering power dynamics and offering deeper analyzes of inequalities in society. The feminist
concept of gender has for instance in the method of gender mainstreaming according to scholars
been appropriated and distorted to mean simply men and women, bypassing its performative and
ideological character (Charlesworth 2005, Fenella Porter & Caroline Sweetman 2005, Nicola
Lacy 1998, Baden & Goetz 1997). Similarly, the term empowerment has shifted from
investigating power relations, to advocating individual progress and patronage (Loomba and
Lukose 2012, p.2). The feminist theory of Intersectionality offers yet another example of a
feminist endeavor that is often used in a way that is not in line with its core principles, narrowing
the scope of the concept and depoliticizing it (May 2015, p.2- 3).

In this thesis, Sida’s definitions in regard to feminist concepts and gender-related discourses,
ideological in character, will be analyzed combining Gee’s critical discourse analysis method,
FCDA, and postcolonial theory. The findings will then be discussed in relation to the critique
conveyed by scholars regarding identified gender ideologies in discourses in the international
development arena.

Previous studies- FCDA in the international development arena

The following feminist critical discourse analyzes offer a backround to and some explanatory
understandings of the findings in Sida’s discourses.

The depoliticization of the feminist concept of “gender” in the method of gender mainstreaming
according to Charlesworth leads back to negotiations prior to the Bejing Platform for Action in
1995. Concerns that the word might include homosexuality or even bestiality resulted in the
establishment of a contact group of sixty states to formulate an agreeable definition of the term.
The contact group’s deliberation clarified that the term gender would retain its prior meaning in
the platform for action (UN 1996). If it was also established to eradicate the possibility that the
term might refer to socially constructed feminine and masculine identities, is unclear, states
Charlesworth (2005, p.16-17). The Holy See however recorded a statement that: “gender is
understood by the Holy See as grounded in biological sexual identity, male and female (..)”
(Pope John Paul 11 1995), and the International Criminal court adopted a similar definition,
making the understanding of the term unambiguous. Some of the southern activists at the NGO

5
Forum of the Beijing conference argued that feminist policy ambitions are sacrificed to simplify
the institutionalization of the concept of “gender”. Instead of a transformative project for gender
relations, “gender” has become a synonym for “woman” (Baden & Goetz 1997, p.3).

The “U.N. Economic and Social Council” (ECOSOC) took up the strategy of gender
mainstreaming that had been established at the “Fourth World Conference on Women'', in 1997
and then encouraged the U.N. and the General Assembly to systematically mainstream a gender
perspective into all areas of their work. The definition and approach of gender mainstreaming
adopted by ECOSOC in 1997 has later also been followed by many development organizations
(Moser & Moser 2005, p.2). As we shall see, Sida is one of them. According to Lacy (1998,
p.235), the complex interdependence of institutions can cause reform efforts, like commitments
to gender mainstreaming, of one single international institution to be undermined by general
structures of power that are based on hierarchies of sex and gender in the international arena. In
the light of this view of institutions and discourses as interdependent, the critique of the use of
the concept of gender and gender mainstreaming offered by scholars is relevant to the
investigation of Sida’s related approaches.

U.N. mainstreaming policies are according to Baden & Goetz using the term "gender" as a
synonym to biological sex, bypassing the constructed aspect of gender. It does not capture how
power relations between the sexes are constructed and reproduced (Baden & Goetz 1997, p.3).
The complexity of how gender relations intersect with other constructions of power relations in
specific contexts is not captured either states Charlesworth (Charlesworth 2005, p.18). Moreover,
since "gender" is primarily associated with women it leaves the roles of men and male gender
identities unexamined. The problems women face are therefore seen as a result of women's
shortcomings or inherent vulnerability and require solely women to change, not men (ibid,
p.11;15). The narrow conception allows problems associated with women to be seen as “the
product of particular cultures, lack of participation in public arenas, or lack of information or
skills” (Charlesworth 2005, p.15). Charlesworth concludes that the feminist concept of gender
has been “stripped of any radical or political potential” (ibid,16). Porter and Sweetman (2005,
p.4) argue that the gender mainstreaming policy needs to adopt more nuanced local
understandings of how gender and other complex power relations of varying identities form an
individual's reality in any given context.

Another example of scholars’ critique of discourses in the international development arena is

offered in regard to Agenda 2030 for sustainable development and the way the concept
“empowerment” is used. Since “The policy framework for Swedish development cooperation
and humanitarian aid” is based on the sustainable development goals articulated in Agenda 2030
and Sweden and Sida according to Sida have an important role in this work (Sida 2020), the way
the agenda is criticized by scholars is relevant to the investigation of Sida’s discourse.

Esquivel analyses Agenda 2030 for sustainable development from a feminist perspective in their

6
article where they problematize that the agenda aims at 'transforming our world' without
challenging power relations (Esquivel 2016, p.9- 12). It does not question the ways that
inequalities are recreated at national and global levels concerning wages, wealth and power, "nor
does it attempt to transform power relations between the north and the south, between the rich
and the poor and between men and women" (Esquivel 2016, p.12, referring to women's major
group 2014).

​Maintaining a conservative take on gross domestic product (GDP), Agenda 2030 according to
Adams and Tobin links GDP and economic growth with social progress (Adams & Tobin 2014).
The SDGs are hence thought to be achieved through economic growth, raising the industry's
share of gross domestic product and employment. Social protection and redistributive policies
are tied to a proviso of “grow first, redistribute later” (Esquivel 2016, p.11). This provides a
liberal approach, argues Esquivel, that suggests economic growth results in development
independent from actions and policies and where multinationals and other private sectors are
seen as stakeholders in development (ibid, 11-12). Women's empowerment is understood as
mainly an aftermath of economic growth, failing to problematize how patriarchal structures often
hinder women to participate and gain from growth on equal terms (Kabeer 2016).

Prior to the UN commission on the status of women, The Expert Group Meeting (EGM) shed
light on the varying definitions of the term "empowerment" used in the development and human
rights communities (EGM 2016 p.11). Social movements use an explicitly political definition
while the definition is cautiously technical and apolitical when used by donors and investors,
which is reflected in the way the term is used in Agenda 2030. Mosedale suggests that dominant
group interests are thereby concealed, and power relations left untouched (Mosedale 2014). "In
other words, it becomes 'empowerment without power'" (Esquivel 2016, p.14).

Loomba also states that an international “women’s development network” has emerged “linked
to non-governmental organizations, international aid-giving bodies and development agencies
which tour the world with programs for women’ s empowerment” ( Loomba 2015, p.225- 226).
Together with local organizations, some of them have worked in order to change women's
conditions for the better, whereas others have operated within the “colonialist legacy of carrying
enlightenment from the West to the rest of the world” (Loomba 2015, p.226). In postcolonial
countries, feminists have also criticized the way feminist vocabulary has been appropriated and
distorted by international funding organizations among other actors. According to Loomba and
Lukose (2012, p.2) for instance, the concept of “empowerment” has been used in a way that
encourages individual advancement or patronage, instead of focusing on collective opposition
and the redistribution of resources. "Empowerment" Mosedale states, is a term that when used
genuinely “always involves changing unequal power relations" (Esquivel 2016, p.14, referring to
Mosedale 2014).

7
Problem formulation

Scholars have identified different discourses underpinned by ideologies that are used by different
actors in the international development arena. International aid- giving bodies and other actors
have been criticized for not offering enough investigation and analysis of how power relations in
complex ways create and sustain systemic inequalities based on gender in the social system of
“patriarchy”, where, generally seen, men as a social group are privileged. Other power systems
such as heteronormativity, capitalism, neoliberalism, and colonialism are viewed as intersecting
in complex ways with the social system of patriarchy, creating stratified social categories that
intersect with gender in different ways. Analyzes of such complex realities are seen as crucial to
the understanding of gender relations and inequalities, and to enable real change in marginalized
people's lives. (Charlesworth 2005; Esquivel 2016; Moser & Moser; Rathgeber 1989). Different
actors in the international development arena have also been criticized for appropriating and
distorting feminist concepts, in a way that harms feminist policies (Baden & Goetz 1997, p.3).
Further, some aid- giving bodies are said to still operate within the “colonialist legacy of carrying
enlightenment from the West to the rest of the world” (Loomba 2015, p.226).

The Swedish International Development Cooperation Sida is a Swedish agency that works for
the Swedish government's ministry for Foreign Affairs, with the goal to reduce global poverty.
Gender equality is said to be a priority issue because it is a prerequisite for the elimination of
poverty (Sida 2020). From a CDA/FCDA perspective, working against gender inequality and
eliminating poverty requires understanding how inequality and poverty was and is created in the
first place (Fairclough 2018, p.49-51). The criticism conveyed by scholars and civil society
concerning the lack of analysis and investigations of power dynamics hence arise questions
about Sida’s discourses. Since international institutions are interdependent in complex ways
(Nicola Lacy 1998, p.235), Sida’s discourse can be seen as taking part in “larger discourses”,
such as Swedish development discourses formed by the Swedish government and discourses in
the international development arena. This renders a feminist critical discourse analysis of Sida’s
discourses relevant. The thesis of this study is that Sida entrenches a gender ideology in its
discourses, which seen from an FCDA perspective may harm individuals and groups.

Purpose

By examining how sexist assumptions and inequalities become “common sense” in societies and
discourses, Feminist CDA scrutinizes the complex and varying ways by which gender ideologies

8
that consolidate power asymmetries, are being normalized and established and how they may be
contested.

My attempt of conducting a feminist critical discourse analysis will be dedicated to the

investigation of Sida’s gender ideology, and the purpose of the analysis is in line with the
objective of the field of FCDA: “Focusing on social justice and transformation, the objective of
FCDA is to demystify and challenge discourses that continue to buttress gendered social orders
in various ways, which harm and foreclose socially progressive possibilities for individuals and
groups.” (Lazar 2018, p.704).

The objective of a feminist critical discourse analysis of Sida’s gender ideology then becomes to
analyze in what ways and for what underlying reasons Sida’s discourses in various ways
entrench gendered social orders and power asymmetries, which harm individuals and groups and
hinder possibilities for progressive developments. The purpose is to contribute to transformation
and social justice.

Research question

In what ways and for what reasons do Sida’s discourses entrench power asymmetries in gendered
social orders from a feminist critical discourse analysis (FCDA) perspective?

Theoretical and methodological frameworks: CDA, FCDA and

postcolonial theory

While some approaches to discourse analysis only study what is meant by the way language is
used, the standpoint of “critical” discourse analysis (as well as FCDA) is that since language is
political, discourse analysis has to deal with politics in order to fully describe it.

According to Gee, every person engages in some type of practice where one wants to be
accepted and recognized as a certain identity like a good student, Christian, or football fan for
instance. Similar to games, the practices that these identities take part in have certain rules that
one needs to follow in order to gain recognition and acceptance. Like in games there are hence
things at stake, and there are winners and losers. If no one cared about a certain practice and
about being recognized as engaging in it through the use of language and other things, then it
would cease to exist. Further, anything some people in a society want and value, is what Gee
calls social goods (Gee 2014a, p.6). Engaging in different practices hence has consequences for
social goods since they always involve people who value acceptance or recognition within that

9
practice. Politics, according to them, is at a deep level about the distribution of social goods. It
determines who gets what in terms of power, money, and acceptance for instance. Since
language is always about engaging in some type of practice, and social goods and how they are
distributed are always at stake, language is in a deep sense always political, argues Gee (ibid,
p.8).

Critical discourse analysis does not only seek to explain what language means but seeks to speak
to or intervene in political issues (ibid, p.9). CDA seeks to critically investigate discourse as a
dimension to power asymmetries and social problems. (Lazar 2018, p.703-704). The objective of
CDA is according to Fairclough to change social life 'for the better', and its essence is the
relation between critique, explanation, and (political) action. To know what we need to change
and how it can be achieved, we need explanatory understandings of social reality. Otherwise, we
cannot move from critique towards action. CDA hence offers explanatory understandings of
relations between discourse and social life. These need to go beyond power in discourse to also
explain the power behind it. CDA collaborates with other disciplines and theories that provide
explanatory analyses of for instance capitalism, politics, etc. (Fairclough 2018, p.49-51).

FCDA makes up a field within CDA scholarship and shares its standpoints while focusing on
the complex dimension of power asymmetries which are entrenched by gender ideologies in
discourses. FCDA is not CDA simply focusing on “gender” as an object of research, but a field
driven by contemporary developments in critical feminist thought states Lazar. It draws upon
critique of structural inequalities created by different power systems like that of patriarchy,
associated with ‘second-wave feminism’. FCDA also draws upon feminist’s understandings of
"post-structural, transnational, queer, postcolonial and intersectional theories”, associated with
third-wave feminism (Lazar 2018, p.703-705).

In this study, FCDA and its six main principles provide the theoretical framework for the
discourse analysis of Sida's gender ideology. Further Gee's approach to critical discourse analysis
provides the methodological framework offering different tools of inquiry for conducting the
analysis. However, theory and method are in the case of critical discourse analysis not clearly
separated as theory plays a crucial part when conducting the analysis. In order to critique Sida’s
gender ideology, scholar's feminist critical discourse analysis of discourses in the international
development arena as well as postcolonial theory will provide explanatory understandings of the
social reality that Sida intervenes in as well as the assumptions made in Sida’s discourse, keeping
in mind that the essence of FCDA is the relation between critique, explanation, and action
(Fairclough 2018, p.49-51). How power asymmetries in gendered social orders are sustained and
produced globally according to these theories hence offer explanations and critique not only of
power in Sida’s discourse but the power behind it, which is crucial to CDA (ibid).

10
Six principles of FCDA

Sida’s discourse and gender ideology will be analyzed in relation to the six main principles of
FCDA outlined by Lazar (2018). The following six main principles hence guide the analysis:

Gender

Contemporary theories have exhibited that gender is displayed as plural and fluid. However, a
rigid binary with respective gender stereotypes predominates in ‘common sense’ understanding.
This dualism is reproduced through the complicity of men and women both institutionally and in
everyday practice, although it can also be contested and changed by those who disapprove.
Based on a critical perspective on ideologies as “group-based socio-cognitive representations of
practices in the service of power” (Fairclough 1992; van Dijk 1998, referred to in Lazar 2018,
p.705), “gender” is by FCDA regarded to be an ideological structure and practice which splits
people hierarchically into a binary, founded on assumptions about the naturalness of sexual
differences.

Moreover, different socially stratified identities intersect in a matrix of gender, class,

ethnicity/race, sexuality, etc. While gender is an important ideological structure in the
intersection with these other identities, the effect and experience of gender structure is materially
and discursively constructed differently for different women and men depending on context
(Wodak 2003). The social categories of “women/men”, are hence seen as diverse and changing
(Lazar 2018, p.703- 708).

Power

Power is fundamental to critical research of gender identities and relations. Two understandings
of power have been important to FCDA:

“Patriarchy” is viewed as a social system of hegemonic masculinist supremacy and systemic

discrimination based on gender. It is a social system which at the expense of women, privileges
men (Mills 2008). This does not mean that all men are complicit in holding and exercising
power. Power however continues to be predominantly held by individual men and the “social
group of men”, both materially and symbolically. Further capitalism, neoliberalism, colonialism,
and heteronormativity are other systems of power that are viewed as intersecting with the system
of patriarchy in complex ways (Lazar 2018, p.706).

11
 Feminist’s conception of power relations has on the other hand been shaped by Foucault’s
understanding of power (Lazar 2018 referring to Foucault 1977, p.706). “Gender configuration
of power” consists of aspects of intimacy as well as social relations of larger patterns.
Normalizing power operates through a complex network of authoritarian technologies and
disciplinary systems, producing human subjects of self-regulation (Diamond and Quinby 1988,
referred to in Lazar 2018, p.706).

Constitutive view of discourse

Discourses are seen as partially constructing social practices and at the same time as constructed
by them (Fairclough 1992). Social identities, relations, and orders are reproduced or contested
and transformed partly through language. The performance and accomplishment of gendered
identities as iterative within specific social and historical contexts has been emphasized by
feminist and queer scholars. Gender categories are hence not to be seen as immanent through
their practices but continuously performed and are seen as playing out within sets of other
“identities” as more or less prominent, depending on the context. FCDA aims at investigating
how gender plays out in such identity matrices and further examines the co- constructed-ness of
gender relations in discourse. Asymmetrical power relations can be consolidated by ideological
assumptions that are displayed in ways of doing or depicting “men” and “women” across public
and private areas and can be uttered subtle, overt, ambivalent, or unambiguous in discourse
(Lazar 2018, p.706-707).

Critical reflexivity

In late modernity critical awareness amongst people is seen as one clear feature (Giddens 1991;
Fairclough, Mulderrig and Wodak 2011, referred to in Lazar 2018, p.707). FCDA is interested in
how the practice of critical reflexivity is made use of in different ways. Critically aware persons
and institutions can generate progressive social changes and/or constructive dialogue through for
instance creating environments that are inclusive of all people. On the other hand, critical
reflexivity like progressive feminist politics can also be appropriated by actors for non-feminist
purposes. For example, feminist sounding discourses are known to be used and spread by
advertises strategically merely to profiteer from it, which can harm feminist politics. (Lazar
2018, p.707-708).

Analytical activism

Knowing that discursive issues have material consequences for specific social groups, FCDA

12
scholars can be viewed as forming communities of activism in their contribution towards socially
just societies respectful of all persons. This calls for a constant imagining of ways of “doing” and
“becoming” where one aim is for gender not to predestine one’s interactions, relationships, and
sense of self (Lazar 2018, p.708). Maintaining an openness towards voicing critique is a way
towards this goal as well as establishing communities of resistance (Hooks 1984 p.149).

Transnationalism

Acker (2006) states that FCDA requires contextualized local analysis of data set in a context of
wider discursive and social processes, as this can offer more insight to discourse strategies
enacted in local practices that have global relevance as well. Asymmetrical gender relations
remain a global concern why it is important to research how discursive strategies of various
kinds are adopted in response to gender ideologies operating in convergent and/or divergent
manners. It also enables the examination of discursive assumptions that are transnational in
nature (Lazar 2015a, referred to in Lazar 2018, p.708).

Postcolonial theory as a theoretical framework

The following postcolonial theory offers explanations and critique not only of power in Sida’s
discourse but the power behind it, which is crucial to CDA (Fairclough 2018, 49-51).

Colonial/ Postcolonial theory on the “feminization of global poverty”

Although
​ the term Post Colonialism has not one agreed-upon meaning globally, Loomba
suggests that rather than being merely an event coming after the demise of colonialism, it can be
thought of as “the contestation of colonial domination and the legacies of colonialism” (Loomba
2015, p.32). Colonialism is by Loomba defined as “the forcible takeover of land and economy,
and, in the case of European colonialism, a restructuring of non-capitalist economies in order to
fuel European capitalism” (ibid, p.40).

Loomba cites Marx who explains that the enclosure of the commons was vital to the rise of
capitalism and the accumulation of wealth by a few. In the colonizing as well as colonized parts
of the world this meant dis-possessing big parts of the population. Dispossessed and landless
people were as a result forced into a cash economy which means that their work, and in the case
of enslaved people, their bodies were commodified (ibid, p.255). Since it is a redefined and
ongoing process in today's globalization, according to Harvey (2005 p.144) it is best described as

13
“accumulation by dispossession” (instead of Marx’s definition of “primitive accumulation”), a
process which according to Banerjee is central to neoliberal development. According to them, it
means “losing rights over nature, livelihood practices, related knowledge, even culture- all that
capital needs to appropriate for its expansion and increasing profit” (Banerjee 2013, p.172).
Scholars like Graeber and Picketty further suggest that inequality is both the precondition as well
as the product of capitalism (Graeber 2011; Picketty 2013). Capitalism depends on hierarchies,
and so the economic needs of the colonialists were met by an imperial mission based on
hierarchies of races states Loomba. Subdivisions were further entrenched between groups and
tribes in colonial practices (Loomba 2015, p.133). Patriarchy was hence often established or
intensified by colonialism, either by undermining cultures and practices that were
women-friendly or matrilineal or by inflaming women's oppression further (ibid, p.166).
According to Loomba the development of sexuality, gender and race hence occurred together in
the colonial space. Not only were colonized women objectified in colonial discourses, but the
colonial machine was fed by their labor. If, as Loomba puts it, “female slaves were the backbone
of plantation economies”, the colonial legacy of exploitation continues in patterns of
globalization and ‘postcolonial’ developments so that constructions of race and sex according to
Mitter continue to constitute the main principles of the international division of labor (Mitter
1986 p.6). The most exploited of the world’s workers today are hence non- white women in the
post-colonial area according to Loomba, something that the economist Standing termed “the
feminization of labor’ (quoted in Moghadam 2005, p.7). In the postcolonial world women are
still the poorest of the poor, argues Loomba (2015, p.170-171). The “feminization of global
poverty” was according to them a result of “a decline in public welfare, an erosion of the public
sector economy, the debunking of centralized planning after the fall of the Soviet Union and the
structural adjustment programs that enforced neoliberal capitalism upon most poor countries”
(Loomba 2015, p.225)

Ehrenreich and Hochschild (2002, p.4) further argue that the global transfer of services from
poor countries to rich ones is what makes the lifestyle of the latter possible. More than being the
outcome of the “global division of labor under the dictates of capital accumulation” (Loomba
2015 p.224, referring to Mies 1986), women’s oppression hence must be understood as a global
issue and can only be changed if also involving overdeveloped parts of the world (Loomba
2015, p.224).

Colonialism and knowledge

According to Loomba human knowledge was completely reshaped by colonialism. No branch of

learning was left out (ibid, p.71). In Europe, circulating images of non- Europeans and assertions
about their inferiority came to justify the expansion of colonialism. An extensive flood of images

14
rooted in these earlier notions was now generated (Loomba 2015, p.71- 72). Through western
science, conceptions about inferior races were further constructed and entrenched, invoking
“nature” to explain physical and cultural attributes. By presenting itself as factual and value-free
(by for instance leaving out political arguments), western science could present its biases about
race and gender as objective truths (ibid, p.77- 78). Non- Europeans were depicted as
civilisationally underdeveloped and as children who needed to be provided for as well as
disciplined into obedience by their parent, the colonial state. This was “the white man’s burden”
(ibid, p.210). Further, even though as already mentioned patriarchy was frequently entrenched
through European colonialism, its “civilizing mission” was often justified by asserting it was
rescuing native women from the barbarity of native men (ibid, p.155-156). The barbarism of
natives was constructed as the opposite of Europe's self-image as civilized (ibid, p.72).

Finally, in scientific discourse, analogies between “women, blacks, the lower classes, animals,
madness and homosexuality” (Loomba 2015, p.161) were put forward. According to Stepan,
females were presented as the lower race of gender “It was claimed that women’s low brain
weights and deficient brain structures were analogous to those of lower races, and their inferior
intellectualities explained on this basis (...)” (Stepan 1990, p.40).

Method- Gee’s tools of inquiry

A tool of inquiry is a question that can be asked of any data when doing a discourse analysis and
makes the analyst connect semiotic details to what the writers mean and are trying to accomplish
by the way language is used. The purpose of the analysis determines how narrow or broad a
transcript needs to be and what tools yield the most illuminating information. Gee states that it is
useful to transcribe for more detail in the beginning than may be relevant in the end. To begin
with, I chose 23 out of the 28 tools provided by Gee, excluding tools that I found to be either
mostly important to spoken language or whose purpose can be fulfilled by using other tools.
After conducting the analysis, I then eliminated tools that turned out not to be essential. Out of
Gee’s 23 considered tools, I have used 11. Below, I have summarized my eleven tools of choice
(Gee 2014b, 2-3). In the analysis of any utterance, the number of any of Gee’s analytical tools
used is attached.

Context and meaning

In culture and communication, only the “tip” of the iceberg is overtly stated. Under the surface
lies the vast amount of knowledge and assumptions that are taken for granted as common
understanding inferable from context. To conduct a discourse analysis, we need to ask ourselves

15
questions about what assumptions and information readers are assumed to know and what
inferences we are assumed to bring to any communication. We may then see aspects of
assumptions that are doing harm to ourselves or others and that we might want to question (ibid,
p.14). “The fill-in tool” (tool#2), helps us make taking-for-granted information new and strange
by asking questions about what needs to be filled in to achieve clarity to an utterance (ibid,
p.18-19).

In each context, we have to actively “make up” the meaning of utterances and words. It becomes
a routine to ascribe specific meanings in specific contexts. This specific meaning is what Gee
calls “Situated meaning”. A word or utterance can have a variety of possible meanings whereas it
takes on a more specific meaning in a specific context. Notice the change of meaning of the word
“coffee” as the context changes: “The coffee spilled, go get the mop” (coffee as liquid), “The
coffee spilled, go get a broom” (coffee as grains)” (Gee 2014b, p.158- 159), “The Situated
Meaning Tool” (Tool#23) makes us ask what specific meanings have to be ascribed to phrases
and words considering the context and how it is construed (ibid, p.158- 159).

Who doing What?

As language is not merely used to convey information but to carry out various actions, “The
doing and not just saying tool” (Tool#7) makes us ask questions about what the speaker or writer
is trying to do with what is being said (ibid, p.50).

We further need to know who is speaking to understand what the speaker or writer means as
well as what identity the speaker is speaking out of in the specific context. We use language to
build an identity and for others to recognize that certain identity. Our identity-building shifts
depending on the context, e.g. doctors can either act out their profession and will then talk and
act in a different way than they will if they talk to someone as their friend (Gee 2011, 2). When
using the “Identity Building Tool” (Tool#16) we ask questions about what identity a speaker or
writer is trying to build and get recognized as. We also ask what identities the speaker or writer
is ascribing to others (ibid, p.112; 116).

According to Gee, “Discourses” with a capital “D” are various styles of language to enact
recognizable social identities together with other things like dressing, feeling, acting, or valuing
as well as getting in sync with for instance various objects, tools, and technologies. To
demonstrate that you are a basketball player it is for instance not enough to just talk about it, you
also have to “do a basketball player” on a basketball court in front of people with a basketball
(Gee 2011, p.35). “Recognition” is the key to Discourses. If you put language and other “stuff”
together in such a way that others recognize you as a specific “who” (identity) doing a certain
type of “what” (activity), then you have enacted a Discourse. It must resemble other
performances enough to be recognized. If it is not, then you are not actually “in” the Discourse.

16
If it is however different from what has been done before but still recognizable, it can change the
Discourse. “Recognition and being recognized” bears consequences for all of us all the time as it
is about our identities being recognized and about being members of social groups that are
meaningful to us. You might for example want to be recognized as a “good student” or a “gang
member”. They both involve the “appropriate way” of
“acting-interacting-thinking-valuing-talking-(sometimes writing-reading)” at the “appropriate
time with the “appropriate” properties in the “appropriate” spaces (Gee 2011, p.34-35; 41).

To use the “The Big “D” Discourse Tool” (Tool#27) then amounts to ask how a person uses
language together with manners of “acting, interacting, believing, valuing, dressing, and using
various objects, tools, and technologies in certain sorts of environments to enact a specific
socially recognizable identity and engage in one or more socially recognizable activities” (Gee
2014b, p.186). If the only data at hand is language, questions can be asked about what identity
the writer or speaker is trying to enact and what other things are associated with this language
within a certain Discourse (ibid, p.186). I will use the word discourse with a little “d” to mean
the same as Gee’s definition of Discourse with a big “D”.

There are communicative systems like equations and images that are not a part of language. All
these different systems, including Discourses, are what Gee calls “sign systems”. Different views
of belief and knowledge are represented by different sign systems and their participants can build
privilege for one over the other by claiming the knowledge of one sign system over others. For
communicating and producing knowledge about the physical world, physicists for example
believe that the language of mathematics is superior to English. “The Sign System and
Knowledge Building Tool” (Tool#21) ask us to investigate how sign systems are privileged or
de- privileged depending on how words and grammar are being used and to investigate claims to
knowledge and belief (ibid, p.141- 142).

Discourses set in wider contexts

Anything a society or social group takes to be a desirable good is what Gee calls a social good.
With language, we build what counts as social goods as well as viewpoints on how social goods
should be distributed in society, based on which these are then distributed. (Gee 2014b, p.126).
Goods like for instance being viewed as an “insider” or an “outsider”, are important for the
distribution of social goods and ultimately determine who holds status and power in society.
Therefore, any situation where the distribution of social goods is at stake, is what Gee calls
“politics” (ibid, p.96; 126). When using ”The Politics Building Tool” (Tool#18), we ask
questions about how words and grammatical devices are chosen to construct what is taken to be
social goods and views on how they should be distributed in society (ibid, p.126).

A simplified world that captures what is considered normal or typical is a so-called “figured

17
world”. Depending on different cultural and social groups as well as context, what is perceived
as being normal or typical varies. The various figured worlds are not static and can change as
society changes. Because people's experiences vary due to their social and cultural groups, so
does what they take to be typical or normal. In order to live without having to think about every
possible exception all the time, we use these simplified pictures of the world. It helps us to get
things done. However, it can be bad when people who do not fit the story of what is seen as
“typical”, are being marginalized by them. Using “The Figured World Tool” (Tool#26), we ask
questions about what figured worlds the utterance is displaying and simultaneously inviting
readers to assume (ibid, p.174-177).

Through language, things can be connected to or disconnected from each other and thereby
made relevant or irrelevant to each other. Even if some connections in the world exist no matter
what we say or do, they can still be obscured through language. In an utterance like: “Malaria
kills many people in poor countries” (Gee 2014b, p.96-97), the connection is made between
malaria and poverty. If it is, on the other hand, stated that: “Malaria kills many people across the
globe” (Gee 2014b, p.96-97), malaria and poverty are not connected and poverty is hence left out
as an important factor to the many deaths caused by malaria (ibid, p.96-97). Using the
“Connections Building Tool” (Tool#19) we investigate how words and grammar are chosen to
connect, disconnect or ignore the connection between things making them relevant or irrelevant
to each other (ibid, p.133)

Finally, “Intertextuality” is when a stretch of text or speech quotes, refers to or hints to another
text. We often use intertextuality when we speak or write, quoting or alluding to what others
have said and written. “The Intertextuality Tool” (Tool#25) makes us ask questions about how a
text quotes, refers to, or alludes to other texts in the way it makes use of grammatical structures
(ibid, p.171- 172).

Selections and delimitations of Material - Different parts of the feminist

critical discourse analysis
In order to analyze in what ways and for what underlying reasons Sida’s discourses entrench
gendered social orders and power asymmetries, I will focus on the material that offers Sida’s
own definitions related to gender as well as material that Sida considers to be gender related.

It can be argued that the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs' Strategy document for Swedish
development cooperation, global gender equality, and the rights of women and girls 2018- 2022
provides a relevant framework to what is considered relevant to investigations of gender and

18
gender equality in Sida’s work. The definitions offered by Sida’s gender toolbox further provide
definitions or “situated meanings” of concepts relevant when investigating Sida’s understanding
of gender and if or how it connects to notions of power seen from an FCDA perspective. Since
the gender toolbox is said to offer “knowledge” and “tools” that are meant for the
“operationalizing of gender equality in Swedish development corporations” (Sida 2020), it could
be argued that the definitions offered by Sida’s toolbox are also reflecting how they could be
used in concrete work. Analyzing the ways the same concepts are used in a context-specific
project document further offers an example of the way their meanings in concrete work relate to
Sida’s definitions.

To summarize, the material and definitions analyzed from an FCDA perspective are as follows:

​
An analysis of Sida’s gender toolbox
● gender analysis tool
● gender mainstreaming tool
● Thematic overview: Supporting women’s Economic Empowerment: Scope for Sidas
engagement

​
An analysis of the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs’ Strategy document for Swedish
development cooperation, global gender equality and the rights of women and girls 2018- 2022

An analysis of one project document, the Un Women project document ​Promoting Gender
Responsive Policies and Budgets: Towards Transparent, Inclusive and Accountable Governance
in FYR of Macedonia

Definitions analyzed: ​gender toolbox, gender, gender mainstreaming, gender analysis,

intersectionality, vulnerability, empowerment, gender equality

Critical reflection of theory and method

Gee states that context is indefinitely large why we are confronted with the problem that it is
always possible to consider more aspects of an utterance in discourse analysis. The meaning of
an utterance can change if considering additional aspects of context. Discourse analysis is an
empirical endeavor. After forming a hypothesis which is an educated guess based on some
evidence, we need to seek more evidence until our claims are not changing and we have enough
to make a claim that our hypothesis is true. Even then the thesis could be falsified through

19
empirical inquiry, that is additional evidence could show that we are wrong (Gee 2014b,
p.37-39). I have tried to consider as many aspects as possible while analyzing Sida’s discourses
to strengthen the validity of claims and tried to take any aspect that could change the initial
claims made, into account.

According to Gee, methods need to be adapted to the theories used in research. They need to be
designed in a way that helps explain what the researcher takes to exist in an area of interest. The
tools of inquiry that Gee offers the analyst are hence meant to be adapted depending on the
purpose of the researcher (Gee 2014a, p. 11-12). The tools I have chosen to analyze Sida’s
discourses and make claims about them are hence the tools I found most useful in combination
with FCDA and postcolonial theory in order to answer the research question.

Further, it is in the practice of FCDA required to continuously engage in self-reflexivity in order

to not consolidate patterns of hegemony (Lazar 2018, p.707-708). The following hence offers a
critical reflection of the choice of theory and method in the light of another feminist theory,
Intersectionality.

According to May, Intersectional theory takes on a “matrix” worldview where systems of power
are seen as firmly interlocked and as reciprocally reinforcing oppression onto interlaced lived
identities. Analyzes and applications are inclusive and wide in scope with a “both/and” approach
to account for the simultaneity of multiple forms of power. The analytical and political
orientation contests to think of power and subjectivity in a “single-axis” form or in hierarchies of
oppression or identity, as such Either/or logics are viewed as reproducing inequalities. A
“gender- first” thinking is hence contested (May 2015, p.2-3).

In the light of Intersectionality's critique, the question then raises if my choice of FCDA’s with
its focus on gender and patriarchy actually reinforces structures of power, especially considering
the historical challenges non-white women faced in Euro- American feminist movements and
theory due to their “color- blindness”. The disregard of racial and colonialist politics in the
western feminism project has been criticized by many activists and scholars (Loomba 2015,
p.164-165). As it is in line with FCDA to think of gender and patriarchy as intersecting in
complex ways with other identities and systems of power, I try to attend to complexities in
power relations as much as possible partly through the application of postcolonial theory in
addition to FCDA. I chose FCDA since I found its focus on power asymmetries in gendered
social orders to offer a useful delimitation to the limited scope of a bachelor thesis. However, I
want to emphasize that I do not wish to imply that gender ideology is the foremost oppressive
structure. Like already argued, on an individual level, oppressing power asymmetries are
experienced differently. If my defense regarding the choice of theory and method in the face of
intersectional critique is justifiable, is left open for discussion.

20
Another critical self-reflection concerns the way this thesis deals with notions of power.
Throughout the analysis of Sida’s discourses, I have considered aspects that could contest initial
claims made about the entrenching of power asymmetries. In the defense of this thesis, associate
professor Fred Saunders pointed out that the focus on how and why Sida consolidates power
asymmetries in its discourses, as a consequence nevertheless leaves out ways in which it could
be argued that Sida contests power dynamics, which I think is important to mention. Moreover,
focusing on the power dynamics that Sida does not criticize in its discourses, like for instance
power systems transnational in character, does not mean that the power dynamics that are indeed
considered by Sida, like for instance in a country-specific contexts or on a group-based level, are
not relevant. It rather draws attention to the aspects of power dynamics that are missing or could
be argued to be misleading in discourses, and the importance of incorporating such
understandings in order to be able to move from critique towards political action and
transformations for more just societies, seen from a CDA/FCDA perspective (Fairclough 2018,
p.49-51).

Further, concerning the CDA relation between critique, explanation, and (political) action (ibid),
I have not engaged fully in the “action” lead of this relation. Raising critical consciousness of
discourses, which this thesis deals with, can be viewed as action in itself in FCDA. The aspect of
the principle of “analytical activism” where imagining ways of “doing and becoming” in the aim
for more just societies is required (Lazar 2018, p. 708), has however not been a focus due to the
limited scope of this study.

To just give a few short examples and an idea of such an “imagining”, Charlesworth (2005, p.18)
for instance argues that changing the course of gender mainstreaming requires rational
interventions and “transforming the structures and assumptions of the international order”
(Charlesworth 2005, p.18). The focus of the strategy of gender mainstreaming needs to be on the
contextualized complexity of gender relations and requires comprehending the “relationship
between critique, utopian thought and policy reform” according to Lacy (Charlesworth 2005,
​ regard to gender and sexuality, postcolonial feminist scholars
p.18, referring to Lacey 1998). In
and activists are according to Loomba further urging “a radical retheorisation based on their own
diverse histories, even as they confront the homogenising challenges posed by a rampant and
often brutal globalization” (Loomba 2015, p.229). Further, Mogahadam for example states “In
our globalizing world(...) we do see a global social movement of women and (…) [a]
transnational feminist movement that feeds into the larger global justice movement and offers
concrete proposals for an alternative to capitalist globalization that is grounded in human rights”
(Moghadam 2005, p.19).

21
Analysis and Results

Gender as a synonym to sex?

On Sida’s homepage, a distinction between sex and gender is made in their “gender analysis
tool”. It is stated that:

Sex and gender are concepts used to make a distinction between biologically given and socially
constructed differences (...)​ ​Gender refers to socially constructed differences between the sexes,
norms, and cultural expectations on women/girls, men/boys; and how femininity and masculinity
is defined. Gender is used when analyzing the relationship between men and women, girls and
boys, in regard to their different access to power, life opportunities, vulnerabilities, and different
strategies for change. Gender is also used when discussing differences between different groups
of women, men, boys, and girls, e.g. with regards to age, ethnic background, social class,
sexuality etc. Gender norms are expressed in laws, customary practice etc., which makes
qualitative data central to any gender analysis.​ ​(Sida 2020)

​
Sida appears to acknowledge that “gender” ​ constructed male and female identities. The
is
statement might however imply that gender categories are seen as “immanent” since the ongoing
construction of gender is not mentioned. According to FCDA’s principle of a “constitutive view
of discourse”, gender categories are not to be seen as immanent since people are actively
performing identities as ‘women’ and ‘men’, through linguistic and non-linguistic practices. The
emphasis is on the repeated performance of gender (West & Zimmerman 1987; Butler 1990). If
gender is simply seen as already constructed women and men, it would mean that Sida’s notion
of “gender” is used as a synonym to sex (The way the performative aspects of gender are ignored
when gender becomes a synonym to sex in the U.N. has previously been criticized by
Charlesworth, 2005). On the other hand, it is also stated that

“Gender norms are expressed in laws, customary practice etc., which makes qualitative data
central to any gender analysis”;​
(A gender analysis) “also involves looking at other norms for how gender may be expressed,
including norms relating to sexuality and identity.”(Sida 2020)

These utterances connect gender norms to customary practice, which could be interpreted as a
performance of gender. It further connects gender as a customary practice with the importance of
qualitative data as central to a gender analysis. In this case, gender may indeed take on a more
complex situated meaning than simply the two sexes men and women in analyzes (#23). ​ ​
However, nothing is mentioned about in what way gender norms expressed in customary practice
should be included in qualitative data and if or in what way these should be analyzed. Gender is
not defined as an ideology where power is central to any investigation, why it is not in line with

22
FCDA’s view on gender. The definition leaves room for a simple description or mentioning of
gender norms expressed in customary practice, which risks leaving out a deeper analysis of how
​
they came about and why, therefore impeding possibilities for changing such practices (#19;​
​
#23).

​
The notion of “using gender”​ when analyzing “the
​ relationship between men and women (...) in
regard to their different access to power (…)”,​ does not clarify how connections are made
​
between the two. It is not clear if “gender” ​ as an analytical tool offers any insight as to why
​
there is a “difference in access to power”​ and how this is connected to “the
​ relationship between
women and men”​ (#19).
​ ​

FCDA views gender as an ideological structure intersecting with other systems of power in such
a way, that its effects on an individual level are experienced differently. Sida also acknowledges
that gender as a social variable is not the only category affecting an individual in terms of
oppression. They define the feminist theory of intersectionality as follows:

Gender is a social variable, which crosscuts with other social variables such as age, ethnicity,
class, religion, disability, sexual orientation and others. Intersectionality refers to the fact that
these social variables interact, and that the individual is at the crossroads of these. For instance
a woman is never merely a woman but always has a certain ethnicity, age, sexual orientation etc.
An intersectional approach examines the ways in which diverse socially and culturally
constructed categories interact at different levels to produce different forms of power relations
and inequalities. Different forms of oppression, which may be based on issues such as ethnicity,
gender, class, disability or sexual orientation do not act independently but interact and shape
one another (...) (Sida 2020)

An explanation of how power systems intersect to oppress individuals differently on an

individual level is left out in Sida’s definition of Intersectionality. Instead, the categories
​
themselves are portrayed as producing power relations and inequality “ ...diverse socially and
culturally constructed categories interact at different levels to produce different forms of power
relations and inequalities”;​ “Different
​ forms of oppression, which may be based on issues such
as ethnicity, gender, class, disability or sexual orientation do not act independently but interact
and shape one another” (Sida 2020). ​These utterances read as if the oppressed categories are
causing the oppression themselves, which is not in line with Intersectional theory where systems
of power are seen as firmly interlocked and as reciprocally reinforcing oppression onto interlaced
lived identities (May 2015, p.2-3). Depicting the intersection of different categories on an
individual level as the root cause for oppression instead of on the power systems causing them,
will from an FCDA and intersectional perspective, not lead to any progressive change. It instead
risks entrenching such oppressions, since it may suggest that the mere existence of for instance
“disability” as mentioned above, offers reason for oppression. Moreover, Intersectionality as
theory opposes itself to a “gender- first thinking” (May 2015, p.2-3), which Sida’s approach

23
could be interpreted as since the notion of intersectionality is embedded in a gender analysis tool,
​
hence portraying other categories as subcategories to gender (#19; ​ #2).
​ ​

The feminist concept of intersectionality has been appropriated and misrepresented since its
situated meaning is not in line with its core principles. Since FCDA draws upon intersectional
theories among others, the distortion of the feminist concept can from an FCDA perspective be
viewed as harming feminist politics. Furthermore, the distortion of the concept of gender
becomes further evident as gender is not problematized as an ideological structure where its
intersection with other identities is experienced differently due to interlocking operating power
​ ​
systems (#23).

What a gender analysis consists of would in theory have different implications for gender
​
mainstreaming since Sida states that “Gender analysis is the starting point for gender
mainstreaming (...)” ​(Sida 2020).

Since FCDA’s principle of “constitutive view of discourse”, views discourses as constituting

social practices (Fairclough 1992), what a gender analysis contains would, in theory, result in
different consequences for target groups through interventions of gender mainstreaming, as
would the overall choice of such an approach. Sida defines gender mainstreaming as follows:

Gender mainstreaming is the process of assessing the implications for women and men of any
planned action, policy or programme, in all areas and at all levels before any decisions are
made and throughout the whole process. It is a strategy for making women’s as well as men’s
concerns and experiences an integral dimension of the design, implementation, monitoring and
evaluation of policies and programmes so that both women and men benefit and inequality is not
perpetuated. Gender mainstreaming is not a goal in itself but an approach for promoting gender
equality​ (Sida 2020)

Nothing is mentioned about how an “assessment” of implications for women and men is done
​
and on what grounds. The notion of “making women’s as well as men's concerns and
experiences an integral dimension of the design” (…) “so that both women and men benefit and
inequality is not perpetuated” (Sida 2020),​ reads as if treating women and men equally in the
assessment will automatically prevent inequality, a critique that has previously been conveyed by
Charlesworth (2005) in regards gender mainstreaming in the U.N. It is not clear if the emphasis
lies in not replicating and “perpetuating” inequalities through the implementation of planned
actions, or if there is an actual focus on changing them. Sida’s definition of gender
mainstreaming is missing both a focus on the constructed-ness of gender and on power relations
as neither is mentioned. Gender could therefore also in this context be understood as simply
“men and women”,​ which is not in line with FCDA’s principle of gender as an ideological
structure (Lazar 2018, p.705). Since both power relations and how gender is constructed are left
out in the definition of the approach, there is a risk it may result in depicting a “figured world”

24
where there is no inequality to begin with, and where simply incorporating different views of
​
women and men is enough (#19; ​​ ​
#2;#26).

The following discourse analysis examines Sida enacting the role of a “gender expert” and
​ ​​ ​
Sida’s claim to knowledge in the matter (#16;#21):

“Sida's Gender Toolbox provides knowledge, tools and inspiration on how to operationalize
gender equality in Swedish development cooperation. A solid knowledge and method base is
more important than ever due to an increased focus on gender equality in development
cooperation, in Sweden and globally” (Sida 2020)

The Gender Toolbox highlights areas where we see a need for thematic method support and
guidance. It is not only useful for Sida staff but also for our partners and other stakeholders. The
Gender Tool Box includes three different kinds of materials: Tools, Briefs and Thematic
Overviews (...) (Sida 2020)

​ solid knowledge and method base is more important than ever” (Sida
The statement that “A
​ understood in the context of Sida’s provided knowledge, tools and inspiration. It is thus
2020) is
implied that Sida’s gender toolbox provides a solid knowledge and method base that can be used
​
as guidance in concrete work (#19; ​ #2).
​ ​
“The gender toolbox highlights areas where we see a need for thematic support and guidance”
(Sida 2020),​ implies that there has been a lack of support and guidance concerning
gender-related work and that it is now provided by the gender toolbox, making it a seemingly
​ ​
important source to Sida’s work for gender equality (#2).

Interpretations can be made that Sida is enacting the identity of a “gender expert” providing a
​
step-by-step guide to the usage of the “gender toolbox” (#16). ​ The claim to knowledge and
expertise is evident in the usage of technical language and the way definitions of for example
“gender” and “intersectionality” are conveyed as universal in so far as controversies over their
meanings are not addressed. Some other concepts such as “gender equality” and “gender
analysis” on the other hand are presented as “Sida’s definitions”, suggesting that the concepts
could have meant something else if used by another actor (#2;​ ​ #23).
​ ​ At the same time the
disconnection of “Sida’s definitions” from the related concepts of “gender” and
“intersectionality”, strengthens the sense of claims to knowledge regarding these two specific
concepts and Sida’s attributed meaning to them as universal (#21;​ ​ #19;
​ ​ #2;​ #23).
​ ​ Since their
situated meanings are not in line with their feminist origins, such claims to knowledge
exacerbate the risk of misrepresenting and obscuring these feminist concepts (#21; ​ ​ #7).
​ ​

Finally, an example of results from a conducted gender analysis is offered ​“An analysis of
Gender Differences at all Levels in Kosovo”.​ ​The Country Gender Profile showed that Kosovo:

25
 • Have a fairly comprehensive legal framework and several mechanisms in place for gender
equality measures but that implementation remains a challenge.
• That despite de jure gender equality, women tend to have less access to justice, realisation of
legal remedies guaranteed by law, and compensation for crimes suffered.
(...)
(Sida 2020)

The “country gender profile” is confined to describing the gender equality situation in Kosovo
with an emphasis on the unequal situation for women. A gender analysis seems to be an analysis
of the different situations of women and men, rather than analysis in line with the core of CDA
where explanatory understandings of reality are needed in order to move from critique towards
action, and core principles of FCDA where the focus is on gender as an ideology with power
​ ​ The above example hence reaffirms the situated meaning of
central to any investigation (#19).
​
gender being a synonym to sex (#23) ​

If the vague guidelines and unclear or distorted situated meanings of “gender”,

“intersectionality”; “gender analysis” and “gender mainstreaming” outlined in Sida’s gender
toolbox are the only ones available prior to conducting a gender analysis and gender
mainstreaming, it would mean that there is much room for interpretation and flexibility in regard
to what to incorporate. The gender toolbox does not stress the importance of contextualized
analysis of power systems and gendered power relations in the intersection with other power
systems/ relations and its implications for the construction of gender, which risks leaving such
​
analysis out altogether (#23; ​ #2;
​ ​ #19).
​ ​ It is however also stated that what has been done before in
terms of country-specific ​“analyses by independent researchers, other donors and multilaterals,
governments and NGOs” (Sida 2020) should​ be used as part of the gender analysis, which in
theory at least presents a reason to include research that offers a deeper explanatory
​
understanding of reality in regards to gendered social orders (#19). ​

Empowerment without Power?

In the strategy document for Swedish development cooperation, “global gender equality and the
rights of women and girls 2018- 2022”, the strengthening of several global conditions is
highlighted as important to gender equality, for example:

“Strengthened global and regional conditions for combating discrimination and gender
stereotyping norms and attitudes”

26
 “Strengthened conditions for women's rights organizations, feminist movements and human
rights defenders to work independently and contribute to equality and for all women and girls'
full enjoyment of human rights” (Swedish Ministry For Foreign Affairs, 2018)

These statements make connections to global structures, which could be interpreted as

problematizing global power systems. When searching the documents further, for connections
made to notions of power, the following stand out:

“Principles about leaving no one behind (leave no one behind) puts the poorest, most
marginalized and excluded people, like women, girls and LGBTQI people, in focus and
illuminates the importance of taking intersecting powers systems and forms of discrimination
into account (ibid)

This utterance connects discrimination and exclusion of individuals with intersecting power
systems which is in line with FCDA’s view of power as central to any investigation of gender
inequality. It does however not offer any deeper explanation of the connection between
marginalized groups, power systems, and discrimination. Even though this utterance is the only
one I have found so far on Sida’s homepage in the “gender equality” section that mentions
​
“power systems”, it at least points towards an acknowledgment of their existence (#19, ​ #26).
​ ​

Analyzing
​ power in Sida’s Gender toolbox in relation to FCDA principle of Power

In the analysis of Sida’s situated meaning of gender, the lack of power analysis from an FCDA
perspective has already been problematized (since gender as an ideology is in itself based on
power relations). The analysis of Sida’s gender analysis further evidences a lack of
problematizing power in investigations.

It is stated that:

Gender Analysis highlights the differences between and among women, men, girls and boys in
terms of their relative distribution of resources, opportunities, constraints and power in a given
context. Per- forming a gender analysis allows us to develop responses that are better suited to
remedy gender-based inequalities and meet the needs of different population groups.​ ​(Sida 2010)

​
Connected to this, in Sida’s definition of the concept of Gender it is stated that: “(…)Gender is
used when analysing the relationship between men and women, girls and boys, in regard to their
different access to power, life opportunities, vulnerabilities and different strategies for change
(…)” (Sida 2020)

27
 How the utterance “highlight differences” translates into a “gender analysis” is not clarified.
How are the differences in the relative distribution between women, men, girls, and boys
examined? Nothing is mentioned about the constructed nature of gender and how in the system
of “Patriarchy” men are privileged over women. The situated meaning of “gender” reads as
merely different groups of women, men, girls, and boys, and a “gender analysis” simply the
​ ​​ ​​
observed differences between them (#19;#2;#23). ​

Further the expression “relative distribution” does not capture the actual unequal distribution of
“resources, opportunities and power” in contemporary societies, where the vast majority of these
are vested in “men” as a social group as well as individual men according to the FCDA principle
of patriarchy. If like Gee states, the distribution of social goods is what ultimately determines
who holds status and power in a society and any situation where social goods are at stake is
“politics”, then the notion “relative” to describe a situation where social goods are actually
​
unequally distributed is a depoliticization of the matter (#18). ​ To be in line with FCDA
principles, the global inequality between women and men would have to be mentioned, since it is
a persisting transnational reality​ ​(Acker 2006, referred to in Flowerdew & Richardson 708).
Further, global inequalities between what Mies (1986) describes as “overdeveloped” countries
and post-colonial countries, and the way these inequalities are created by capitalism which
according to Mitter (1986, p.6) depends on divisions based mainly on constructions of race and
sex, would have to be accounted for. The relevant connections Loomba makes between “the
feminization of labor” within specific postcolonial developments and the oppression and poverty
that affects women disproportionately (Loomba 2015. p.170-171), would also have to be made in
Sida’s discourse to be in line with FCDA.

How a ​“gender analysis”​ is used to “develop

​ responses that are better suited to remedy
gender-based inequalities”​ is not clarified. As presumptions have been made about Sida’s
“gender analysis” being a simple observation of differences between groups, the further notion of
“meet the needs of different populations” strengthens the sense of any difference between the
groups being disconnected from operating power dynamics. If there is a lack of any social good,
the specific “need” of any particular group seems to have appeared from within or due to
inherent vulnerability, and that “need” can be “met” by a donor agency like Sida, which then
​ ​ ​ ​ The disconnection
automatically appears to “remedies gender-based inequalities” (#19;#2).
between “needs” and “vulnerabilities” from operating systems of power is further evidenced in
the following statement:

​
“Vulnerability and empowerment.​ A gender analysis highlights specific vulnerabilities of
women and men, girls and boys. It always has an empowerment perspective, highlighting the
agency and potential for change in each group.”​ (Sida 2020)

By using the expression ​“highlighting the agency and potential for change in each group”​ the
situated meaning of empowerment reads as the action taken by vulnerable groups to change from

28
within. Nothing is mentioned about how power systems operate to produce hegemony,
vulnerability, and poverty. Therefore, vulnerability could be understood as the root cause for the
need for empowerment which risks depicting it as an inherent trait or shortcoming of
​ ​ ​​
marginalized groups (#19;#2;#23).​

When gender becomes a synonym to “marginalized groups of men, women, boy and girls”,
gender at the same time risks becoming a synonym to women and girls, since they are often the
​ ​​ ​​
most marginalized (#2;#23;#26). ​ When talking about gender-based inequality and vulnerable
groups, one may hence presume that Sida is mainly referring to women and girls as vulnerable
​
(#19;​ #2).
​ ​ (Critique of how gender becomes a synonym to woman and how the struggles women
face is thereby depicted as a result of their inherent vulnerability and as a product of specific
cultures, has previously been conveyed by Charlesworth, 2005)

D​epicting vulnerability as an inherent shortcoming can be connected to the colonial view

Loomba and Lukose (2015) write about in terms of “civilizational underdeveloped”. Sida’s claim
to knowledge in regard to gender, marginalized groups, and poverty is problematic when the
only explanatory understanding offered is that of marginalized groups being vulnerable. Instead
of for instance problematizing the ways in which inequalities consolidated during the colonial
era are reproduced globally today (Loomba 2015, p.135) and connecting it to the vulnerability of
marginalized groups, it seemingly is the vulnerability itself which needs to be addressed. The
situated meaning of “marginalized groups” hence risks being filled in with the colonial notion of
“underdeveloped people”, where the emphasis on vulnerability strengthens that sense of
“underdevelopment”. Further, the need for “gender expertise” to remedy such a “vulnerability”,
in this context risks connecting to colonial notions of asserted value-free knowledge as well as
“the white man’s burden” and need for “civilization” (Loomba p.77-78; 210) (#2; ​ ​ #23;
​ ​ #19).
​ ​

Vulnerability being depicted as a trait of especially women further risks entrenching colonial
views on women as being especially underdeveloped since women in the colonial construction of
“lower races” were placed in the bottom of a hierarchy in regard to intelligence in western
science (Stepan 1990, p.40). It hence risks opening up to the filling in of the situated meaning of
vulnerability with colonial notions of “underdevelopment” and “inferior intelligence” of
​
especially women (#23; ​ #2;
​ ​ #19).
​ ​

Gender equality is by Sida defines as follows:

Gender equality is achieved when women and men, girls and boys, have equal rights, life
prospects and opportunities, and the power to shape their own lives and contribute to society.
Equality between the sex- es is a question of a fair and equita- ble distribution of power,
influence and resources in everyday life and in society as a whole. A gender-equal society
safeguards and makes use of every individual’s experiences, skills and competence. (Sida 2020)

29
 Gender equality is not connected to any inequalities and readers are hence assumed to
​ ​ ​ ​ Equality between the
themselves set it into a wider context of inequality in society (#19;#2;).
sexes being about “a​ fair and equitable distribution of power, influence and resources” (Sida
​
2020) further reads as though no one is to hold responsible for any current asymmetries
regarding these aspects. Power and influence are depicted as goods that, if missing, can simply
be distributed. Power relations and the ways power systems operate to produce power
asymmetries are not addressed why Sida’s notion of Gender equality results in an apolitical one
​ ​​ ​​
(#19;#18;#23).​

The importance of addressing “gender power relations” is however accounted for in Sida’s
gender analysis tool. A distinction is made between “practical gender needs” and “strategic
gender needs”, where the practical needs are said to be for instance access to water or better
transportation, while the strategic needs refer to

​“needs for shifts in society in terms of gender roles and relations, such as the need for a law
condemning gender-based violence, equal access to credits, equality in terms of inheritance and
others”.​ The practical needs are said to ​“not directly challenge gender power relations, but may
remove important obstacles to women’s economic empowerment” ​while the strategic needs
“should impact gender power relations” (Sida 2020)

It becomes clear that power is viewed as relevant to gender relations and that Sida works
towards a shift in such power relations based on “gender strategic needs”. Such needs are said to
be for example​ “a law condemning gender-based violence, equal access to credits, equality in
​ explanation of what is meant by power relations and how
terms of inheritance“( Sida 2020). An
the mentioned needs should be addressed is however missing. A connection between gender
​
power relations and operating power systems is also absent. (#19).​

FCDA of thematic overview: Supporting women’s Economic Empowerment:

Scope for Sida’s engagement

Sida emphasizes in this document the importance of women’s economic empowerment to

achieve equality between women and men, pointing out women as economically disadvantaged
in comparison to men. Throughout the document different obstacles to women’s economic
empowerment are discussed, of which several connect to FCDA principles of power and gender
​
ideology: “gender power relations”, “structural gender inequalities”, “discrimination against
women”​ and “gender
​ ​ mentioned. Power relations are however tied to
stereotypes” are
individuals, groups, and policies of “developing countries”, and leave out power relations that
​ ​
are global or transnational in nature (#19).

30
 Gender equality is said to be important to economic growth to reduce poverty. It is for instance
stated that:

Gender inequalities result in resource allocations, especially of labour resources, that follow
social and cultural norms rather than economic incentives. This has negative effects on the
flexibility, responsiveness and dynamism of economic processes and hence limits growth. Lower
labour force participation by women results in lower output and, hence, lower GDP. Also, lower
productivity and earnings due to discrimination and inequalities in the labour market reduce the
value of production and thus have a negative impact on GDP. By contrast, gender equality in
labour market participation reduces poverty and increases inclusive pro-poor growth. (Sida
2020, p.11- 12)

This offers a liberal approach to development where GDP and economic growth is connected to
social progress or “pro-poor” growth, a critique that Esquivel conveys in their analysis of the
similar approach to gender equality and development in Agenda 2030 (Esquivel 2016, p.11-12).
​ ​ #19;
Economic growth is depicted as a desirable social good for all (#18; ​ ​ #2).
​ ​ In the following
statement policies are however mentioned as important:

Decent work is a human right and should be at the forefront of gender aware labour market
policy. Economic growth is a prerequisite for employment creation, but not sufficient in itself. It
is widely recognised that decent work is not guaranteed by economic growth, and specific
policies are needed to make that happen. (Sida 2020, p.19)

This utterance does not question economic growth per se but emphasizes that economic growth
is not enough. Human rights and policies are needed to ensure decent work. Who is responsible
​ ​ #19;
for such policies, is however not mentioned (#18; ​ ​ #16).
​ ​

No connection to postcolonial theory is made in the document about the ways that globalization
often replicates the results of colonialism, and how capital accumulation is made possible by the
oppression of women in the postcolonial part of the world (Loomba 2015, p.171; Mitter 1986). It
does not account for how the global power systems of patriarchy, capitalism, and colonialism
​
intersect and construct oppressing gender structures (#18;​ #19).
​ ​

The following utterance is the first to connect factors that go beyond the individual,
group-based, or country-specific as relevant to women’s situation:

(...) The informal economy has persisted and grown, and a notable trend is the expanded use of
women as subcontracted labour or home workers.31 Trade liberalisation may lead to contest in
sectors that have not traditionally been exposed to international competition and could be
devastating for local small-scale producers, many of whom are women. The effects of trade

31
agreements on women, in various segments of producers, need to be better analysed and possible
mitigating measures identified. (Sida 2020, p.17)

The notion that international competition in a liberal market economy could be “devastating for
local small-scale producers, many of whom are women” and that “The ​ effects of trade
agreements on women, in various segments of producers, need to be better analysed and possible
mitigating measures identified” (Sida 2020, p.17), may ​indicate that global structures affect
women negatively. However, no calls for international responsibility are made in the document,
and it is not clear whether the mentioned “mitigating measures” are thought to be brought about
​
by developing countries or internationally and by rich countries (#18;​ #19;
​ ​ #16).
​ ​

A feminist critical discourse analysis of a project document granted by Sida

​
The draft project document “Promoting Gender Responsive Policies and Budgets: Towards
Transparent, Inclusive and Accountable Governance in FYR of Macedonia” ​issued by UN
Women (2018) describes how they aim at promoting the implementation of Gender-responsive
policies and budgets in FYR of Macedonia governance, as well as working for the inclusion of
FYR Macedonia’s most vulnerable groups in policymaking and budgeting. The objective is
further to improve the lives of women in general and the lives of these most vulnerable groups in
particular.

Patriarchal roles, conservative mindsets, and gender stereotypes are mentioned as reasons for
gender inequality in the project document. Connections are made between traditional
conservative views and stereotyping professions for example, which render the domestic sphere
suitable for women. Political participation is also described as hindered by policies and wording
such as “deprived of opportunities” or “discrimination” (ibid, 2018) is used to describe the
situation for women and especially women in the intersection with other identities such as
belonging to ethnic minorities. These notions are relevant to FCDA’s situated meaning of gender
as an ideological structure and practice. The notion of “gender stereotyping” and “changing
mindsets” to remedy gender inequality, implies that gender is socially constructed. When talking
about changing mindsets as connected to patriarchal roles, it also implies that gender is an
ongoing performance that can be changed if challenged which is in line with FCDA.

However, the constructed nature of gender is never mentioned or analyzed per se, and the term
gender is instead used as a synonym for women and men. An analysis of intersecting power
systems as important to gender structures and identities is also missing. It becomes evident by
the way the term gender is used in the project document, that the situated meaning of gender

32
itself remains a synonym to sex, rendering the concept distorted from an FCDA perspective
​
(#19; ​ #23).
​ ​

Apart from gender, other factors such as belonging to minorities, level of education, and
unemployment are pointed out as increasing “At-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion”. This
connects to FCDA’s principle of gender structures and inequalities being experienced differently
depending on the intersection with other socially constructed identities. However, no connections
are made to systems of power causing such inequalities and exclusion of mentioned categories.

“Specifically, households that are at-risk-of-poverty or social exclusion are more likely to be
headed by a: woman, with low level of education (...), in partnership, ethnic Albanian, Roma or
Turk, unemployed or inactive (...). Additional analysis will follow to identify main social
vulnerabilities and risks for social exclusion at local level and to assess the intersection of gender
as a root cause of inequality and exclusion with other forms of vulnerability/grounds for social
exclusion.” (UN Women 2018, p.9)

An analysis as stated above reads as if the described inequalities cause themselves and are
themselves root causes of inequality. The “identified” “Main social vulnerabilities and risks for
social exclusion” as well as “the intersection of gender” cannot be “the root cause of inequality”
(ibid, 2018), as stated above. To know the “root cause” one would from an FCDA perspective
have to move from “identifying” to actually explaining how power systems intersect to produce
​ ​
oppression onto these intersections of gender with other identities (#19).

Throughout the document’s “situation analysis” of FYR of Macedonia, the causes to

gender-based inequalities are said to be traditional gender roles and practices as well as
​
conservative mindsets and policies. It is for instance stated that “the 2014 onwards conservative
policy of retraditionalization of the role of women in the society have led to some retrogressive
trends and allowed for persistence of gender inequalities”​ (UN Women 2018, s6). It is also
stated that long-term economic and financial crises have had a disproportionately negative
impact on women in terms of accessibility and quality of social services (ibid, s4). The
government is said to have taken some important steps towards “advancement of gender
equality” but it is further clarified that: ​“Nevertheless, as stated by the UN Human Rights
Mechanisms (...) and the latest EU Progress Report for the country, additional systemic efforts
for advancing gender equality are needed (...)” (ibid, s5).

Such statements in the document that point out Macedonia’s ​“conservative mindsets and
policies”​ as causes to persistent or increased gendered inequality as well as the rather indirect
critique conveyed by calling for ​“additional systemic efforts for advancing gender equality”
(ibid), are the utterances closest to critiquing power systems that go beyond an individual or local
group- based context to offer some explanatory understanding to patriarchal gender roles. By
​
making the connection between ​“gender-based inequality” and “conservative policy of

33
re-traditionalization” or lack of “systemic effort for advancing gender equality”, the focus is
shifted from individual and group-based patriarchal traditions and mindsets to systemic
conservative policies.

It becomes clear that laws, gender roles, mindsets, and traditions cause gender inequality.
However, these explanations to inequalities are held superficial and as a product of
country-specific mindsets and policies with no deeper analysis of historical context and power
systems and the way they are transnational in nature, why it is not in line with FCDA views of
power as central to any investigation and the principle of “transnationalism”. From a CDA/
FCDA point of view the understanding needed to know what needs to change and how it can be
​
done is missing (Fairclough 2918, p.49-50) (#19).​

To further evidence that explanations of how transnational power dynamics operate and are
relevant also in the case of gender inequality in Macedonia, and thereby strengthening the
relevance of FCDA principles in the specific case of the Un Women intervention supported by
Sida, the following research offers examples and insights to how some power systems intersect
to produce inequalities in Balkan generally (where Macedonia is included), as well as insights
into context-specific examples of the effect of gender ideology on a specific group of women in
​
Macedonia, connecting the local and context-specific to the transnational (#19).​

Dušan I. Bjelić (2018) research “Balkan Transnationalism at the Time of Neoliberal

Catastrophe” offers an analysis of Balkan and the unification of Europe as a continuation of a
neo-colonial path, and emphasizes the importance of analyzing national crisis as variants of
global crisis. The call for making such connections could have been relevant to an analysis of the
long- term economic crisis and financial crisis in FYR Macedonia, which was pointed out as
relevant to gender inequality in the FYR Macedonia project document. It shows how the simple
notions of​ “economic crisis which led to re-traditionalization” (UN Women 2018)​ as stated in
the project document, does not offer enough explanation since it does not offer any deeper
​
analysis of how these came about, and why (#19). ​

Ilka Thiessen’s research further examines how gender and feminism of a group of young female
engineers in Skopje, Republic of Macedonia, is constructed in a context-specific way. According
to Thiessen,​ ​liberal market-driven democracy was introduced after the war, where European and
US consumerism became reality (in which for instance “glossy magazine beauty” depicted new
images of how women should be). It had according to Thiessen's informants brought with it
many changes that were not for the better (Thiessen, p.55). Their past of post- Tito Yugoslavia
was ignored by external forces and instead the patriarchal past of their parents and grandparents
was imposed on them as their own past. “The liberation of women” was by them experienced as
oppression since the socialism under Tito’s Yugoslavia, which western countries choose to
overlook, was in actuality a “liberation” for earlier generations in regard to gendered social
orders, according to Thiessen’s informants (ibid).

34
 In the Un Women/ FYR Macedonia project document “Traditional patriarchal roles” as well as
“gender stereotypes” are named as factors that have adverse effects on the status of women in
FYR Macedonia and hinder opportunities and capabilities. Patriarchy as a power system is
however not problematized per se and the situated meaning of “patriarchal” is perceived as a
product of country-specific tradition due to the expression “traditional patriarchal roles” (UN
Women 2018). Thiessen's informants describe how an imposed “patriarchal past” and thereby
justified “liberation of women” imposed by western countries was experienced by them as
oppression (ibid, p.40). Portraying patriarchy as if rooted in a countries tradition without
extending the explanation to involve the transnational or global nature of patriarchy and its
historical origins, is problematic from an FCDA and more specifically from a postcolonial
perspective since “European colonialism often justified it’s ‘civilizing mission’ by claiming that
it was rescuing native women from oppressive patriarchal domination” (Loomba 2015, p.169). It
hence risks giving the feminist project to remedy “traditional patriarchal roles”, a colonial hue of
​
‘civilizing mission’ (#19; ​ #2;
​ ​ ​ #18).
​

Thiessen goes on to describe how the European project of border construction after the EU and
USA’s proclaimed “demise of socialism”, was experienced by her informants as incarceration.
The rejection of Macedonia to become a part of the European Union resulted in visa regulations
(Thiessen 2010, p.47-48), boundaries that are in actuality concerned with “purity of cultural
identity”, according to Malkki (1992). A division was made between a civilized Europe and a
post-socialist world depicted as the “wild East” (Thiessen 2010, p. 47- 48). According to
Thiessen, the analysis of border policies is an important matter when investigating gender and
identity in Macedonia. The exclusion from the EU had implications for gender relations.
Negotiations on an individual level are based on many different choices such as (to only name a
few) 'West' and 'Balkan,' 'us' and 'them', Thiessen points out (ibid, p.56).

As Thiessen concludes in their research, the imposed “liberal market-driven democracy” in

Macedonia as well as excluding border policies, was by their informants experienced as
entrenching inequalities in different ways and had implications for gender structures (Thiessen
2010). Their analysis shows how connections between analysis of contextualized local patterns
of gendered inequalities with patterns globally, foster a deeper understanding of gendered
inequalities. It illuminates understandings essential to CDA/ FCDA in order to move from
critique towards actual change, and the ways in which power systems, in this case, patriarchy,
colonialism, and capitalism, intersect with specific implications for these informants on an
individual level, affirming both the FCDA principle of power as central to any investigation as
​
well as the lack thereof in the specific project document (#21,​ #19).
​ ​

​ This analysis has offered an example of the intertextuality of Sida’s Discourse with a capital
“D” with the Discourses used in project documents of financed projects. It has shed light on the
ways that the Discourses in one project document relate to the problematized Discourses in

35
Sida’s gender toolbox and strengthens the validity of the discursive interpretations of Sida’s
Discourses, where gender becomes a synonym to sex and where the analysis of power systems
set in a transnational context, is widely missing. As a result, the reasons for gender inequalities
are depicted as country-specific as well as tied to group-based and individual vulnerabilities,
​
which risks reproducing colonial stereotypes. (#27, ​ #19,
​ ​ #25).
​ ​

Finally, four main Discourses with a capital “D” have been identified in this discourse analysis
of Sida’s gender ideology, where it becomes clear that they are similar enough to Discourses and
ideologies in the international development arena problematized by scholars in the previously
accounted for FCDA research, namely: gender as a synonym to sex, intersectionality as
disconnected from power systems, empowerment without power and as linked to economic
growth as well as vulnerability as inherent to marginalized groups and specific cultures. In the
following, these similarities will be discussed further, evidencing the ideological assumptions
​
these Discourses have in common, in order to finally answer the research question (#27). ​

Discussion of findings

The way the term gender is used as a synonym to sex or woman in U.N. mainstreaming policies,
according to Charlesworth, draws on the definition established by ECOSOC in 1997
(Charlesworth 2005, p.4), and according to Mose and Mose (2005, p.2), many development
organizations have adopted the same definition. When comparing Sida’s definition of gender
mainstreaming, it seems clear that it too derives from the definition initially adopted by
ECOSOC (ECOSOC 1977), as it is almost identical, and the small discursive differences found
do not change its situated meaning. Assumptions can hence be made that Sida’s apolitical use of
the term gender leads back to the negotiations between states concerning the meaning of the term
of 1995 (UN 1996), prior to the Beijing Platform to Action, which according to Charlesworth
lead to the depoliticization of the feminist concept (Charlesworth 2005, p.16-17).
Charlesworth’s, as well as other scholars, critique in regard to gender as a synonym to sex or
women in international development discourses (Baden & Goetz 1997, p.3) hence turn out to be
equally relevant to Sida’s situated meaning of gender and gender mainstreaming.

Although Sida makes a distinction between the official definitions of gender and sex, this
analysis has suggested that the term gender nevertheless is used as a synonym to sex, women and
men, and especially women. In contrast to feminist views on gender as plural and fluid,​ ​the
distortion of the feminist concept of gender to become a synonym to sex, from an FCDA
perspective reproduces the “common sense” structure of gender as a binary, women, and men
(Lazar 2018, p.705). It does not account for the ways gendered power relations are constructed
and replicated and its implications on gender structures and identities (Baden & Goetz 1997;
Lacy 1998; Woodward 2001; Charlesworth 2005). By distorting the concept of gender as well as

36
not contesting its ideological character, Sida instead risks entrenching it in its discourse: “gender
as an ideological structure and practice, which divides people hierarchically into two blocs,
based upon the presumed naturalness of sexual difference” (Lazar 2018, p.705).

Charlesworth further states that a focus on women's inherent vulnerability, which has also been
identified in Sida’s discourse, requires women to change their “lack of skills or information” for
instance, while male gender identities and the role of men are deemed less central to any
investigation. They also problematize how the narrow conception of gender risks depicting the
problems women face as characteristic for particular cultures (Charlesworth 2005, p.11; 15),
which can be connected to the results and FCDA and postcolonial critique, about how a lack of
connection to transnational power structures shifts the focus to the group-based and individual,
which as argued instead risks reproducing colonial images of “underdevelopment” of non-
European cultures and the “inferior intelligence” of especially women (Loomba 2015, p.161;
210).

Moreover, Loomba and Lukose (2012, p.2) suggest that some international aid-giving bodies
have appropriated the concept of empowerment to simply mean individual advancement or
patronage which has been criticized by feminists in postcolonial countries. Accordingly, Sida’s
discourse regarding empowerment does not offer any explanation of power relations. Instead, the
focus is on changing vulnerable groups from within. In the analysis of the document about
“Sida’s scope for engagement” concerning “women's economic empowerment”, gender equality
and empowerment are connected to economic growth and GDP. Similar to Kabber’s (2016) and
Esquivel’s (2016) critique of Agenda 2030, connections are made between empowerment and
economic growth emphasizing mutual reinforcement while an analysis of power dynamics is
absent. Mosedale suggests that donors use an apolitical approach precisely because it leaves
power relations untouched. “Empowerment without power” hence serves to conceal dominant
group interests (Mosedale 2014, referred to in Esquivel 2016, p.14). Connecting Sida’s situated
meaning of empowerment to this analysis would hence suggest that Sida participates in the
obscuring of power relations and protection of dominant group interests, which also fits into the
overall result of the feminist critical discourse analysis of Sida’s discourse on gender and gender
relations as widely disconnected from operating power dynamics.

In addition, Loomba’s critique that some aid- giving bodies still work within “colonialist legacy
of carrying enlightenment from the West to the rest of the world” (Loomba 2015, p.226),
becomes relevant to Sida’s discourse. Sida’s claim to knowledge regarding concepts that are
meant to be descriptive of as well as useful to the lives of people in the post-colonial world is
problematic when we set these claims in the context of European colonial history, where western
culture and science produced “knowledge” about Non- Europeans and presented it as value-free
truths (ibid, p.77- 78). This claim is strengthened by the fact that the concepts put forward by
Sida are not in line with their feminist origin. Especially when the concepts appropriated are not
in line with the views of feminists or scholars in postcolonial countries or feminists who are

37
subjected to the global replication of the effects of colonialism that Loomba problematizes (ibid,
p.223). As already discussed, this is the case in regard to the way the concept “empowerment” is
used (Loomba and Lukose 2012, p.2). It also becomes clear in the way the concept
“intersectionality” has been distorted in Sida’s discourse, a theory that has its origins in politics
​
of radical resistance “particularly in Black feminist, critical race, and women of color theorizing
and praxis” (May 2015, p.2).​ May has as already mentioned criticized such an appropriation and
distortion of the concept of intersectionality (ibid, p.2-3).

According to Banerjee (2013, p.172) accumulation by dispossession which is central to

neoliberal development, is achieved by appropriating anything capitalism needs to increase profit
and expand. Hence, it could be argued that the appropriation and distortion of the very resistance
that feminist concepts entail, serves the accumulation by dispossession since it is until this day
according to Loomba and Mitter depends on divisions of labor based on constructed hierarchies
of race and sex (Loomba 2015; Mitter 1986). On the other hand, it can also be argued that the
appropriation of these feminist concepts reflects resistance and negotiations in regard to
discourses in the development arena. It could hence be argued that Sida’s ambiguous use of
feminist concepts reflects the achievements made by feminist movements and scholars, since
their discourses, although mostly distorted, nevertheless have influenced international
development discourses.

Either way, in conclusion, the results of this analysis suggests that the obscuring of the causes to
oppression and poverty of especially women in the post-colonial world serves the maintenance
of a status quo of a capitalist system which depends on its hierarchies based on sex and race
among others, and which makes the lifestyle in the countries in the north or the “overdeveloped”
parts of the world possible (Loomba 2018, p.170 - 171, 224; Swatsi Mitter 1986, p.6; Moghadam
2005, p. 7). It could hence be argued that Sweden being a wealthy country from the north,
benefits from a status quo that builds upon such hierarchies. It may not surprise then, that Sida
being an agency working for the Swedish parliament and government, does not offer any deep
analysis of global power dynamics and power asymmetries in gendered social orders.

It has been suggested that Sida seen from the FCDA perspectives of gender, power and
transnationality entrenches ideological assumptions and divisions in its discourses not only
because gender is used as a synonym to biological sex (Fairclough 1992; van Dijk 1998). It is a
gender ideology underpinned just as much by capitalist and colonial ideologies of discourses in
the international arena.

It is important to clarify that the ways in which Sida’s policies in actuality contest or entrench
power asymmetries in people's real lives, is not covered by this study. Sida does not implement
the projects it finances (Sida 2020) and discourses may therefore in theory change depending on
actor and project. The criticism of Sida’s discourse merely suggests implications, based on
FCDA view of discourses as constituting reality. The entrenching of power asymmetries is

38
foremost connected to notions of power and gender as an ideology in a wider sense, in society
and globally. Financed projects may for instance be of importance to individuals and groups and
have positive impacts in different ways. In this study, connections are however made between
discourses and development in a broader sense which depicts power systems and structures that
according to the accounted for theories need to change in order to not maintain and replicate
inequalities. Having this said I will try answering my research question based on the results of
this feminist critical discourse analysis of Sida’s gender ideology.

Conclusion

In what ways and for what reasons do Sida’s discourses entrench power asymmetries in
gendered social orders from a feminist critical discourse analysis perspective?

This study suggests that Sida’s discourses entrenches power asymmetries in gendered social
orders from a feminist critical discourse analysis perspective in so far as it obscures the way
power systems operate to produce inequalities, hence inhibiting their contestation and
transformation. Appropriating and distorting the feminist concepts of gender, empowerment, and
intersectionality in a way that conceals power dynamics, may harm feminist politics. It also risks
replicating colonial practices of appropriation, colonial practices of portraying asserted
knowledge to be neutral and/or universal as well as colonial imaging when the focus is shifted to
individual, country, or culture-specific shortcomings. Moreover, it has been suggested that Sida
links gender equality and empowerment to individual advancement and economic growth,
buying into a capitalist system.

Sida’s consolidating of inequalities in discourses are according to this study partially explained
by the interdependence of institutions in the international development arena which also might
inhibit one single institution to change its course. The reason behind the use of the criticized
discourses that entrench power asymmetries is further explained by postcolonial theories that
suggest that hierarchies based on fabrications of race and and sex still enable the ongoing process
of accumulation by dispossession, which it can be argued that Sweden benefits from, being a
wealthy northern country. By concealing power dynamics, dominant group interests are
protected and a status quo in capitalist and postcolonial developments ensured.

Finally, Sida hence entrenches power asymmetries in gendered social orders insofar as its
discourses do not contest or even help replicate capitalist developments that produce oppression
and poverty of especially women in a “postcolonial” world.

39
References

​
Acker, J. 2006. Introduction: The missing feminist revolution symposium. Social Problems,​ 53
(4): 444- 447. ISSN: 0037- 7791; electronic ISSN: 1533- 8533

Adams, B. and Tobin, K. 2014. ​Confronting Development: A critical assessment of the UN’s
Sustainable Development Goals.​ New York: Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung, New York Office.
https://www.rosalux.de/fileadmin/rls_uploads/pdfs/sonst_publikationen/adamssdgs_ny_en.pdf
[2020-12-5]

​
Baden, S. & Goetz, A. M. 1997. ​Who Needs Sex When You Can Have Gender? Feminist Review
56: 3-25. ISSN: 0141-7789
https://www-jstor-org.till.biblextern.sh.se/stable/1395814?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents
[2020-12-5]

Banerjee, S. 1989. Marginalization of Women’s Popular Culture in Nineteenth Century Bengal.

In K. Sangari and S. Vaid (eds.), ​Recasting Women: Essays in Colonial History. ​New Delhi: Kali
for Women, pp. 127- 79
http://jan.ucc.nau.edu/sj6/Banerjeewomenspopculture.pdf​ ​[2020-12-5]

Bjelić, D. I. 2018. Introduction. ​Interventions.​ 20(6), 751-758, DOI:

10.1080/1369801X.2018.1493392
https://www-tandfonline-com.till.biblextern.sh.se/doi/pdf/10.1080/1369801X.2018.1493392?nee
dAccess=true

Butler, J. 1990.​ Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity.​ London: Routledge.
ISBN: 9780415389556

Charlesworth, H. 2005. Not Waving but Drowning: Gender Mainstreaming and Human Rights in
the United Nations.​ Harvard Human Rights Journal,​ 18(1): 1-18. ISSN: 1057-5057
https://harvardhrj.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2020/06/18HHRJ1-Charlesworth.pdf
[2020-12-5]

40
ECOSOC. 1977. ​Report of the Economic and Social Council for 1977.​ In Women 2000.
​
UNHCR. https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/csw/GMS.PDF ​ [2020-12-5]
​

Ehrenreich, B. and Hochschild, A.R. (eds.) 2002. ​Global Women: Nannies, Maids and Sex
Workers in the Global Economy. New​ York: Henry Holt
https://journals-sagepub-com.till.biblextern.sh.se/doi/pdf/10.1177/026327640402100612

Esquivel, V.. 2016.​ Power and the Sustainable Development Goals: a feminist analysis.​ Gender
& Development 24(1): 9-23. DOI: 10.1080/13552074.2016.1147872
https://www-tandfonline-com.till.biblextern.sh.se/doi/pdf/10.1080/13552074.2016.1147872?nee
dAccess=true​ ​[2020-12-5]

​
Expert Group Meeting. 2016. Report of the Expert Group Meeting on the CSW60 Priority
Theme: Women’s Economic Empowerment and the link to Sustainable Development,​ prepared
for UN Women, based on EGM held at Glen Cove, NY, November 1–4, 2015.
https://www.unwomen.org/-/media/headquarters/attachments/sections/csw/60/csw60%20egm%2
0report.pdf?la=en&vs=1710​ ​[2020-12-5]

Fairclough, N. 1992.​ Discourse and social change.​ London: Polity.

ISBN : 9780745612188

Fairclough, N. 1989. ​Language and Power.​ London: Longman. ISBN-10: 0-582-41483-0

Fairclough, N. 2018. CDA as dialectical reasoning. In Flowerdew, John & Richardson, John E.
​
(red.). The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies.​ Abingdon & New York:
Routledge, 372- 374. ISBN: 978-1-138-82640-3 (hbk); ISBN: 978-1-315-73934-2 (ebk)

Gee, J. P. 2011. ​An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method.​ 3rd ed. New York
​
and Oxon: Routledge. DOI: ​ https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203847886

​ introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and Methody.​ 4th ed. Oxton and
Gee, J. P. 2014a. An
​
New York: Routledge. 978-0415-72556-9 (pbk); ISBN: 978-1-315-81967-9 (ebk)

41
Gee, J. P. 2014b. ​How to do Discourse Analysis: A Toolkit.​ 2nd ed. Oxton and New York:
Routledge. ISBN: 978-0-415-72558-3 (pbk); ISBN: 978-1-315-81966-2 (ebk)

Giddens, A. 1991.​ Modernity and self-identity.​ Cambridge: Polity. ISBN : 0-7456-0889-2 (inb.);
ISBN : 0-7456-0932-5 (hft.)

Graeber, D. 2011.​ Debt: The first 5000 years.​ New York: Melville House Publishing. ISBN-13:
9781612194196; ISBN-10: 1612194192

​ Brief History of Neoliberalism. ​Oxford: University Press

Harvey, D. 2005. A
ISBN: 978-1-61219-420-2

Hooks, B. 1984. ​Feminist theory: From margin to center.​ Boston, MA: South Ends Press. ISBN:
0896086135

Kabeer, N .2016. ​Gender equality, economic growth, and women’s agency: the “endless
variety” and “monotonous similarity” of patriarchal constraints.​ Feminist Economics 22(1):
​
295–321. DOI: https://doi-org.till.biblextern.sh.se/10.1080/13545701.2015.1090009

Lacey, Nicola. 1998. ​Unspeakable Subjects: Feminist Essays in Legal and Social Theory.​
Oxford: Hart Publishing, 221-250. ISBN: 9781901362343

Lazar, M.M. 2018. ​Feminist critical discourse analysis.​ I Flowerdew, John & Richardson, John
E. (red.). The Routledge Handbook of Critical Discourse Studies. Abingdon & New York:
Routledge, 704-708). ISBN: 978-1-138-82640-3 (hbk); ISBN: 978-1-315-73934-2 (ebk)

​
Loomba, A. and Lukose, R.A. (eds.). 2012. South ​
Asian Feminism. Durham, NC: Duke
University Press. ISBN: 9780822351658

​ ​ 3rd ed. Oxon and New York: Routledge.

Loomba, Anita. 2015. Colonialism/Postcolonialism.
ISBN : 9781315751245 (ebk)

Malkki, L. 1992. National Geographic. The Rooting of Peoples and the Territorialization of
National Identity among Scholars and Refugees. ​Cultural Anthropology​ 7(1): 24- 44
https://www.uio.no/studier/emner/sv/sai/SOSANT2210/v11/Malkki_National_Geografic.pdf
[2020-12-5]

42
Marx, K. 1977. ​Capital.​ Vol 1, trans. B. Fowler, New York: Vintage Books.
ISBN-13: 9780199535705; ISBN-10: 0199535701

May, V. M. 2015.​ Pursuing Intersectionality, Unsettling Dominant Imaginaries.​ New York and
Oxton: Routledge. ISBN:978-0-415-80840-8 (pbk); ISBN:978-0-203-144199-1 (ebk)

Mills, S. 2008.​ Language and Sexism.​ Cambridge University Press.

DOI: ​https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511755033

Mies, M. 1986. ​Patriarchy and Accumulation on a Ward Scale, Women in the International
​
Division of Labour. London: Zed Books.
ISBN 1 85649 734 8 (hbk); ISBN 1 85649 735 6 (pbk)

​
Mitter, S. 1989. Common Fate, Common Bond: Women in the Global Economy.​ London: Pluto
Press. ISBN-13: 978-0745300269; ISBN-10: 074530026X

​
Moghadam, V. 2005. Globalizing Women: Transnational Feminist Networks. ​Baltimore: Johns
Hopkins University Press. ISBN 10: 0801880246; ISBN 13: 9780801880247

​
Moghadam, V. 2005. The “Feminization of Poverty” and Women’s Human Rights. ​Boston:
Northeastern University Press.
http://www.cpahq.org/cpahq/cpadocs/Feminization_of_Poverty.pdf​ ​[2020-12-5]

Mosedale, S. 2014. Women’s empowerment as a development goal: taking a feminist standpoint.

Journal of International Development.​ 26: 1115–1125. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jid.3050
​

Moser, C. & Moser, A. 2005. ​Gender mainstreaming since Beijing: a review of success and
limitations in international institutions.​ Gender & #x26; Development 13(2): 11-22. DOI:
10.1080/13552070512331332283

Pala, A. O. 1977. Definitions of Women and Development: An African Perspective. In Wellesley

Editorial Committee (eds.). ​Women and National Development: The Complexities of Change.​
​
Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/493434

​ Capital au XX1e siècle.​ Paris: Éditions de Seuil.

Picketty. 2013. Le
ISBN-10 : 2757884581; ISBN-13 : 978-2757884584

43
Pope, J. P. 11, ​Holy See’s Final Statement at Women’s Conference in Beijing​ (Sept. 15, 1995).
https://holyseemission.org/contents/statements/statements-55e34d327fa5b2.61221779.php
[2020-12-5]

​
Porter, F. & Sweetman, C. 2005. Gender Mainstreaming Since Beijing: A Review of Success and
Limitations in International Institutions.​ Gender & Development 13(2): 2-10. DOI:
10.1080/13552070512331332282

Rathgeber, E. M. 1990. WID, WAD, GAD:​ ​Trends in research and practice. The ​ Journal of
Developing Areas.​ 24(4)
https://www-jstor-org.till.biblextern.sh.se/stable/pdf/4191904.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A10a8d1
​
f280ba7d01b0122c4911df4f6e​ ​ [2020-12-5]

​
Sida. 2015. Gender ​
Analysis - Principle & Elements [Tool]. Stockholm: Sida
https://www.sida.se/contentassets/a3f08692e731475db106fdf84f2fb9bd/gender-tool-analysis.pdf
[2020-12-5]

​
Sida. 2015. Gender Mainstreaming ​[Tool]. Stockholm: Sida
https://www.sida.se/contentassets/9d450477fa6b49be81a77ded3c2e474a/gender-tool-mainstrea
ming.pdf​ [2020-12-5]

​
Sida. 2015. Supporting women’s Economic Empowerment: Scope for Sida’s engagement
​ Stockholm: Sida.
[​Thematic Overview].
https://www.sida.se/contentassets/da9c95263a234bf7af7638dd371f195c/supporting-womens-e
conomic-empowerment.pdf​ [2020-12-5]

​
Sida. 2020. Gender Toolbox.​ [Provides Sida’s methods and tools].
https://www.sida.se/English/partners/methods-materials/gender-tool-box/​ [2020-7-15]

​
Sida. 2020. Globala målen och klimatavtalet visar vägen för det svenska biståndet
https://www.sida.se/Svenska/sa-fungerar-bistandet/svenskt-bistand/globala-malen-och-klimatavt
alet/​ [2020-12-5]

44
Stepan, N.L. 1990. “Race and Gender”: The role of Analogy in Science. In D.T. Goldberg (ed.)
​
The Anatomy of Racism. Minneapolis, MN, and London: University of Minnesota Press, pp.
38-57. ISBN 978-0-8166-1804-0

​
Swedish Ministry For Foreign Affairs. 2018. Strategi för Sveriges utvecklingssamarbete för
global jämställdhet och kvinnors och flickors rättigheter 2018–2022.​ Government
​ office of
Sweden.
https://www.regeringen.se/4aff43/contentassets/47d8446b9470407b9db08371123b14fd/strategi-f
or-sveriges-utvecklingssamarbete-for-global-jamstalldhet-och-kvinnors-och-flickors-rattigheter-
20182022​ [2020-12-5]

Thiessen, I. 2010. ​Daughters of “post”- socialist Macedonia.​ Nanaimo: Vancouver Island

​
University. https://scholarworks.iu.edu/journals/index.php/aeer/article/view/653/746 ​ [2020-12-5]
​

UN. 1996. ​Report of the Fourth World Conference on Women.​ Beijing 1995.
ISBN 92-1-130181-5.
https://www.un.org/womenwatch/daw/beijing/pdf/Beijing%20full%20report%20E.pdf
[2020-12-5]

​
UN Women. 2018. Promoting Gender Responsive Policies and Budgets: Towards Transparent,
Inclusive and Accountable Governance in FYR of Macedonia ​ [Project document]
file:///home/chronos/u-3f5549a80ee93cab35840e53c5f174894187ade0/MyFiles/Downloads/Dra
ft%20Project%20Document%20Proposal%20for%20intervention%20on%20gender%20._%20(1
).pdf​ [Obtained from Sida after request 2018-5-9]

van Dijk, T.A. 1998. ​Ideology: A multidisciplinary approach.​ London: Sage.

ISBN-13: 978-0761956556; ISBN-10: 0761956557

​
West, C., and Zimmerman, D. 1987. Doing gender. Gender & Society.​ 1(2): 125-151. DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243287001002002

Wodak, R. 2003. Multiple identities: The role of female parliamentarians in the EU Parliament.
In J. Holmes and M. Meyerhoff (eds.) ​The handbook of language and gender,​ 671- 698. Oxford:
​
Blackwell. DOI:10.1002/9780470756942.CH29

45
Women’s Major Group. 2014. ​‘Women’s “8 Red Flags” Following the Conclusion of the Open
Working Group on Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)’.​ Women’s Major Group Final
Statement - July 21.
https://www.womensmajorgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/Womens-Major-Group_OWG
_FINALSTATEMENT_21July.pdf​ ​[2020-12-5]

Woodward, A. E. 2001. ​Gender Mainstreaming in European Policy: Innovation or Deception?

Discussion Paper. SSG Sozialwissenschaften, USB Köln. 5: 12. ISSN Nr. 1011-9523.
https://econpapers.repec.org/paper/zbwwzboem/fsi01103.htm​ ​[2020-12-5]

46
47