URN:NBN:fi:tsv-oa7894 DOI: 10.11143/7894 Sex in the city: gender mainstreaming urban governance in Europe. The case of Sweden and Italy MARTIN ZEBRACKI Zebracki, Martin (2014). Sex in the city: gender mainstreaming urban govern- ance in Europe. The case of Sweden and Italy. Fennia 192: 1, pp. 54–64. ISSN 1798-5617. This article reviews gender mainstreaming in practices of urban governance in Europe by comparing Sweden and Italy, which have distinct welfare-state sys- tems: that of the former is firmly embedded in institutional and social structures, whereas that of the latter is markedly more familistic. This review illustrates this relatively strong contrast case on the basis of a literature and policy analysis, and elaborates how the everyday policies of urban governance regarding the living environment are considerably more gender-sensitive in Sweden than is the case in Italy. The main explanation for this difference lies in Sweden’s political social- ism and longer socio-democratic tradition of incremental and equity-planning approaches in urban governance, in contrast to Italy’s social tradition of rather more conservative corporatism and patriarchal commune tactics. Socio-political and formal-institutional barriers, which are impeding both the top-down and the bottom-up implementation of gender-sensitive initiatives, could be overcome by creating more mental and formal legislative room for urban-based gender main- streaming. Such room would challenge prevailing patriarchal societal structures and policy narratives. Keywords: Sweden, Italy, gender, gender mainstreaming, urban governance, lit- erature and policy analysis Martin Zebracki, School of Geography, University of Leeds, University Road, Leeds LS2 9JT, United Kingdom; Cultural Geography Group, Wageningen Uni- versity, Droevendaalsesteeg 3, Wageningen 6708 PB, the Netherlands. E-mail: M.M.Zebracki@leeds.ac.uk Introduction: the gendered city This research reviews contemporary gender main- streaming practices of urban governance in Eu- rope, particularly seen in the context of the Euro- pean Union (EU). A number of urban geographers have recently been critically revisiting cities through gender lenses (e.g. Moss & Al-Hindi 2008; Jarvis et al. 2009; Raju & Lahiri-Dutt 2011; Chant 2013). The general critique presented by geogra- phers concerned with gender is that both the field of geography and the practice of urban govern- ance − the latter being the methods of governing and the way of developing and implementing pol- icies at the local level − are too masculinist and gender-blind (cf. Doan 2010). Their argument runs that women’s presence in space is highly con- strained by gender roles, and that urban govern- ance in every sphere is oriented towards the needs and routines of especially male city users (Watson & Gibson 1995; McDowell 1999, see also Walby 2005a, 2005b; Lavena & Riccucci 2012). In that respect, a good while ago, Monk and Hanson (1982: 44) made a plea for “a more [gender-]fully human geography”. Even though most urban scholars acknowledge that gender equality matters in cities across the world (cf. Eriksson 2010), the topic of gender and urban governance still has a relatively modest po- sition on the academic agenda, whereas the dis- cussion of urban governance with regard to the welfare state and the neoliberal production of new state spaces is highly developed (cf. Jessop 2002; Brenner 2004). What the ‘gendered city’ in all its FENNIA 192: 1 (2014) 55Sex in the city: gender mainstreaming urban governance... diversities implies in terms of urban governance and modes of governing remains compelling and debatable (cf. Beall 1996; Huairou Commission and UN-Habitat 2004; Parker 2004; Moss & Al- Hindi 2008). Broadly speaking, a shift has been taking place in cities in the EU from governmental responsibili- ties to governance-oriented structures. This has led to increased interest in bottom-up initiatives. Pre- suming that ‘good’ urban governance (cf. UNCHS 2000; Huairou Commission and UN-Habitat 2004) requires being equitable, sustainable and ef- fective, the question here concerns the extent to which urban governance in Europe is gender-sen- sitive. In accordance with the criteria of the UNCHS (2000) for ‘good’ urban governance and sound gender politics in global governance and transnationalism (cf. Meyer & Prügl 1999; True & Mintrom 2001), gender mainstreaming govern- ance strives not only to promote the capacity building of particularly women − essentially those in community-based organizations and local au- thorities (cf. Droste et al. 2005) as well as in trans- national advocacy networks (cf. Lang 2009) − but also to include lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgen- der (LGBT) service providers and users (cf. Stone 2010). On this, Woodward (2003: 84) argues, in respect to town and country planning more wide- ly, that “gender awareness [should be] a given and equality [of sexes] [should be] a constant goal”. Accordingly, he states that “mainstreaming sug- gests that equal opportunities for women and men should no longer be achieved solely through equal-opportunity-earmarked policies. A multi- stranded and total approach is necessary” (ibid: 66). European cities are mainly characterized by densely populated areas with a large share of so- cial housing, and by large families, high densities of young people, immigrant populations and age- ing cohorts of mostly female residents. Moreover, female-headed households are becoming increas- ingly common in dense urban areas (cf. Becker 2003; Huairou Commission and UN-Habitat 2004; Anxo et al. 2007) − hence this review’s fo- cus on cities. In the light of todays’ integrated and governance-oriented urban administration, in- cluding bottom-up initiatives, the role of women as specifically both heads of family and potential political leaders is significant and therefore de- serves attention in the field of gender mainstream- ing. Europe’s different forms of welfare-state system and nation building have shaped a heterogeneous, complex social environment as regards gender sensitivity, also at the urban governance level, which is highly related to the governmentalities at regional and national levels (cf. Esping-Andersen 1990; Hamnett 1996; Dean 1999; Tuori 2007). This article provides a brief policy comparison be- tween Sweden and Italy. The rationale behind this selection is that these two countries have distinct welfare-state regimes and gender-social condi- tions (cf. Borchorst & Siim 2008) and are therefore a telling contrast case study. Sweden has a robustly implemented welfare- state system, whereas Italy’s is generally strongly familistic (cf. Droste et al. 2005; Anxo et al. 2007). Ciccia and Verloo (2011) classified Sweden as a full “universal caregiver model” (ibid: 6), while ac- knowledging that this model does not exist as such, as parental leaves are considered too short even in Nordic countries (see also Pfau-Effinger 2004). Furthermore, as conveyed by Kröger (1997) and Gustafsson and Szebehely (2009), it is appro- priate to contemplate Sweden as consisting of multiple welfare communities rather than one uni- form welfare state. Sweden’s local service provi- sion cannot be typified by a uniform pattern, and local governments have substantial autonomy, which gives them room to manage services like schools and geriatric care via not-for-profit or pri- vate actors (cf. Argento et al. 2010). On Italy, Saraceno (1994) stated that its familial- ism does not let the state intervene directly in fam- ily relations and hence, in the main, leaves fami- lies (that is, women in particular) to carry the bur- den of care. Moving beyond such generalization, Italy also presents a nuanced, differentiated profile in regard to welfare, especially since the local and regional government reforms of the 1990s. Salient anomalies in this respect are the rather centre-left regional and municipal governments of Tuscany, Umbria and Emilia-Romagna, which have histori- cally witnessed policies of equal employment op- portunities (cf. Rizza & Sansavini 2010). They ex- plicitly draw in the rights of women, provide high- quality and low-cost childcare, promote social in- tegration of the elderly (women in particular), de- liver support to women who have fallen victim to domestic abuse, and so on (cf. ibid.). Compara- tively, Sweden and Italy may thus be seen as fairly opposite poles within a continuum between wel- fare statism and familialism. 56 FENNIA 192: 1 (2014)Martin Zebracki Based on a discourse analysis of academic lit- erature and policy documents, this article address- es the following three research questions. To what extent is the current Swedish and Italian practice of urban governance gender-sensitive? How can the differences between these countries be ex- plained? And how could gender mainstreaming urban governance in Europe be generally ad- vanced? The article first presents a critical concep- tual overview of gender mainstreaming urban gov- ernance, and then clarifies and reflects upon the gender mainstreaming differences between Swe- den and Italy. A number of comparative conclu- sions are provided, together with some general recommendations for furthering structural frame- works that may enhance gender mainstreaming awareness and implementation within urban gov- ernance. Gender mainstreaming on critical display What are the needs of women in the urban built environment, and how do they differ from those of men? And what are the differences within ‘the dif- ferent’? How does urban governance affect wom- en and men differently, and how could it be adapt- ed in order to affect them equally? Urban scholars have been occupied with these and cognate ques- tions for more than 40 years (for further back- ground on the urban gender condition and gender histories across various epistemologies, see Lin & Mele 2013 and Gabaccia & Maynes 2013, respec- tively). Urban policymakers and planners broadly acknowledge that the implementation of policies on equal opportunities and gender mainstreaming is often problematic and unsuccessful (LeGates & Stout 2000; Parker 2004). The term ‘gender’ came into critical academic usage in the late 1960s and 1970s, and is now well-trod ground in humanities and social science literature. As commonly understood, contrary to the term ‘sex’, ‘gender’ serves a useful purpose in distinguishing those aspects of life that are more easily attributed to − or understood to be of − so- cial and cultural rather than biological origin (cf. Deaux 1985; Unger & Crawford 1992). More spe- cifically, ‘gender’ refers to the socially and cultur- ally defined differences between women and men, the relationships between them, the diversity and relativity of their roles within the community, and the social negotiations and power structures in which they are embedded (cf. Butler 1990). In line with this, Butler (1990) and Lorber (1995) con- ceived of ‘gender’ as a social construction and in- stitution, and one of the main principles of societal order. Liinason (2010) argued that discursive gender construction pursues quite multifarious approach- es in academia. Studies by Moss and Al-Hindi (2008) and Lavena and Riccucci (2012) indicated that gender mainstreaming is contested and sur- rounded by ambiguities, paradoxes and counter- actions from critical perspectives of organizational theory (stressing transformative gender-equality strategies via policy and practice, cf. Rees 1998, 2005), poststructuralist social movement theory (focusing on the socio-political power relation- ships in achieving gender-differentiated policy awareness, cf. Mazey 2000) and feminist theory (emphasizing diversity as a socio-cultural con- struction of sex without over-fetishizing immanent equalities and differences between men and wom- en, cf. Harding 2004; Kronsell 2005). The above theories move beyond trivial and in- discriminate generalizations in that they decon- struct ‘the’ needs of women in particular and show the fluidities of gender construction. Analo- gously, scholars do not deal with one and the same gender subject, but discuss ‘gender proper’, ‘gender sensitivity’, ‘gender mainstreaming’ or ‘gender equality’. The discourses on gender are complicated by a mixture of analytical and politi- cal conceptions stemming from sundry structural- ist and poststructuralist ontological and episte- mological dispositions. Thus, as inferred from Walby (2005a, 2005b), Verloo (2006, 2007) and Eriksson (2010), gender and gender sensitivity/ mainstreaming/equality are interrelated at the analytical and empirical level, and as such they are discursively and socially constructed and contested. West and Zimmermann (1987) imparted that the human production of space depends upon everyone’s constantly ‘doing’ gender (see also But- ler 1990). They posited that the social construction of gender affects all aspects of life and hence the culture of urban governance. West and Zimmer- mann (1987) and Bayes et al. (2001) moreover claim that people’s knowledge of gender con- structs can be enhanced through an alteration in education and institutional culture. This is rather challenging, however, as gender is mostly ‘done’ unconsciously, on top of which everyday environ- FENNIA 192: 1 (2014) 57Sex in the city: gender mainstreaming urban governance... mental practices often neutralize gender, as con- veyed by Rocheleau et al. (2006). As derived from Booth and Benneth (2002) and Lavena and Riccucci (2012), this article takes gen- der mainstreaming governance as the process of making gender-sensitive criteria a routine element in the development of organizations, plans and policies in relation to the social environment. Originally inspired by feminist theory, gender mainstreaming has been employed as a public- policy strategy since the 1990s (cf. True 2003; Lavena & Riccucci 2012). Although gender main- streaming entails a contested approach and a plethora of ambiguous notions (cf. Walby 2005a, 2005b), gender theorists are usually aware that the interface between gender mainstreaming and soci- etal change needs a stronger articulation (cf. Daly 2005). If governance implies the idea of a plurality of actors involved at different steps and levels in the programming and implementation of policies, it is apparent that the degree to and the way in which gender is incorporated into practices of ur- ban governance become crucial (Council of Eu- rope 1998; European Commission 2009). Here, the main challenge for urban governors is to avoid reinforcing stereotypes along the lines of sex and gender. Daly (2005) and Lavena and Riccucci (2012) indicate that gender issues are still on the periph- ery rather than at the centre of both theories and practices of urban governance. For all that, there has been progress since the 1960s in rendering and implementing academic work on gender into practice, primarily within the scope of European integration (Cavanagh 1998; Kronsell 2005). Modifications should go beyond merely adjusting the built environment as such (Fenster 1999; Darke et al. 2000). Sandercock and Forsyth (1992), Greed (2003) and Hafner-Burton and Pol- lack (2009) stressed the need to make changes in gender awareness in a wider sense, namely in education and in the culture of urban and region- al planning and governance, think moreover of community engagement and joined-up govern- ance (which are all highly differentiated and mul- tiscalar in themselves, cf. Yúdice 2003; Swynge- douw 2005; Biesta 2011; Healey 2012). LeGates and Stout (2000: 447) noted the academic re- sponsibility for increasing gender awareness: “re- search and theory building can help change the culture of planning so that gender considerations become an accepted part of practice by all plan- ners, male and female.” The challenge in this context is to identify, op- erationalize and apply gender-differentiated meth- ods in a coherent and consistent fashion that en- joys rapport with societal communities at large. Nonetheless, as expressed by Daly (2005), such a translation of gender mainstreaming into urban governance is seen as an obstacle rather than a challenge: “The lack of clarity in the concept/approach at the present time is causal. It provides fertile ground for political expediency, for example − because mainstreaming is so elastic, it is easy to make a claim to be doing mainstreaming. In addition, one could attribute the tendency toward technocrati- zation to lack of clarity in definition and concep- tualization.” (ibid: 439) That said, gender mainstreaming − technocratic in approach or not − has gained socio-political im- portance since WWII. Western gender criticism of urban governance, and hence gender awareness, arose in the urban sphere as well as urban litera- ture in the 1950s and 1960s (Hayden 1980; Parker 2004; Essed et al. 2009), when feminists began to criticize the physical and social constraints that cities put particularly on women. On the basis of Sandercock and Forsyth (1992), McDowell (1997), Cavanagh (1998), Booth and Bennett (2002) and Lavena and Riccucci (2012), one can discern three important theoretical devel- opments on the topic of gender in urban govern- ance over the last 40 years. First, a shift in focus from women as carers to women as carers and waged workers took place as a result of this new double role that women had achieved in society. Secondly, initially stress was often laid on just the differences between women and men, whereas at- tention is now paid to diversity within especially the group of women; not every woman is, for in- stance, a white, heterosexual, middle-class home- maker. Thirdly, the terminology of gender, and consequently its methodological structure, was modified. What began as ‘women and urban gov- ernance’ became ‘equal opportunities’ and then ‘gender sensitivity’ and ‘gender mainstreaming’. The last two terms basically imply the move from difference thinking towards gender reasoning, in which an attempt is made to stress and treat both women’s and men’s needs evenly, impartially and dialectically. In the mid-1970s, considerable difficulties arose from the change in the traditional family pattern in the western world. Substantially more 58 FENNIA 192: 1 (2014)Martin Zebracki women took up paid labour, and this permanently altered their mobility and space needs. However, the conventional homes and built environment did not fully satisfy the needs of employed women in particular. Since then, women’s restrictions in space (in respect of e.g. commuting, safety/vio- lence, childcare and leisure) have been one of the main topics in the literature and policy discourse on gender and urban governance (Hayden 1980; Huairou Commission and UN-Habitat 2004). Influential gender pioneers like Dolores Hayden started to explore the interrelationships between gender, class and power in the built environment in the 1970s. Inspired by Marxist literature on spa- tial design, Hayden (1980) made a plea for ena- bling women to become equal members of society by assailing the accustomed division between public and private space. Hayden managed to link human activity to geographical scales, and in do- ing so focused on the differentiation between par- ticularly women and all their assorted needs in time and space (cf. Hayden 1980; Sandercock & Forsyth 1992, see also Scholten et al. 2012). Women’s and men’s lives − their work, earned income, situated roles, shared relationships, and so on − are shaped by social norms and traditions that treat women and men differently. The attrib- utes, needs and desires of women and men, and the way in which they shape social, political and economic life, differ among as well as between women and men, which should be reckoned with in gender awareness (Hayden 1980; Beall 1996; Parker 2004). Hayden’s (1980) main criticism of the modern built environment was that it under- represents ‘good’ neighbourhoods: living areas that unite the services, housing and jobs that are demanded by both men and women in all their diversities (cf. Huairou Commission and UN-Hab- itat 2004). Such gender mainstreamed space is one of the goals of the EU (cf. European Commission 2000; Lombardo & Meier 2008). However, Lavena and Riccucci (2012: 134) stated that the EU has made “less progress in terms of results”, especially on the deep-seated social level, despite its implementa- tion of gender-sensitive policy regulations. They ascribed this lack of progress to the non-coherent ways in which diverse EU regimes conceptually and practically engage with gender mainstream- ing, and to the complex, contradictory and multi- scalar reality of gender mainstreaming govern- ance, which ranges from local to regional, national and global levels (ibid.). Sweden and Italy: differentiated perspectives on gender mainstreaming In the purview of gender mainstreaming urban governance in Europe, there is, relatively seen, a considerable contrast between the political policy histories of Sweden and Italy. Whereas Sweden broadly embodies a highly developed welfare- state regime (cf. Anxo et al. 2007), Italy generally harbours a highly familistic welfare-state regime that corresponds to a traditional society in which women are predominantly typified as carers (cf. Hamnett 1996; Anxo et al. 2007). In addition to the differentiating notes as given in the introduc- tion to this article, the differences between Swed- ish and Italian gender mainstreaming urban gov- ernance, and the internal differences on both sides, should also be delicately understood from the various roles and related social and legal re- sponsibilities of local authorities that are in inter- play with regional and national governments, as further contextualized in the following. The chief participatory channel in urban gov- ernance is through political and institutional bod- ies (Droste et al. 2005). In both countries, princi- pally some women’s groups have established bot- tom-up, grassroots initiatives in order to main- stream gender in the political and institutional realm. Despite empowerment-oriented move- ments like these, EU gender-equality pacts, in jux- taposition to Sweden, usually still challenge the gender sensitivity of urban governance practices in Italy (cf. Anxo et al. 2007; Pettersson 2012). On this, it should be acknowledged that urban poli- cies are normally beyond the EU’s competences. Nevertheless, some urban policy programmes, such as URBAN, are formally embedded in the EU (cf. Tofarides 2003). The EU has, moreover, the po- tential to advocate regional and urban policies, including gender-sensitive initiatives, and thus to be a public educator in this context (cf. Biesta 2011; Lavena & Riccucci 2012). According to Hamnett (1996), Droste et al. (2005) and Rizza and Sansavini (2010), over the last 20 years a gender-sensitive approach has been gradually incorporated into the political and social culture of the Italian regime, and consequently into urban governance. On the basis of their in- sights, to boot, one can find that although the Ital- ian political landscape is increasingly regionally polarized and political power chiefly remains a male privilege in Italy today, the female presence FENNIA 192: 1 (2014) 59Sex in the city: gender mainstreaming urban governance... in politics and urban administration in particular is increasing due to a generally augmenting permis- sive mindset (for facts and figures on Italy’s gender- equality machinery in multilevel governance, see Guadagnini & Donà 2007; Ortbals et al. 2011). This may have a positive influence on policy com- mitment to social welfare and cultural difference (cf. Chen 2010, and see notes on Italy in Krook & Childs 2010). Even so, it should be argued that, over the last 20 years, the Italian gender-permis- sive mindset has found itself doing battle with anti- progressive tactics and policies, also related to the domestic sphere, which has restrained the poten- tial to further implement gender-sensitive ap- proaches in the political arena and to promote al- ternative gender imageries in Italian society (cf. Saraceno 1994; Guadagnini & Donà 2007). Although the female presence in Italian urban governance is still quite modest as compared to Sweden, there is gender improvement in Italy par- ticularly on account of the opportunities provided by two objectives of legislative intercession. Namely, the further closing of gender gaps in edu- cation and at the professional level, and the supply of ad hoc institutions supervising the implementa- tion of gender-equality rationales, which includes the provision of workshops on job training, and campaigns aimed at combatting gender violence and improving the health of women (Ortbals et al. 2011, see also Droste et al. 2005). These legislative endeavours, stirred by the Ministry of Equal Op- portunities and the National Committee for Equal Opportunities at Work, are supposed to advance equal socio-economic opportunities regarding work, education, entrepreneurship, provision for maternity and paternity, and the like. Not only do such top-down endeavours matter, but so too do the responsibilities and powers of regional govern- ments, above all in the fields of transport, plan- ning, social services and healthcare. Gender poli- cies in these fields are mainly instituted at the re- gional level; municipal gender-sensitive incentives are less common (cf. Barbera & Vettor 2001; Zajc- zyk 2003; Anxo et al. 2007). A prominent empirical example of gender main- streaming urban governance in Italy is the case of proper working time schedules, which were first drawn up after the public administration reform of the early 1990s. Although the contents of Italian urban gender policies are generally forward-look- ing, as they include gender-inclusive socio-spatial interventions, the gender approach tends to be rather expedient, and, more fundamentally, re- mains within the sphere of male-dominated deci- sion making and corporate governance (cf. Ponzel- lini 2006). Furthermore, in contrast to Sweden, a substan- tial share of Italian gender-sensitive initiatives and policies are dependent on the actions of single lo- cal actors like mayors and other city managers (cf. Mattei 2007); this has especially been the case since the 2001 constitutional reform, when mu- nicipalities gained more autonomy (cf. Argento et al. 2010). In Italy, gender mainstreaming within urban governance often lacks synergy, a coherent and strategic vision, and accurate action planning (cf. Zajczyk 2003; Droste et al. 2005). Moreover, in comparison with Sweden, in Italy there is a dearth of statistical information − and therefore evidence − on female representation in decision making and the overall condition of women. This lack of statistics, however, does not prevent Italian policy innovations from engaging in gender main- streaming (cf. Statistical Commission and Econom- ic Commission for Europe 2000; Guadagnini & Donà 2007; Rizza & Sansavini 2010). Gender is historically strongly mainstreamed in Swedish social policies (Hamnett 1996). Saliently, Sweden has one of the world’s highest proportions of women in decision-making positions at the na- tional, regional and local level (for facts and fig- ures, see UNCHS 2001; Anxo et al. 2007; Euro- pean Commission 2012). Over the last 35 years, Sweden has implemented advanced gender-equal- ity policies, albeit through a rather top-down, pre- scriptive legislative framework. Considerable poli- cies are the Equal Opportunities Act of 1991 and its related national, regional and local mainstream- ing schemes. These policies have been followed through with specific strategies, pilot projects and gender-training courses in the public domain with the purpose of increasing gender parity and aware- ness (cf. Division for Gender Equality 2005; Anxo et al. 2007; European Institute for Gender Equality 2012). The Swedish equity planning has acknowledged the innumerable conflicting social interests within a transforming society. Through their recognition of marginalized interests, the far-reaching Swedish equity planning and policymaking have inter- linked feminist planning criticism, the deconstruc- tion of dualist conceptions of gender in societal power relations, and the gender mainstreaming strategy as an instrument to change these relations in a drastic, socio-politically inclusive way (cf. Lis- ter 2003; Droste et al. 2005; Liinason 2010). 60 FENNIA 192: 1 (2014)Martin Zebracki As an empirical illustration, national schemes run by the Swedish Agency for Economic and Re- gional Growth promote women’s entrepreneur- ship, and are intrinsically aimed at gender inclu- siveness at all levels of government (cf. European Commission 2012; Pettersson 2012). Moreover, municipalities organize projects on gender equal- ity, which primarily touch on matters related to female representation in decision making (cf. Woodward 2003). Local Development Agree- ments (LDAs), furthermore, have been implement- ed in Sweden to stimulate civic participation and incite the deeper and broader citizenship of both women and men. For example, LDAs have ena- bled the foundation of women’s policy agencies − which are also encouraging initiatives by distinct local communities that include women of different ethnic origins, who might experience discrimina- tion (think specifically of migrants and ethnic mi- norities). LDAs have additionally led to metropoli- tan programmes at the meso-level that are intend- ed to boost gender parity and articulate and cher- ish gender differences among the urban popula- tion by combating segregation along economic, social and ethnic lines (cf. Lukkarinen 2004; Schulz et al. 2007). Despite these endeavours, there is some criticism in Sweden regarding the allegedly inadequate capacity of Swedish welfare communities to achieve full diversity, owing to their prioritization of gender over other socio-cul- tural inequalities concerning, for example, class and ethnicity (cf. Siim 2007; Borchorst & Siim 2008). Concluding remarks The comparative findings of this research have shown that the key factor in creating opportuni- ties − or rather constraints − for mainstreaming gender into urban governance bears on the insti- tutionalization of gender mainstreaming. In Sweden, gender mainstreaming is considerably more interwoven with the socio-political fabric than is the case in Italy. The most important rea- son for this lies in the much longer Swedish democratic tradition of incremental egalitarian planning and policymaking in practices of urban governance, and in Sweden’s overall higher po- litical pressure on gender-sensitive practices. As also inferred from Guadagnini and Donà (2007), Borchorst and Siim (2008), the European Com- mission (2000, 2011, 2012), Ortbals et al. (2011) and Pettersson (2012), other underlying reasons are the comparatively higher educational level of women in Sweden and their commonly stronger capacity to empower themselves (which is related to the remarkably more pronounced double role of Swedish women as carers and waged workers); the relatively low level of fe- male political participation in Italy, which in general has led to a paucity of gender aware- ness; the rather more ad hoc instruments for im- plementing gender mainstreaming policies in It- aly; and the substantially more male-streamed culture of urban governance in Italy, which to a large extent depends upon its widespread tradi- tional, patriarchal society. All in all, Sweden has witnessed a comparatively stronger institution- alization of gender awareness and a more struc- tural embedding of gender mainstreaming with- in urban governance than Italy. Although the gender sensitivity of urban gov- ernance in Sweden can by and large be regard- ed as fairly strong, there is, as is the case in Italy, a certain lack of gender awareness, particularly regarding women’s safety in land-use planning (cf. Sandercock & Forsysth 1992; Anxo et al. 2007). This lack is often considered part and parcel of the largely male-streamed European society (cf. Ottes et al. 1995; Rees 2005). In both Sweden and Italy, the impact of gender- sensitive policies varies across urban govern- ance fields, and on that account there remains a plethora of gender gaps. Strikingly, and perhaps relatedly, the level of female socio-political par- ticipation in institutionalized ‘classic’ domains like public transport is relatively lower than in ‘unconventional’, participatory-based domains such as community building (cf. Carlsson-Kany- ama et al. 1999; Droste et al. 2005; Anxo et al. 2007). Furthermore, as a general challenge within the European context of urban governance, Lavena and Riccucci (2012) stated that the current economic crisis has indirectly led Eu- ropean countries and regional and local gov- ernments to prioritize economic competitive- ness over gender diversity and awareness in public policy, and as a result, the gender neu- trality of European policies should be ques- tioned (see also Woodward & Meier 1998 for gender impact assessment in the changing so- cio-political landscape of Europe). In addi- tion, the degree of public willingness to report cases of gender discrimination puts another FENNIA 192: 1 (2014) 61Sex in the city: gender mainstreaming urban governance... complexion on the matter (cf. Lavena & Riccucci 2012). This study suggests that using the interstices left by the programmes and policies of urban govern- ance to intertwine top-down and bottom-up structures and initiatives − and hence interlink actions − might produce the most effective results as far as gender mainstreaming in the city is con- cerned. In the light of such ‘good’ urban govern- ance, the regional, the national and the suprana- tional EU level could together play an essential role in fostering and revving up policies apropos of gender sensitivity from above. At the same time, ‘good’ urban governance should further stimulate the role of civil society actors and pub- lic movements in advocating and reifying gender mainstreaming in local policy and planning. This article is work in progress and argues that further, deeper research is needed on the socio- spatial construction of gender issues in urban policymaking and their regional differences. On this, nuanced critical insight is required into peo- ple’s social and cultural backgrounds, including class, race, ethnicity, sexuality, religion, age and ability/disability (cf. European Commission 2009; Brown 2012; Leslie & Catungal 2012), and their resources and knowledges in time and socio- physical as well as virtual spaces (cf. Green & Adam 2001, see Haraway 2004 for ‘situated knowledges’ as a helpful epistemological and methodological tool in such endeavour). This would make ‘doing’ gender in both academia and urban governance a plausible outlook for citizenship in a post-nationalist vein more broad- ly (cf. Braidotti 2010) and sexual citizenship in particular (cf. Mann 2013; Zebracki 2014). Such intellectual as well as ‘real-world’ gender main- streaming (cf. Mazey 2000) relies on the aware- ness of the gender-differentiated public as the ul- timate voice in the formulation of policy and planning means and ends. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS While any errors are my own, I should like to thank the anonymous referees and the editor Paola Minoia for their useful comments on earlier ver- sions of this manuscript. This research was con- ducted in the Cultural Geography Group at Wage- ningen University and received no specific grant from any funding agency. REFERENCES Anxo D, Flood L, Mencarini L, Pailhé A, Solaz A & Tanturri M 2007. Time allocation between work and family over the life-cycle: a comparative gen- der analysis of Italy, France, Sweden and the Unit- ed States. Institute for the Study of Labor, Bonn. Argento D, Grossi G, Tagesson T & Collin S 2010. The ‘externalisation’ of local public service delivery: experience in Italy and Sweden. International Journal of Public Policy 5: 1, 41–56. http://dx.doi. org/10.1504/IJPP.2010.029780. Barbera M & Vettor P 2001. The case of Italy. In Behn- ing U & Pascual A (eds). Gender mainstreaming in the European employment strategy, 259–272. Eu- ropean Trade Union Institute, Brussels. Bayes J, Hawkesworth M & Kelly R 2001. Globaliza- tion, democratization and gender regimes. In Kel- ly R, Bayes J, Hawkesworth M & Young B (eds). Gender, globalization and democratization, 1–14. Rowman and Littlefield, Boulder. Beall J 1996. Urban governance: why gender matters. United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Gender in Development Monograph Series 1. United Nations Development Programme, New York. Becker R 2003. What’s wrong with a female head? The prevalence of women-headed households and its impact on urban development and planning. In Terlinden U (ed). From the local level to the global level and back again. City and gender: international discourse on gender, urbanism and architecture, 151–173. Leske und Budrich, Opladen. Biesta G 2011. The ignorant citizen: Mouffe, Ran- cière, and the subject of democratic education. Studies in Philosophy and Education 30: 2, 141– 153. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11217-011-9220-4. Booth C & Bennett C 2002. Gender mainstreaming in the European Union: towards a new concep- tion and practice of equal opportunities? Euro- pean Journal of Women’s Studies 9: 4, 430–446. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/13505068020090040 401. Borchorst A & Siim B 2008. Woman-friendly poli- cies and state feminism: theorizing Scandinavian gender equality. Feminist Theory 9: 2, 207–224. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1464700108090411. Braidotti R 2010. European citizenship: a post-na- tionalist perspective. In May T (ed). The history of continental philosophy: emerging trends in con- tinental philosophy, 127–148. Acumen, Dur- ham. Brenner N 2004. Urban governance and the pro- duction of new state spaces in western Europe, 1960–2000. Review of International Political Economy 11: 3, 447–488. http://dx.doi.org/10.1 080/0969229042000282864. Brown M 2012. Gender and sexuality I: intersectional anxieties. Progress in Human Geography 36: 4, 541– 550.http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0309132511420973. 62 FENNIA 192: 1 (2014)Martin Zebracki Butler J 1990. Gender trouble: feminism and the sub- version of identity. Routledge, London. Carlsson-Kanyama A, Lindén A & Thelander Å 1999. Insights and applications: gender differences in environmental impacts from patterns of transpor- tation – a case study from Sweden. Society & Nat- ural Resources: An International Journal 12: 4, 355–369. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/089419299279641. Cavanagh S 1998. Women and the urban environ- ment. In Greed C & Roberts M (eds). Introducing urban design: interventions and responses, 168– 177. Longman, Essex. Chant S 2013. Cities through a “gender lens”: a gold- en “urban age” for women in the global South? Environment and Urbanization 25: 1, 9–29. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/0956247813477809. Chen L 2010. Do gender quotas influence women’s representation and policies? The European Jour- nal of Comparative Economics 7: 1, 13–60. Ciccia R & Verloo M 2011. Who cares? Patterns of leave regulation in an enlarged Europe: using fuzzy-set ideal types to assess gender equality. In- stitut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen, Quality in Gender+ Equality Policies (QUING), Vienna. Council of Europe 1998. Gender mainstreaming: conceptual framework, methodology and presen- tation of good practices. Council of Europe, Stras- bourg. Daly M 2005. Gender mainstreaming in theory and practice. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 12: 3, 433–450. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxi023. Darke J, Ledwith S & Woods R 2000. Women and the city: visibility and voice in urban space. Palgrave, Oxford. Dean M 1999. Governmentality: power and rule in modern society. Sage, Los Angeles. Deaux K 1985. Sex and gender. Annual Review of Psychology 36: 1, 49–81. http://dx.doi. org/10.1146/annurev.ps.36.020185.000405. Division for Gender Equality 2005. Gender equality in Sweden – a summary. 19.03.2013. Doan P 2010. The tyranny of gendered spaces – re- flections from beyond the gender dichotomy. Gender, Place & Culture 17: 5, 635–654. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/0966369X.2010.503121. Droste C, Molina I & Zajczyk F 2005. Restructuring large housing estates: does gender matter? In Van Kempen R, Dekker K, Hall S & Tosics I (eds). Re- structuring large housing estates in Europe, 299– 320. The Policy Press, Bristol. Eriksson A (ed) 2010. Equality, growth & sustainabil- ity: do they mix? Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings, No. 58. Forum for Gender Studies and Equality, Linköping University, Linköping. < h t t p : / / l i u . d i v a - p o r t a l . o r g / s m a s h / g e t / diva2:413708/FULLTEXT02.pdf> 05.04.2013. Esping-Andersen G 1990. The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Polity Press, Cambridge. Essed P, Goldberg D & Kobayashi A 2009. A compan- ion to gender studies. Wiley-Blackwell, Malden. European Commission 2000. Gender equality in the European Union: examples of good practices (1996–2000). Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg. European Commission 2009. Gender mainstreaming active inclusion policies. 11.02.2013. European Commission 2011. Data and information on women’s health in the European Union. 18.01.2013. European Commission 2012. Women in economic decision making in the EU: progress report. 16.01.2013. European Institute for Gender Equality 2012. Map- ping of gender training policies and practices in the European Union. Summary of findings. 08.02.2013. Fenster T (ed) 1999. Gender, planning and human rights. Routledge, New York. Gabaccia D & Maynes M (eds) 2013. Gender history across epistemologies. Wiley-Blackwell, Oxford. Greed C 2003. The rocky path: 'from women and plan- ning' to gender mainstreaming. Faculty of the Built Environment, University of the West of England, Bristol. Green E & Adam A (eds) 2001. Virtual gender: technol- ogy, consumption and identity. Routledge, London. Guadagnini M & Donà A 2007. Women’s policy ma- chinery in Italy between European pressure and do- mestic constraints. In Outshoorn J & Kantola J (eds). Changing state feminism, 200–230. Palgrave, New York. Gustafsson R & Szebehely M 2009. Outsourcing of el- der care services in Sweden: effects on work envi- ronment and political legitimacy. In King D & Mea- gher G (eds). Paid care in Australia: politics, profits, practices, 81–112. Sydney University Press, Sydney. Hafner-Burton E & Pollack M 2009. Mainstreaming gen- der in the European Union: getting the incentives right. Comparative European Politics 7: 1, 114–138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1057/cep.2008.37. Hamnett C 1996. Social polarisation, economic restruc- turing and welfare state regimes. Urban Studies 33: 8, 1407–1430. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0042098966727. Haraway D 2004. Situated knowledges: the science question in feminism and the privilege of partial per- spective. In Harding S (ed). The feminist standpoint theory reader: intellectual and political controver- sies, 81–102. Routledge, New York. FENNIA 192: 1 (2014) 63Sex in the city: gender mainstreaming urban governance... Harding S (ed) 2004. The feminist standpoint theory reader: intellectual and political controversies. Routledge, New York. Hayden D 1980. What would a non-sexist city be like? Speculations on housing, urban design, and hu- man work. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society 5: 3, 170–187. http://dx.doi. org/10.1086/495718. Healey P 2012. The universal and the contingent: some reflections on the transnational flow of plan- ning ideas and practices. Planning Theory 11: 2, 188–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1473095211419333. Huairou Commission and UN-Habitat 2004. Local to local dialogue: a grassroots women’s perspective on good governance. Urban governance toolkit se- ries. UN-Habitat, Nairobi. Jarvis H, Cloke J & Kantor P 2009. Cities and gender. Routledge, New York. Jessop B 2002. Liberalism, neoliberalism, and urban governance: a state–theoretical perspective. Anti- pode 34: 3, 452–472. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8330.00250. Kronsell A 2005. Gender, power and European inte- gration theory. Journal of European Public Policy 12: 6, 1022–1040. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13501760500270703. Krook M & Childs S (eds) 2010. Women, gender, and politics: a reader. Oxford University Press, New York. Kröger T 1997. The dilemma of municipalities: Scandi- navian approaches to child day-care provision. Journal of Social Policy 26: 4, 485–507. http://dx. doi.org/10.1017/S0047279497005126. Lang S 2009. Assessing advocacy: European transna- tional women’s networks and gender mainstream- ing. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 16: 3, 327–357. http://dx.doi. org/10.1093/sp/jxp016. Lavena C & Riccucci N 2012. Exploring gender main- streaming in the European Union. International Journal of Public Administration 35: 2, 122–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01900692.2011.61699. LeGates R & Stout F 2000. The city reader. Routledge, London. Leslie D & Catungal J 2012. Social justice and the cre- ative city: class, gender and racial inequalities. Ge- ography Compass 6: 3, 111–122. http://dx.doi. org/10.1111/j.1749-8198.2011.00472.x. Liinason M 2010. Institutionalized knowledge: notes on the processes of inclusion and exclusion in gen- der studies in Sweden. NORA — Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research 18: 1, 38–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08038741003626973. Lin J & Mele C (eds) 2013. The urban sociology reader. Routledge, New York. Lister R 2003. Citizenship: feminist perspectives. New York University Press, New York. Lombardo E & Meier P 2008. Framing gender equality in the European Union political discourse. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 15: 1, 101–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxn001. Lorber J 1995. Paradoxes of gender. Yale University Press, New Haven. Lukkarinen M 2004. Local development agreements as a tool to stop segregation in vulnerable metropolitan ar- eas: synthesis report. European Commission. 02.03.2013. Mann E 2013. Regulating Latina youth sexualities through community health centers: discourses and practices of sexual citizenship. Gender & Society 27: 5, 681–703. Mattei P 2007. From politics to good management? Transforming the local welfare state in Italy. West European Politics 30: 3, 595–620. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/01402380701276444. Mazey S 2000. Introduction: integrating gender — in- tellectual and ‘real world’ mainstreaming. Journal of European Public Policy 7: 3, 333–345. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/13501760050086062. McDowell L 1997. Capital culture: gender at work in the city. Blackwell, Oxford. McDowell L 1999. Gender, identity and place. Under- standing feminist geographies. Polity Press, Cam- bridge. Meyer M & Prügl E (eds) 1999. Gender politics in glob- al governance. Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham. Monk J & Hanson S 1982. On not excluding half of the human in human geography. The Professional Ge- ographer 34: 1, 11–23. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ j.0033-0124.1982.00011.x. Moss P & Al-Hindi K 2008. Feminisms in geography: rethinking space, place, and knowledges. Rowman & Littlefield, Lanham. Ortbals C, Rincker M & Montoya C 2011. Politics close to home: the impact of meso-level institu- tions on women in politics. Publius: The Journal of Federalism 42: 1, 78–107. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjr029. Ottes L, Poventud E, Van Schendelen M & Segond von Banchet G (eds) 1995. Gender and the built envi- ronment: emancipation in planning, housing and mobility in Europe. Van Gorcum, Assen. Parker S 2004. From pillar to post: culture, representa- tion and difference in the urban world. In Urban theory and the urban experience: encountering the city, 138–158. Routledge, London. Pettersson K 2012. Support for women’s entrepreneur- ship: a Nordic spectrum. International Journal of Gender and Entrepreneurship 4: 1, 4–19. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1108/17566261211202954. Pfau-Effinger B 2004. Development of culture, welfare states and women’s employment in Europe. Ash- gate, Aldershot. Ponzellini A 2006. Work–life balance and industrial relations in Italy. European Societies 8: 2, 273–294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616690600645043. Raju S & Lahiri-Dutt K (eds) 2011. Doing gender, doing geog- raphy: emerging research in India. Routledge, New Delhi. 64 FENNIA 192: 1 (2014)Martin Zebracki Rees T 1998. Mainstreaming equality. In Watson S & Doyal L (eds). Engendering social policy. Open Uni- versity Press, Buckingham. Rees T 2005. Reflections on the uneven development of gender mainstreaming in Europe. International Fem- inist Journal of Politics 7: 4, 555–574. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/14616740500284532. Rizza R & Sansavini M 2010. Welfare e politiche di conciliazione: il caso dell’Emilia-Romagna [Wel- fare and work–life balance policies: the case of Emilia-Romagna]. Sociologia del Lavoro 119, 78– 96. Rocheleau D, Thomas-Slayter B & Wangari E 2006. Gender and the environment: a feminist political ecology perspective. In Haenn N & Wilk R (eds). The environment in anthropology: a reader in ecol- ogy, culture, and sustainable living, 27–33. New York University Press, New York. Sandercock L & Forsyth A 1992. A gender agenda: new directions for planning theory. Journal of the Ameri- can Planning Association 58: 1, 49–59. http://dx. doi.org/10.1080/01944369208975534. Saraceno C 1994. The ambivalent familism of the Ital- ian welfare state. Social Politics: International Stud- ies in Gender, State & Society 1: 1, 60–82. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1093/sp/1.1.60. Scholten C, Friberg T & Sandén A 2012. Re-reading time-geography from a gender perspective: exam- ples from gendered mobility. Tijdschrift voor Econo- mische en Sociale Geografie 103: 5, 584–600. h t t p : / / d x . d o i . o r g / 1 0 . 1 1 1 1 / j . 1 4 6 7 - 9663.2012.00717.x. Schulz S, Vidén S & Chandra S 2007. General overview of the problems, needs and solutions in the Swedish urban building envelopes. In Melgaard E, Hadjimi- chael G, Almeida M & Verhoef L (eds). COST C16 improving the quality of existing urban building en- velopes — needs, 131–139. IOS Press, Amsterdam. Siim B 2007. The challenge of recognizing diversity from the perspective of gender equality: dilemmas in Danish citizenship. Critical Review of Internation- al Social and Political Philosophy 10: 4, 491–511. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13698230701660196. Statistical Commission and Economic Commission for Europe 2000. Making gender mainstreaming a na- tional priority. Working paper no. 14. 11.03.2013. Stone A 2010. Diversity, dissent, and decision making: the challenge to LGBT politics. GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 16: 3, 465–472. http://dx. doi.org/10.1215/10642684-2009-040. Swyngedouw E 2005. Governance innovation and the citizen: the Janus face of governance-beyond-the- state. Urban Studies 42: 11, 1991–2006. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1080/00420980500279869. Tofarides M 2003. Urban policy in the European Un- ion: a multi-level gatekeeper system. Ashgate, Alder- shot. True J 2003. Mainstreaming gender in global public policy. International Feminist Journal of Politics 5: 3, 368–396. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14616740320 00122740. True J & Mintrom M 2001. Transnational networks and policy diffusion: the case of gender mainstreaming. International Studies Quarterly 45: 1, 27–57. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/0020-8833.00181. Tuori S 2007. Cooking nation: gender equality and multiculturalism as nation-building discourses. Eu- ropean Journal of Women’s Studies 14: 1, 21–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1350506807072315. UNCHS 2000. Policy paper on women and urban gov- ernance. 04.05.2013. UNCHS 2001. Urban governance. Women in local leadership. 27.05.2013. Unger R & Crawford M 1992. Women & gender: a fem- inist psychology. McGraw-Hill, New York. Verloo M 2006. Multiple inequalities, intersectionality and the European Union. European Journal of Women’s Studies 13: 3, 211–228. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/1350506806065753. Verloo M 2007. Multiple meanings of gender equality: a critical frame analysis of gender policies in Europe. Central European University Press, Budapest. Walby S 2005a. Gender mainstreaming: productive tensions in theory and practice. Social Politics 12: 3, 321–343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxi018. Walby S 2005b. Introduction: comparative gender mainstreaming in a global era. International Femi- nist Journal of Politics 7: 4, 453–470. http://dx.doi. org/10.1080/14616740500284383. Watson S & Gibson K 1995. Postmodern cities and spaces. Blackwell, Oxford. West C & Zimmermann D 1987. Doing gender. Gender & Society 1: 2, 125–151. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0891243287001002002. Woodward A 2003. European gender mainstreaming: promises and pitfalls of transformative policy. Re- view of Policy Research 20: 1, 65–88. http://dx. doi.org/10.1111/1541-1338.d01-5. Woodward A & Meier P 1998. Gender impact assess- ment: a new approach to changing policies and contents of citizenship? In Ferreira V, Tavares T & Portugal S (eds). Shifting bonds, shifting bounds: women, mobility and citizenship in Europe, 95– 106. Celta, Oeiras. Yúdice G 2003. The expediency of culture: uses of culture in the global era. Duke University Press, Durham. Zajczyk F 2003. La povertà a Milano. Distribuzione territoriale, servizi sociali e problema abitativo [Poverty in Milan. Geographical distribution, so- cial services and housing issues]. F. Angeli, Milan. Zebracki M 2014. Explosive multiscalar negotia- tions of sexual citizenship: the 2014 Russian Winter Olympics countdown. Antipode 07.02.2014.