EU Gender Mainstreaming Policy in Hungarian Rural Development

Room for Growth: EU Gender Mainstreaming Policy in Hungarian Rural Development

by Allison Beresford

B.A. in English and Comparative Literary Studies, May 2009, Occidental College

A Thesis submitted to

The Faculty of The Elliott School of International Affairs of The George Washington University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts

May 17, 2015

Thesis directed by

Sharon L. Wolchik Professor of Political Science and International Affairs

Dedication

To Addie, whose love will always fill my heart.

iii

Acknowledgements

It took a team of people, and arguably, the influence of a few generations to write

this thesis. I will start by thanking those who most directly provided me with the tools to

become a better researcher and critical thinker. Well before I had even chosen a research

topic, actually even before I had enrolled in graduate school, I knew I wanted to work

with Dr. Sharon L. Wolchik. Not only has her expertise in gender and post-communist states contributed immensely to my own research, but her constant support and kind words of encouragement always provided me with much-needed reassurance.

I owe my Reader, Dr. Jane M. Henrici, my deepest gratitude. In my first semester of graduate school, she inspired this topic and patiently read through early, very rough proposals. Not only did her instruction shape me into a much more astute and sensitive researcher, her constant encouragement helped me to believe in myself. I was fortunate to have the ideal combination of readers for this thesis. They have been superb mentors, exceptional teachers, and good friends.

I owe a very special thanks to all of the staff and researchers at the Center for

Policy Studies in Budapest. Thank you for warmly taking me in and for providing me not only with the opportunity to conduct most of the fieldwork for this thesis, but to expand my knowledge into more fields of study. This was the ideal place for a curious mind and dedicated researcher. I am very grateful for all that I learned during my time at CPS and hope that this research can contribute in some way.

I am incredibly grateful for the inspiring participants of this research, who have been so kind and generous. Your perspectives have been deeply enriching, and I hope that this research may be of some use in future Hungarian rural development policies.

My family and friends all played an invaluable role throughout this process. My sister has always been the greatest inspiration in my life. I am especially grateful that she kept reminding me that ‘this was only a thesis.’ I thank my mother and father, who always encouraged me and kindly listened to me trying to work through challenging questions. A very special thanks goes to my mother, who from a young age instilled in me a love of the Hermecz and Fodor families, a love which led me to Hungary, and a love that will last.

And to the other love of my life, words fail to express how thankful I am for all the support and love you have given to me, especially during this process. Every day we talked about this thesis, probably much more than you would have liked. But you were always there, ready to listen and to offer your advice. To my best friend and my truest love, I thank you with all my heart. Because of your continuous help, we can now start a life together.

Abstract of Thesis

Room for Growth: EU Gender Mainstreaming Policy in Hungarian Rural Development

Increasing women’s leadership and labor are critical elements of rural development across Europe. European Commission (EC) regulations for the 2007-2013 rural development planning period state that equality between women and men must be promoted in all stages of rural development programming, yet do not set down specific regulations to monitor and ensure compliance. Hungary, with its considerable expenditures on rural development relative to other EU nations, presents an interesting case study of how supranational gender equality policies may be interpreted and translated at a national-level. Rural women in Hungary have distinctly limited opportunities in terms of leadership, educational attainment, labor, and entrepreneurship.

However, national policies have not always directly addressed the needs of rural women, and as a result, programs may not remedy gender-based inequalities. Using mixed methods, this research examines how political constructions, invocations, and translations of gender affect rural women’s leadership, education, labor, and entrepreneurship.

Table of Contents

Dedication ...... iii

Acknowledgements ...... iv

Abstract of Thesis ...... vi

List of Figures ...... viii

List of Tables ...... ix

List of Abbreviations ...... x

Chapter 1: Introduction ...... 1

Chapter 2: Literature Review and Background ...... 31

Chapter 3: Methodology ...... 57

Chapter 4: Defining and Debating ‘Disadvantage’ ...... 68

Chapter 5: Translating ‘Women’ and Gender in Projects ...... 118

Chapter 6: Discussion, Best Practices, and Recommendations ...... 150

Bibliography ...... 165

Appendices ...... 193

vii

List of Figures

Figure 1.1 Regional Map of Hungary ...... 7

Figure 1.2 Gender Equality Continuum Tool from USAID IGWG (2012, 2) ...... 19

Figure 1.3: The 2007-2013 EU Rural Development Program ...... 24

Figure 4.1: Share of women in registered job seekers, 20 December 2012...... 79

Figure 4.2: Share of unemployed women as registered job seekers over 180 days ...... 92

Figure 4.3: “There is a Key Role for Family Farmers” ...... 112

viii

List of Tables

Table 4.1: Employment Rates in Predominantly Urban and Rural Areas ...... 78

Table 4.2: Unemployment Rates in Predominantly Urban and Rural Areas ...... 78

Table 4.3: Activity Rates of Rural and Urban Population ...... 80

Table 4.4: Regional Employment Rates by Educational Attainment and Sex ...... 82

Table 4.5: Educational Attainment of rural and urban population ...... 83

Table 4.6 : Participation Rate (%) in Education and Training in Rural Areas ...... 84

Table 4.5: Farm Structure and Holdings in Hungary ...... 91

Table 5.1: Women and Men Beneficiaries ...... 121

List of Abbreviations

CAP - Common Agricultural Policy

CEDAW - Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women

DG AGRI - Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

EAFRD - European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development

EC - European Commission

EIGE - European Institute for Gender Equality

EP - European Parliament

EU - European Union

FAO - Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations

GAD - Gender and Development

HCSO - Hungarian Central Statistical Office

HNRN - Hungarian National Rural Network

IFAD - International Fund for Agricultural Development

LEADER - Liaison Entre Actions de Développement de l’Économie Rurale,’ [Links between the rural economy and development actions]

LHH - Leghátrányosabb helyzetű kistérségek [The Most Disadvantaged Small Regions]

LRDP - Local Rural Development Plan

OMC - Open Method of Coordination

WEF - World Economic Forum

WID - Women in Development

UN - United Nations

NRDP - National Rural Development Plan

Chapter 1: Introduction

Increasing women’s leadership and labor are critical elements of rural development across Europe (EU 2012; EU 2000). Nevertheless, and despite the fact that all European Union (EU) institutions are tasked with incorporating gender equality principles into all policy fields (EC 1999; EC 2006/54),1 the Common Agricultural

Policy (CAP) and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD)2 have fostered women’s participation only to a very limited extent. European Commission

(EC) regulations for the 2007-2013 rural development planning period state that equality between women and men must be promoted in all stages of rural development programming,3 yet do not set down specific regulations to monitor and ensure

compliance (EC 1698/2005, Article 8; EC 1974/2006). Given this policy problem at the

EU level, ensuring gender mainstreaming in rural development at the level of the 28

Member States seems problematic.

Hungary, with its considerable expenditures on rural development relative to

other EU nations,4 presents an interesting case study of how supranational gender equality policies may be interpreted and contextualized at a national-level. In 2012,

32.6% of Hungary’s agricultural expenditures went to rural development (€563,304.60),

1 The Treaty of Amsterdam in 1999 made the promotion of gender equality throughout the European Community a vital task. Article 29 of Directive 2006/54 obliged all Community and Member States to consider gender equality in all of its institutions, legislation, policy, programs, and activities. 2 The EU rural development machinery comprises a vast network of distinct bodies that are responsible for funding to Member States, in addition to knowledge sharing and networking. 3 This includes policy formulation, program design and implementation, and monitoring and evaluation (EC 1698/2005, Article 8). 4 In 2012, the EU-27 average expenditure on rural development amounted to 25%, compared to 38.6% in Hungary (EC DG AGRI 2014, 4). 1

and 38.6% from 2007 to 2012 (EU DG AGRI 2014, 4). Rural women in Hungary have

distinctly limited opportunities in terms of leadership, educational attainment, labor, and

entrepreneurship. However, national policies have not always directly addressed the

needs of rural women, and as a result, programs may not remedy gender-based

inequalities. The weak enforcement of EU gender equality policy, as illustrated in

Hungarian rural development, has been to the detriment to those it intends to help.

As has been shown elsewhere, supranational gender policies are not simply

‘downloaded’ by local actors and governments. Instead, a veneer or approximation of

compliance is reached through processes in which multiple actors produce endogenous

interpretations and adaptations of exogamous norms (Forest and Lombardo 2012, 6;

Buzogány 2012, 146; Krizsán 2009; Lendvai and Stubbs 2007; Merry 2006; Krizsán and

Zentai 2006; Lendvai 2005). In Hungary, this process can partially be understood in light

of political trends that increasingly emphasize women’s perceived reproductive roles in the domestic sphere rather than their potential productive roles in the labor market and public life (Fodor and Kispéter 2014; Goven 2000; Haney 1994). While previous governmental gender equality institutions were not robust nor priortized by national administrations, as of 2010 such institutions disappeared as separate entities (Krizsán and

Zentai 2012). When current Prime Minister Viktor Orbán took power in 2010, the office

responsible for gender equality was subsumed under the Ministry of Social and Family

Affairs.

Although Hungary’s Act on Equal Treatment and the Promotion of Equal

Opportunity law5 nominally ensures equality for all citizens, additional laws exist to

protect the rights of the Roma minority6 and the disabled7 yet no similar legislation

specific to gender inequality is in place. When equality is discussed in national discourse,

gender rarely comes to the forefront, and when it does, it is usually within the context of

women’s familial obligations. The way policy is framed reveals different meanings and understandings of gender and sex, which have significant implications on how programs are implemented (Verloo and Lombardo 2007; Krizsan et al. 2009).

The treatment of gender roles and relations in Hungarian rural development policy mirrors dominant discourse. However, as Caroline O. N. Moser (1993) has pointed out, women have a triple, as opposed to a dual role in development (28-29). In addition to

their reproductive and productive roles, women also have important ‘community

managing’ roles that are closely tied to the domestic sphere (Moser 2013, 34-36). For

low-income women, this third role usually involves unpaid, voluntary work in providing

and maintaining “scarce resources of collective consumption” for the needs of the

community, which may include education, health care, and child care (34).

Because rural women in Hungary tend to have lower levels of economic activity

(Kovács 2013, 24-25; Váradi and Schwarcz 2013, 215; Engel-Di Mauro 2006; Momsen et al. 2005, 42-43; Timár 2002; Timár and Velkey 1998), leadership (Pócsi and Rácz

2014; Rácz 2013; Timár 2004), and educational achievement (Váradi 2013, 113-114; EC

DG AGRI 2012; EC DG AGRI; 2011) relative to men, rural development policy that

5 Act CXXV of 2003 (passed in December 2003) 6Law on the Rights of National and Ethnic Minorities (1993) 7 Equalization Opportunity Law (Act XXVI of 1998) 3 reinforces this narrative of women’s primarily domestic roles defeats the stated purpose of rural development: job creation, capacity building, economic diversification, and improved quality of life.

Moreover, as 47% of Hungary’s population lives in predominantly rural areas,8 making up 66% of the country (EC 2014, 3) the drastic and persistent rural-urban and regional inequalities (Kovács and Váradi 2013; Horváth 2010; Smith and Timár 2010;

Kulcsár and Obádovics 2010; Kulcsár and Obádovics 2004; Timár 2001; Timár and

Váradi 2001) must be addressed by rural development programs. As defined by the 2007-

2013 New Hungary Rural Development Programme, rural areas are characterized by low population densities, underdeveloped economies and infrastructure, “unfavorable” demographic trends,9 and a heavy reliance on agriculture (2014, 12). Such areas make up

95% of Hungary’s settlements, 87% of the territory, and 45% of the population (NHRDP

2014, 12). Considering these statistics, the plight of the countryside has been a hotly contested issue. Some have argued that the process of transition and ‘Europeanization’

8 In “Member States Factsheets Hungary” (2014, 3) from European Commission, Directorate General of Agriculture and Rural Development, 2013 Rural Development Report. The EC adopted a new rural-urban typology in 2010 based on Local Administrative Units level 2 (LAU2s). This typology was derived from the OECD method, which classifies settlements into “predominantly rural,” “intermediate,” and “predominantly urban.” The OECD method defines rural regions based on the share of population in rural LAU2s based on population density, while the new EC method is based on grid cells of 1km2. Because the grid cells are identical in size, the new EC method eliminates the distortions of using LAU2s that vary in size. This new typology has the following degrees of urbanization: (1) Densely populated area (at least 50% lives in high-density clusters); (2) Intermediate density area (less than 50% of the population lives in rural grid cells and less than 50% lives in a high-density cluster); (3)Thinly populated area (more than 50% of the population lives in rural grid cells). It should be noted that definitions of rural areas vary across organizations and within countries. For example, according to 2014 FAOSTAT data, 29.13% of the population in Hungary lives in rural areas, while 70.87% lives in urban areas. It should also be noted that in the 2014-2020 program period, Hungary uses the following demarcation of rural areas: 1) Settlements with less than 10,000 inhabitants; 2) Population density with less than 120 inhabitants/km2 3) Settlements that would be excluded based on these criteria, but with inhabitants of peripheral areas exceeding 2% within the periphery [author’s emphasis] (Ministry of Rural Development, Anna Parizán 2014 presentation). 9 These “unfavorable” demographic trends refer to rural outmigration, declining birthrates, and the aging of the countryside (Kulcsár and Obádovics 2011a; Horvath 2010). 4

has made conditions worse for rural populations (Csáki 2009, 58), who have experienced

high rates of unemployment (Váradi and Schwarcz 2013; Váradi 2013 112-115; Kulcsár and Obádovics 2010), rising costs of living and transportation (Finta 2013; Kiss 2000), and inadequate service provision from decentralized local governments (Kovács and

Váradi 2013; Váradi and Schwarcz; Kovács 2010; Simai 2007). The risk of poverty is not only higher in rural areas (Eurostat 2013, 109), but of great concern in Hungary, where nationally, the risk of poverty has increased from 28.2% in 2008 to 33.5 % in 2013

(Eurostat 2013). Overall, 31.5% of women and 30.7% of men in Hungary are at risk of poverty or social exclusion (HSCO 2014). These risks are similar between women and men in all age groups, except for those above age 65. In fact, 20.0% of women over 65 are at risk of poverty or social exclusion, whereas this risk is 14.8% for men in the same age group (HSCO 2014). This is especially concerning in certain rural parts of Hungary, where older women outlive and outnumber men, without savings from income or assets needed to survive (Momsen 2006, 140; Momsen et al. 2005, 42).10

Compared to other Central and Eastern European (CEE) countries, according to

Hungarian Academy of Sciences (MTA) sociologist Vera Messing, “Hungary is not only

becoming poor, it is seriously falling behind within its own region” (in Nagy 2014).

Moreover, as MTA has pointed out, the percentage of those who are seriously deprived11 increased from 20.3% in 2009 to 26.8% in 2013, with populations in north and southeast

10 This is evidenced primarily among older age brackets (ages 60 +). On average, Hungarian women live 9 years longer than men, which may explain higher proportions of women in rural settlements (Momsen 2006, 140). 11 According to the European Commission (2013), those who are defined as seriously deprived are characterized by at least three of the following: 1) Cannot pay rent or utility fees on time, 2) Cannot properly heat residence, 3) Have no money saved up for unexpected expenses, 4) Cannot eat meat regularly, 5) Cannot afford to go on vacation for a week 6) Cannot afford to keep a car and have no 7) washing machine, 8) television, or 9) telephone. 5

Hungary being the most materially deprived. Living in a rural area significantly increases

this risk. In fact, after deducting housing costs, the at-risk-of-poverty rate for people in thinly populated areas was 43.3% in 2013, more than double that of urban populations at

21.7% (Eurostat). The risk of severe material deprivation is also higher in thinly populated areas at 30.2% in 2013, compared to 22.9% for urban areas.12 However, because of Hungary’s drastically uneven regional development, it is not possible to speak of rural areas homogenously.

In preparation for EU accession, the country was divided into seven geographical regions: Northern Hungary, the Northern Great Plain, the Southern Great Plain, Central

Hungary, Central Transdanubia, Western Transdanubia, and Southern Transdanubia,

which feature distinct patterns of development13 (See Figure 1.1). Central Hungary,

Western Transdanubia, and Southern Transdanubia are among the most developed

regions.14 With Budapest as the veritable center of the country’s economic life, along

with Western and Southern Transdanubia’s proximity to Western markets, these areas

have benefited from a more educated labor force, higher levels of foreign direct

investment, and a more developed transportation infrastructure (Horváth 2010). In

contrast, Northern Hungary and the Northern Great Plain regions continue to suffer from

higher levels of unemployment and inactivity rates, lower levels of education, and

12 Sex disaggregated data were unable for these indicators. 13 These statistical regions were created in 1999 to comply with EU regional statistical practices. Eurostat categorizes territorial units within countries into the Nomenclature of Territorial Units for Statistics (NUTS). This three-tiered system was developed to categorize the economic territory of the EU to collect, develop, and harmonize EU regional statistics. NUTS II refers to basic regional units in a Member State. Based on the regional data analyses, certain regions may be eligible for aid from the Structural Fund. 14 For Nuts 2 GDP levels, the most recent Eurostat data available are from 2011. The GDP at Euro per inhabitant indicate the following: Central Hungary €16,200; Central Transdanubia €8,700; Western Transdanubia €10,100; Southern Transdanubia €6,600; Southern Great Plain €6,500; Northern Great Plain €6,300; Northern Hungary €5,900 (Eurostat, Last update 03/03/2014). 6

decidedly lower levels of foreign direct investment (Kovacs and Váradi 2013; Horvath

2010).

Figure 1.1 Regional Map of Hungary

In addition to these spatial risk factors, unemployment, lower levels of education

(pre-primary to lower secondary), age (ages 18-24), and being a woman, can increase the

risk of poverty (Eurostat 2013, 110). National statistics show that among the

unemployed, 52.1% of women and 52.6% of men are at risk of poverty (HCSO 2014).

Additionally, the employment rate for women with low levels of education (less than 8

years of primary school) is 9.0%, which is 6.4 percentage points lower than that of men’s

with the same level of education (15.4%) (HCSO 2014). Similarly, the unemployment

rate for women with the lowest levels of education is 7.4 percentage points higher at

38.8% in comparison to men’s at 31.3% (HCSO 2014).

Furthermore, Éva Fodor and Erika Kispéter (2014, 387-391) have described the

multiple challenges working mothers face in rural areas. Most families need to

supplement the meager payments they receive for parental leave, which amount to about

€100 a month, representing about 15% of average wages (Szikra and Szelewa 2010 in

Fodor and Kispéter 2014, 386). In rural areas, mismatched transportation and daycare

schedules often make it nearly impossible to balance work and family obligations (Fodor

and Kispéter 2014, 387-388). These practical difficulties are compounded by employers’

discriminatory attitudes against mothers with young children, making it extremely

difficult to secure an official part-time job (Fodor and Kispéter 2014). These obstacles are

reflected on the national level, as only 9% of women in Hungary work part-time

(Eurostat 2014). For many women, these structural and normative constraints often make

informal work the only viable option. Such work in the grey economy is often low-

paying, insecure, and potentially exploitative (Fodor and Kispéter 2014; 387-391; Szalai

2000, 220-221; Gal and Kligman 2000a, 61).

Janet Momsen et al. (2005) and Judit Timár (2002) argue that spatial inequality differentially affects women. Rural areas in particular can be sites of spatial, social, economic, and political exclusion, so that rural development programs intent on gender mainstreaming must explicitly promote both social inclusion and equality along with economic growth. This is especially vital for groups facing compounded and multiple intersectional inequalities15 (Crenshaw 1989), which EU and Hungarian policies often

overlook and assume not only domesticity but homogeneity among women. Diverse

15 Intersectionality refers to the interaction of multiple inequalities, such as gender, race, ethnicity, class, ability, sexual orientation etc. 8

populations of rural women in particular face both structural and political

intersectionality, the former pertaining to individuals’ experiences with intersecting

inequalities and the latter referring to how policies created to ensure the equality of one

group could risk marginalizing other groups (Verloo and Lombardo 2007, 25; Verloo

2006). That is, gender equality measures implemented for women must include, women from ethnic minority groups, immigrant women, and women with disabilities.

Similarly, because of occupational segregation, which is the practice of shunting women toward lower (or non-)-paying educational, training, and job opportunities,

Hungarian rural development should foster higher-paying options for both women and men. This is important because vertical and horizontal segregation in rural labor markets may be particularly pronounced in agricultural-intensive areas (Prügl 2012; Engel-Di

Mauro 2006). For farms under 2 hectacres in 2010 (which made up the majority of farm holdings in Hungary at 79%),16 women made up 49.3% of the family farm labor force,

yet only represented 28.3% of family labor force holders. In contrast, women consisted of

75.1% of the family member labor force (EC DG AGRI 2014, 13-14). However, training interventions may not always recognize these gender divisions of labor. This is critical to consider as Hungary has some of the highest percentages of farmers who lack agricultural training17 of any kind (EC 2012, 28).

16 From Eurostat’s Farm Structure Survey 2003 and Agricultural Census 2010. Updated 2013. In Members States Factsheet Hungary, Agricultural and Rural Development. 17 The EC defines agricultural training into two levels: basic training and full agricultural training. Basic training involves any training courses completed at a general agricultural college or institution and may also include a basic agricultural apprenticeship. Full agricultural training involves a two-year equivalent program after compulsory education at a vocational or tertiary institution in an agriculture-related field. 9

During the 2007-2013 programming period, EU and Hungarian rural development

policies prioritized supporting young farmers by providing vocational training and start-

up subsidies. While these measures aimed “to improve the age structure of the agricultural labour force, enhance the population retention ability of the countryside, and ensure the long-term subsistence of agricultural activities,” (2012, 148) women were not

included as essential stakeholders in this process. Particularly in an industry where men

hold the majority of farms, and given the EU emphasis on improving gender parity, rural

policy perhaps should be more inclusive of women and provide more support for

women’s training and educational advancement.

This research examines how political actors construct, invoke, and translate

gender. To analyze the processes influencing the lack of gender mainstreaming in

Hungarian rural development policies and programs, this paper addresses the following

questions:

1) What gender gaps exist within Hungarian rural development policies at the local

and national levels?

2) How have rural development policies and programs approached women’s

leadership, education, labor, and entrepreneurship in rural Hungary?

3) How do those involved view and describe policies and programs specifically with

regard to gender and/or to women?

Using mixed methods involving original quantitative and qualitative methods of

collecting information from multiple sources and analyses, I study how policies,

institutions, and programs are constructed and how these processes have affected women

10 in rural development. To answer these research questions, five primary methods for collecting and analyzing information were combined:

1) Qualitative Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) conducted of policy documents,

development strategies, local evaluations, EU and Hungarian rural development

publications, and mainstream media sources;

2) Qualitative analysis of original semi-structured interviews conducted with

stakeholders in Hungary and Washington, DC;

3) Qualitative analysis of program monitoring and evaluation reports and

assessments, program focus group meeting reports, and identified best practices

and lessons learned;

4) Quantitative data analysis based on gender equality indices, national statistics;

and

5) Quantitative analysis of original data collected from 328 beneficiary projects

among local rural development organizations.

These methods examine different aspects of how rural development programs have addressed women’s leadership, education, labor, and entrepreneurship. They are combined to demonstrate how different actors, organizations, and institutions are interconnected, and together, offer an interpretation presenting multiple perspectives.

Definition of Terms

To answer these questions, it is necessary to define the terms related to gender policy, gender and development, and EU rural development policy that will be used throughout this study. In some cases, I will examine alternative definitions to see how

nominally identical terms may be interpreted differently. I will explore the scholarly

debate concerning these terms, as well as varying domestic contestations and

interpretations in more depth in Chapter 2.

Sex and Gender

The term sex is used to describe biological distinctions between females and

males, while gender denotes the social construction of sex, that is, what it means to be

female and male in a given society. It should be noted, however, that gender is used more

frequently to refer to biological sex.18

Gender equality and gender equity

Although gender equality has been widely used in social justice policy, its meaning must be treated carefully, especially in comparison to gender equity. Hazel

Reeves and Sally Baden (2000), have pointed out that although these two terms are frequently used synonymously, they express “…divergent understanding of gender differences and of the appropriate strategies to address these” (10). Gender equality denotes equal opportunities, resources, and human rights between women and men, affording both sexes equal access to services and benefits without sex-based discrimination. It means that “…different behaviors, aspirations and needs of women and men are considered, valued and treated equally” (FHI360 2012, 6). In contrast, gender equity implies the fair treatment of women and men by recognizing their different needs

18 This is especially evidenced when examining gender-disaggregated statistics and data when in fact, they accurately describe sex-disaggregated statistics and data. Whereas sex-disaggregated data simply report values into male and female categories (e.g. the employment rate for women and men), gender- disaggregated data “…adequately reflect differences and inequalities in the situation of women and men in all areas of life” (United Nations 2013). Examples of gender-disaggregated data may include statistics about the division of labor, assets, and domestic chores between women and men. 12

(EC 2011, 38). This recognition of difference seeks to rectify historical and social power

imbalances to provide equality of life outcomes. In a development and/or policy context,

a gender equity approach assesses the potential impact on gender relations by considering

the distinct interests and realities of women and men. For example, in Hungarian rural

development programs, women who apply for funding are awarded an extra point in

order to compensate for historical disadvantages. Gender equity can be understood as a

process toward the ultimate goal of gender equality.

Gender relations and gender roles

Gender relations can be defined as socially constructed relationships between women and men. According to Janet Momsen (2010), they “…have been interrogated in terms of the way development policies change the balance of power between women and men” (2). Regarding rural gender relations, Bettina Bock (2006) has emphasized that in

order to understand the ‘causes and consequences of agricultural and rural development,’

it is imperative to study gender relations, both as a changing force and as a force of

change (1). Viewing this dynamic from a historical perspective, in the context of state

socialism in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), despite the stated goal of women’s

emancipation, through the forced collectivization of agriculture, women still occupied

manual or white collar positions (while continuing their unpaid domestic work), in contrast to men, who were engaged primarily in jobs involving modernized, technical farming (Asztalos- Morell and Brandth 2007, 373; Engel-Di Mauro 2006; Asztalos

Morell 1999). In this way, “…gender inequalities were reproduced both in the family and through the gender segregation of labour characterising the new socialist industrial production systems” (Asztalos Morell and Brandth 2007, 373).

This example demonstrates the reflexive/interactive relationship between gender relations and gender roles. Gender roles may consist of domestic tasks and ‘appropriate work’ for women and men that has been socially ascribed. However, as Momsen (2010) emphasizes, gender roles are not static entities, and may become more fluid with economic development (2). Moreover, Momsen (2010) points out the fallacy of assuming that women consist of a homogenous group (3). Not only must class, race, ethnicity, age, etc. be considered, but careful attention to context is essential to understanding gender relations among specific communities or societies. She emphasizes that, “Different places and societies have different practices and it is necessary to be cognizant of this heterogeneity within a certain global homogeneity of gender roles” (3). Considering this heterogeneity, the mandate for all EU member states – each with complex histories, cultures, and traditions – to mainstream supranational gender equality principles has resulted in varied patterns of institutionalization and enforcement (Krizsán et al. 2014;

Krizsán et al. 2012; Krizsán 2012; Krizsán and Zentai 2012; Krizsán et al. 2010). These processes have created different interpretations and negotiations of gender relations and roles.

Gender mainstreaming

The adoption of the Platform for Action at the 1995 UN Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing ushered in the widespread use of the term gender mainstreaming.

One year later, the European Commission announced that it would integrate gender equality principles into all of its policies, institutions, and programs. According to the

EC, gender mainstreaming is defined as

“…mobilising all general policies and measures specifically for the purpose of achieving

equality by actively and openly taking into account at the planning stage their possible

effects on the respective situations of men and women…This means systematically

examining measures and policies and taking into account such possible effects when

defining and implementing them: thus, development policies, the organisation of work,

choices relating to transport or the fixing of school hours, etc. may have significant

differential impacts on the situation of women and men which must therefore by duly

taken into consideration in order to further promote equality between women and men.

(EC, COM(96) 67, 1996, 2).

As part of the gender acquis,19 the aspiring New Member States of CEE were mandated

to formally comply with gender mainstreaming policies, through both ‘hard’ and ‘soft’

policies.20 In contrast, in development contexts, gender mainstreaming has a more

specific focus on organizational strategies to incorporate a gender perspective into all

aspects of work, to inculcate a gender-sensitive culture, and to reflect on gender

inequalities within the organization itself. According to Reeves and Baden (2000), there

are two general approaches to gender mainstreaming. Specifically,

The agenda-setting approach to mainstreaming seeks to transform the development

agenda itself while prioritising gender concerns. The more politically acceptable

19 The acquis communautaire refers to all of the obligations that bind all EU Member States and to which aspiring countries must comply with. The gender acquis refers to legislation and policies related to antidiscrimination, equal opportunity, equal pay, domestic violence, etc. 20 Beveridge (2012) explains that ‘hard’ policies or laws are legally binding in nature and entail direct consequences if broken. ‘Soft’ policies, in contrast, are not legally binding and may not always involve the direct legal consequences; yet, by emphasizing compliance to shared norms and values, can influence state behavior (29). Beveridge argues against the bifurcated view of ‘hard’ and ‘soft’ policies, a dichotomy which is gendered in a way that suggests that ‘hard’ policies are more effective and that ‘soft’ policies are inherently weaker (37). Rather, she argues that while they have both served distinct purposes in different policy areas and national contexts, the interactions between the two are important for understanding the formation and evolution of EU gender policy. 15

integrationist approach brings women’s and gender concerns into all of the existing

policies and programmes, focusing on adapting institutional procedures to achieve this. In

both cases, political as well as technical skills are essential to a mainstreaming strategy

(12).

The EU has adapted the latter approach of integrating gender into all of its

institutions, programs, and policies, which Member States must follow. However,

defining and understanding gender mainstreaming in domestic contexts can be

problematic. Similar to other languages, there is no one word for ‘gender’ in Hungarian

as it is used in English. There is only a word for ‘sex’ (nem), and when gender is referred

to, then the phrase ‘social sex’ (társaldalmi nem) may be employed. However, more

often, the English word ‘gender’ is used, but this tends to be more prevalent in academic

circles and has not become commonly used in the Hungarian lexicon. Even the phrase

‘gender mainstreaming’ has been referred to by some ministries as ‘the so-called gender

mainstreaming’ (az úgynevezett gender mainstreaming), which is typically followed by a description explaining that this entails ‘equal opportunity between the sexes’ (nemek közötti esélyegyenlőség). Although the concept of gender mainstreaming can be explained in any language, these semantic differences serve to illustrate the potential difficulties of contextualizing a foreign term.

In addition to gender mainstreaming, two other approaches to implementing gender equality policy must also be described. The first approach is the sameness or equal opportunity approach, which advocates for the equal treatment of women and men.

Because it is based on masculine norms, it may perpetuate women’s disadvantage

(Plantenga et al. 2009; Walby 2005). In contrast, the second approach, the difference

approach, attributes women’s different life cycles, values, and ways of thinking to

biological differences from men and often calls for positive action policies (Cockburn

1991). The difference approach has been criticized for maintaining essentialist views of

masculinity and femininity that can exacerbate stereotypes within labor and care

institutions. Additionally, Nancy Fraser (1997) argues that pursuing a ‘different but

equal’ agenda is not feasible to achieving gender equality, as differences are embedded

within power relations. The third approach, the transformative approach, to which gender

mainstreaming belongs, seeks to fundamentally change gendered views of the world by

recognizing sources of direct and indirect discrimination and then pursuing changes to

rectify these inequalities (Verloo and Lombardo 2007; Verloo 2005). Despite the

criticism surrounding these approaches, in practice, they are interconnected (Daly 2005)

and can be used in varying combinations (Verloo 2005; Booth and Bennett 2002).

According to Teresa Rees (1992; 1998), the EC has used all three approaches throughout

its history.21 To implement gender mainstreaming, the EU has outlined four steps,

involving 1) awareness raising, target setting, and planning; 2) gender assessment and

data collection; 3) policy impact assessment; and 4) redesigning policies based on

assessments (EC 2008, 11-15). In practice, this process may be carried out by national

gender machineries,22 which are governmental organizations established to develop

gender-sensitive policy, planning, and implementation. Some of their tasks may include advocating for gender issues in certain policy areas, such as offering recommendations in

21 Rees (1992) refers to these approaches as 1) Tinkering – the sameness/equal treatment approach, 2) Tailoring – the difference/positive action approach, and 3) Transforming – the gender mainstreaming approach, while Squires (1999; 2005) uses the terms inclusion, reversal, and displacement to denote equality, difference, and transformation. 22 Also referred to as National Machineries for Women (NMWs). 17

national development strategies, providing gender training, and collaborating with NGOs

and other civil society actors. Although national gender machineries have advanced

gender issues in some contexts, often their efficacy is hindered by underfunding,

unqualified and/or inexperienced staff, and lack of influence. These factors can result in a

gender machinery that is “…weak, under-resourced, vulnerable to changing political fortunes, and often ghettoised with social and welfare departments” (Reeves and Baden

2000; 26). Within a specific institutional and political system, the interactions between these various ideas and entities comprise a gender regime. Defined by Sylvia Walby

(2007), “A gender regime is a specific system of social relations. Central to the notion is that there is an inter-relationship between the different forms of gender relations in different domains – it is this that constitutes the systemness of the gender regime” (32).

Gender Integration and the Gender Integration Framework in Development

Although gender mainstreaming shares many characteristics with gender

integration, the latter is used distinctly by development organizations. Gender integration

occurs within an organization when it is applied in “…program planning, assessment,

implementation, and monitoring and evaluation to consider gender norms and to

compensate for gender-based inequalities” (FHI360 2012, 6). Gender mainstreaming can

be thought of as processes that occur at the institutional and organizational level, while

gender integration permeates all aspects of program and project-level work. However, because the EU definition of gender mainstreaming also entails gender integration strategies, this term will be used to also include program and project oriented objectives.

The Gender Integration Framework (Figure 1.2) developed by the USAID- funded Interagency Gender Working Group (IGWG) provides a detailed examination of

18 how gender can be integrated in a development context. For the study of Hungarian rural development programs, this framework provides more concrete methods to analyze how gender is being approached at the program and project level.

In order to integrate gender into projects, it is first necessary to conduct a thorough gender analysis that systematically examines the roles and norms associated with women and men in a given community. Broadly, such an analysis seeks to answer how gender will affect the program and how the program will affect gender. The analysis also aims to describe how power is shared between women and men while also identifying distinct needs, challenges, and opportunities. Although the gender analysis is usually conducted during the planning stages of a project to collect baseline data, it should take place during all project and research phases.

Figure 1.2 Gender Equality Continuum Tool from USAID IGWG (2012, 2)

Programs that are gender blind do not conduct the analyses necessary to understand “…the culturally-defined set of economic, social, and political roles, responsibilities, rights, entitlements, obligations, and power relations associated with being female and male and the dynamics between and among men and women, boys and girls” (IGWG 2012, 2). Essentially, gender is completely ignored, whereas in gender aware23 programs, the potential impact planned activities may have on gender is duly considered and integrated into the design and implementation phases. However, even if a program is gender aware, it can either intentionally or unintentionally be gender exploitative by strengthening or manipulating existing gender inequalities and stereotypes to achieve a desired target. In some cases, this approach can even worsen inequalities and weaken the program’s overarching goals (IGWG 2012, 3). Although less detrimental than exploitative approaches, gender accommodating programs, while considering how gender might be affected, often implement short-term projects that avoid addressing deep-seated inequalities and systemic discrimination. Similar to the transforming approach mentioned in the context of EU policy, transformative gender programming aims to profoundly change gender relations by encouraging equality. This goal is realized by ‘1) encouraging the examination of gender inequalities, roles, norms and dynamics, 2) recognizing and strengthening positive norms that support equality and an enabling environment, 3) promoting the relative position of women, girls and marginalized groups, and transforming the underlying social structures, policies and broadly held social norms that perpetuate gender inequalities’ (IGWG 2012, 3). Similar to the arguments of Mary Daly

(2005) and Meike Verloo (2005), the approaches outlined within this framework are not

23 Gender-integrated programs must, at a minimum, be gender aware. 20

mutually exclusive. Programs and policies may have gender accommodating projects that

can become gender exploitative, or different activities within the same program may

express a gender transformative goal while others could be gender blind.

To achieve gender transformation as a program outcome, a thorough gender

analysis that comprehensively considers both strategic and practical gender needs is

necessary. However, as Maxine Molyneux (1985) highlights, the distinction between

practical and strategic gender needs is of the utmost importance in gender planning.

According to Moser (1993),

Strategic gender needs are the needs women identify because of their subordinate

position to men in society. Strategic gender needs vary according to particular contexts.

They relate to gender divisions of labour, power and control and may include such issues

as legal rights, domestic violence, equal wages and women’s control over their bodies.

Meeting strategic gender needs helps women to achieve greater equality. It also changes

existing roles and therefore challenges women’s subordinate position (39).

Examples of strategic gender needs may entail a more equitable division of household

tasks and child care, the abolition of sex-based discrimination, the elimination of vertical and horizontal segregation in the labor force, and the commitment to promote women’s representation in political and public life. In contrast, practical gender needs are defined as

“…the needs women identify in their socially accepted roles in society. Practical gender

needs do not challenge the gender divisions of labour or women’s subordinate position in

society, although rising out of them. Practical gender needs are a response to immediate

perceived necessity, identified within a specific context. They are practical in nature and

often are concerned with inadequacies in living conditions such as water provision, health

care, and employment” (Moser 1993, 40).

As will be evidenced in Hungarian rural development policies, even though these

practical gender needs are actually necessary for all family members, they continue to be

associated exclusively with women’s needs by policy-makers and women alike (Fodor

and Kispéter 2014; Moser 1993, 40). In this way, the intersubjective understanding of

practical gender needs between women and policy-makers may maintain and

(unintentionally) reinforce the gender division of labor (Moser 1993, 40). For strategic

gender needs to be realized, Moser (1993) argues that the top-down policies of states

have been largely ineffective in eliminating or reducing gender inequality. Rather, “The

capacity to confront the nature of gender inequality and women’s subordination has only

been fulfilled when it has incorporated the bottom-up struggle of women’s organizations…” (39).

This assessment poses a critical question for this research, that is, how can top- down EU gender policies meet strategic gender needs and affect transformative change in

Hungary, where grassroots advocacy for gender equality has been fragmented and weak

(Fábián 2009) By focusing on how Hungarian rural development programs with a specifically bottom-up approach address various aspects of gender equality, I explore this question using different methodologies and drawing from multiple perspectives.

Rural and Agricultural Development in the EU and Hungary

Although agricultural and rural development are usually associated with

developing countries, through the CAP,24 the EU has provided support to farming and

rural areas because relative to urban centers, rural Europe is more disadvantaged in terms

of economic growth and social exclusion. This support is important as rural areas make

up over 77% of the EU’s territory and are home for more than half of the population (EC

Memo 26 June 2013). Agriculture (consisting of the farming and food sectors) accounts

for 6% of the EU’s GDP and makes up 7% of the total labor force (EC 2014, 4).

According to the European Commission, “rural development seeks to safeguard the

vitality of the countryside by supporting programmes to invest, modernize and support

activity – both agricultural and non-agricultural – in rural areas” (EC 2015). Although the

Commission sets the required framework and measures of Member States’ National

Rural Development Plans (NRDPs), ultimately, the Member States are responsible for

creating these plans, including indicators that will measure progress for each intervention.

The 2007-2013 rural development programming period mandated that Member States

formulate their Rural Development Programs (RDPs) based on a set of strategic

guidelines.25 The following are especially relevant to women’s leadership, education,

labor, and entrepreneurship:

24 The CAP was established in 1958 by the European Community (France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Belgium, and Luxembourg) in the Treaty of Rome. 25 These guidelines include: 1) Improving the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sectors; 2) Improving the environment and the countryside; 3) Improving the quality of life in rural areas and; 4) encouraging diversification; 5) Building local capacity for employment and diversification; 6) Ensuring consistency in programming; 7) Complementarity between Community instruments. 23

1) Improving the quality of life in rural areas and encouraging diversification

2) Building local capacity for employment and diversification

3) Ensuring consistency in programming

4) Complementarity between Community instruments

Figure 1.3: The 2007-2013 EU Rural Development Program

The third point is important to compare how different rural development programs at the

local, regional, and national levels approach gender in their program planning and

implementation. I analyze the fourth point in comparison to EU gender equality policies

to gauge the degree of compliance between both EU and Hungarian rural development

policy instruments. The first two objectives make up the third axis (Axis III.) of the EU

rural development strategic framework, which consists of four primary objectives.26 The

26 Axis I aims to improve the competitiveness of the agricultural and forestry sectors, involving measures to build human and physical capital and to promote knowledge transfer and innovation. Axis II focuses on environmental protection and sustainable agriculture. 24

fourth axis is the LEADER Axis,27 which, through bottom-up local governance, seeks to

advance all of the other axes. This effort is supported by the formation of Local Action

Groups (LAGs), which involve the community in decision making, oversee the

administration of funding in the micro region, and establish national and transnational

networks with development partners (EC 2015). Because of this commitment to expressly

bottom-up, Community-Led Local Development (CLLD), the LEADER program is

perhaps more likely to consider and integrate gender equality policies.

Given the emphasis on training in rural development, using a gender perspective,

this research analyzes the kinds of trainings offered through Hungarian rural development

organizations to see what kinds of skills they target, if they are aimed at a particular

population (considering sex, age, education, profession), and how successful these

programs have been in helping their beneficiaries. Prioritizing rural women’s labor and

educational attainment is crucial to achieving the Europe 2020 targets,28 which include

the promotion of social inclusion as a core component. The previous descriptions of the

challenges rural women face are aptly described by the EC’s definition of social

exclusion. According to the EC (2012), this is

…a process whereby certain individuals are pushed to the edge of society and prevented

from participating fully by virtue of their poverty, lack of basic competencies and lifelong

27 Also referred to as Axis IV. Liaison Entre Actions de Développement de l’Économie Rurale,’ meaning ‘Links between the rural economy and development actions’ and was established in 1991 by the European Commission to encourage collaboration and partnership between local actors, civil society, and the private sector to contribute to sub-regional rural development. In the upcoming programming period 2014 – 2020, has been further prioritized as a means to accomplish rural development goals. 28 Broadly, these targets aim to make progress in employment, research and development/innovation, climate and energy change, education, and poverty and social exclusion It should be noted that in this numbered list, the priority ‘promoting social inclusion, poverty reduction and economic development in rural areas’ comes last. 25

learning opportunities, or as a result of discrimination. This distances them from jobs,

income and education and training opportunities, as well as social and community

networks and activities. They have little access to power and decision-making bodies and

thus often feel powerless and unable to take control over the decisions affecting their day-

to-day lives” (144).

Hungarian rural development programs have the potential to promote women’s decision-

making power, not only through training, but with grants for business development and

opportunities to participate more actively in civic life. The LEADER program in

particular seems more likely to encourage women’s meaningful leadership. In my

analysis of rural development programs, I focus on Axis III and the LEADER Axis, as I

hypothesize that this bottom-up, community-driven approach is more likely to consider and integrate gender equality policies. Because the chief aim of the LEADER approach is local empowerment, this could encourage women’s greater participation in community development, and potentially, transform structural and normative gender inequalities that might otherwise constrain or discourage this process. Indeed, the developers of the

LEADER approach, Robert Lukesch and Bernd Schuh, (2007) note that

The low-threshold and demand-oriented funding allows new actors to benefit and to

become active contributors to local development. Young people, women, voluntary

workers, unemployed and other disadvantaged groups get access to support and funding

which they otherwise wouldn't have by depending solely on mainstream programmes.29

29 From the conference “Leader Achievements: A Diversity of Territorial Experience.” 22-23 November, 2007. Évora, Portugal. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rur/leaderplus/pdf/seminars/22112007/01a.pdf. 26

Conclusion

This paper will critically examine such rhetorical claims by analyzing and comparing policies in multilevel governance as they pertain to gender equality. By examining how programs have approached women’s leadership, education, labor, and entrepreneurship, I aim to contribute to this understudied field. Rural women in Hungary are often described in broader studies as a homogenous group that faces particular hardships. Although important research has been conducted on rural women in Hungary

(Timár et al. 2012; Timár and Velkey 2012; Timár and Velkey 2011; Momsen et al.

2005; Momsen 2006; Momsen 2002; Timár 2002; Kovács and Váradi 2000), few studies have focused on women in Hungarian rural development programs (Rácz 2013).

Research that has focused on the outcomes of Hungarian rural development programs has tended to focus more on networks, administrative cultures, and organizational relationships (High and Nemes 2007; Nemes 2005a; Nemes 2004b). This study seeks to bridge a very important gap in the research on this topic while also making concrete policy recommendations.

In Chapter 2, I review the relevant literature on Hungarian rural development programs and gender policy, in addition to broader research on the effects of these programs. Focusing on approaches to women’s leadership, education, labor, and entrepreneurship in development, I connect my research with the larger body of literature on gender and rural development. To understand gender regimes and policies in Hungary,

I explore how communist policies have produced different understandings of gender equality. This is followed by an examination of the work on gender and leadership, education, labor, and entrepreneurship in Hungary. I compare these broader studies with

27 the relatively smaller body of literature focusing on rural gender issues. Having examined gender norms and political cultures in Hungary, I then examine the scholarly debates concerning the accession process and compliance with EU gender policies. I conclude by exploring the contradictions in EU gender policies and what some of the cited weaknesses may imply for gender in Hungarian rural development policies. Within these bodies of literature, I examine the prevalent criticisms, assumptions, and approaches and engage the different perspectives with my research.

Chapter 3 outlines the research methodologies employed for this study. This section will explain how mixed methods provide a fuller interpretation of the research questions.

Chapter 4 - 5 consist of the analyses of the research results. Chapter 4 examines the dominant discourses concerning gender in rural development in Hungary and the EU.

I analyze policy documents, legislation, and strategy plans in addition to rural development publications and mainstream media sources to see how rural women’s leadership, education, labor, and entrepreneurship are addressed at the rhetorical level. I begin with an examination of LEADER Local Action Plans, which I compare to various national policies. In turn, EU policies concerning gender equality and rural development serve as another point of comparison. By integrating relevant statistics and stakeholder insights, I highlight instances in which there are observable disconnects between policies and current conditions for women and men in rural areas.

Chapter 5 describes how Hungarian rural development programs have approached women’s leadership, education, labor, and entrepreneurship by examining the perceivable outcomes of finished projects and trainings. This section explores the assessments of

monitoring and evaluation documents to discern the quantitative effects of these

programs. In light of the 2014 - 2020 programming period, the analysis of EU and

Hungarian reflections on the 2007-2013 period also provide insights into how

policymakers, planners, and program administrators think about the gendered impact of

their programs.

Chapter 6 will provide a holistic interpretation and discussion of the results and

will identify some of the main reasons for the lack of gender mainstreaming policy in

Hungarian rural development programs. This chapter outlines concrete recommendations

for integrating gender into future rural development programs.

It should be emphasized that in this research, Hungary does not present an

isolated case study that merely exists in faraway villages. Rather, what happens in

villages and small towns has direct and indirect consequences that are observable on the

national level. By examining the factors that have influenced the lack of EU gender

mainstreaming policies in Hungarian rural development programs, I develop

recommendations that could contribute to more inclusive policies to expand women’s

opportunities. This is critical to achieving the goals for all rural stakeholders and from a

policy perspective, to achieving the Europe 2020 targets. However, contrary to ‘smart

economics’ rationales, which call for gender equality in development on the basis of

economic growth, gender equality must first and foremost be viewed as an integral part of social and political processes (Chant and Sweetman 2012). Gender equality is not simply a recommendation for economic growth; it is a human right. From this perspective, I analyze how Hungarian rural development programs have addressed structural gender inequalities and discrimination. By directly addressing these strategic

29 gender needs, the results of this research aim to contribute to policies and programs that could help build a more inclusive and just society for all Hungarians.

Chapter 2: Literature Review and Background

The literature on Hungarian rural development programs and gender mainstreaming policies will be grouped into four main categories. These include the relevant literature on rural development and gender, the impact of Communism on understandings of gender equality, EU and Hungarian contestations of gender policy, and conflicting constructions of EU gender equality paradigms.

This review begins by first examining the literature on rural women in

Hungarian rural development programs. Because this subject is still vastly understudied, I also examine research that has analyzed how Hungarian rural development programs have addressed leadership, education, labor, and entrepreneurship. To further explore women’s roles in rural development, I include literature relevant to the Hungarian case. I argue that although the debate concerning the efficacy of various rural development programs is fierce in Hungary, a focus explicitly on gender is sorely missing.

To understand the differences between EU and Hungarian gender regimes, it is necessary to examine the varying interpretations of how socialist policies affected women’s political and civic participation, education, and labor market patterns after the system change in 1989. Of critical importance is how gender relations, roles, and identities were shaped under state socialism and how these meanings have been reinterpreted and contested in the aftermath of the system change and with EU accession

(Krizsán 2012; Krizsán 2009; Fábián 2009). Although the literature focusing particularly on rural women’s experiences of these social, economic, and political transformations is

31 not as extensive, I assess the work that has been done while presenting my research contributions.

The literature on compliance (Falkner & Treib 2008; Falkner et al. 2005; Galligan

& Clavero 2007; Van der Vleuten 2007; Krizsán and Zentai 2006; Falkner et al. 2005;

Lendvai 2005), norm diffusion (Schimmelfennig 2002; Kovács 2006); and institutionalization (Krizsán et al. 2012; Krizsán and Zentai 2012; Krizsán 2009; Krizsán and Zentai 2006) will demonstrate how gender equality policies have been approached and implemented by Hungary in rural development. Here, I compare EU and Hungarian gender regimes, providing a background of the key legislation related to gender equality and describing how these laws have been adapted in Hungary. Considering how the EU has framed (and reframed) gender policies, I examine how the Hungarian state has engaged in this process and how variation across time and policy fields reveals different understandings of gender equality (Krizsán et al. 2014; Lombardo and Forest 2012;

Buzogány 2012; Verloo and Lombardo 2007; Dombos et al. 2007; Lendvai 2005).

Applied to Hungarian rural development programs, this review will provide the necessary background to understand the vacillating institutional environment in which these programs exist.

I then address the various debates concerning the contested meanings of gender equality within the EU itself. The EU gender regime has been actively constructing gender equality as a fundamental part of European identity. However, how this process has occurred, through which mechanisms, and under whose purview continues to fuel scholarly debate on the Europeanization of gender equality. This will begin with a brief overview of the major EU legislation on gender equality that will engage with various

32 feminist debates concerning its equity and efficacy. Through these bodies of literature, I assess the different approaches, assumptions, and knowledge gaps in relation to my research.

Hungarian Rural Development and Gender

The research of Judit Rácz (2013) has made a significant contribution in describing the gender dynamic within local rural development programs in Hungary. By conducting interviews with program administrators, managers, and organizational presidents, Rácz (2013) analyzed the communication patterns between women men of equal professional rank, as well as those in subordinate positions. Using data collected from a survey questionnaire, she found that although women and men alike preferred working with women, both preferred to have a male boss (Rácz 2013). This work has made an important and rare contribution to the study of how gender stereotypes and roles interact with power relations within Hungarian rural development organizations. Rácz’s work has demonstrated how this dynamic ultimately affects project implementation.

However, Rácz (2013) points out two dominant perspectives in analyzing how rural development programs serve women’s interests (12). The first perspective focuses on the effects of implemented actions and interventions, while the second perspective considers the role of women in rural development politics (Rácz 2013, 12-13). Although few studies have focused on the gender impact of Hungarian development organizations, in researching the gender aspects of migration from the Northern Great Plain region, Judit

Timár et al. (2012) found in their interviews with local development experts that generally, programs have been gender blind, ignoring the differences in women and men’s labor and migration patterns. Building on these studies, I aim to contribute to this

field of research by looking at both the organizational aspects of gender relations as well

as the potential impact on beneficiaries.

Effects of Hungarian Rural Development Programs

Evaluations of the impact of Hungarian rural development programs concerning

their diverse objectives vary from optimistic to disparaging. Studying the effects of non-

profit organizations among Local Action Groups in Southern Transdanubia, Eszter Varga

(2009) found that these organizations were essential in encouraging civic participation.1

This conclusion was reached primarily by creating a typology of project activities gathered from various databases. Varga (2009) explains that animation projects played a key role in encouraging community activities. As described by Robert Lukesch (2007),

animation activities aim at the dynamic engagement of the local community by

encouraging discovery, idea exchange, and social cohesion (23). However, the extent, or

quality of these community activities was beyond the purview of this research. More

broadly, Robert Tésits (2012) has examined the role of non-profit organizations in

creating jobs and encouraging economic growth in rural areas. Although women are

mentioned among “disadvantaged” groups, including the Roma minority and the

disabled, in terms of securing long-term employment, this study did not elaborate on how

non-profits have remedied these social and economic inequities.

Research praising the community-building virtues of local development projects

often lacks a refined analysis of the differential effects on individuals. Even though

1 Varga (2009) explains that animation projects played a key role in encouraging community participation. Described by Robert Lukesch (2007) in the Local Action Group Handbook, animation activities aim at the dynamic engagement of the local community by encouraging open communication and social cohesion. Animation projects encourage discovery through the exchange of ideas within a community (Lukesch 2007, 23). 34

Gusztáv Nemes et al. (2007) focus in more detail on the difficulties faced by beneficiaries from an administrative perspective, social and economic inequalities are not duly considered. Nemes et al. (2006) argue that with reflexive agency – that is, with development professionals who are able to mediate between different levels of governance – integrated rural development can be achieved (101). They describe

‘reflexive agents’ as individuals who can effectively communicate or ‘translate’ unfamiliar or perceivably threatening measures to local stakeholders (101). Alexandra

Szőke (2013) places such actors in what she terms the rising ‘project class’ of rural development actors. According to Szőke (2013), the varying levels of knowledge, experience, networks, and agency that these actors bring to local contexts influences how they assess local needs. She explains that, “…their particular conceptualisation of

‘disadvantages’ has significant effects on the self-perception of local inhabitants and the possibilities they have within and outside their village” (2013, 78). However, this research explored “disadvantage” in terms of official territorial designations of “the most disadvantaged areas,”2 as opposed to specific groups of disadvantaged people.

Considering this previous research, I explore how these critical intermediaries perceive gender as a disadvantage in rural development programs and what these perceptions may imply for programs and projects.

Judit Katona Kovács (2014) and Judit Katona Kovács et al. (2011) have emphasized the importance of human and social capital investments in rural development

2 Leghátrányosabb helyzetű kistérségek (LHH) 35

programs, primarily through increased training and professional development programs.

According to her research

In Hungary, 56.4 percent of the funding earmarked for the establishment of

microenterprises was redirected to other measures of the 2007-2013 Rural Development

Programme because of lack of interest. Is redirection the best answer here, or would it be

better to find ways to help local people to become entrepreneurs? (44).3

Katona Kovacs (2014) identifies a persistent problem in rural development training

programs. Paradoxically, relatively more training is provided under Axis I measures

specifically for agriculture, while Axis III measures encouraging rural entrepreneurship

lack similarly prioritized training programs. However, research questioning how different

kinds of human capital investments impact gender in Hungarian rural development

programs has still been largely unexplored. To contribute to this study, this paper analyzes how training and lifelong learning programs may affect gender inequalities.

European Rural Development and Gender

The literature on gender divisions in agricultural training outside Hungary

provides key insights for this research. In a multi-country study of Finland, Sweden, The

Netherlands, France, and Greece, Constantina Safilios-Rothschild (2006) found that agricultural training can play a crucial role in women’s occupational integration as farmers with greater access to land and decision making authority. However, Safilios-

Rothschild (2006) indicates that most European agricultural institutions, including the

3 The information regarding funding was gathered from the 2012 Report on Implementation of the Budget for the Use of Rural Development Objectives, Strengthening the Role of Local Communities Earmarked for the Effectiveness and Efficiency of the Monitoring of the Quality of Life of Rural Roles. Report N. 1293. Budapest: Állami Számvevőszék. 36

Agricultural Directorate of the European Community, may not encourage trainings that

foster women’s leadership. She describes how, “…adult women farmers are still provided

with home economics and agrotourism courses instead of ‘technical’ agricultural and

farm management training that many of them need” (272). The perpetuation of this

occupational segregation within agriculture then confounds efforts within national

agricultural institutions to promote gender equality policies (Safilios-Rothschild 2006,

272-273).

Rural Development and Gender

The broader literature on gender and agricultural development has demonstrated how across the world, women in agriculture lack access to land and livestock, technology and labor, and financial and educational resources (UN 2015; UN Women 2015;

Quisumbing et. al 2014; IFAD 2012; FAO 2011, 2010; Momsen 2010; World Bank,

FAO, IFAD 2008; Moser 1993). In development strategies, agencies have maintained a dual goal of closing the closing the gender gap in agriculture that would allow women to wield control over assets, which would in turn increase productivity while also building confidence (Quisumbing et. al, 2014, 7). Ester Boserup (1970), in her classic book,

Woman’s Role in Economic Development, emphasized that conceptions of gender differences in the work force could be explained by social constructs rather than by biology. She argued that it was necessary to recognize women’s unpaid work, and their many “hidden contributions,” in the field of economic development. Although the

Women in Development (WID) approach of the 1970s witnessed limited success because of its exclusive focus on women, the Gender And Development (GAD) approach of the

1980s sought to look at relationships between women and men to understand “the social

roles, norms, and resources ascribed to women and men and how these gender roles

shape the opportunities and constraints faced by both women and men” (Quisumbing et.

al 2014, 9).

As recipients of agricultural and rural development aid and vocational training,

women have benefitted relatively less than men (Dey de Pryck and Termine 2014;

Momsen 2010; Fontana and Paciello 2010; Dolan and Sorby 2000). At the same time,

empowering women through education – specifically with training programs that provide

women with concrete skills – has been widely evidenced to benefit both families and

entire communities (UN Women 2015; USAID 2014, FAO 2010, World Bank, FAO,

IFAD 2008). Although several factors contribute to this, such as laws that favor male

landownership, restrictions on women’s mobility, socioeconomic status, family farm

conditions, and the gender division of labor, women have tended to be the relative

‘losers’ of agricultural modernization and rural development. In addition to local factors,

the underlying biases of planners can also maintain gender inequalities. Janet Momsen

(2010) explains that

Western experts have assumed the existence of a pattern of responsibility for agriculture

similar to that of their own societies, in which men are the main agricultural decision

makers. This error has resulted in failure for many agricultural development projects.

Even when included in development projects, women may be unable to obtain new

technological inputs because local political and legislative attitudes make women less

creditworthy than men (169).

Although Momsen refers specifically to agricultural projects, the male-bias that can hinder women’s access to development projects also applies to rural development

38 projects involved in non-agricultural activities. Moreover, even when women participate in local governance and farmer’s organizations, they may not be able to exert influence

(IFAD 2012; World Bank, FAO, IFAD 2008). The male biases described in development planning similarly apply to the EU and Hungarian policy contexts.

Hungarian Literature on Rural Development

The literature on Hungarian agricultural and rural development rarely engages with the wealth of research on gender and development. Instead, much of the literature on

Hungarian rural development organizations focuses on bureaucratic contradictions

(Kovács 2010; Cartwright and Kovács 2007), informal alliances, and misappropriations of power and funds (Finta 2013; Bátory and Cartwright 2008). The political appointment of unqualified, self-interested local leaders has especially been cited as a notable challenge in meeting community needs (Finta 2013; Nemes 2005, 19). Recognizing the contributions of this work, this research analyzes how these administrative contradictions and dysfunctions have affected livelihoods and opportunities of women and men beneficiaries.

Rural Development and Women’s Participation and Leadership

Considering the ‘centralized decentralization’ of Hungarian rural development

(Kovacs 2010; Bátory and Cartwright 2008; Cartwright and Kovács 2007), the prevailing gender ideologies and power relations can be reproduced at the subnational level

(Galligan and Clavero 2007; Rankin 2001). According to Jo Little and Owain Jones

(2000), the predominance of male decision makers in rural development policymaking has perpetuated gender inequalities. Even at the project level, Sally Shortall (2006)

contends that, “…projects that appear inclusive and transformative may turn out to be

supportive of a status quo that is highly inequitable to women. The approach to rural

development may have changed but a particular gendered ideology persists” (219). The

research of Bettina Bock and Petra Derkzen (2006) of rural women’s political

participation and representation in the Netherlands demonstrates that despite the

introduction of interactive, (rhetorically) inclusive governance models, women’s

meaningful participation was still limited. Although the women’s groups they studied did

manage to formally advocate for quality of life measures,4 which were placed on the local political agenda, their status as newcomers left them without the necessary networks to secure appropriate funding in the budget.

This leadership imbalance has been perpetuated under patriarchal structures that have impeded the participation of women in rural governance, notably through gender- biased recruitment channels as well as a competitive, male-dominated political culture

(Rueschemeyer 2014, 1998; Lovenduski 1998). Despite the participatory approach of the

LEADER program, which would seem more conducive to women’s political inclusion

(Cornwall 2000), in reality, relatively fewer women have participated in reformed local government bodies (Pócsi and Rácz 2014; Rácz 2013; Risteska et al. 2012, 75-76; Bock and Derkzen 2006; Shortall 2006, 2002; Little and Jones 2000). The following section will explore how the legacy of socialism has influenced perceptions of gender roles and relations to the detriment of Hungarian rural development.

4 Bettina Bock and Petra Derkzen (2006, 224) note that the quality of life issue has been viewed as a ‘feminine’ one, and that women usually have raised this issue outside of official government organizations. 40

Impact of Communist Policies on Understandings of Gender Equality

The tremendous structural transformations that occurred after the fall of communism cannot be separated from changing ideas of work, family status, and gender roles (Krizsán and Zentai 2012; Fábián 2009; Galligan et al. 2007; Gal and Kligman

2000a, 2000b; Jaquette and Wolchik 1998). Although officially, communist regimes aimed to ‘emancipate’ women from their ‘exploited’ domestic role, women’s secondary status to men was continued and reinforced under communist rule through gender divisions in labor, the double burden of work and family life, and rigidly controlled party participation (Rueschemeyer 2014,1998; Fábián 2009; Asztalos-Morell and Brandth

2007; Engel-Di Mauro 2006; Momsen 2006; Gal and Kligman 2000a, 2000b; Asztalos

Morell 1999; Wolchik 1998; Haney 1993; Funk and Mueller 1993).

In fact, the party conveyed mixed messages about women’s roles as mothers, leaders, and workers. As Susan Gal and Gail Kligman (2000a) describe:

While officially supporting equality between men and women, the regimes countenanced

and even produced heated mass media debates about issues such as women’s ideal and

proper roles, the deleterious effects of divorce, the effects of labor-force segregation—

such as the feminization of schoolteaching and agriculture—and the fundamental

importance of “natural difference (5).

With the vacillating discourse about what women’s emancipation actually meant, the

Communist party pursued policies that sought to merge gender roles; yet not to prompt men to engage in domestic work, but to impel women to do men’s work (Fabian 2009,

137). Katalin Fábián (2009) highlights that in particular, the public was appalled by propaganda depicting women on tractors, which for many, cemented the belief in

Communism’s unnatural character (137). Citing the work of Mária Schadt (2003, 60),

Fabian notes that in reality, about 17 women were tractor operators in the agricultural

sector, and yet, these images seemed to strengthen the belief in women and men’s

different gender roles. Fabian (2009) explains how this example illustrates the concepts

of ‘equal rank’ (egyenrangúság) and ‘equality’ (egyenlőség), the former adhering to the

difference approach, opposing the ‘merging of gender roles,’ and the latter advocating for the sameness approach, implying equal opportunity between women and men (137).

However the “women on tractors” example does not serve to illustrate that the idea of women engaging in “men’s work” was innately unacceptable; rather, it was the imposition from a common enemy – the communist state – that made these policies so objectionable for many citizens (Fabian 2009, 138).

Although many perceived the home and the family as one of the only refuges from the long arm of the state (Szalai 2000, 1998; Siklova 1993, 79; Havel 1988), among opposition groups, this reinforced beliefs about traditional gender roles. According to

Fabian (2009), “This image of the ideal and harmonic gender relations, however, identified men as free agents in the public space and implicitly required women to maintain the safety and comfort of the home” (138). Although these public private divides may appear to allocate separate spheres to men and women, these lines, both during and after communism, were constantly blurred. Gal and Kligman (2000a) have explored the shifting and fluid meanings of ‘public’ and ‘private’ life during that have taken on changed meanings in post-communist society (Gal and Kligman 2000a, 37-62).

Discussing the gendered changes that have occurred in the labor market with the system change, they note:

A close look at women’s strategies reveals that the labor market is bifurcating in multiple

ways: into public and private, to be sure, but within this into regular and secure jobs,

coded as male, and into unstable, part-time work and multiple jobs occupied mostly by

women (61).

Although the system change did not signal a return to pre-Communist gender roles, in

Hungary, the nationalist, center-right Hungarian Democratic Forum (HDF) espoused

‘traditional’ ideals that envisioned women as the protectors of the family and the nation.

With this political ‘retraditionalization’ of gender roles and revulsion of ‘liberating’

Communist policies, Western feminism was not embraced by most women. This has been

explained by a backlash against Communist policies and prevalent distrust in politics

(Fábián 2009; Szalai 1998, 197), apolitical attitudes (Goven 1993, 225-226), as well as a misunderstanding of what feminism actually means (Adamik 1993, 207). Julia Szalai

(1998) adds that Western feminism failed to resonate with most women because

“Claiming distinct rights for women is generally seen as an expression of hostility toward the family in Hungary. It implies the act of breaking apart” (197).

However, even with the conservative, nationalist movements of the early 1990s, women’s employment remained higher than that of men’s and few women in Hungary left the labor force (Szalai 1998; Adamik 1993 209). Szalai (1998; 2000) argues that during the communist period, women’s double burden actually created certain opportunities that allowed women to develop skills and valuable networks that would become useful after the system change. That is, women could strategically invoke their domestic obligations to avoid participation in official party politics and functions. This retreat from political activities allowed for women to devote more time to small family

enterprises in the second economy, which developed skills in accounting, marketing, and

networking that they applied in the newly emerging market economy (Szalai 1998;

2000).

However, rural women had very different experiences of the transition, especially

those employed in agriculture, where severe job losses occurred (Engel-Di Mauro 2006;

Timár 2002; Asztalos-Morrell 1999; Repassy 1991). If one examines employment data disaggregated by region and settlement type,5 the earlier description of women’s higher

employment changes drastically (Timár and Velkey). Using data from the 1996

Hungarian Microcensus, Timár (2002) found that not only do rural women experience

lower activity rates compared to men, but also relative to women in towns and cities

(139). She describes these conditions as a “twofold disadvantage in the labor market,”

which is exacerbated in poorer regions. The research of Mónika Váradi (2013) in the

village of Tormás in Southern Transdanubia describes in detail that high unemployment

rates cannot be understood as complete inactivity. As she notes, “In Tormás we did not

meet a single woman, man, or married couple who, in attempting to find work since

1993-1994, did not intersperse unemployed life with public works programs and

occasional work” (112). Sporadic, informal work has been a way of life for most of the

residents of Tormás due to lack of mobility and lower levels of educational attainment.

Váradi (2013) found that among a very small group of unemployed men in their twenties,

those who had attained vocational training or completed secondary education at least had

higher levels of mobility (113). In contrast, younger women were characterized more by

5 In Timár’s (2002) research, settlement types are organized into the categories of Budapest, Other Cities, and Villages (140). 44

their immobility. One of the research participants who was expecting a child after

completing secondary school stated that she would only finish some kind of further

coursework if she were unemployed (113). That is, her future responsibilities as a mother

would make further education nearly impossible. Others stated that the only chance of

finding work would entail moving to another village (113). For young women with children who had only primary educational attainment, occasional, informal work was often the only option (114).

Although entrepreneurship may generally be viewed as a path to prosperity and

success, for rural women entrepreneurs it is often a last result to escape extreme poverty

(Momsen et al. 2005; Momsen 2006; Momsen 2002). Given the research that has

demonstrated how many women must take on additional, unpaid work related to small

businesses and family farm enterprises (Asztalos-Morell 2007), I examine development

activities and interventions in Hungarian plans to see if consideration is given to such

gender impacts.

Such consideration is especially important, as the research of David Brown and

László Kulcsár (2000) has demonstrated that many rural families continue to rely on

informal, nonmarket activities for survival (2000). Researching the survival strategies of

unskilled workers in a Roma village, Zsuzsanna Vidra (2013) found that most

respondents thought that women needed to stay at home to take care of the children and

the house, while men were obliged to take care of the family (62). However, some

women still engaged in factory work in addition to their domestic responsibilities, relying

on relatives to watch their children during working hours (63).

Although broader works may mention that women’s political and civic

participation has been stronger at local levels in Hungary (Rueschemeyer 2014, 119;

Szalai 1998, 200), very little in-depth research has been conducted specifically on rural

women’s leadership and political participation in Hungary (Timár 2004). However,

previous research has shown that local governments where women make up the majority

of decision-making bodes demonstrated more spending on childcare and elderly care

facilities and services, more efficient welfare assistance, and generally more openness to

partnerships with civil society organizations (Szalai 1998, 200). Women’s organizations

– albeit with drastically different agendas – have participated in the political sphere

primarily by advocating for specific issues related to reproductive health, domestic

violence, and mothers’ rights (Fábián 2009; Jaquette and Wolchik 1998). However,

women’s groups have rarely explicitly been advocates for gender equality issues. Fábián

(2009) has described how the ‘enforced egalitarianism’ endured under communism has

resulted in a wariness, or in some cases, a rejection of Western feminism for some

women. In her research of Hungarian women’s groups, she explains that because of this

history, many women do not support positive action policies, such as quotas (2009, 18).

Fábián’s (2009) interviews with various Hungarian women’s groups highlighted,

however, that many organization leaders and members advocated for ‘equal rank’ over

‘equality’ (137). As opposed to equality, ‘equal rank’ is less challenging to patriarchal

structures as it essentializes gender roles, allowing women to avoid discussions of

discrimination and structural inequalities (Fábián 2009, 138). In this way, women’s

groups can ‘safely’ advocate for issues without explicitly addressing gender inequalities.6

6 Fábián (2009) cites the examples of mothers who used a gender-neutral approach to call for sidewalks and stairways that would be more navigable with strollers. With the success of their campaign, they formed the 46

These strategies are key to analyzing the interactions between Hungarian rural

development policy and rural women. Although there have been no widespread advocacy

movements for rural women, this paper will analyze the strategies employed by different

actors to frame rural women’s issues.

EU & Hungarian Contestations of Gender Policy

Although some research has tended to analyze gender attitudes in terms of an

East-West bifurcation (Tang and Cousins 2005; Funk and Mueller 1993) by examining

the varying gaps between post-socialist countries and those of Western Europe, I avoid

such divisions. Instead, I focus on how supranational policies are interpreted within

specific, domestic conditions and how they apply to rural society. As Andrea Krizsán and

Violetta Zentai (2012) attest, “Equality institutional changes in the CEECs during the last

decade should be discussed as being strongly embedded in both the post-communist

legacy as well as the process of EU accession” (179-180). By concentrating relatively more on domestic forces, it is possible to detect the nuances, variations, and contradictions that together, critically shape public perceptions of gender roles and relations in rural development policy and programs.

During the accession process, which necessitated the rapid adaptation of EU directives and compliance with the acquis, Hungary was among a group (consisting of the Czech Republic, Lithuania, and Slovenia) that showed considerable progress in meeting the institutional and enforcement requirements of the gender acquis (Galligan and Clavero 2012, 115; Krizsán and Zentai 2006). Despite favorable signs of compliance,

NGO, TAVASZ: Tegyünk a Világért – Anyák Szövetsége (Spring: Let us Act Together for Our World – Mother’s Association) (139). 47

diligent enforcement has been weak in different policy areas. Yet, this “implementation

neglect” (Galligan and Clavero, 2012, 116) cannot solely be attributed to the fault of CEE

states to properly ‘catch up’ to the West; rather, some have blamed this neglect on a

mismatch between western and eastern gender equality regimes (Lendvai 2005).

While recognizing that EU membership has, to a certain extent, influenced

notions about gender equality, these transnational gender equality norms have not

become evenly salient across Member States (Krizsán et al. 2014; Krizsán et al. 2012;

Abels and Mushaben 2012; Avdeyeva 2010; Krizsán et al. 2009; Galligan and Clavero

2007; Verloo and Lombardo 2007). Noémi Lendvai’s (2005) argument that the social

welfare regimes of Central and Eastern European Countries (CEECs) are incompatible

with the EU Open Method of Coordination illustrates well some of the dysfunction that

has characterized Hungarian social policymaking. Lendvai (2005) identifies five primary

explanations for this discordance in social policy implementation: 1) rigid budgets that

discourage cooperation among Ministries; 2) “messy contracts” in which the central

government fails to adequately enforce laws that would sufficiently fund quality service

provision to local governments; 3) “broken policy cycles” characterized by short-term planning, lack of implementation and monitoring, and disjointed decision-making bodies where informal alliances may dominate; 4) weak social dialogue; and 5) scarce or missing statistical data necessary for social policy formulation (7). In analyzing approaches to gender equality in rural development, I consider how these major patterns have affected project administrators and beneficiaries alike. As I will demonstrate, the scarcity of sex-disaggregated data has hindered policymaking and program design that would adapt a gender-integrated approach.

Lendvai (2005) also contends that the accession process was a “…meeting point

of national and supranational social policies, and the dialogue of these two systems” (1).

Yet, she also describes this process as a disharmonious dialogue in which culturally and

historically embedded concepts of Western European social welfare needed to be

translated into the Hungarian context. Lendvai (2005) describes how in Hungary

Some of these terms such as gender inequalities, social partnerships and joint governance,

or even social exclusion and poverty had been silenced as policy issues due to political

reasons, even long after 1989 (6).

Lendvai (2005) terms these conflicted/distorted translations of social policy terms as

“silences” (6). As was said earlier regarding the difficultly in translating “gender mainstreaming” into Hungarian, the contextualizing of these terms in policy can be sites of resistance and struggle. Lendvai (2005) cites a prime example in the formation of the

2004-2006 National Action Plan (NAP) on social inclusion, describing how some politicians contended that ‘Nobody excludes anybody in Hungary’ (6). Similar responses appear in gender equality policy discourse in Hungary, namely that ‘Hungary is not sexist.’ The work of Sonia Mazey (1998) and Ulrike Liebert (2002) has demonstrated that the success or failure of supranational policies can be largely explained by examining national gender regimes. While EU gender mainstreaming policy has the potential to transform gender relations, in Hungary, many policy areas still remain gender-blind. This outcome can partially be understood by examining the relationship between the EU and

Member States. As Gabriele Abels and Joyce Mushaben (2012) stress

Gender studies reveal that political and administrative cultures underlying EU institutions

and the multi-level policy-making system have not only been shaped by national

heritages, bureaucratic traditions and institutional power-plays, but that these deeply

gendered cultures affect government responsiveness, political will and the administrative

capacities needed to implement equality policies (13).

In hard policies, Gerda Falkner and Oliver Treib (2008) have argued that formal compliance with EU directives, even when made into legislation, has not translated into effective domestic adaptation and enforcement. Especially regarding the two equality

Directives, the Equal Treatment Directive (76/207/EEC, amended by 2002/27/EC) and the Employment Framework Directive (2000/78/EC), Hungary, while literally transposing these directives into law at the time of accession, has not efficiently monitored nor enforced these. Although Falkner and Treib (2008) place Hungary in the

“world of dead letters,” because of its unreliable court systems, relatively weak civil society, and inefficient institutions (18), in gender policy, additional domestic factors also account for missing implementation. However, other literature suggests that even if a norm is at first approached warily by a newer Member State, through the routinization of mandates, directives, and recommendations from Brussels, the dull, bureaucratic process associated with compliance, can, in some instances lead to norm internalization (Marinov et al. 2006, 5). From this perspective, perhaps the relatively less stringent compliance measures of gender mainstreaming, have not yet been sufficiently integrated into the everyday work of Hungarian public officials and civil servants. Although domestic resonance certainly weighs heavily in norm adaptation, the power of the quotidian must also be considered.

Although the EU has certainly helped promote gender equality norms, this process will fall flat if the domestic audience is neither receptive nor informed (van der

Vleuten 2007). For these reasons, the agency of domestic actors is particularly

emphasized in this paper. I view the relationship between the EU and Hungary not as a

one-way, top-down path in which Brussels trumps Budapest. Rather, I see dynamic interactions between multiple levels of government, where the meanings of rural development and gender policies are contested and changing. Moreover, I expand upon previous research that tends to focus on policy convergence/divergence in terms of the national-supranational relationship. Considering the decentralization process that has occurred in Hungary in addition to the bottom-up approach of Local Action Groups, I examine local policies to see if alternate interpretations of gender equality emerge.

The lack of political will in gender policy, in addition to public attitudes about gender norms and roles, must be given greater weight when examining rural development policies. Rather than focusing on the one-way transposition of EU policy directives and initiatives, it is necessary to examine gender dynamics in the Hungarian context and how, precisely, the contestation of gender norms in Hungary explains this lack of enforcement.

Moreover, rather than assuming “eastern backwardness” as an inherent and static characteristic in comparison to Western Europe, I seek to understand the interaction between structural and normative forces that have shaped Hungary’s development trajectory. Implied in the literature of “catching up” to Western European standards lies the assumption that there is an ideal – upheld in the Old Member States – that must be met by the newer Member States (Kovács 2006). While the region has indeed seen trends that indicate the narrowing of the gender gap in certain areas, this does not imply that the

West embodies the paramount model of gender equality. To assume that the concepts of

EU gender equality policy are ideal would ignore gender inequalities that persist in

Western countries. The following section will examine the contradictions within the EU and apply the literature to rural development policy.

Conflicting Constructions of EU Gender Equality

Policymakers have often pointed to the 1957 Treaty of Rome as a watershed moment in the history of EU gender equality policy. Specifically, Article 119 states that

“each Member State shall during the first stage ensure and subsequently maintain the application of the principle that men and women should receive equal pay for equal work” (EC). However, Heather MacRae (2010) has pointed out that Article 119 did not arise out altruistic inclinations to promote fair labor standards between women and men7

(150). Emanuela Lombardo and Petra Meier (2007) further emphasize that the equal opportunities approach of Article 119 ignores structural conditions that have perpetuated inequalities between the sexes and have not challenged patriarchy in any meaningful way

(53). Indeed, it was not until the early 1970s that the Commission began to consider more inclusive policies toward women (Rossilli 2000). In discussing gender equality legislation; however, it must underscored that this was carried out through predominantly male decision making (Hoskyns 1996). Indeed, Abels and Mushaben (2012) point out that the most significant treaties of European integration resulted from predominantly male political decisions (4-5).

In addition to male-led decision-making, EU gender equality policy has historically concentrated on labor (Lombardo and Meier 2007) evidenced first in the 1957

7 Rather, this decision was influenced by compliance pressure on France from the International Labor Organization (ILO) (Hoskyns 1996). 52

treaty. In addition to the creation of positive action policies introduced by Article 141.48

in the 1997 Treaty of Amsterdam, Article 3.2 stated that in all Commission activities,

“the Community shall aim to eliminate inequalities, and to promote equality between

women and men.” This all-encompassing sentiment is echoed in Article II-23 of the

Charter of Fundamental Rights, which declares that “equality between women and men must be ensured in all areas, including employment, work and pay” (EC 2010/C 83/02).

Lombardo and Meier (2007) argue that this marked a significant discursive shift that departed from the earlier requirements stipulated by the acquis communautaire9 that

focused primarily on equality in the world of work (55).

Although gender equality was officially declared as a core European value in the

2009 Lisbon Treaty (Article 2 TEU) and has been constructed as a founding principle,

other research suggests that the EU gender regime may be more of a “gender myth” that

in reality fails at gender sensitivity and inclusion (MacRae 2010). Mazey (2002) has

pointed out some of the ‘cracks’ in gender mainstreaming policy within EU institutions.

She argues that although gender mainstreaming has been relatively successful within the

European Commission, other institutions have not appeared to adopt this approach (2002,

229). Even though Mazey (2002) argues that the adoption of gender mainstreaming

among EU institutions and Member States has been uneven, she points to successes in

different policy sectors. She notes that advocacy of feminists within the Commission

played a significant role in initiating gender mainstreaming in institutions where women

8 This provision allowed Member States to implement positive action policies, which were described as “specific advantages in order to make it easier for the underrepresented sex to pursue a vocational activity or to prevent or compensate for disadvantages in professional careers” (cite provision). 9 This refers to the body of legislation, principles, measures, and agreements that binds all Member States (EC 2015). 53

had historically been underrepresented, such as in the Directorate-General of Agriculture

(DG AGRI) (2002, 237). At the same time, Mazey (2002) adds that in cases when these

‘feminist entrepreneurs’ left organizations, gender mainstreaming efforts often lost their

force (237). At the heart of this debate is arriving at a consensus of what gender equality

means. According to the Council of Europe

Gender equality means an equal visibility, empowerment and participation of both sexes

in all spheres of public and private life…Gender equality is not synonymous with

sameness, with establishing men, their life style and conditions as the norm…Gender

equality means accepting and valuing equally the differences between women and men

and the diverse roles they play in society (1998, 7-8).

As Sylvia Walby (2005) highlights, within this text, while men and women should be

treated the same in some spheres, namely education, political and public life, and the

labor force, in the domestic sphere, difference prevails (327-328). Ultimately, there is a

logical fallacy in this model that claims equality in sameness in some areas, but equality

in difference in others (Walby 2005, 328).

However, gender mainstreaming has not been adequately supported by hard

measures, such as directives, but instead soft policies.10 Although many scholars agree

that the Open Method of Coordination as the primary mechanism used by the EU to

ensure implementation of gender mainstreaming policies has been largely ineffective

(MacRae 2010; Lombardo and Meier 2007; Lombardo 2005; Walby 2005), others

10 Examples include the Commission’s Action Programmes for Equal Opportunities between women and men and the 1996 Commission Communication on “Incorporating Equal Opportunities for women and men into all Community Policies and Activities” (COM 96(67) final). 54

consider the positive changes that soft measures have affected (Beveridge 2012; Bruno et al. 2006; Mazey 2002).

Yet, beyond the debates between hard and soft measures, gender mainstreaming has mainly been criticized for potentially weakening gender machineries and effectively sidelining gender issues. Reflecting on the prominent introduction of the term at the 1995

Beijing UN Conference on Women, Quisumbing et.al (2014) point out the paradox in gender mainstreaming; “…declaring that gender was to be addressed everywhere often led to gender becoming invisible….” (10). The EU’s technocratic approach to gender mainstreaming has also been criticized for possibly depoliticizing gender inequality, which could exclude less subdued and systematic views from the policy debate (Squires

1999; 2005). Others have criticized EU gender mainstreaming for limiting inclusive democratic participation in that a select group of experts are tasked with formulating policy for women with diverse life experiences and concerns (Verloo and Lombardo

2007, 26). Without simultaneous grassroots movements that can demonstrate the domestic relevance of EU gender policies, the top-down nature of gender mainstreaming may continue to be viewed as an unfamiliar – or worse – an imposed norm.

In contrast to international development organizations that have prioritized the integration of gender equality in their policy frameworks, programs, and projects,11 EU

rural development policy has not yet adopted a similar approach. Beyond broad

11 See the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) Integrating Gender Equality and Female Empowerment in USAID’s Program Cycle (2013), Gender Equality and Female Empowerment Policy (2012); The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Policy (2012); The World Bank, the Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, and the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD) The Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook (2008). 55

statements claiming that rural development programs will strive to ensure equality

between women and men, a systematic analysis and inclusion of gender is sorely missing

from the iterative process of planning, implementation, and monitoring. Planning

documents lack clearly formulated, detailed assessments of rural gender roles and

relations, in addition to gender-sensitive indicators for each measure. In particular, EU

rural development policy reflects a history of predominantly male decision-making that continues to view men as the primary holders of land and capital (Prügl 2012; 2011;

2009). As a result, male beneficiaries have benefitted relatively more from agricultural and rural development programs through grants, loans, and training (Prügl 2012; 2011;

2009). When examining how gender is treated in Hungarian rural development policy, this male bias is crucial to consider. Even within gender policy making itself, Catherine

Hoskyns (1996) explains that

Virtually all public policy making on women’s issues takes place within structures that

are male-dominated, in the sense that they reflect male-life patterns, are largely controlled

by men, and support a process which presents different but essentially male views of

problems and solutions (10).

For these reasons, when gender is addressed in rural development policy and discourse

(and when it is missing), it is vital to consider from where this perspective originates and

to consider if accepted power relations are being challenged or reinforced.

Chapter 3: Methodology

This research focuses on the effects of political policies and programs, and

processes involved in forming those, on women in rural Hungary. Involving both

quantitative and qualitative approaches in mixed methods and multiple sources of

information for analysis, this research examines how political actors construct, invoke,

and translate gender.

Description of Methodology

As described in the introduction, to analyze the processes influencing the lack of gender mainstreaming in Hungarian rural development programs, this paper addresses the

following questions:

1) What gender gaps exist within Hungarian rural development policies at the

local and national levels?

2) How have rural development policies and programs approached women’s

leadership, education, labor, and entrepreneurship in rural Hungary?

3) How do those involved view and describe policies and programs specifically

with regard to gender and/or to women?

Using mixed methodologies, I examine how political actors construct, invoke, and

translate gender across levels of government, with a particular focus on the effects of

these processes on women in rural Hungary. Five primary methods for collecting and

analyzing information were combined:

1) Qualitative Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) conducted of policy

documents, development strategies, local evaluations, EU and Hungarian rural

development publications, and mainstream media sources;

2) Qualitative analysis of original semi-structured interviews conducted with

stakeholders in Hungary and Washington, DC;

3) Qualitative analysis of program monitoring and evaluation reports and

assessments, program focus group meeting reports, and identified best

practices and lessons learned;

4) Quantitative data analysis based on gender equality indices, national

statistics; and

5) Quantitative analysis of original data collected from 328 beneficiary projects

among local rural development organizations.

Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA)

Through Critical Discourse Analysis (CDA) (Fairclough, 1989), I analyzed the policies of selected Local Action Groups, national Hungarian agencies, and the EU to observe how gender is addressed in rural development policy. In examining policy documents, I analyzed how measures regarding leadership, education, labor, and entrepreneurship incorporate a gender-sensitive perspective within specific administrative and spatial contexts. The textual analyses may reveal how certain norms have been translated and negotiated (Beveridge 2012; Verloo 2007; Meier 2007; Dombos et al.

2007; Elgström 2000) in multi-level governance. Indeed, according to Ole Elgström

(2000):

…text is not, in itself, sufficient,…the adoption of text serves to ‘institutionalise’ the

concern: if a formal norm exists, most EU officials feel that they should at least pay lip

service to it…the more often gender concerns are included in documents and plans, the

more natural it becomes for an official to take it up in other contexts (469).

From this perspective, I use CDA methods to analyze a variety of policy and mainstream

media sources to examine how EU gender mainstreaming principles have been

institutionalized in rural development. The five discursive strategies for positive self and

negative other representation outlined by Ruth Wodak and Martin Reisigl (2001,provide

an appropriate framework of analysis of inclusion/exclusion, that is “a plan of practices,

including discursive practices, adopted to achieve a particular social, political,

psychological, or linguistic goal” (662). Through this framework, I approach these texts

with the following questions:

1) How are gender and sex described within institutions? Is this communicated

directly or indirectly?

2) In what context are gender and sex addressed?

3) What kind of space does gender occupy in texts (e.g. discussed in specific

sections or chapters, mentioned briefly, or discussed in multiple sections)?

4) How do references to gender interact with the historical, political, and social

discourses of these communities?

With this framework, I identify common themes in how language is employed among a plurality of actors and institutions to see who may appear included or excluded from development programs. Viewing gender as a construct of social practice, I examine each

organization as “specific communities of practice” (Eckert and McConnell-Ginet 1992).

As Penelope Eckert and Sally McConnell-Ginet (1992) explain

Rather than try to abstract gender from social practice, we need to focus on gender in its

full complexity: how gender is constructed in social practice, and how this construction

intertwines with that of other components of identity and difference, and of language.

This requires studying how people negotiate meanings in and among the specific

communities of practice to which they belong (468).

As previously mentioned, it is also critical to observe with whom women are

grouped (i.e. the Roma minority, the disabled, and the elderly). These associations reveal

evidence about how marginalized groups are perceived by policy makers and program

implementers and how social inequalities may be reproduced through policy language. I

also studied Hungarian rural development publications and mainstream media sources

that directly address women’s roles in rural development: these sources provide an

interesting comparison with official texts while presenting broader public attitudes.

Analysis of original semi-structured interviews

From 2014 to 2015, I conducted fourteen in-depth, semi-structured interviews1 with actors from international organizations, national ministries, regional research organizations, local rural development programs, academia, NGOs, and the private sector in Hungary and Washington, D.C. Participants were recruited primarily through publicly- available email addresses and in some cases, through referrals provided by participants.

Because of Hungary’s distinct regional variation, I conducted interviews with Local

1 Eleven of the interviews were conducted in person, one was held over Skype, one via telephone, and another via email. 60

Action Groups in Central Hungary, Western Hungary, and the Southern Great Plain

regions. Although the former two regions are the wealthiest and most developed in the

country, the Southern Great Plain has been a traditional agricultural center. Most

interviews were conducted in Budapest; however, one interview was conducted in

Debrecen, the regional capital of the Northern Great Plain. Despite efforts to conduct

interviews in all seven regions, this was not possible due to nonresponses. To compensate

for this, I include additional analysis of regional data and research, especially for the least

developed regions of Northern Hungary and the Northern Great Plain.

The interviews lasted approximately 1 to 2 hours and provide an array of

perspectives, especially concerning how various domestic actors conceive of gender

equality and women’s roles in rural development. Participants were asked about their

experiences in rural development and/or gender policy, their views about the efficacy of

programs regarding rural women, and their recommendations and thoughts about future

planning.

Since most of the respondents were Hungarian, I conducted nine of the interviews

in Hungarian to allow for freer expression and out of respect for the respondents’ native

language and contribution to this research. I recorded, transcribed, and translated the interviews. References and quotes from interviews are indicated in this paper by a number in parentheses. Participants who gave permission for the use of their names and organizations will be directly identified. Otherwise, the identities of the other participants will remain anonymous.

The views expressed by respondents cannot be said to be representative of their organizations. Rather, stakeholders from different institutions and regions were chosen to

learn about their experiences and perspectives and explore with greater depth information

gathered from more structured and less open survey material.

I use an ecological framework to analyze and interpret the data from these

interviews, as this focuses on how “sectors or structures in a community or society

intersect in a dynamic manner” (LeCompte and Schensul 2013, 284). Ecological thinking

is particularly useful in research of multilevel governance, which involves various actors

with competing agendas. This approach allows for the holistic examination of how

administration cultures and power struggles affect approaches to gender policy. I seek to

elucidate how these factors may hinder gender mainstreaming policies in rural

development, which could help formulate more viable policy recommendations.

Qualitative analysis of program monitoring and evaluation

To further examine the effects of rural development programs on gender, I analyzed the implemented projects and trainings at different levels of governance. Since vocational training has been prioritized in EU rural development programs, this research observed whether the programs in Hungary are gender sensitive and improving conditions for women. In particular, I analyzed information pertinent to the kinds of trainings offered to see at whom they are directed (considering sex, age, profession) and how they might have affected beneficiaries.

Additionally, I examined the findings from Monitoring and Evaluation and

progress reports of selected organizations. Specifically, I assessed these reports to see

how the programs have been judged in their support of women’s leadership, educational,

labor, and entrepreneurial opportunities This component of the mixed methods also

included a critical examination of ‘best’ practices and ‘lessons learned’ from the

perspective of planners and implementers. Here, I assessed how these policy and program

reflections pertain to gender equality and social inclusion goals.

Quantitative data analysis

I compared texts in relation to sex-disaggregated statistics by rural typology

and/or region. I referred to data collected primarily from Eurostat and the Hungarian

Central Statistical Office (HCSO) that will illustrate gender gaps in leadership, education,

labor, and entrepreneurship. At the national level, I compared the findings of the World

Economic Forum’s (WEF) 2014 Global Gender Gap Report for Hungary with the 2013

findings of the European Institute of Gender Equality’s (EIGE) Index. For the latter

index, I examined specific indicators under the domains of work, money, knowledge, and

power in relation to national, regional, and rural statistics.

Quantitative analysis of original survey data

To further explore gender gaps in rural development programs, I conducted a

quantitative analysis of the gender balance among Axis III and IV beneficiaries in a

sample of the 89 Local Action Group organizations that operated during the 2007-2013

programming period.2 Because the Local Action Groups were already organized into geographical clusters by region, individual action groups from each region were coded and randomly selected using statistical software. To generate a sample size of 30, I

selected approximately 30% of the groups in each region. Although the clustered random

2 Currently, approximately 93 Local Action Groups operate in Hungary (Pócsi & Rácz 2014, 13), although the website for the Hungarian National Rural Network (MNRN) still lists the contact information for 89 organizations. 63

sample initially aimed to include 30 Local Action Groups, in cases when the selected

group did not provide information on completed beneficiary projects, it was dropped

from the dataset. This lack of project information hindered the proportional

representation among regions, resulting in a final sample consisting of 14 Local Action

Groups, 2 representing each region. Due to the small sample size and selection bias based on data availability, the results from this analysis are not suitable for making general comparisons between individual Local Action Groups, nor among regions. However, even if data were collected for the total population of the 89 Local Action Groups, the same sampling bias would have been encountered

Despite the absence of a centralized project database among Local Action Groups, it was possible to collect sex-disaggregated data from the publicized projects of individual winners. This information was found on the organizations’ websites, and included the beneficiary’s name, project title and/or short description, grant amount, and location. Although the total sample size of 328 projects is sufficiently large for statistical inferences, the previously described sampling errors may bias the results. The projects that have been presented on individual LAG websites cannot be said to be truly representative of all LEADER organizations, as they may suffer from selection bias. In searching for projects, the way individual organizations presented the results of their projects showed considerable variation. While some may have chosen to highlight a few

‘best practices,’ or ‘successes’ (‘nekik sikerült’), other organizations had downloadable project datasets organized by Axis III and IV grants, and in some instances, by project

64 categories.3 Despite these discrepancies, this analysis of the gender balance among project beneficiaries was motivated by respondents who indicated that the proportion of women applicants and beneficiaries was notably lower than men (interviews 2, 5, 10).

Although sex-disaggregated data for the beneficiaries in the 2007-2013 period are not yet available, two Local Action Group representatives interviewed for this research have provided these data. With these population samples, I compared the proportion of women and men beneficiaries of my sample results to an actual population sample.

It is also important to note that many grants disbursed by Local Action Groups are awarded to civil society organizations, local governments, and businesses, which, as entities, cannot be sex-disaggregated. Future research analyzing the gender dynamic among organizational beneficiaries would provide much-needed insights. This kind of research is especially important, as many women hold managerial positions within these organizations, and are also employed by such organizations. Despite these limitations, the sample of sex-disaggregated projects serves to answer certain aspects of the question concerning the different effects rural development programs may have on women and men.

Conclusion

The roles that rural development organizations and their staff play, and the language they use, are especially important to consider with respect to how gender equality principles are integrated—or not—into rural development policies and programs.

3 Projects categories included grants to microenterprises, local business and economic development, tourism, green energy, and local product cultivation, among others. 65

Similar to policy framing analysis, or critical framing analysis (Verloo and Lombardo

2007; Krizsán et al. 2009), I seek to identify different meanings and understandings of gender equality in Hungarian rural development policy. As Emanuela Lombardo and

Maxime Forest (2012) have indicated, in different national contexts, policies illustrate how gender equality can mean “…equal opportunities in some contexts, and empowerment or emancipation in others4” (14). Such approaches to policy discourse analysis have been applied to study the transformations and reforms that have taken place in Central and

Eastern Europe, demonstrating how programs are affected by translations and interpretations of EU social policies (Krizsan 2009; Krizsan et al. 2009; Stubbs and

Lendvai 2007; Lendvai 2005).

The decision-making process within rural development organizations presents an important variable in determining how gender is translated and approached, if at all.

Local organizations with less hierarchical leadership structures may demonstrate more openness to implement gender mainstreaming policies than larger, national institutions.

On one hand, traditional male-dominated power structures and alliances may impede women’s inclusion (Risteska et al. 2012 69-76; Shortall 2006; Bock and Derkzen 2006;

Shorthall 2002; Little and Jones 2000; Moser 1993). This exclusion could, in turn, negatively affect women’s presence in public decision-making, employment, access to training and education, and opportunities for entrepreneurial endeavors.

Moreover, as previous research has demonstrated, the power of personal connections in post-socialist politics (Kulcsár 2010; Ledeneva 1998) could increase the likelihood of cronyism and nepotism in rural governance (Finta 2013). At the same time,

4 See also Lombardo, Meier, and Verloo 2009. 66 local-level organizations may have more flexibility in planning, and through personal connections, may be able to establish stronger partnerships for economic and community development that would be more inclusive of women. The mixed methods I have utilized provide for a complex interpretation and comparison of how gender is contextualized and contested within governance.

Chapter 4: Defining and Debating ‘Disadvantage’ – Rural Gender Gaps in Policy and Data

At all levels of rural development policy in Hungary, women are categorized as part of the “disadvantaged” group, the hátrányos helyzetű, which also includes the Roma, the disabled, and less frequently, the elderly. Because of this designation, women applying for grants receive an extra point, as do projects that express the intent to employ more women (interviews 1, 2, 3, 5, 9, 10, 11). Considering this policy, in this chapter I analyze how gender is addressed in official discourses of ‘disadvantage,’ equality, and social inclusion. By combining qualitative and quantitative methods, I describe what

gender gaps may exist in local and national rural development policies. Following this analysis of Hungarian policies, I then examine EU rural development policies. This will serve to compare how different levels of governance interpret, address, and debate gender equality. Through this analysis, I interpret the patterns that emerge, discussing the contradictions and/or continuities within and between institutions.

Local Action Groups

The LEADER Approach

Before examining the policies of Local Action Groups, it is necessary to briefly

describe the core tenets of the LEADER approach. Although the LEADER axis receives

the least amount of funding in the EU budget,1 it is mandated with the most diverse set of tasks. According to Lukesch (2007), the LEADER approach is characterized by the following elements:

1 Member States are required to spend at least 5% of funds on LEADER (find exact amounts). 68

1) Area-based approach that considers the unique identity of the territory in policy

implementation; 2) Local action groups (or local public-private partnerships); 3) Bottom-

up approach that views the local population as the best experts concerning the

development of their territory; 4) Multi-sectoral integration that avoids sector specific

development planning and includes diverse actors; 5) Innovative approaches to

implementation; 6) Implementation of cooperation projects; 7) Networking to establish

and foster local partnerships (4).

Because these objectives encourage open communication, active participation, and

diversity, I examine to what extent individual Local Rural Development Plans adopt

these principles to promote gender-sensitive measures. In this section I analyze Local

Rural Development Plans2 (LRDPs) among LEADER organizations from Northern

Hungary, the Southern Great Plain, and Western Hungary to see how perhaps the regional diversity previously described may be evidenced in these texts.

Dél-Borsodi Leader Association – Northern Hungary

In the Great Plain and Northern regions,3 35.8% of the population is at risk of poverty or social exclusion and 26% experiences severe material deprivation (Eurostat

2015). In Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County, the unemployment rate is 11.3%, one of the

highest in the country, and the labor participation rate is 53.9% (HCSO 2015). Despite

these conditions, gender divisions in labor, education, business development, and civic

participation are left unaddressed in the LRDP (2011) from the Dél-Borsodi LEADER

2 Helyi Vidékfejlesztési Stratégia (HVS) 3 Although this is a regional (NUTS 2) indicator, Eurostat groups the two plain regions, the Northern Great Plain and the Southern Great Plain with Northern Hungary. 69

Association4 located in Mezőcsát. In fact, women and men are mentioned once in the

entire plan in the demographic section5 (10). However, omission can be revealing. In

outlining its primary objectives for the territory, the LRDP declares its commitment to

integrating “disadvantaged social groups” (5). In contrast to the usual categorization of

disadvantaged groups previously described, here, only Roma civil society organizations

and local self-governments are identified. Later, in the section on Helping the Integration

of Disadvantaged Social Groups, it appears that “disadvantage” has become synonymous

with the Roma. The LRDP emphasizes how one of its chief goals has been to provide

information and trainings to help with the high unemployment rates among the Roma

community (8). Considering that Borsod-Abaúj-Zemplén County has the highest

estimated density6 of Roma inhabitants, who have been historically discriminated against,

it comes as little surprise that this LRDP focuses on Roma integration. At the same time, neither Roma women nor disabled Roma are considered. Indeed, throughout the document, the Roma are referred to homogenously.

Leadership & Civic Participation

Interviews with Local Action Group operational directors and other rural

development administrators revealed similar distinctions between disadvantaged groups

(interviews 2, 9, 10). They all expressed the view that Roma integration was one of the

most pressing issues in Hungarian society. For example, Edina Klaudia Zsurzsucz, the

operational director of the Körösök Völgye Action Group in Békéscsaba,7 felt that

4 Dél-Borsodi LEADER Egyesület 5 The LRDP lists the ratio of women to men in the territory (2011, 10). 6 The 2011 Hungarian census estimates that Roma make up 6.0 to 8.5% of the population in Borsod-Abaúj- Zemplén county (22). 7 Békéscsaba is a small town located in the Southern Great Plain. 70

equality for Roma was a more pressing issue to address relative to gender equality (10).

The importance all of the rural development administrators placed on Roma issues

reflects another common theme, that of women’s leadership in civil society, and

especially in rural development. The importance of CSOs was reflected in the LRDP,

which stated that the 169 CSOs in the area were actively involved in many areas of the

region’s everyday life (2011, 26). In particular, the LRDP indicated that CSOs were

encouraging equal opportunity, but only for the Roma and disabled (2011, 26). However,

the extent of collaboration with civil society has not always been as robust or balanced as

some plans may seem to express. Judit Rácz explains how in the earlier planning stages

civil society partnerships were conceived

When the program came to Hungary in 2006-2007, there was a conception about what

kind of civil society organizations were needed and how of create them. But they didn’t

start this relationship with the local civil society organizations, but rather with the local

mayoral offices. You can see that in Hungary the proportion of women mayors is maybe

5-6% or 5-9%, and all of the rest of the mayors are men. And when they started looking

[for people] to shape these civil society organizations, the men mayors selected or invited

those active actors in the area who would be able to develop the local development

organizations. Obviously men have male preferences” (interview 2).8

The way decision-making authority was handed down casts doubt on the

inclusion of a gender equality perspective from civil society organizations. The roles of

8 Hungarian: “Amikor a program megérkezett Magyarországra 2006-2007-ben, akkor volt egy elképzelés arról, hogy milyen civil szervezetek van szükség, hogyan. És nem a helyi civil szervezetekkel vették fel a kapcsolatot, hanem a helyi polgármesteri hivatalokkal. Azt lehet látni, hogy Magyarországon, a polgármesterek aránya, 5-6% vagy 5-9% százalék a női polgármesterek aránya és az összes többi férfi polgármester. És amikor ők megkeresték, akkor ők kezdtík alakítani ezeket a civil szervezeteket és, a többi férfi polgármesterek ők választották, vagy hívták meg azokat az aktív szereplőket a térségből akik a vidékfejlesztés egyesületet megalakíthatták. Nyilván a férfiak férfi preferenciai vannak.” 71

local mayors have been particularly influential about what becomes prioritized and what

gets left out (interviews 2, 4). Rural sociologist, László Kulcsár, vividly remembered one

experience that illustrates this point.

Perhaps this is the funniest example, when I was giving a training in one of the LEADER

areas and was saying ‘This is how you need to do this. This way!’ Then, a man stood up

and said, ‘Professor, everything is fine with us here.’ And then I said, ‘Thank God! Then

tell everyone that everything is fine!’ And then he said that ‘I am the mayor of this

settlement, and the village’s biggest entrepreneur. And my wife, who sits here, is the

village’s only civil society organization director. All three groups are sitting right here.’

And I said to him, ‘This is not the kind of rural development the European Union wants’

(interview 4).

Kulcsár describes this mentality as an “eastern-like” orientation characterized by patron-

client relations, nepotism, and powerful cliques that can derail the stated goals of rural

development programs. The next section examines some of the implications of these

power dynamics within the leadership of the Local Action Groups.

Who’s Leading LEADER?

Although the LRDP includes numerous measures to promote community

leadership by participating in cultural events and public projects, sex-disaggregated data and gender-sensitive indicators are missing. Policy texts alone provide insufficient information to gauge how women and men’s leadership is considered. However, at the

EU-level hard policy has been in place since 2005 to encourage women’s inclusion in

Local Action Group decision-making. Article 62 of Regulation (EC) No. 1698/2005 stipulates that “…At the decision-making level, the economic and social partners, as well

as other representatives of the civil society, such as farmers, rural women, young people

and their associations, must make up at least 50% of the local partnership [author’s

emphasis]” (cited in Lukesch 2007, 5). Although this regulation requires the inclusion of

these groups, its ambiguity and underlying assumptions must also be addressed. Here, it

seems that farmers are assumed to be men, which stand in distinction to “rural women.”

Moreover, the regulation stipulates that 50% of the local partners must come from this

very diverse group of actors, yet it does not describe the representation within this group.

It could be inferred that as long as local partners constitute at least half of the partnership,

the gender balance within this group is inconsequential. Although there remains a lack of

comprehensive data on women’s participation in Local Action Groups, Bettina Bock

(2010) found that among Local Action Groups in the EU-15 in 2005, women were underrepresented in local and regional rural development organizations (21-22). On the

other hand, among individuals registered with the Hungarian National Rural Network

(HNRN), 48% are women, which would suggest broader participation (Pócsi and Rácz

2014, 2). Many of the interviews also confirmed that in various roles, rural women have

been very active in the local community and rural development activities (interviews 2, 3,

4, 5, 9, 10, 11)

Because of the ambivalence conveyed in policies concerning the structure of local

partnerships and gender balance, I examine the association’s presidency and members.9

In the Dél-Borsodi LEADER Association, the president is a woman, and among the other

11 members, there are 10 men and 1 woman.10 Among the 163 community members,

9 All Local Action Groups provide the information of their presidency and members. 10 Dél-Borsodi http://www.dble.hu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4&Itemid=54. 73

which consist of organizations and individuals, 34 individuals were represented, of

which, women made up 23.5% (8 members) and men 76.5% (26 members). Six men and

one woman were identified as sole proprietors11 (2013). Although the representation of

different organizational and individual actors could very well meet the ambiguous

requirements of Article 62, it is difficult to precisely determine how equitable the gender

balance is among members.

Compared to the 89 Local Action Groups operating during the 2007-2013 period, female presidencies were rarer. Among the 15 Local Action Groups operating in

Northern Hungary, 5 (30%) women held presidency positions. However, all together,

19.1% of Local Action Groups were headed by women, whereas 80.9% were led by men

(Hungarian National Rural Network, LAG Contact Information 2014). Yet, among operational directors, there is a near-perfect gender balance; 52.8% are women, 46.1% men, and 1.1% are co-directors (HNRN, LAG Contact Information 2014). Moreover, over two-thirds of the Local Action Group employees are women at 66% (Pócsi and Rácz

2014, 13; interview 2). Despite women’s strong presence in local rural development organizations, chauvinistic attitudes seem to prevail, even among those occupying leadership positions of equal rank. According to Judit Rácz, the operational manager of the Felső Homothátság LEADER Association, men tend to behave in a more superior manner toward women coworkers (interview 2). Rácz describes that

They don’t think that they should need to think as a partner. And I’ve seen that men can’t

accept this, that I am in the same position as he is. Rather, they communicate in such a

11 Sole proprietors, egyéni vállalkozó, will also be referred to as entrepreneurs. http://www.dble.hu/images/stories/hirek/2013/tagok.pdf. 74

condescending manner – a task-delegating communication – and because of this, it’s not

an equal dialogue like when two men speak about rural development tasks, or when two

women speak with each other. When a man speaks with a woman it’s on different levels.

It’s simply not possible to break through (interview 2).12

These observations demonstrate that the quality of women’s leadership in rural

development organizations may also be diminished through unequal communication

exchanges. This demonstrates how the domineering attitudes that some men may

maintain vis-à-vis women leaders may perpetuate male-dominated hierarchies.

Although women hold more leadership positions at local levels relative to

national levels (Rueschemeyer 2014, 119; Szalai 1998, 200; interviews 2, 4, 6, 10), Edina

Zsurzsucz thought that women did not seem to play a larger role in public life (interview

10). She related this to the recent election in May 2014, in which 20 women (of 198

seats) were elected to the National Parliament, representing 10.1% of representatives

(Inter-Parliamentary Union, 1 February 2015). Currently, Hungary has the lowest

representation of women in the EU-28 (Eurostat 2015) and was ranked lowest on

political empowerment (number 128 of 142 countries) by the World Economic Forum’s

(WEF) 2014 Global Gender Gap Index.13 Similarly, the European Institute for Gender

Equality (EIGE) (2013) index gave Hungary an overall score of 24.4 (out of 100) for the

12 Hungarian: “Nem gondolják, hogy partnerként kellene gondolkodni…Azt láttam, hogy a nem tudják felül írni a férfiak, azt, hogy én is ugyanolyan pozicióban vagyok mint ő, hanem a kommunikáció is már ilyen lefelé irányuló , feladat delegáló kommunikáció, és nem pedig egyenrangú párbeszédet ...hogy milyen, amikor két férfi beszél mással a vidékfejlesztési feladatokról és milyen amikor két nő beszél egymással. Amikor egy férfi beszél egy nővel különböző szinteken. Egyszerűen nem lehet áttörni.” 13 The WEF political empowerment indicator is derived from the number of women in parliament, ministerial positions, and years with female head of state (last 50 years). The scores are based on a scale of 0 to 1, 0 for complete inequality and 1 for complete equality. Hungary’s raw score for political empowerment was 0.064. 75

domain of power.14 Specifically for the indicator political power, Hungary was given a

score of 15.1, drastically lower than the EU-average of 49.9 (2013, 91).

Although some respondents described the growing leadership of women mayors15

as a positive development (interviews 2, 4, 6), women mayors still tend to preside over

smaller and poorer municipalities (Varga, April 4, 2014; Timár 2004, 228-229; 2000). In

2012, among 2,500 smaller municipalities, 20% were led by women mayors (Varga,

April 4, 2014). In contrast, in municipalities with over 20,000 residents, 4 of the 60

mayors are women (6.7%) (Feminfo, 13 October 2014). Timár’s (2004) in-depth interviews with women mayors in rural and urban settlements revealed different aspects of women’s local leadership. In comparison to urban areas, the elected women believed that party politics played less of a role in villages, and expressed a genuine commitment to serving the interests of their communities (237). László Kulcsár also expressed that women were more involved in local community life. In contrast, for men, community matters usually come up in pub conversation or among the local football team (interview

4). Generally, men may perceive community involvement as “too much work that’s not worth it” (interview 4). However, as the data show, men still make up the vast majority of local decision-makers, which, in some cases, has led to the consolidation of power in the hands of an inner circle of elites (interviews 2, 4). Indeed, as one of Timár’s (2004) interviewees astutely predicted, shared economic interests among a select group (of men) in the community were becoming more important than party affiliations. (2004, 237).

14 The EU-average score was 38.0 (EIGE Index Country Profiles (2013, 91). 15 Since the system change, the proportion of women mayors has increased from 10% to 18% (Varga, April 4, 2014). 76

These power imbalances at the highest and lower levels of government are also

reflected in rural development organizations. This has been demonstrated most clearly by

Rácz’s (2013) mixed methods research of women and men in decision-making in

Hungarian rural development programs. Characterizing the relations between women and

men during the past planning period, Rácz attested that “During this time, we saw that in

rural development organizations a very hierarchical order prevailed” (interview 2).16

Despite women’s stronger presence in local government and civil society, these persistent qualitative and quantitative power imbalances may be reflected in policies that do not directly address the most urgent needs of rural women and men.

Work & Education

The potential beneficiaries within a given Local Action Group territory often struggle to survive. The Dél-Borsodi LRDP (2011) describes how the areas in the region have an overwhelming proportion of people with low levels of education and training, many of whom cannot even find temporary work (11). Observing rural-urban patterns in employment by sex reveals very different realities. As demonstrated in Table 4.1 and

Table 4.2, men and women in rural and urban areas have distinct experiences in the labor force. For both sexes, employment rates are lower in predominantly rural areas, yet, while men’s employment has exceeded 50% in the past few years, women’s still remains below this threshold at 47.5%. In fact, Hungary has one of the lowest employment rates among women in rural areas in the EU-28; it is slightly higher than Greece’s at 40.3% and lower than neighboring Slovakia’s at 49.1% (Eurostat 2013).

16 Hungarian: “Az idősszak alatt azt látjuk, hogy a vidékfejlesztési szervezetekben, nagyon hierarchikus rend uralkodik.” 77

Table 4.1: Employment Rates in Predominantly Table 4.2: Unemployment Rates in Urban and Rural Areas, by sex, ages 15-64, 2013 Predominantly Urban and Rural Areas, by sex, ages 15-64 2013 Source: Eurostat, Last update 03/31/2015 Source: Eurostat, Last update 03/31/2015 Predominantly Predominantly Predominantly Predominantly Rural Areas Urban Areas Rural Areas Urban Areas Women 47.5 57.1 Women 11.8 9.5 Men 59.2 67.6 Men 11.5 9.2 Total 53.5 62.0 Total 11.6 9.4

There are not only significant employment gaps between rural and urban residents, but in both categories, women experience lower employment rates, with 47.5% employment in rural areas and 57.1% in urban areas. Nationally, the employment rate for women is 48% and 60.8% for men (HCSO 2014),17 and for unemployment, 7.9% for women and 7.6% for men. By rural-urban typology, unemployment gaps between women and men are much smaller in both areas, although slightly higher for women in rural and urban areas (Table 4.2). However, citing the research of Judit Timár and Gábor Velkey

(1998), Momsen et al. (2005) point out some of the practical difficulties in measuring women’s unemployment in rural areas. As they explain, “Unemployment in rural areas may be under recorded, especially for women, in that the cost of travelling to the employment office in the nearby town is often greater than the financial support available

(Momsen et al. 2005, 42). Additionally, official statistics on rural women and men continue to be very limited and fail to capture the living conditions in the most peripheral areas. As described by Rácz (2013)

17 For ages 15-74 (HCSO 2014). 78

The number of single women in need among the elderly has become increasingly high. In

recent decades, the practice of sharing work in rural areas has led to the establishment of

an ‘invisible group, about whom there are currently no exact statistics (33).18

Mónika Váradi (2013) has also demonstrated that informal, unregistered work is a way of

life for many rural residents, especially for women. Figure 4.1 may reflect these patterns

of women’s labor in the grey economy, most clearly in Northern Hungary, where 46.6 –

47.0% of registered job seekers are women, the lowest among the regions (HCSO 2015).

Figure 4.1: Share of women in registered job seekers, 20 December 2012 Source: Hungarian Central Statistical Office

Yet, because the unemployment rate is calculated as the ratio of unemployed

persons to the economically active population of corresponding age (HCSO 2015), this

excludes those who are categorized as inactive – such as the retired, the disabled,

students, and those engaged in family care. Because women taking parental leave are

designated as inactive workers, it is key to examine the activity and inactivity rates when examining official labor statistics. On the national level, women’s participation rate is

52.1% compared to men’s at 65.7% (HCSO 2014).19 However, among unpaid family

18 Hungarian: “A társadalom szoruló egyedülálló nők száma az idősek körében kiemelkedően magas. Az elmúlt évtizedek munkamegosztási gyakorlata a vidéki területeken egy olyan „láthatatlan csoport” létrejöttéhez járult hozzá, akikről napjainkban sincsenek pontos statisztikai adatok” (Rácz 2013, 33). 19 Ages 15-74 (HCSO 2014) 79

workers at the national level, women make up 57.3% of this demographic (HCSO 2014).

Table 4.3 shows that even though the activity rates between women and men do not

indicate severe disparities, rural and urban women have higher inactivity rates, at 21.4%

and 18.2%, respectively. Among inactive rural workers, larger differences can be

observed. The inactivity rate of rural women is 6.3 percentage points higher than that of

men’s, while in urban areas this difference is actually slightly higher at 7.1%.

Table 4.3: Activity Rates of Rural and Urban Population, by sex, ages 15-64 2014 Source: Eurostat, Last update 04/17/2015, author’s own calculations % of Rural Population % of Urban Population Women Men Total Women Men Total Active 49 51 63.5 34.2 36.5 70.6 Inactive 21.4 15.1 36.5 18.2 11.1 29.4

Other research has shown that the work opportunities for many rural women and

men have been deteriorating (Kovács and Váradi 2013; Timár 2002; Timár and Velkey

1998; interviews 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 10). According to a rural sociologist who has conducted extensive fieldwork in Northern Hungary, despite the few employment options for rural women and men, she has observed important differences in the outcomes of education (1). As she described from her previous research

The men, who are lazier, could still find employment opportunities more easily.

However, they hadn’t studied. They didn’t earn a diploma. The women were more

diligent and they knew they needed to study for a good job. I think they were more open

to learning, and that’s why, for a while, they have been more educated than men. This

doesn’t really mean that they get the same pay, that there isn’t a pay gap, but it’s certain

that their chances are better if they don’t have young children. If they do, and there are no

institutions to take them, then they studied in vain (1).

These observations touch on several critical issues that constrain women’s work

opportunities. Although data on rural-urban gender pay gaps are unavailable, according to the European Parliament’s 2013 report on gender equality policy in Hungary, the pay gap between women and men has been growing in recent years and was at 20.1%20 in

2012 (EC 2014, 11).21 On the WEF Global Gender Gap Index, Hungary ranked 127 for

wage equality for similar work.22 Similarly, the EIGE index gave Hungary a score of

30.5 (out of 100)23 for the indicator financial resources, which is derived from measuring

mean monthly earnings and mean equivalized net income (Gender Equality Index –

Report 2013, 67).

The Dél-Borsodi LRDP, however, does not seem to recognize these gaps. Despite

the high unemployment and low-levels of education the plan describes, it does not elaborate on the possible gender differences among local women and men. Table 4.4 illustrates this relationship in three regions. Only in Northern Hungary do women with the lowest levels of educational attainment have lower employment rates than men at

47.8%. Larger differences emerge among women and men with upper secondary and post-secondary24 education, with men showing higher employment rates, reflecting what

the rural sociologist described ( interview 1). The largest difference of 19.6% can be

20 The EU average in 2012 was 16.4 percent. 21 Eurostat provides the unadjusted wage gap, which is the percentage difference in gross hourly earnings for women and men. This measure does not account for individual differences between women and men, which could also account for differences in earnings. 22 This indicator is based on data from the WEF Executive Opinion Survey (EOS) (2014) and is converted to a female-over-male ratio. The overall score was 0.50. 23 The EIGE index measures levels of equality with 1 being absolute gender inequality and 100 being absolute gender equality. A score of 50 can be interpreted as “half way or 50 percent towards gender equality” (Gender Equality Index – Report 2013, 108). 24 Post-secondary education, or post-secondary non-tertiary education may involve vocational or technical training lasting from 1 to 2 years (OECD 2015). 81

observed in Northern Hungary, which narrows to 10.6% in the capital region of Central

Hungary.

Table 4.4: Regional Employment Rates by Educational Attainment and Sex 2013 (%), ages 15 + Source: Eurostat, Last update: 03/31/2015

Pre-primary, primary, and lower secondary education: ISCED levels 0-2 Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education: ISCED levels 3-4 Tertiary education: ISCED levels 5-8 Central Hungary Northern Southern Great Hungary Plain Women Men Women Men Women Men Pre-primary to lower 51.5 48.5 47.8 52.2 50.6 49.4 secondary Upper secondary and post- 44.7 55.3 40.2 59.8 41.2 58.8 secondary Tertiary education 51.1 48.9 59.9 40.1 57.1 42.9

Although over half of the women between the ages of 25-64 (54.8%) have upper secondary to post-secondary education in Northern Hungary (Eurostat 2015), only 40.2% are gainfully employed. In comparison, 68.5% of men have the same level of education but show an employment rate of 59.8% (Eurostat 2015). The rural sociologist also described how more educated women from rural areas usually move away to larger towns and cities

(interview 1). Recent research has actually shown that there are significantly fewer women

in some settlements, with the largest differences being observed in Northern Hungary and

the Northern Great Plain (Timár et al. 2012; Timár and Velkey 2012, 2011; interview 1).

In interviews with local high school students, Judit Timár and Gábor Velkey (2011) found

that on average, young women more frequently expressed motivations to leave their

village, citing lack of work opportunities as the primary reason. Of further interest, 65% of

the young women interviewed intended to pursue higher education, whereas 55% of young

men expressed interest in entrepreneurship (Timár and Velkey 2011). However, among

women who do remain in villages, many may have very low levels of educational attainment and often engage in low-skilled work (interview 1). Despite official policies that have emphasized the importance of building human capital in rural areas, rural-urban

education gaps continue to show stark disparities (Table 4.5).

Table 4.5: Educational Attainment of rural and urban population by sex (%), 2014 Source: Eurostat, Last update: 04/17/2015

Pre-primary, primary, and lower secondary education: ISCED levels 0-2 ages 15-74 Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education: ISCED levels 3-4, ages 18-7425 Tertiary education: ISCED levels 5-8, ages 25-7426 Rural Rural Urban Urban Women Men Women Men Pre-primary to lower secondary 38.2 31.0 15.5 13.8

Upper secondary and post- 51.8 64.6 53.4 57.1 secondary Tertiary education 13.4 8.6 36.1 35.0

The proportion of rural women and men with low levels of education is more than double

than those of the same educational level in urban areas. Comparing rural and urban women,

38.2% of women have low levels of education in contrast to 15.5% of urban women.

Furthermore, more women than men in rural areas have low educational attainment. In

both rural and urban areas, the proportion of women with the highest and lowest levels of

educational attainment exceeds that of men’s, with the difference being larger among

tertiary degree holders in rural areas. The data show that 13.4% of rural women hold

tertiary degrees, whereas 8.6% of men have attained the same level of education. Although

25 The age group 18-74 is presented to more accurately represent those who have attained upper secondary and post-secondary, non-tertiary education. 26 Here, the age group 25-74 was selected to more accurately represent those who have attained tertiary education. The age bracket 15-74 and 18-74 would underestimate this attainment, as the lower end of this range does not match the average age of tertiary education completion (FIND AVG! ~ 22 years). 83

education levels are lower in rural areas and demonstrate larger gender gaps, participation

in training programs has remained low. Table 4.6 demonstrates this trend in participation

rates in education and training, both formal and informal, with 2.0% of the rural population

having participated in formal education and training and 6.4% having received non-formal

training (Eurostat 2014). 27 In 2009, at the national program’s mid-point, total participation

in recent education and training (within the last 4 weeks) remained low at 6.7% among

participants ages 18-74 (Eurostat 2014). Women showed slightly higher participation rates

at 7.3% compared to men at 6.4%

Table 4.6 : Participation Rate (%) in Education and Training in Rural Areas, Hungary 2007 Source: Eurostat Last updated 07/22/2014 Formal or non-formal education or training 8.1 Formal education and training 2.0 Non-formal education and training 6.4

Although on the national level, women have high levels of educational attainment

in Hungary, and similar to many countries, have surpassed men in tertiary education, the

EIGE index gave Hungary a score of 35.1 under the domain of knowledge (EU 48.9).28 In

2012, according to Eurostat data, women represented 55.5% of tertiary students in

Hungary. OECD data from 2012 also reveal that the graduation rate from tertiary

educational institutions for women was 29.1%, in comparison to men’s at 16.4%. Despite

women’s high attainment of tertiary education, the segregation among fields of study

contributed to the lower EIGE index score of 42.3 for the indicator attainment and

27 For these indicators, data are only available for 2007. 28 The indicator attainment and segregation is derived from attainment of tertiary education and (% of population ages 15-74) segregation among tertiary-level students in the fields of Education, Health and Social Welfare, and the Humanities and Arts (EIGE Report 2013, 74). The indicator lifelong learning is based on the proportion of the populations (ages 15-74) that has participated either in formal or informal education or training. 84 segregation (EIGE Country Report 2013, 91). The report highlights how women are disproportionately overrepresented in the fields of education, health and social welfare, and the humanities relative to men, while they are underrepresented in the fields of engineering, mathematics, and sciences (STEM fields).

According to 2012 data from Eurostat, the proportion of female tertiary students in science, mathematics, and computing (as a percentage of total students in these fields), was 33.5%. In the fields of engineering, manufacturing, and construction, women made up 18.8% of these students in 2012 (Eurostat). Regarding this kind of segregation in higher education fields, the EIGE Report emphasizes that “It is important to monitor segregation, given that it translates into gender inequality patterns at the level of labour market participation and society more generally” (2013, 80).

Given these indicators demonstrating the differences between rural and urban labor and education indicators by sex, to say the least, it seems puzzling that the Dél-

Borsodi LRDP does not address these gender gaps in any way. Despite the fact that the plan listed the Mezőcsát Equal Opportunity Environmental Assessment Plan 2010-2015 as one of the area’s resources, this disconnect is even more surprising (DB LRDP 2011,

51).

Alsó-Tisza Association for Rural Development - Southern Great Plain

Agriculture, Tradition & Family

Moving to the Southern Great Plain region, the primacy of agriculture influences nearly all aspects of the 2013 LRDP of the Alsó-Tisza Association for Rural

Development29 in the town of Csongrád. In Békéscsaba, located in the same region,

Edina Zsurzsucz described some of the challenges of communicating the diverse goals of rural development in the territory. As she described,

Agriculture is dominant. The area is characterized by arable crop production and

handicraft culture, and in this kind of area it’s difficult to get people to accept that rural

development is not just for building agriculture; rather, it’s possible to build heavy and

light industry, the food industry too (10).

The preponderance of agriculture is reflected in the LRDP’s interpretation of equal opportunity as well. Introduced as “Intergenerational justice and ‘social’ equal opportunity,” the plan describes that “The lasting and efficient protection of resources – keeping farming in mind – should be realized in such a way that ensures the equal opportunity of women, children, the elderly, and people with disabilities” (33). Beyond this statement, sex is only addressed in the demographic section. Yet, in contrast to the

Dél-Borsodi plan, it pays more attention to gender relations, specifically regarding family life. For example, the plan states that, “The number of marriages shows a decreasing trend and the number of divorces is high, but this rise has stopped. The inclination to raise children is low; families usually have two children” (2013, 10). Despite the lack of data to validate these statements, and the somewhat confused statement regarding children, gender relations are subsumed by family matters.

In a sense, the description provided in the Csongrád LRDP could reflect national rhetoric and policies that discuss women primarily in relation to familial obligations – specifically to marry and rear more children (Fodor and Kispéter 2014; Fábián 2009, 132-

29 Alsó-Tisza Vidék Fejlesztéséért Egyesület 86

133; Goven 2000; Einhorn 1993, 39-73). Especially in political discourse, primarily male politicians have placed blame on women for what they perceive as the disintegration of the family (Goven 1993; Einhorn 1993, 40). Specifically, conservative politicians have held women responsible for fewer marriages, more divorces, low birth rates, and even higher rates of domestic violence. One of the most recent examples came from

Representative István Varga during a 2012 parliamentary session. In response to a debate on legislation regarding stricter criminalization of domestic violence, Varga said that

“Maybe it’s the mothers who need to return to raising children. In this society, women shouldn’t have one or two children, rather three, four, or five children. And then it would make sense that [couples] would honor each other and domestic violence wouldn’t arise”

(hvg.hu, 11 September 2012). Protests ensued because of these comments; however, demonstrations regarding gender issues are usually confined to Budapest. Considering how the family has been a place of refuge in Hungarian society, in the countryside this sentiment is even more resilient.

In poor and prosperous villages alike, the family is perhaps the most powerful symbol. According to rural sociologist, László Kulcsár of the University of West

Hungary,

The family is in a very powerful position in the countryside. The family is the link, the

solidarity, something completely close. Yet this closeness, while a measure of security,

also hinders family members’ mobility. It’s a strong bond and a weak bond. Despite this,

the family is so strong that there is a completely traditional conception within the family.

This more traditional conception dictates that each family member has a role (interview

4).

Traditional notions of the family and distinct family roles are especially palpable in more agrarian areas. According to Edina Zsurzsucz, the operational manager in Békéscsaba,30 these traditional gender roles are evidenced most clearly among the many small family farms in the area where her organization operates (10). According to the research of

Ildikó Asztalos-Morell (2007), the increased family farm labor associated with marketization has increased men’s decision-making authority over family farms while weakening that of women’s (438). Although the farm wives she interviewed contributed to the production of the family farm through their on- and off- farm labor in various ways, their additional responsibility over household consumption often limited their decision-making authority (Asztalos-Morell 2007, 453). As Asztalos-Morell (2007) describes, “Through this, femininities were constructed as subordinated to masculinities in the context of the farm family” (454). Even through negotiation and contestation, masculine domains of production and feminine spheres of consumption can be mutually constitutive. In Asztalos-Morell’s study, the farm wives’ ‘compromises’ to their husbands’ productive decision-making reinforced both gender roles.

Outside of family farms, where gender roles may be more strictly defined, national-level surveys suggest that in comparison to other EU countries, Hungarians may have more conservative views of gender roles (European Parliament report on gender policy in Hungary 2013, 10). In the 2006 European Social Survey, when asked if men should have priority when jobs are scarce, and if women should work less in order to care for their families, on average, Hungarians were more likely to agree with these statements

(Takács 2008). Similarly, comparing Hungary to other Western and Central and Eastern

30 Located in the Southern Great Plain. 88

European countries,31 Marietta Pongrácz (2006) found that in response to the statement,

“Although work is important for most women home and children are more important,”

the average response for Hungarians was 79 out of 10032 (73). This was the highest score

among the other countries, the next highest values being 65 in both Romania and

Lithuania. Similarly, when asked if “It is the husband’s responsibility to earn money to

support his family, and the wife’s task is to perform household work,” Hungary showed

an average score of 71. However, these responses do not indicate a rejection of women’s

labor outside the home. Indeed, when asked, “Today most women must work to safeguard

the livelihood of the family,” the index score for Hungary was 93, the highest among the

other countries (Pongrácz 2006, 77). This last response reveals an interesting

contradiction in the context of rural development policy, which often separates women’s

reproductive roles from their productive roles in the labor market. It must be emphasized

that traditional notions of the family do not originate purely from “culture,” rather,

structural forces, such as the economic necessity of two-income households, interact with

cultural norms in different ways. From one perspective, women’s paid labor may be

perceived as a necessary contribution to the welfare of the family as opposed to personal

self-fulfillment. Considering rural women’s lower employment rates, cultural norms that

place women solely in the domestic sphere fail to recognize other factors, such as

prohibitive transportation costs, that may make work outside the home impossible. In this

31 Pongrácz’s (2006) research is based on a survey carried out from 2000 - 2003 among 12 European countries (71). 32 The original survey was ranked on a scale of 0 to 5, 0 showing complete disagreement and 5 complete agreement. Pongrácz (2006) recalculated the scale to an index of 100. The more frequent positive responses are, the closer the value to 100 (72). 89

way, more traditional ways of thinking may be perpetuated and mutually reinforced from

the interactions between “peasant” and capitalist values.

Family Farms – Family Roles

Although the LRDP (2013) states that the situation of agriculture has not

improved and the production of competitive products has become even more difficult (5),

women are missing from this discussion. For this region, this is especially pressing, as in

most of the territories, agriculture is the most important source of subsistence for the

population. According to the LRDP (2013),

In these areas, the role of small agricultural enterprises is central; however, not every

family has a farm. Supplementary income from agricultural-related activities persists

with almost every family, but because of few work opportunities, for many this is their

primary job (8).

Even though the plan emphasizes the importance of agricultural activity in the area, it

does not examine the drastic gender divisions in labor. An examiniation of the national

farm labor force33 structure reveals these gender asymmetries. Table 4.5 illustrates that farm ownership is primarily held by men (71.7%), while the overwhelming majority of

women provide labor (75.1%). Moreover, the number of full-time equivalent workers

33 The total farm labor force is estimated to be 1,143,530 persons, of which, 423,500 can be described as Annual Work Units (AWUs), the equivalent to a full-time worker for 1 year (Eurostat Farm Structure Survey 2003 and Agricultural Census 2010. Updated 2013. In Members States Factsheet Hungary, Agricultural and Rural Development, 14). 90

Table 4.5: Farm Structure and Holdings in Hungary Source: Eurostat Farm Structure Survey 2003 and Agricultural Census 2010, Updated 2013 Holdings of Less than 2 Hectacres 2010 Holdings of More than 2 Hectacres 2010 Family Labor Force Family Labor Force persons: 822, 650 persons: 230,170 of which women (%): 49.3 of which women (%): 44.3 Full-Time Equivalent Workers (FTE): 223,400 Full-Time Equivalent Workers (FTE): 101,650 Holders Family Members Holders Family Members persons: 452,440 persons: 370,210 persons: 114,880 115,300 of which women (%): of which women (%): of which women (%): of which women (%): 28.3 75.1 19.1 69.5 FTE: 141,790 FTE: 81,610 FTE: 60,850 FTE: 40,810

also highlights significant aspects of family farm labor. Among holders, 31.3% qualified as full-time equivalent workers, and among family members 22%. This latter statistic could point to women’s work off the farm, in addition to unpaid domestic work. As mentioned earlier, over half of unpaid family workers are women (HCSO 2015).

Additionally, for holdings larger than 2 hectacres, women make up fewer holders at

19.1%; yet, still represent a substantial proportion of the family farm labor force at

69.5%. Overall, the agricultural sector demonstrates high levels of occupational segregation between women and men. Since the system change, the agricultural sector has seen decreasing female employment (Engel-Di Mauro 2006; Timár 2002; Asztalos-

Morell 1999; Repassy 1991). As of 2014, women’s share of employment in agriculture made up 25.9%, while men’s share came to 74.1% (HCSO 2015).

Overall, Hungary has demonstrated relatively higher levels of occupational and sectoral segregation, which continue to increase (Bettio et al. 2012; Frey 2009). Indeed, in 2010, among full-time female employees, 63% worked in female-dominated

occupations34 (EC 2015, 42).35 The share of female employment in services has been

particularly high at 55.1% in 2013 (ILO 2015). According to Anna Parizán, a consultant

at the Ministry of Rural Development, many women may prefer to work in public

service, particuarly because it is perceived as being more family-friendly than the private sector (interview 3). Although this has provided women with more job security and relatively more flexible hours, the concentration of women in lower-paying jobs has also

contributed to the increasing gender wage gap. However, in regions that are still highly

dependent on agriculture, such as the Southern Great Plain, rural women may face more

job insecurity where service-sector jobs are less accessible. As illustrated in Figure 4.2,

the share of unemployed women among registered job seekers is highest in this region,

ranging from 58.1% - 58.5% (HSCO 2015).

Figure 4.2: Share of unemployed women as registered job seekers over 180 days, 20 December 2012 Source: Hungarian Central Statistical Office

34 Female-dominated occupations are found in the sectors of education, health, and social work (EIGE Index Report, 2013, 61). 35 In comparison, 9 percent of women worked in mixed occupations and 28 percent worked in male- dominated occupations (European Commission 2015, 42). 92

Innovative Dél-Zala Rural Development Association - Western Hungary

In Western Hungary, the Innovative Dél -Zala Rural Development Association36 presents, verbatim, the same, sweeping equal opportunity statement as the Also-Tisza

Local Action group (2013 87). This could indicate that Local Action Groups may not fully consider how they will ensure equality and social inclusion. As revealed by the rural sociologist, Hungary’s Monitoring Commission (MC) had not prioritized gender during the 2007-2013 period (interview 1). She describes how, in 2006, under the socialist

MSZP37 government, policymakers were pushing for greater agricultural productivity.

With the election of the center-right FIDESZ38 party in 2010, unsurprisingly, nothing changed regarding the equality provisions in rural development plans (interview 1).

According to one gender expert in Budapest, the status of gender equality in Hungarian policies has not just stagnated, it has been seriously set back in comparison to other EU countries. As she describes

Hungary experienced the major fallback in gender equality policy for example, in terms

of central will, institutional support, financial support, and so on. Some of the countries

are less obviously ignoring gender. Poland is very controversial because policy attention

is still there but it’s still a very divided and dividing policy area...But in Hungary we have

major, major drawbacks. But that is not strictly related to the [economic] crisis in

Hungary, but it is related to a major regime shift. (interview 6).

36 Innovatív Dél-Zala Vidékfejlesztési Egyesület 37 Hungarian Socialist Party 38 Fidesz – Hungarian Civic Alliance 93

In light of these changes, the repetition of the same equality statement in the Innovative

Dél Zala LRDP could perhaps reflect the lack of interest from the central government.

Lip service must be paid to EU provisions to demonstrate some modicum of compliance.

However, this is not to say that these issues have not been important to all Local Action

Groups. Rather, it could demonstrate that without anyone in power emphasizing the importance of gender equality in rural development programs, these very small offices working under tight deadlines simply provided the bare minimum. The research found that indeed, the Local Action Groups were not required to include gender-sensitive measures or programs of any kind (interviews 1, 2, 5, 10, 12). In the planning documents, a broad equality statement was required, nothing more.

Entrepreneurship

As part of Axis III, entrepreneurship has been touted as the principal way to develop rural areas not only in Hungary, but across Europe. However, awarding grants to people who have little to no experience in running a business and/or live in an area that lacks the infrastructure to foster small business growth or tourism has been problematic

(Cartwright 2007, 9). The job growth usually associated with entrepreneurs as employers has also been slow to develop. Of total employment in 2013, 3.7% of employers were men, compared to only 1.5% of women (ILO). These low figures can partially be explained by the distrust many Hungarian business owners have toward hiring outsiders to work in a family enterprise. Because of this wariness, many entrepreneurs tend to run their enterprise among family members (Momsen et al. 2005, 68-69). Among the self- employed, women make up 33.4% and men 66.6% (HSCO 2014). Yet, the prevalence of small, informal enterprises complicates the precise measurement of women and men

business owners. Although official statistics show that the majority of Hungarians are

neither self-employed, nor members of business partnerships,39 as a percentage of total

employed persons, more men are members of business partnerships (2.7%) and are self-

employed (4.5%) in comparison to women (1.1% and 2.2%, respectively) (HSCO 2014).

Additionally, according to OECD indicators of gender inequality, in 2011the earning gap

in self-employment for women and men was 30.3%, about 10 percentage points higher than the overall gender wage gap. Based on survey data from 2012, the OECD also found that 30.5% of women preferred to be self-employed, in contrast to 48.1% of men.

To develop business skills and perhaps to encourage more receptiveness to entrepreneurship, most LRDPs include trainings as a part of their measures. Yet, despite

the emphasis placed on economic diversification and job creation in non-agricultural

sectors, trainings to encourage women’s entrepreneurship were generally not offered. In

fact, Judit Rácz described how this idea did not even factor in the planning stages (2). As

she describes,

This clearly could have been measured in the local rural development strategies. Then

there would have been some kind of chance for Hungary to start this, if it had only been

in the local development strategy. Because we have this in ours [local development

strategy], that women’s support is important. But explicitly for this kind of application

opportunity, so that from the start, women entrepreneurs could run their business,

whether at home or with small children, they were not able to support these targeted

39 This is according to official statistics. 95

goals. It would have helped to create more women entrepreneurs in Hungary40 (interview

2).

Even with women’s early experiences in self-employment in Hungary, they have continued to face a number of constraints in starting businesses. Many women are reluctant to take out loans to start a business (interview 2; Momsen et al. 2005, 53), and as Momsen et al. (2005) have explained, the decision to become an entrepreneur is

usually arrived at under dire economic and social circumstances (53). However, the

fieldwork conducted by Momsen et al. (2005; Momsen 2002) in border villages in

Western and Eastern Hungary, also showed that most of their respondents (351 total) in

both regions indicated a strong preference for self-employment rather than working for someone else (Momsen et al. 2005, 76; Momsen 2002, 163). In fact, 91% of men and

86% of women expressed this preference.41

Similar to the general labor market, there is marked sectoral segregation among entrepreneurs, with women entrepreneurs predominantly involved in services (Momsen

2002, 163). Momsen (2002) found that among their respondents, men were particularly involved in agriculture and manufacturing. In West Hungary among entrepreneurs engaged in manufacturing and craft work, 9.4% were women and 36.0% were men. In the east, agriculture dominated, with men representing 28.4% of workers and women 11.4%

(Momsen 2002, 163). Considering these findings, LRDPs that may give preference to

40 Hungarian: "Ez nyilván a helyi vidékfejlesztési stratégiákban lehetett volna rögzíteni, mert akkor valami esélyek lehetett annak volna, hogy Magyarországon elinduljon, de, ha mégis van benne a helyi vidékfejlesztési stratégiában. Mert a miénk is benne van, hogy fontos a nők támogatása. Kifejezetten olyan pályázati támogatási lehetőség , hogy a nők, női vallálkozóknak, az elindítása női vállalkozásoknak a fejlesztése olyan tevénkénység amik a nők tudnak végezni, akár otthon akár kis gyereke, azok így cél irányosan nem voltak támogathatóak. Ez tudta volna segíteni, azt hogy több nő legyen vállalkozó Magyarországon.” 41 Momsen et al. (2002) interviewed 250 entrepreneurs from the west and 101 from the east (162) in 1998. 96 agricultural and manufacturing businesses may unintentionally hinder women’s access to grants.

Spatial Entrapment

In contrast to the Dél-Zala organization, the LRDP of the Alpokalja-Fertő táj

Rural Development Association in Fertőszentmiklós in Western Hungary highlights gender equality (interview 5). On the organization’s website, the expressed goals of the local strategy declare that

With the strengthening of the stability of families, we will contribute to the prosperity of

all society to improve conditions for those living with disabilities, to improve women’s

situation, and to help provide active opportunities for the elderly.

Within the body of the strategy itself, this LRDP provides more detailed information about the specific challenges women in the region face, as opposed to listing demographic statistics. In the area, the lack of part-time and distance-work opportunities is counted as a major weakness. Combined with the lack of daycare and kindergarten facilities in the area, this poses a serious problem for local women (9). Moreover, the proximity to the Austrian border also revealed another aspect of women’s ‘spatial entrapment’ (Momsen et al. 2005, 47). Anett Türkösi, an administrator at this organization, explained that because the area is positioned right by the Austrian border, where there are opportunities for higher-paying jobs, men often work there, either commuting daily or residing there temporarily (interview 5). As the head of the family, men work abroad while their wives stay at home to manage the household and take care of children. Because of the significantly higher income from Austrian salaries women can stay at home and usually do not look for other work. However, the previously

described lack of childcare services can prevent local women from participating in

LEADER activities (interview 5). László Kulcsár described a similar situation in the prosperous village of Hegykő, located only a few kilometers from Austria. However, he described how increasingly, more families from the poorer regions in the northeast were migrating to the west (interview 4). Describing how husbands often pursued work in

Austria, Kulcsár also highlighted how this dynamic left women, who were completely new to the community, in isolation.

The research of Timár and Velkey (2011; 2012) and Timár et al. (2012) has confirmed this trend, demonstrating that in the Northern Great Plain, settlements with less than 5,000 residents correlate with recorded outmigration statistics. According to their research, long-term unemployment as well as public works projects have contributed to exponential increases in outmigration. Public works programs in Hungary have attempted to encourage employment through programs focused on “low-skilled, low value-added jobs and manual tasks” for the unemployed (Kriezeninski 2012, 8). Yet, “Empirical evidence for Hungary shows that various public works schemes experimented in the past have failed to improve the employability of participants and to provide a foothold in the open labour market” (Kriezeninski 2012, 8). Even though current policy targets unemployed persons with lower skill sets, it seems that the training programs in place offer few opportunities for improved job knowledge. If an unemployed individual already is unskilled and has little education, then there are few incentives for participating in a program that targets low-skill jobs. The Dél-Borsodi LRDP reflected these trends, stating that „The number of unemployed persons is expected to grow again at the beginning of

2011 because of those who have evaded public works programs” (2011, 11). These trends

have actually resulted in fewer women in smaller settlements, especially among women

between the ages of 30-39. In interviews with younger women (ages 20-40), the lack of

work opportunities in the area and even within the region were cited as the primary

motivations for migration (Timár and Velkey 2011, 2012; Timár et al. 2012).

These LRDPs demonstrate how the treatment of gender may vary, and how this

can be contingent upon the organization’s leadership, as well as the history and collective

experiences of the locality. However, as the next section demonstrates, the policies set

down in national plans helps explain why, in many cases, gender equality was forgotten.

National Policies

In the introductory section of the 2007-2013 New Hungary National Rural

Development Plan, similar to the local plans, sex is referred to in the demographic

section. Specifically, the striking female-to-male ratio in rural areas is emphasized.

According to the plan, those under the 40-45 age group are mostly men, while those in

the older age groups are predominantly women (version 11, updated May 2014, 12).

Later, in the SWOT analysis section of the document on the Performance of the

agricultural, forestry and food sectors, when describing human capital, education, and

vocational training, again, the problem of the aging countryside is brought to the

forefront. Women are identified as being older both as farmers and as “family

manpower’42 at the average ages of 60 and 46, respectively.43 The plan acknowledges

that in light of these age imbalances between women and men, “great attention must be

42 Perhaps an unfortunate choice of words in the English version. In the Hungarian text, ’family manpower’ is instead családi munkaereje, which literally translates to ’family workpower.’ 43 Based on 2005 data. In contrast, the average of male farmers was 53, and that of male family farm workers was 32 (2007. 33). 99 paid to women, with special regard to female farmers” (33). Although this is the first acknowledgment of a more focused approach to supporting women as farmers, this statement is immediately followed by a shift to all elderly farmers, who struggle with meeting EU production requirements and maintain uncompetitive, “semi-subsistence enterprises” (33).

Although the particular situation of many elderly women is at least recognized, this change in emphasis to the general population of elderly farmers raises a few questions. Namely, there is a lack of explanation regarding the particular circumstances elderly women farmers face. The research to support such a statement is notably missing.

Instead, there is an assumption that these are universal problems for older farmers. In comparison to the local plans, the rhetorical acknowledgment of women farmers is an improvement; however, the plan very quickly contradicts itself by drawing this “special attention” away to all farmers. Indeed, this is the only mention of women farmers in the entire plan, which chooses to ignore established research demonstrating why their inclusion is important (UN Women 2015; IFAD 2012; World Bank, FAO, IFAD 2008).

Education & Training

Along with the characteristically “unfavorable” age structure of rural women, the plan also provides statistics on rural women’s lower levels of educational attainment in comparison to men’s. Yet, while stating that women have a “lower standard of vocational training” (33), no elaboration to validate this statement is offered. Regarding the lack of formal agricultural training at the tertiary level, both women and men are cited as having little to no agricultural education. The plan notes that in 2005, 2.2% of men had a college or university degree in agricultural studies, in comparison to 0.6% of women (2014, 33-

100

34). This lack of training is attributed in part to the weaknesses of adult education

programs (2014, 33-34).

This assessment of the poor quality of Hungarian adult education system has been

confirmed by other sources. The EIGE index gave Hungary a score of 29.1 (out of 100)

for the indicator lifelong learning, reflecting its very low levels of overall participation in

adult education program, reaching only 3.0% in 2013 (Eurostat 2014). Compared to other

EU countries, the participation rate in education and training in rural areas in Hungary is

low,44 with 2.0% of the rural population having participated in formal education and

training, while 6.4% received non-formal training (Eurostat 2014). Looking at recent45

participation in education and training programs in rural areas, women and men (ages 18-

74) demonstrate quite similar participation rates, with women having slightly higher (1-2 percentage points) rates. However, longitudinal data for this indicator shows that from

2004-2013, total participation has decreased (from 9.0% in 2004 to 6.7% in 2013).

Considering that training and capacity building has been further prioritized in the 2007-

2013 program period, this trend at first seems surprising. However, a number of unknown factors could explain this decreased participation, in addition to the time limitations of the sex-disaggregated indicator.

Employment

In relation to employment opportunities, the plan stresses that smaller settlements generally have higher rates of unemployment and worse living conditions (58). In addition to the less-educated and elderly (all of whom are seemingly assumed to be

44 For these indicators, data are only available for 2007. 45 That is, training (either formal or informal) that has taken place in the last four weeks (Eurostat). 101

mutually exclusive groups), work opportunities are limited “…even more so with respect

to women raising their children on their own” (58). This statement should also be

considered in relation to the small percentage of women who work part-time, only 9.2% in 2013 (Eurostat 2015). Later, the plan mentions “divorced women” raising their children alone and describes the choices many woman may face between family and work:

For most women, having a baby represents a career disadvantage due to the fact that

employers and workplaces have not adopted methods and schemes for supporting women

in a dual role (mother and employee). Therefore, having and bringing up a child

constitutes a disadvantage in terms of self-realisation and income earning (61).

Here, the explicit acknowledgement of the specific challenges women face due to

discriminatory factors, and specifically, the lack of enforced gender equality laws

demonstrates relatively deeper thinking about women’s work-life balance. However, the

report expresses no sense of redress for these injustices. No clear measures exist to

specifically address how rural development programs might attempt to remedy these

barriers to employment or to provide childcare services.

In contrast to the local plans, the national RDP describes the “disadvantaged”

groups in more detail. Referring to women, the Roma, and the disabled, the plan states

that “The most important aspect of such disadvantages concerns the labour market,

affecting women, people with altered work ability, and the Roma equally” (60). The

absence of any thought to intersectionality here stands out in that all three of these

disadvantaged groups are assumed to face more challenges in the labor market in equal

ways. The literature on intersectionality demonstrates that looking for work as an ethnic

102

Hungarian woman is not the same as for Roma women (Kóczé and Popa 2009; Tóth

2005). Disability would further confound these obstacles.

Women as Weakness – Women as Leaders

Summarizing the strengths and weaknesses of rural areas, the plan emphasizes that the “rich cultural and natural heritage” and “increasingly important partnerships and local initiatives” will help to further develop the already-burgeoning rural tourism industry. However, among the declared weaknesses of rural areas – in addition to unproductive rural businesses and lack of human capital – are the “special problems of rural women and disadvantaged social groups (Roma population)” (85). Although the text is confined within the strict structure the RDP must follow, specifically in identifying weaknesses as part of the SWOT analysis, rhetorically, a distance is created between those writing the document (i.e. those representing the government and those who have the power to make such blanket declarations and judgments) and the ‘most disadvantaged.’ By the plan’s accounts, these groups are considered detrimental to realizing the goals of a thriving touristic economy in the countryside. However, considering that the majority of women entrepreneurs in rural areas provide services necessary for tourism, and that especially in Western Hungary many women have been occupied in tourism (Momsen et al. 2005, 67; Momsen 2002, 163), the characterization provided in the RDP seems inaccurate to say the least. Even though the RDP may actually be referring to a particular group or class of rural women, by essentializing women into a homogenous group, it avoids more specific designations. At the same time, the sweeping construction of women as part of this “disadvantaged” group runs counter

103

to Hungarian women’s perceptions of themselves. Describing how policies have

homogenized “disadvantaged,” groups, Judit Rácz affirms that

These things have nothing to do with each other. From this point of view, in advance,

women are judged as disadvantaged. This is a bit derogatory because then I need to think

of myself as disadvantaged, and then from the start my position is fixed and I always

have to stress that as a woman, I am not willing to think of myself as disadvantaged.

From this kind of perspective disadvantage is having to raise children and take on work,

and that for the most part, housework is hurting me. But from the position of the

disadvantaged, it doesn’t do any good for women to think of themselves like this”

(interview 2).46

The framing of women’s “weak” positions also warrants a comparison with

women’s leadership within national rural development organizations. As described

earlier, women are responsible for most of the administration carried out in the Local

Action Groups, representing about two-thirds of employees at the operational level. In an

interview with a program officer in the monitoring department of one national rural

development organization, the respondent expressed how many women were actively

involved in all aspects of agricultural and rural development programming,

implementation, and monitoring and national, regional, and local levels (interview 9).

However, as suggested by Szalai’s research of (2001) with more women administrators

46 Hungarian: “Ezeknek a dolgoknak egymáshoz semmi és semmi közöttt nincs, de ilyen szempontból , hátrányos helyzetűnek ítélik a nőknek eleve, picit sérelmes mert magamra a hátrányos helyzetűként kell gondolja , akkor ez eleve meghatároz az én poziciómat és ez mindig ki szoktam hangsúlyozni, hogy nőként, nem vagyok hajlandó magamra, hogy nyilván hátrányos helyzetűként gondolkodni.Hogy mi van hátrányos helyzetű ilyen szempontból, hogy gyerekeket kell tartani és munkát kell vállalni, és a napi háztartás munkát nagy része rám hármul ...a hátrányos helyzetűként pozicionál nem tesznek jót a nőknek, hogy így magukról gondolnak.” 104

providing welfare services to poor women, a growing divide could widen between this

“project class” (Szőke 2013) and those they are helping.

Education – For Housewives

In outlining how the new RDP will remedy the previously mentioned skill and

education deficiencies in rural areas, different kinds of trainings are presented for Local

Rural Development Offices (LRDOs) to implement (in section 5.3.3.4 Axis III. Skill

acquisition, animation, and implementation). Notably, the LRDO must follow the

training activity guidelines set out by the Managing Authority and the MRD-Rural

Development, Educational and Advisory Institute (432). This could potentially pose a problem if these guidelines are not suited to the needs and demands of the population in a given area. Among the “issues” the LRDOs should target in their training activities are:

Social economy, housewife education (definitely for disadvantaged social groups),

traditions and customs of disadvantaged and minority groups (ethnography), knowledge

about community building, [and] catching up of disadvantaged young people (432).

Although this list of target groups and issues for trainings is vague, the assumptions and

biases (whether conscious or unconscious) about ‘disadvantaged groups’ and especially

women are clear. Interestingly, women are denoted as “housewives,” conveying assumptions that all rural women are married, stay at home, and are perhaps less educated. There is also no mention of what this “education” will entail, but the next activity concerning the preservation of customs and traditions is suggestive of the training content. In fact, building job-relevant skills and preserving national traditions could be somewhat at odds with creating stronger rural economies, depending on how such activities are planned. Particularly because women may be perceived as key holders of

105 cultural traditions, such as folk art and embroidery, these activities could possibly counter the goal of capacity building and job creation. The RDP goes on to describe how the planned “informative and animation activities aimed at local communities” will encourage “action-preparedness, activeness and cooperation of less favoured groups of the society, helping the enforcement of their special interests” (434). Although the intent of these (albeit) ambiguous trainings to promote a decidedly ‘active’ and cohesive community convey intentions of social inclusion, at the same time, discursively, they are separate, indicated by “their special interests.”

Unequal Partners

In the following section (14.1) on Social Partnership Consultations (514), the

RDP conveys the intent to engage in open and productive dialogue with a diverse array of stakeholders. According to the RDP, “In line with the openness of the public debate, the position of the Council of the Equal Opportunities of Women and Men and also other – mostly Roma – organisations were asked by the Ministry, besides the civil partners that are directly involved…” (514). To provide more concrete evidence of the intent to include the representation of the gender equality and Roma interests, the RDP lists the schedule of consultations that were held prior to the finalization of the RDP. However, placement matters. And last on a long list of scheduled consultations comes the Equality of chances discussions, which includes (in this order), meetings with the Nationwide

Council on Handicapped Affairs, the Council on Social Equality between Men and

Women, and the Interministerial Committee on Roma Affairs (526). The real question here is not the fact that consultations were held with these groups. Rather, the quality of these meetings is far more telling about the “participatory” nature of this plan. According

106 to Cartwright et al. (2006), after the consultations were held with the various social partners there was no further discussion with civil society groups (21). Moreover, the

Council on Social Equality between Men and Women, created in 2006 as a consultative body, has ceased to exist as a separate entity (EP Note 2013, 5; interview 6). With the election of FIDESZ in 2010, the council was quietly moved to the Department of Social and Family Affairs of the Ministry of Human Resources (EP Note 2013, 5; interview 6).

Overall, the planning process was characterized by poor communication between government bodies and CSOs, lack of transparency, and the continued use of informal networks (Cartwright et al. 2006, 22).

Based on the placement of equality organizations at the end of different sections

(albeit when they are referenced), it could be inferred that they are not regarding as being particularly important by the Ministry. Indeed, the sequencing of these consultations at the end of the planning period also provides telling information about the relative importance of these groups. Perhaps an ongoing dialogue, as opposed to a single meeting with the various equality organizations throughout the planning period would have resulted in a more thoughtful treatment of the multiple inequalities rural populations face.

Cartwright et al. (2006) suggest that the public was poorly informed about the plan, which, although it had been published on the website of the Ministry of Agriculture, was inaccessible to rural areas without internet (21).

In one of the final sections of the RDP (section 15) titled, Equality between men and women, non-discrimination (541), again, there is a blanketing statement that “Special attention will be paid to the implementation of social equality between men and women, ensuring obstruction-free access for disabled people, promoting the social integration of

107

the Roma and the non-discrimination at the same time, in respect of all projects supported

within the framework of the Programme and the activity of the institutes taking part in

implementation” (541). Although collecting sex-disaggregated data is stated as one of the

practices that will be followed through all stages of the project, it has already been

demonstrated in the local plans that this has not been practiced uniformly.

The RDP specifically states that for Axis III and IV measures, “…local planning

guidelines encourage the presentation of measures towards the improvement in the

situation of women, the strengthening of Roma communities, as well as the improvement

in the quality of life of people living with disabilities based on related local demands”

(542). Moreover, Local Rural Development Plans and LEADER Action Plans are tasked

with providing a “detailed situation analysis which pays particular attention to the local

Roma people and women among general economic and social indicators [author’s

emphasis]” (543). In the previous section, the extent of this “detailed analysis” vis-à-vis

women has been explored in the selected LRDPs. However, the RDP stresses the

importance of this needs assessment, declaring that this “…is deemed to be a mandatory

task with a view to the requirements of demand-based planning, adequate local solution and the generation of associated projects” (543). The RDP strengthens this commitment by pointing to the plans of the Managing Authority (in 2007) to continuously monitor equal opportunities for women and men (543). Finally, to prevent discrimination in all stages of the program, the RDP simply cites Hungary’s umbrella equality law, which should, in effect, assure non-discrimination (543). According to one gender equality

expert

108

This equal opportunity language, if you look at it more carefully, it’s like a hiding for

priorities that were there anyway. So if you say equal opportunities it may mean nothing,

so it could be very symbolic language which has no content whatsoever or it could mean

things that were from before such as disability and ethnicity. These were issues that were

always on the agenda, since ‘98 we had a law and for ethnicity they had the minority law

from ‘93. And gender still doesn’t have a law. So these two grounds were much more

advanced. So when you say well I’m not going to talk about gender, or race, or disability,

I’m going to talk about equal opportunity, then you subsume all the priorities that were

there very strongly from before. Those will come in and fill in the space. And that’s one

way you have it used in the policy agenda. The other way acts as a blanket, which is not

really standing for anything. But it’s kind of the coverage of moving from specific

equality grounds to more extensive ones, in which all kinds of things could fit, but they

don’t in practice (interview 7).

Although equality of opportunity is nominally guaranteed to all “disadvantaged” groups in rural development policies, its presence is weak. Gender equality is framed as part of a far-reaching equal opportunity policy, but the few references to women in the national plan illustrate a very unequal relationship. Rural women are described as undereducated, underemployed, and “disadvantaged,” and yet measures targeting women’s education and labor are absent. This persistent designation as the “disadvantaged other” creates a distance between those in power creating policies and those whom they are intended to serve. As opposed to protecting the equality of rural women, policies disempower them both rhetorically and in practice.

109

Women in Rural Development Discourse

The broader discourse of women in rural development outside of official documents, also generally tends to portray women in terms of their domestic roles. In a

2012 international conference in Budapest on “Women for Sustainable Development –

Women’s Role in Rural Development,” the opening speaker, Dr. Márta Torda, the

Deputy Director of the Parliamentary and Social Relations Department at the Ministry of

Rural Development opened by stating,

All of these tasks are unimaginable without women’s involvement and active support.

Women, as the primary cohesion of families, are perhaps even more persuasive in that

they are vital for sustaining and preserving the countryside. For this, one indispensable

condition is the protection and creation of work places.

Again, first women’s roles are stressed as being not only at the core of the family, but also are responsible for preserving rural traditions. At the same time, Torda highlights the importance of employment opportunities, but considering the preceding sentence, this statement is somewhat ambiguous. Even though she explicitly states the importance of women for preserving the countryside, she does not say that these work places are intended for women. As opposed to a dual role between work and family, this could suggest that the creation of more jobs should be for a breadwinning husband so that rural women will be able to fully fulfill their roles as keepers of rural traditions.

Making no attempt to advocate for gender equality, Torda approaches rural women’s “roles” through the lens of rural development focus areas. She states that through responsible recycling and environmental awareness, women “can build for future generations a sense of responsibility and traditional values concerning their

110 commitments.” She adds, that “With women’s help we can more effectively instill a consciousness, for example, about how important food safety is.” This speech, although probably well-intentioned, glibly describes the supporting roles women can play in advancing the goals of rural development programs. Significantly, the “‘roles” Torda espouses for rural women do not involve the work places she mentioned at the beginning.

Rather, women are portrayed as mothers, preservers of tradition, and teachers. And while these are certainly important ideational aspects of rural development, business development and skills training are left unmentioned. Discursively, women firmly remain in the domestic sphere. Borrowing from Western development rhetoric, she ends with the familiar “smart economics” maxim: “To not let this existing potential go unused.”

Women’s inclusion in rural development does not need justification. Rather than objectifying women through such disempowering language, meaningful discussion of women’s practical and strategic gender needs should take place. However, looking to other discourses of rural women does not provide much encouragement.

Rural Idylls – Women in the Home, Men on Tractors

The main publication of the Hungarian National Rural Network, Magyar Vidéki

Mozaik [Hungarian Rural Mosaic] portrays traditional, and at times chauvinistic attitudes about rural gender roles. In images, women tend to be portrayed in activities promoting cultural heritage protection and engaged in familial obligations while men are usually depicted doing physical labor, such as building, farming, and operating machinery.

Recalling the public’s appalled reaction to the ‘women on tractors’ campaign under communism and the dominance of the ‘equal rank’ approach (Fábián 2009, 137), these representations are unsurprising. Fábián (2009) describes that “When women sit on

111 tractors, they are likely to be considered to be the farmers’ wives, not the farmers themselves, and their work on the farm is also rendered invisible” (fn3, 327). The images and selected projects sometimes seem to project both an idyllic vision of what rural

Hungary looks like and what it should be. Also reflected in certain images are discourses equating women with the family. A recent article described the importance of family farmers in Hungary within the context of the United Nations Year of the Family Farmer in 2014 (HNRN 5 March 2014). In fact, a World Forum and Exhibition among FAO member countries was held in Budapest and was hosted by the Ministry of Rural

Development. Despite the emphasis placed on the vital role of family farmers, the accompanying photograph conveys a different message. The image chosen to represent family farms is not that of an enterprising farm family, but rather of a young woman, smiling as she kneels next to a bucket of potatoes (Figure 4.3).

Figure 4.3: “There is a Key Role for Family Farmers” - A családi gazdaságoknak kulcsszerepe van Source: Hungarian National Rural Network, March 5, 2014

Further evidence exists that traditional views of women and family may be reinforced in the context of rural development goals, especially in relation to cultural heritage and preservation. In a 2013 recent publication of Hungarian Rural Mosaic, an

112

article highlighted a new ECHO TV series called A lady will be made from a girl

[Asszony lesz lányból]. This show was created with the expressed intent of showing what

it takes to become a good housekeeper (gazdasszony) and housewife today (vol. 3, issue

3, p. 19). Set in the village of Kenderes in the Great Plain, it aims to present how today’s

youth imagine agricultural and household work. This entails how to start a kitchen garden

(in the city as well), and how long ago, the castles of lords worked. At the center of this is

the role of the lady of the house (2013, 19). According to the channel director, Tímea

Miki,

We wanted to illuminate how we need to go back to those things that in the past were

well-established, from which a family worked. Everyone had their own role, and the role

in which women fell was especially important. In this role, they should keep the family

together. Today’s young people do not really know how to keep a good house, they can’t

iron, they can’t clean. A generation was left out that would have needed to be taught this.

That’s why housekeeping47 training is good, which the Ministry of Rural Development

supported and initiated, because with this perhaps there’s a chance that this could start

this process off anew. I feel that there is a demand for this among young people, that they

should do this, they just don’t know how they should do it. It is this way of doing it that

we would like to show (19).

In a video showing clips of the show, a young bride alights a horse-drawn carriage with her groom, creating a kind of village fairytale narrative. Strangely, in between interviews with the show’s creators, a cartoon of a sexy, frantic housewife is played, in which the

47 In Hungarian, the word for housekeeper in this context is a semantically gendered noun, gazdasszony, meaning “housekeeping woman.” It should also be noted, that while asszony and nő both mean “woman,” the former connotes more formality and is closer in usage to “lady.” Although nő is also used as an affix for certain professions (e.g. politikusnő, tanárnő, although not grammatically obligatory), it is used to describe both biological sex and social constructions of gender. 113

housewife is frantically running from a boiling pot on the stove to attend a crying baby,

whom she must soon leave to rush to answer the phone from her husband calling from the

office. Meanwhile, she attempts a series of household chores. Then, transitioning to the

show title, calming music is played as the viewer is immersed in a simple, bucolic time,

when housewives “knew their roles” and knew them well.

Supranational Policies

The Blind Leading the Blind?

It must be emphasized that these gender imbalances in rural development

leadership are not specific to Hungary. Prior to the publication of the EU Rural

Development Plan 2007-2013, the Council of the European Union outlined some of the

broader priorities and strategies for the 2007-2013 programming period in a 2006 Council

Decision (2006/144/EC). The gender equality approach presented in the final EU development plan is mirrored in the previously described Hungarian RDPs; women are generally described as having lower activity and employment rates and lower levels of education. According to the Council Decision, “In rural areas…activity rates for women are lower, the service sector is less developed, higher education levels are generally lower…Lack of opportunities, contacts and training infrastructure are a particular problem for women and young people in remote rural areas” (L 55/22). In its outlook for the 2007-2013 period, the document emphasizes “forward-looking investments in people, know-how and capital in the farm and forestry sectors…and creating more and better jobs through diversification, particularly for women and young people” (L 55/23). Important specifications are missing here. First, it seems that there is a lack of “forward thinking” in human capital investments, which are targeted at the traditionally male-dominated farm

114 and forestry sectors. Although the summary highlights that women and young people especially could benefit from diversification, they are not included as active agents in this process.

Specifically for Axis III measures, the Community strategic guideline states, “In promoting training, information and entrepreneurship, the particular needs of women, young people and older workers should be considered” (L 55/26). The overall message to

“consider” the inclusion of these groups conveys an unequivocally weak stance. This comes across not as an objective, let alone a requirement, but rather a passive suggestion that demonstrates a lack of institutional enforcement on the part of the EU. In turn, in

Hungarian RDPs at the national and local levels, social and economic inclusion – at least in programming documents – are also relatively weak. They too write nearly identical, rote listings of disadvantaged groups. The summary does, however, point to specific barriers to women’s participation in the labor market. Specifically, it identifies the lack of nearby childcare services as a particularly critical factor. The EC recommended that:

“In order to meet these priorities, Member States are encouraged to focus support on key

actions. Such key actions could include:

(iii) Encouraging the entry of women into the labour market. In many rural areas

inadequate childcare provision creates specific barriers. Local initiatives to develop

childcare facilities can facilitate access to the labour market. This can include the

development of childcare infrastructure, potentially in combination with initiatives to

encourage the creation of small businesses related to rural activities and local services”

(L 55/26).

115

As important as the creation of sustainable childcare support systems is to encourage

women’s labor participation – to the benefit of all rural development objectives - the

passive recommendations presented here deflate these aims. Even though the

Commission also recommended complementarity between Community instruments (L

55.28), calling for “synergy between structural, employment and rural development

policies,” there has been a lack of such complementarity among EU policies – namely

those of gender equality, equal opportunity, and social inclusion with agricultural and

rural development policies. For the most part, these “soft policies” are paid lip service in

official documents and are not concretely integrated into the structure of programs and

projects, specifically in the form of gender-sensitive indicators and activities.

These self-contradictions are evidenced in the 2012 Statistical and Economic

Information Report. To create employment opportunities within the aims of Axis III, the

report echoes the 2006 European Council document. Beyond the requisite demographic

statistics concerning rural populations, the share of labor in agriculture, and holding

ownership structure, descriptions of the impact on gender relations within the framework

of these plans are missing. Moreover, any mention of equal opportunity objectives

appears to be completely absent in the nearly 400-page report.

Additionally, the ratio of two-thirds men and one-third women observed in

different Hungarian rural development bodies is reflected at the supranational level. In a

2014 study conducted for the European Parliament’s Committee on Women’s Rights and

Gender Equality (FEMM), Lodovici et al. reported that the 88-member Committee on

Agriculture and Rural Development (AGRI) – which is responsible for the CAP, rural

development policy, and relevant legislation – includes 33 women, or 37.5% of the

116 committee (89). Additionally, only 8% of the AGRI Committee (6 members) also belonged to the FEMM committee (Lodovici et al 2014, 89). The report also noted that the AGRI Committee is headed by a man and among the four Vice Presidents, only 1 is a woman. Yet, in comparison to the average representation of women on EP committees

(35.8%), the AGRI committee has a slightly higher proportion. Having examined how gender equality has been interpreted and translated at different levels of governance, the next chapter will examine some of the effects Hungarian programs have had on women’s opportunities.

117

Chapter 5: Translating ‘Women’ and Gender in Projects, Monitoring and Evaluation, and Best Practices

The previous chapter demonstrated how gender equality principles have not been prioritized into all stages of rural development policies, despite persistent gender disparities between rural women and men. In this chapter I describe how programs have approached women’s leadership, education, labor, and entrepreneurship by looking at some of the perceivable, and in some cases, measurable effects. As I will demonstrate, measuring concrete outcomes remains problematic, as the collection of sex-disaggregated data has not been routinized, nor are projects and activities always thoroughly described.

In comparison to the quantitative outcomes that have been made available, measures of the qualitative effects have been more difficult to determine, even for those working within various operational programs.

Projects that are explicitly for women remain scarce, and those that have expressed equal opportunity goals and/or were specifically for “disadvantaged” groups often involve Roma or disabled participants. Although the selected projects and trainings are not representative, this analysis serves to provide some insights on the potential qualitative effects. By analyzing a sample of individual beneficiaries and looking to the assessments and evaluations of different development programs, I provide multiple perspectives to understanding how programs have addressed gender needs.

118

The Best of the Best? – Project and Program Outcomes

Rural Entrepreneurs

Reflecting the emphasis the national plan placed on economic diversification,

Axis III and IV grants to individuals usually supported microenterprises, tourism activities, and local business development. In turn, operational staff in Local Action

Groups encouraged entrepreneurship among local residents. However, the application process and project implementation reveal significant differences between women and men applicants and beneficiaries. Additionally, the degree of interest in applying for grants and pursuing development projects seemed to vary across regions and also by sex

(interviews 2, 5, 10). Anett Türkösi described how the LRDP of her organization in

Western Hungary had not been geared toward projects only for women. She explains how

We stayed with the classical trend, tourism, village development, business development,

rural protection, mainly within LEADER. As entrepreneurs, women naturally came and

applied, and the ratio of women and men applicants was comparable; however, if you

look at how many men and women have applied in the past few years, regarding the

number of women, I have to say that the majority are men (interview 5).

In contrast, from her observations, Edina Zsurzsucz from the Local Action Group in the

Southern Great Plain felt that women usually did not appear as indivual applicants, especially as the main entrepreneurs of their own business. In contrast, at Judit Rácz’s organization, she had observed how many women were much more proactive in the application process. She described how women typically helped their husbands or partners apply for grants, often taking the initiative to learn the necessary computer skills for the online application (interview 2). All of the LEADER administrators noted that

119

women principally applied as directors of civil society organizations (interviews 2, 5, 10).

Indeed, when fuller descriptions were provided of civil society projects implemented with

Axis IV grants, women frequnetly led the projects. Although this research found that

within rural development programs, women have been essential community and civil

society leaders, as beneficiaries, the extent of women’s inclusion and participation

appears less robust.

Despite the absence of a complete database among Hungarian Local Action

Groups, it was possible to collect sex-disaggregated data on projects for individual winners, which displayed the winners’ names, project title and/or short description, grant amount, and location. In searching for projects, I found that the methods individual LAGs employed to present the results of their projects showed considerable variation. While

some may have chosen to highlight a few ‘best practices,’ or ‘successes’ (nekik sikerült),

other organizations had downloadable projects organized by Axes III and IV, and in some

cases by specific project types.1 This lack of uniformity may be explained by a number of

factors. LEADER organizations receive the least amount of funding and have the

smallest staff size. At the same time, they are responsible for the most diverse set of

objectives. From a research perspective, it appears that standardized and regularly

updated data management practices have not been followed. Despite these sampling

problems, the examination of women and men project winners – although not

representative of all beneficiaries because of these issues – still provides pertinent

quantitative information. In the future, pending that sex-disaggregated grant data are

1 Projects included grants for local business development, repairs and renovations, tourism related activities (usually for renovating guest houses), local producers, marketing, sustainable energy projects, etc. 120

made available and easily accessible, a comprehensive and systematic analysis of project

beneficiaries is necessary for future project planning and implementation.

Table 5.1: Women and Men Beneficiaries from Sample of Local Action Group Projects Axis III winners Axis IV winners Total Women 45 (34.9%) 54 (27.1% 99 (30.2%) Men 84 (65.1%) 145 (72.9%) 229 (69.8% Total 129 199 328

In the total sample, 30.2% of beneficiaries were women, whereas 69.8% of

beneficiaries were men. The sample was also divided by Axis III and IV to compare the

gender balance between the two grant types. For Axis III, women comprised 34.9% of

beneficiaries and men 65.1%. In comparison, for Axis IV grants, women made up a

smaller proportion of beneficiaries at 27.1%. To determine if there were significant

gender discrepancies among project winners, I carried out one-sample proportion tests.

The null hypothesis assumed that the gender balance among all beneficiaries was equal

(H0: = 0.50, where ), whereas the one-sided𝜋𝜋 alternative hypothesis𝜋𝜋 𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝑡𝑡ℎ𝑒𝑒 𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 predicted𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝𝑝 that𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 the𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 proportion𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤𝑤 𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 of𝑏𝑏 women𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏𝑏 would be less than 50% (Ha: < 0.50). According to the results, the difference between women and men was significant𝜋𝜋 at the 5% and 1% levels. Since both the one-sided and two-sided tests were significant,2 I reject the null hypothesis that the proportion between women

and men is equal. Similar hypothesis tests were also run for the gender balance for Axis

III and IV beneficiaries, which were also statistically significant at the 5% and 1%

2 z = -7.18, p-value = 0.000 121

levels.3 In the total sample and by Axis type, women were significantly underrepresented

as beneficiaries.

Data from the Körösök Völgye Action Group in Békéscsaba in the Southern Great

Plain show that among the 173 projects that were supported during the 2007-2013 programming period, only 7 women won grants as private individuals or entrepreneurs.

Three of the women beneficiaries won grants under Axis III, while the remaining 4 applied under Axis IV (interview 10). Regarding the type of project, three dealt with rural tourism and four were explicitly for agriculture (interview 10). Although the proportion of women applicants was higher at the Alpokalja-Fertő táj Rural Development

Association in Western Hungary, at about 15%, (interview 5), at both organizations men still made up the vast majority of beneficiaries. Decribing how women often play a key, yet supporting role in family enterprises, Judit Rácz also pointed out that few businesses make efforts to encourage women and to train them. Moreover, she expressed how certain social norms may play a role in women’s decisions to become entrepreneurs. As she describes

You have to see that in Hungary, women prefer to be employed becuase this is secure. There’s less money, but it has a more secure status than an entrepreneur and this is very risky, mainly because of the economic circumstances fewer women can take this on. Hungarian women can run businesses very well, but they don’t know this about themselves (interview 2).4

3 For Axis III, Ha: π < 0.50 = 0.0003 for the one-sided test and Ha: π < 0.50 = 0.0006 for the two-sided test (z = -3.43). For Axis IV, Ha: π < 0.50 = 0.0000 for the one-sided test and Ha: π < 0.50 = 0.0000 for the two-sided test (z = -6.45). 4 Hungarian: “Azt is látni kell, hogy Magyarországon, hogy jobban szeretné a nők alkalmazott lenni még, mert ez biztos. Kevesebb pénz de biztosabb státus mint egy vállalkozó, és ez nagyon kockázatos, főleg ezek között a gazdasági körülmények és ezt kevesbb nő vállalja be. Tudnának a magyar nők jól vállalkozni, de ezt nem tudják magukról.” 122

These observations provide interesting insights considering other research on women

entrepreneurs in Hungary. Although previous research has often described both rural and

urban women entrepreneurs as innovative, clever, and extremely hard-working (Asztalos-

Morell 2007; Momsen et al. 2005; Szalai 2000; Szalai 1998), fewer studies have

examined how women’s perceptions of their own competencies may weigh in the

decision to become an entrepreneur.

Projecting Feminity

From these perspectives, training programs have enormous potential to build women’s confidence in their skills. One such project from the village of Egyek in the

Southern Great Plain ostensibly aimed to encourage women’s employment and entrepreneurship. The report, written by the mayor, explains that this was initiated to help those who were “disadvantaged in the labor market,” in addition to reviving the lace- making tradition. Women’s unemployment had been especially high in the village, accounting for over half of unemployed persons in Egyek (“Report” 2012, 1).

Implemented by the Egyek Local Government, 20 women successfully completed a training program in traditional lace making. At the end of the training, having passed the necessary test, 17 participants engaged in lace making as their primary job (“Report”

2012, 3). With images of the mostly older women participants, the report described that,

“The group’s cohesion demonstrates well how the improved achievements of the participants magnanimously helped those who had at times lagged a little behind”

(“Report” 2012, 2). Although the report seems to suggest that the training allowed most of the participants to pursue a vocation, it did not provide further information about what

123

kind of employment the training resulted in. Moreover, the views of participants are missing from the report, which is not uncommon when reports are publicly available.5

This ommission is important because training in tradtional folkart and handicrafts, while a highly valued tradition, may not always result in stable and permanent employment. In fact, artistic vocations demonstrate two extremes in Hungary. On the one hand, Hungary has prominent universities that train students in traditional folkart, supporting a more successful, younger class of artists, while on the other hand, many older, poorer women make folkart as a means of survival. For this latter group, this may involve extensive travel to various festivals and urban centers, some coming as far as

Transylvania in an attempt to sell more of their products. Although the social aspect of this training likely benefitted participants who may have felt isolated and excluded, the prospects of stable employment for mostly older women seem doubtful. Many artists are self-employed, which, as described earlier, is not always preferred by women who seek more stable jobs (interviews 2, 3, 10) . Furthermore, as László Kulcsár pointed out, successful rural entrepreneurs have to have a mind for creating unique products that appeal to a niche market. Usually, such rural enterprises are taken on by younger, more educated people who may have more social capital to effectively grow their businesses

(interview 4). The research of Katalin Kovács and Mónika Váradi (2000) among women in the village of Karikás also found that successful women entrepreneurs relied on strong and wide social networks (189). Indeed, the Dél-Borsodi LRDP described how measures intended to support the production of local products from raw materials, traditional hand

5 The research found that the publishing of reports was very uneven for projects that had received support from Local Action Groups. 124 crafts, and folk art products for the market had not been viable options for those who lacked the necessary capital to utilize marketing channels (2011, 16). Previous survey research6 supports this assessment, finding that especially in Northern Hungary, more people reported lower levels of network capital (Cartwright 2007, 7). The results of this survey also revealed that in addition to low levels of network capital, people in Northern

Hungary also had less trust in public institutions, which was also associated with lower rates of civic participation (Cartwright 2007, 7). These negative interactions between networks, trust in public institutions, and participation pose a serious challenge to local rural development organizations, which aim to strengthen all of these factors.

Although this research cannot determine the actual effects on beneficiaries’ welfare, such projects can highlight how some goals of rural development may actually work against each other. Trainings involving cultural heritage protection and rural traditions may not match the demand for such skills in the labor market, possibly defeating the goal of job creation. LEADER Projects focusing more on traditional crafts may also deter potential investments from private sector actors. According to one rural development expert, “The private sector doesn’t really know why it should be involved because again it’s small money and it seems to be a bit historical and cultural, and a bit folky” (interview 8). Moreover, these kinds of trainings may exploit traditional gender roles that perceive women as protectors of traditional customs, possibly resulting in more precarious employment options.

6 Cartwright (2007) cites the unpublished report of Péter Hegedűs and Endre Sik, “The regional distribution of social capital in Hungary,” TARKI Institute, 2007. This analysis is based on survey research carried out from 1986-2007 by the TARKI Institute, the European Social Survey, the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP), Household Monitor reports, and the Register of Non-Profit Organizations. 125

Although traditional gender roles were perhaps reinforced by the lace-making

training, other programs have demonstrated how gender stereotypes may also be

maintained. One interview provides a telling description of some common perceptions of

rural women as “the cream of the countryside,” highlighting their feminine and maternal

roles (interview 11). A training program carried out in 2010 in Hegykő in Western

Hungary illustrates this conception. Titled Look for the Woman - Self-Awareness in

Appearance,7 the training aimed to teach how “femininity and self-confidence can be

learned.” The report further described that

Participants discussed their roles as mothers, women, housewives, wives, and career

women, what feminity means to them, where self-confidence comes from, or lack

thereof, and the role external appearance has in first impressions, and even the formation

of sympathy in job searching and everyday life (“Report” 2010)

The program also emphasized the importance of self-acceptance and love, but at the same time enlisted the expertise of a fashion designer, who provided consult on fashion for different body types. Additionally, participants were provied with hair and makeup advice. And the results? According to the report, “Participants can now know exactly which clothing is the most advantageous for them and can therefore be much more decisive in shaping their appearance.” The message of this training seems clear. To be confident, women need to make extra efforts to make themselves more attractive. The pursuit of intellectual or career goals do not seem to be considered as other factors that could perhaps build women’s confidence. However, according to Anett Türkösi, this

7 Keresd a Nőt - öntudatosság a megjelenésben. Report provided from the Alpokalja-Fertő táj Rural Development Association. 126

project was one of the most popular trainings (interview 5). Considering how many of the

women in the area were described as housewives who spent most of their time at home

cleaning and taking care of children (interviews 4, 5), it is unsurprising that this was a

popular training. The communicative activities of the training likely provided a much-

needed outlet for local women to express themselves. However, as in most countries in

the world, Hungarian women are already immersed in a culture that places a great deal of

importance on women’s physical appearances. Nevertheless, under the guise of rural

development goals, this project reinforces gender stereotypes. As described in the

previous chapter, discourses of traditional feminity may be perpetuated through rural

development programs and reinforced by some projects.

Searching for ‘Women’ and Gender in EU Rural Development Projects

Whereas Hungarian programs seem to emphasize women’s traditional roles, the

EU presents a confused picture of women in rural development. By conducting a search

for rural development projects in the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development

(EAFRD) database8 using the keyword “women” yields ambiguous results about

“women’s” projects. One project from Hungary arises (among a total of 12), in which an

“enterprising female farmer,” completed a project to expand her poultry farm and tourism

business. In contrast, a Swedish project is also presented, which was also included in the

Best Practices of the EU Rural Review in 2010 (p 49-51). Although the work of the

Swedish project, Grogrund - Fertile Soil for Female Entrepreneurship in Rural Areas, seems to have helped women in rural areas develop the necessary skills to start and grow

8 This can only be referred to as a database in a very loose way, as it does not include all projects completed by Member States. 127

their businesses, it is also much easier to discuss progress in women’s inclusion in rural

development programs in a country that is considered to be one of the most forward-

thinking countries in gender equality policy. Another project from Poland, titled New

Skills and New Confidence for Rural Women, at first appears to directly address building human capital. However, similar to the previously described Hungarian project, it aimed to teach rural women how to improve their appearances. Overall, the EAFRD database seems to confuse sex and gender, presenting an unclear conception of women’s roles in rural development. Moreover, the 12 results this search yielded raises serious doubts about the comprehensiveness and accuracy of project data collection. This could derive from the previously noted lack of required gender-sensitive objectives, indicators, and activities in rural development projects across the EU. Even at the EU level, the representation of rural women beneficiaries is at best incomplete, and at worst, confused.

Speaking for ‘Rural Women’

Recalling the rural women’s conference described in the previous chapter, this event included among best practices for implemented projects on the website of the

Hungarian National Rural Network (HNRN). Sponsored by the Association of Women’s

Career Development in Hungary (AWCDH),9 which has provided consultative and

training support to rural women since 2004, the conference involved expert discussion

panels and product presentations. The major themes addressed were women’s

“…employment in rural areas, heritage protection and the preservation of rural values,

the health of families…and cooperation among generations” (30), echoing some of the

9 Magyar Női Karrierfejlesztési Szövetség (MNKSZ) 128

points addressed in the opening speech. With the evaluation of the HNRN (MNVH) and

the approval of the National Rural Development Program Managing Authority, the

project was successfully implemented, winning 2,320,000 HUF.10 Although the bold project title, Nők Nélkül Nincs Vidékfejlesztés! [Without Women there is no Rural

Development!], might suggest a more gender-forward approach, some of the content of the conference casts some doubt. Future research would benefit from studying how women’s organizations (that is, those with the explicit goal of supporting women’s employment, training, and equality) may negotiate the content of their proposed projects within the prevailing traditional attitudes of rural development institutions. Some of the contradictory themes highlighted in this project may hint at such a compromise, albeit one in favor of dominant attitudes about women’s domestic roles and duties.

Although the conference aimed to discuss the importance of women’s employment opportunities – a very pressing structural issue that warrants serious discussion – at the same time, one of the lecturers, Krisztina Tornay, the institutional director of a nursing school, stressed women’s nurturing and caregiving roles. She stated,

“Where there is a woman, there is life. Women are able to provide a nest for life and to help those who are ready to fly out” (30). The metaphorical ‘nesting’ of women in the loving home seems to contradict a meaningful discussion of women’s employment outside the home. To evaluate the content of this conference warrants a further look at some of the other speakers who represented employment, educational, and rural development institutions. In the presentation of Ágnes Kiss, the department director of the Hungarian National Rural Network Permanent Secretariat, the only apparent mention

10 This grant financed slightly more than half of the total project, 4,120,000 HUF. 129 of gender appeared on two slides describing the short and long run distribution channels of women and men as producers and consumers (Kiss 24 November 2012). Later in the program, the presentation of the agricultural engineers, Dr. Mrs. János Szakácsi and Dr.

Flóra Tápai, would hint that perhaps a discussion of women’s roles in agricultural science and reasearch might be in order. However, in their presentation titled, “The Role of

Wives, Family Mothers in Rural Development,”11 they lament how women have subordinated their child raising responsibilities to pursuing careers, thereby delaying child birth. They describe how tragically, women who were 35 to 40 years old realized that they had robbed themselves of the chance to have children, “whose starry eyes could have gilded them in their old age.” In essence, “They did not stay like the good Lord created them, women as women, men as men” (Szakácsi and Tápai, 24 November 2012).

Unsurprisingly, they use this platfrom to underscore the importance of the government’s most recent pronatalist policies, which also aims to support young people who decide to settle in the countryside, become farmers, and have 2-3 children. From this perspective, they exclaim that “Agriculture is NOT politics, rather biology!” (Szakácsi and Tápai, 24

November 2012).

Recalling that this conference also intended to address rural women’s employment and was sponsored by a women’s career organization,12 one of the last presentations came from the deputy director of the National Labor Affairs Office, the

Vocational and Adult Education Board. However, because this representative was not able to come, the presentation was posted on the hosting organization’s website. Most of

11 A feleségek, családanyák szerepe a vidékfejlesztésben 12 This was the only presentation that was to specifically address labor. 130

the presentation is dedicated to describing national labor market conditions and the

structure of the secondary and tertiary education system in Hungary. One slide lists

women with small children among the groups of “Lagging Behind Workers,” and the few

slides about “Rural Women” say nothing specific about the distinct employment barriers

rural women face.13 The designation of women with small children is an example of what

Tamás Dombos et al. (2007) have described as “illustrative” examples that “…rather than going into thoroughly analyzing the problem, they remain on the level of catch-words”

(239). Furthermore, the statistics provided about education and employment are not sex- disaggregated. Although these few presentations should not be interpreted as a complete representation of the entire conference, women’s roles appeared to be narrowly defined to traditional, familial spaces.

Measures of Success?

Although an exhaustive examination of the monitoring and evaluation of EU and

Hungarian rural development programs is beyond the scope of this research, an analysis of some of the broader monitoring and evaluation practices demonstrates a general lack of attention to the gender impact of programs. I examine these evaluations to analyze some of the measured, or in some cases, the still-immeasurable or indefinite results of rural development projects.

13 In fact, the first slide includes such bullet points as “Women are everywhere,” and “Women help the environment” and another slide near the end on “The Role of Rural Women in Particular” states “The activities of many women add up,” and the ambivalent “The fulfillment of their role responds to national trends.” 131

EU Guidelines

Given that the EU has not prioritized gender in its set of common indicators even during the planning phases, the Member State RDPs consequently lacked such integrated program measures. For these reasons, it comes as no surprise that monitoring reports and assessments of the EU as a whole, and of Hungary pay little attention to gender. At the same time, the EU appears to outline a thorough process of ongoing program level evaluations that would consist of ex-ante, mid-term, and ex-post reports, that “…will be accompanied by thematic studies and synthesis evaluations at Community level, as well as by the activities of the European network for rural development as a platform for exchange and capacity building for evaluation in Member States” (EC 2006, L 55/29).

Indeed, an interview with a Hungarian monitoring and planning official suggested that that Hungarian organizations complied relatively well with EU evaluation requirements

(interview 9).

Evaluation of SAPARD Program 2004-2006

In contrast to the broader statements addressing gender equality in the 2007-2013

National Rural Development Plan, the 2010 Agricultural and Rural Development

Operative Program (ARDOP) Final Report dedicates more attention to this issue. In evaluating how gender mainstreaming policies were upheld and implemented in the

2004-2006 SAPARD14 program, the report states that even though an equality perspective was supposed to be everywhere, “an enormous amount of things need to be done to establish this in Hungary” (2010, 354). The report also highlights some of the

14 Special Accession Programme for Agriculture and Rural Development 132

gender-biases in the program regarding measures for agricultural equipment. It states that, “Even as the most popular measure, it did not increase employment, additionally, on

the survey there was no response provided regarding how the equipment changed the

family’s situation and how it affected relations between women and men” (2010, 355).

The attention paid here to the gender gap in assets shows a more critical approach to how

interventions affect gender relations, in contrast to the 2007-2013 National Rural

Development Plan. As Ruth Meinzen-Dick et. al (2014) attest, “…without specific

attention to addressing asset inequalities, interventions that promote agricultural growth

are likely to reinforce inequalities, which could ultimately undermine their poverty-

alleviation objectives” (93). However, given the general apathy vis-à-vis gender equality policy within the national ministries responsible for planning (interview 1), the evaluation presented in the SAPARD evaluation seem to have gone unheeded. Yet, continuities also emerge between both documents, as the 2004-2006 SAPARD program also identified women, the Roma, and the disabled among the “disadvantaged” of society (2010, 75).

Although the outcomes of the 2007-2013 program are still being evaluated, the

SAPARD evaluation provides more sex-disaggregated outcomes for specific measures from 2004-2009. Under the measure to support young farmers, among the 324 beneficiaries who successfully started a farm, only 39 (12%) were women. However, because the actual number of successful women beneficiaries came very close to the ex- ante estimate (40 women), this was regarded as a good result (2010, 91). Women’s participation rate of 25% in agricultural training programs also exceeded expectations, which planners had predicted to be 15% (2010, 147-148). However, under measures for economic diversification and job creation, the actual results fell far below the projections.

133

Although it had been estimated that 150 jobs would be filled by women, the results showed that women filled 61 jobs (2010, 189). Regarding rural entrepreneurs, only 36 women established a business through rural development grants (1010, 205). Both the estimations and the actual results of the program raise a number of questions. First, given that the projections for women beneficiaries and participants was drastically lower than men, and considering their official “disadvantaged” status, why then did the 2007-2013 plan not address these disparities? Although Hungarian official policies and programs continue to identify women as “disadvantaged” and even as a “weakness” to fulfilling development goals, measures to ameliorate inequalities have not been formulated, let alone discussed.

The Creation of the Member State Plans

The 2007-2013 New Hungary Rural Development Programme provides an analysis of the economic, environmental, demographic, and social conditions across the country and outlines its strategy of implementing the stated measures. This is achieved primarily through an ex ante impact assessment, which provides quantitative projections of planned measures. While ex-ante evaluations are useful to gauge the potential impact of a program, because they are estimates, they may not accurately represent the results of the final projects (Vidueira et al. 2014, 311). For these reasons, comparisons of ex-ante and post-ante evaluations are critical to understand how program results differ (Sartori and Florio 2010 in Vidueria et al. 2014, 311). The RDPs of each Member State during the 2007-2013 must outline how the three primary EU rural development objectives will be achieved through the corresponding thematic axes. In creating its RDP, Hungary used a combination of secondary data and collaborative methods, which involved the

134

evaluation of the outcomes from the previous programming period, in addition to expert

input. These experts included Managing Authorities, local government representatives,

evaluators, Regional Development Agencies (RDA), and Local Action Groups (LAGs),

among others. To establish impact estimations, these experts came together at 3 to 5 day

meetings, where they followed the required Common Monitoring and Evaluation

Framework (CMEF) benchmarks and historic timelines to formulate the ex-ante

evaluations (Vidueria et al 2014, 320). However, the formulation of these estimations

may also be questionable, as the extent and quality of these meetings during the planning

process were often characterized by a lack of transparency (Cartwright et al. 2006;

interviews 1, 2, 4, 8).

As was said earlier, the consultative powers of the Monitoring Commission (MC)

were significantly curtailed by the Managing Authority (Bátory and Cartwright 2008).

Even though gender equality was supposed to be represented within this body, this

remained a peripheral issue (interview 1). Looking at the balance of women and men on

the MC during the 2007-2013 period, it appears that the gender balance would have made

advocacy unlikely. Even though in 2001 Nemes and Fazekas (2002) suggested that the

EC would require balanced representation between women and men on the MCs, during

this period, among the 108 MC members with voting powers, 79.6% were men (86

members) and 20.4% were women (22 members). However, among the 24 consultative members, there was near equal representation, with 13 men (54.2%) and 11 women

(45.8%). However, as the entire body was essentially stripped of any real influence, the smaller consultative body did not hold much sway. These administrative changes are critical to consider when examining estimations because they demonstrate that this was

135

not a neutral, balanced, nor entirely participatory process in which a gender-sensitive perspective could be effectively integrated.

Growing Women’s Jobs?

The projections regarding job growth in the 2007-2013 NRDP discussed in the previous chapter provide interesting insights into how planners viewed women`s participation. The estimations of the gendered impact on job creation for each measure are not provided uniformly. The measure to promote employment in the non-agricultural sector under Axis III, which includes male and female categories, simply/nevertheless leaves these expected results blank (2014, 338). However, the following measure on the establishment of microenterprises provides sex disaggregated estimates for job creation

(total estimated 4,600), predicting 3,840 jobs for men (83.5%) and 960 (20.9%) for women (395).15 For projects involving tourism activities, women are actually predicted to

experience more job growth than men, with 320 jobs (53.3%), compared to 280 jobs for

men (46.7%) (403). Similarly, under the expected impact of LEADER measures, for

village renewal and development, a total of 150 jobs were expected to be created, which

would result in 50 (33.3%) jobs for men and 100 for women (66.7%) (414). Additionally,

in describing this measure’s relevance to other Operational Programmes (OPs), the report

states, that it “…is connected to the ‘Complex Spatial Cohesion Programme for the

Integrated Development of the Least Developed Micro-Regions’… [and]…contributes to

the creation of equal opportunities” (413). This statement rings hollow, as no specific

description elucidates how this measure—which supports activities involving small-scale

15 The careful reader will note that this does not account for the total percentage, actually coming to 104.4%. Perhaps not mutually exclusive or data entry error. 136 rennovations and landscaping of public areas, the restoration of community buildings, and the construction of children’s playgrounds—will contribute to equal opportunities.

Did planners assume that women would be planting flowers or helping with construction activities? The latter is unlikely, given that few women are employed in the construction sector (Eurostat 2015). Perhaps they assumed the building of a playground would benefit mothers, although how this promotes equal opportunity remains vague. Additionally, the

NRDP provides no explanation for the strikingly higher numbers of predicted jobs for women through this measure when the population and sample data collected for this research reveal otherwise.

Training

In the final part of the 2007-2013 Hungarian RDP on skills acquisition, the proposed targets for Local Action Groups in their training activities is presented under

Axis III (437). Here, the projected numbers of men and women participants stand out.

Under the indicator, Number of participants in actions, the RDP estimates that 60,770

(60.8%) men and 39,230 (39.2%) (100,000 total) women will take part in the proposed trainings (437). Of those who will successfully complete the trainings (90,000 total), the

RDP predicts 55,000 men (61.1%) and 35,000 women (38.9%) (437), closely approximating the ratios of the expected number of participants. While quantifiable results typically carry more value over qualitative, in consideration of the previously mentioned aims to encourage women’s participation in these trainings, there is no mention of precisely how this will be accomplished. What is missing here is an explanation of why fewer women participate in trainings and a thoughtful plan to remedy this problem.

137

Data from the 2004-2013 period show that total participation in education and

training has actually decreased from 9.0% in 2004 to 6.7% in 2013, as shown in Chart

5.1 (Eurostat 2014). Considering that training and capacity building was prioritized in the

2007-2013 program period, this trend at first seems surprising. However, a number of

unknown factors could explain this decreased participation, in addition to the time

specifications16 of the indicator.

CHART 5.1: PARTICIPATION RATE IN EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN RURAL AREAS (LAST 4 WEEKS) (%) SOURCE: EUROSTAT, LAST UPDATE 07/22/2014 Women Men Total

12 9.7 9 10 8.3 7.3 7 8 6.4 6.3 6.9 6.7 6 4 2 0 2004 2009 2013

National Evaluations

In the 2012 Yearly Progress Report of all national rural development programs, in

the one of the last sections, on Equal Opportunity and Social Inclusion, two sentences are

dedicated to equality provisions. First, the report states that “In pursuing equal

opportunity principles, the European Union has turned its attention to reducing the

disadvantages of women, those with impaired working abilities, the Roma, and youth”

(203). Hungary’s 2003 equal opportunity law is then cited. Of interest is that the

16 The specification that limits the indicator to measure “training within the last 4 weeks” could exclude less recent participation in education and training. 138

European Union, and not Hungary is clearly identified as the body that will protect the

equality of individual groups. As Dombos et al. (2007) have described, “Europe’ or

‘Europeanness’ appears as a proxy for a set of normative standards, the manifestation of a

desired social reality” (250). In this way, Hungary may invoke the “moral authority” of

Europe in equal opportunity policies (Dombos et al. 2007, 250). Later, the report identifies the LEADER program as being especially conducive to the inclusion of the usual “disadvantaged” groups, but further descriptions as to how this has actually progressed are not elaborated. Despite being a progress report, no data are provided about how programs have affected “disadvantaged” groups, and again, sex-disaggregated statistics are entirely missing. The 2011 monitoring report for the New Hungary Rural

Development Strategy Plan 2007-2013 does provide one horizontal gender sensitive indicator for equal opportunity support,17 which measures the proportion of women

employed in agriculture. According to the report, using 2004 as the base year, women’s

employment in agriculture increased from 22.9% to 26.1% in 2009, exceeding the target

of 23.2% (2010, 69). This indicator raises a number of questions. First, its categorization

as a horizontal indicator contradicts some of the stated goals of the other axes, namely

expanding employment in the non-agricultural sector under Axis III. Second, although

the indicator is for equal opportunity support, this only measures women’s employment,

as opposed to the other “disadvantaged” groups.

The National Rural Development Strategy 2012-2020, similarly conveys less than

shining assessments of Axis III and IV. This document confirms that the intended effects

of employment creation were relatively small. Additionally, time spent assessing

17 Esélyegyenlóség fenntartása 139 applications for the establishment of microenterprises was especially long in the early years because of the required re-evaluation. As a consequence, this has significantly impaired the effectiveness of the measure (49). The LEADER axis is judged more harshly, namely for an overly-complicated administrative process (which has since been simplified) and lack of effective collaboration with regional bodies. A rural development expert explained how in previous research he conducted in Hungary, communication and coordination problems were not uncommon (interview 8). Describing his experiences, he said:

We’ve seen this in interviews with people who work in regional development who cover

many similar areas, new areas of growth, new support development, diagnosing

potentials. And when you talk to them about whom they work with, they work with the

local Chambers of Commerce, the local municipalities. And then you say, ‘Do you work

with the Local Action Group?’ And they say, ‘No.’ Sometimes they haven’t even heard

of them. And these are the microregional offices and they have very similar mandates -

its territorial based, small-scale, contemplative, cross -sectoral. But I have never come

across strong relations between Local Action Groups and regional development officials.

The report notes that especially in reviewing cases of complex regional projects, although expectations were high, the knowledge of the authorized Local Action Groups was inadequate to fulfill project goals (49). Additionally, in the synthetic summary of an expost evaluation carried out in 2010 by an Austrian company, the monitoring and evaluation practices of the LEADER program were found to be “seriously compromised by systemic weaknesses” (2010, 4). The summary explains how most Local Action

Groups reported that they “had no established systems of structured observation and local development monitoring” (2010, 4). In its recommendations, the evaluation emphasized 140 that in order to effectively build social and human capital, Local Action Groups needed to adopt a systematic monitoring and evaluation approach that would involve “…ongoing reflection and revision” (2010, 4). Although gender was not directly addressed in this summary, it did recommend that the LEADER approach needed further measures to ensure that the needs of “minority groups, disadvantaged or marginalized people” were addressed (2010, 3).

Outside of official monitoring and evaluation reports, the residents in Local

Action Group areas also expressed dissatisfaction with some aspects of the LEADER program. In a satisfaction survey administered by the Innovative Dél -Zala Rural

Development Association, residents recommended that the organization needed to pay more attention to the implementation of local projects (2013, 8). Additionally, residents indicated that the applications needed to be better tailored to individual demands (2013,

7). Overall, the area’s 33 settlements were divided about the quality of development in the area from 2008-2013, with 17 satisfied 17 and 16 dissatisfied settlements (2013, 5).

This split in opinion could reveal divisions between a “project class” of rural development professionals and local residents, possibly signaling a disconnect between how LRDPs and locals define needs and interests (Szőke 2013). Although all Local

Action Groups hold regular forums for locals to express their concerns, this research did not find similar forums expressly for women’s needs and interests.

New Hungary National Development Plan 2012-2020

Reports on Hungary’s progress in terms of its National Development Plan (New

Hungary Development Plan) reveal additional information relevant to the impact of

RDPs on gender. In Hungary’s National Strategic Report to the European Commission

141

(No. 1083/2006), submitted in September 2009, the report lists planned output indicators

aggregated from the project level, among which, under employment, is the number of jobs

created for women (estimated 2,299). This marks another rare appearance of a gender-

sensitive indicator in official documents (as opposed to a sex-disaggregated statistic), and yet, such indicators have been largely absent from national rural development plans.18

In evaluating the success of integrating the previously described horizontal

objectives in the Regional Operational Programme (ROP), the report criticizes the lack of

equal opportunity assurance in projects (2009, 34), stating that “…ensuring equal

opportunities and environmental sustainability were in practically none of the projects

[as] essential driving forces, and were instead considered only as a mandatory task to be

performed” (34). This signals one of the first occasions in which an official document has

conveyed a sense of awareness of the typically glib manner in which equal opportunity

objectives are addressed in policy documents and project implementation. The report

goes on to describe that although the applications complied with mandatory EU and

Hungarian equal opportunity policies, they “…achieved only slight success in raising the

awareness of applicants and encouraging them to identify the problems in connection

with equal opportunities and find solutions” (34). Finally, the report makes a key

assessment of data collection limitations in relation to measuring the effects on equal

opportunity. In fact, it says that determining any effect is “hardly possible, and can be

made rather only with estimates, because equal opportunities impact analyses were not

conducted in the course of planning, the majority of project managers could not provide

18 Instead, the RDPs present the gross number of jobs created for the estimated output of the respective indicator, which is not always disaggregated by sex. 142

information that can be used for objective measurement effects” (34). Although this at

first seems to be a thoughtful recognition of the ramifications of poor data collection

methods, the recommendation section makes no suggestions about how ROP projects

should examine equal opportunity outcomes. Specialized project managers are

recommended to help prioritize the enforcement of horizontal objectives, yet only those

with suitable qualifications in environmental protection and sustainability are referred to

(35). Even though the report earlier stressed the weakness of equal opportunity

perspectives at both the administrative and project level, it does not suggest hiring project

managers experienced in equal opportunity policies. Also of interest here is the lack of

specificity when discussing equal opportunity. In contrast to other documents, women

and other “disadvantaged” groups are not identified, nor is equal opportunity fully

defined in the report. Tamás Dombos et al. (2007) have described such framing as

degendered equal opportunities, in which “no specificity of gender inequalities is

identified” (238).

In the best practices section outlining measures to remedy regional and territorial

disadvantages (99), the intervention, decentralised programmes for the employment of

disadvantaged people, which was set to run from 2007 – 2013, provides both expected

and current results of vocational training programs19 (101). In contrast to the RDP

measures, more detailed information about the project objectives, activities, and context

is provided. And although the estimated and actual numbers of participants are not

disaggregated by sex, the program demonstrates relatively more evidence of a gender

19 The beneficiaries of this funding were seven regional employment centers and the Ministry of Social Affairs and Labour (2012, 101). 143

aware approach. In support of the project activities, daycare, nursing, and travel

accommodation were offered to participants (101), demonstrating more conscientious

planning toward mothers who otherwise may not have been able to enroll to the program

due to care obligations and travel expenses. In contrast, despite its descriptions of

women’s “disadvantages,” the National Plan for Rural Development never addressed how women with children would be accommodated to participate in trainings.

EU Evaluations

Considering the power-struggles and disorder that has dominated much of rural

development programming, measuring the progress and impact has been difficult. Not

only in Hungary but across the EU-27 data limitations have posed one of the biggest problems in this endeavor. The Statistical and Economic Information Report (EC 2012) addresses these data limitations, particularly noting the lack of variables for certain indicators, insufficient geographical/regional data, and ongoing difficulties of clearly reporting on program implementation due to the different funding sources used in the past (14).20 Additionally, the report (2012) explains how the measures of different axes

faced challenging time constraints that impeded project implementation. Especially for

Axis IV, the report states that, “…the selection of Local Action Groups also takes time

before actual project implementation and financial execution can start” (299).

To create employment opportunities within the aims of Axis III, the report echoes the 2006 European Council document, stating that this is especially important for women

20 When the necessary variables could not be found in EU databases, proxy variables and models were used; however, the report cites that these could only provide rough estimates of actual values. Because territorial units have changed – in 2006 and again, in 2010 – it is more difficult to collect reliable/accurate time series data. The various reforms of European funds to rural development have also complicated the precise measurement of program impacts (EC DGAGRI 2012, 14). 144

and young people (2012, 291). Beyond the requisite demographic statistics concerning

rural populations, the share of labor in agriculture, and holding ownership structure,

descriptions of the impact on gender relations within the framework of these plans are

missing. Moreover, any mention of equal opportunity objectives appears to be completely

absent in the nearly 400-page report.

The report found that between 2004-2009 in NUTS 3 regions,21 while the

percentage of employees in the non-agricultural sector in rural areas increased in most

EU countries, Hungary demonstrated the largest decrease at -0.2 million employees

(precisely 232,800 thousand employees, Table 80, 246) at a rate of -3.0% (EC DGAGRI

2012, 245). This could possibly suggest that those affected by the economic crisis entered

agricultural sectors as a result of job losses in other sectors or perhaps as supplementary

income.

Regarding educational attainment, in 2011 74.4% of adults in thinly populated

areas in Hungary had medium to high levels of educational attainment,22 showing a

positive increase of 2.8% from 2007 to 2011 (EC DGAGRI 2012, Table 92, 276).

However, as described earlier, lifelong learning participation has decreased in Hungary.

Between 2007 and 2011, the percentage of adults in rural areas who had participated in

life-long learning programs decreased at an average rate of 0.5% (EC DG AGRI 2012,

Table 93, 280).

21 This refers to the county level in Hungary. 22 Medium to high levels of education attainment mean at least upper-secondary education has been completed (EC DGAGRI 2012, 274). 145

According to the final Synthesis of Mid-Term Evaluations of Rural Development

Programmes 2007-2013 (2012), overall, the impacts in Hungary could still not be accurately measured at the mid-term point,23 in large part because of the previously mentioned data limitations (2012, 60). The report elaborates on these calculations, explaining that:

…for most of the MTE [Mid-Term Evaluation], the calculation of impacts upon growth

and jobs is not made for the whole programme (including all axes and measures); rather,

it is assessed for the programme on the basis of calculated values for only those specific

measures which are intended to have a positive economic impact [e.g. job creation] and

for which sufficient expenditure data, or beneficiary sample for survey, exist. Thus, if

other measures in the programme are having a positive or negative impact upon growth

or jobs, this has not been recorded or considered. This means that the calculated impacts

are really just measure-impacts and cover largely measures in Axes 1 and 3, in most

cases” (61).

From a methodological perspective, this implies that the majority of RDPs did not consider the effects of other measures both on the intended outcome (e.g. economic growth, jobs, and completed trainings) as well as possible interactions with the specific measure they were focusing on. For example, if the outcome was to create more jobs in the non-agricultural sector (Axis III and IV), and the explanatory measure of interest was the establishment of microenterprises, then the MTE, according to this report, would only examine this measure, without holding constant other measures, such as participation in training and vocational programs, that could also explain this outcome. For these reasons,

23 The report notes that the results were still too early to show for Hungary. 146

the impact on employment creation is difficult to accurately assess, and while more MTE

reports showed modest positive impacts on employment rather than no or little impact, in

the case of Hungary, the MTE actually demonstrated large negative impacts (losing an

estimated 5,000 jobs). The report explains that this could be explained by the agricultural

modernization measures in Axis I; however, when accounting for the positive impacts of

other measures, the net jobs loss is not as large, resulting in a total loss of 1,800 jobs

(2012, 57). Despite these calculations, the total figures are unreliable as accurate

measures of the RDP, as some of the impact data include jobs that were retained (2012,

57). The negative job loss seems surprising, as this is one of the chief goals of the

Hungarian RDP; however, as explained, this does not imply that this was the direct effect

of the RDP, rather, unaccounted, exogenous factors [larger structural forces] likely

affected these results.

Another interesting point the report highlights is the significant variation in

coordination between RDPs and other “support instruments.”24 Hungary is among several

other countries that showed little coordination between relevant Ministry groups and

third-party actors, such as experts from particular agencies, agricultural organizations,

NGOs, etc. (2012, 82). From the analysis of RDP rhetoric, particularly with LEADER,

the lack of coordination at first seems unexpected. However, considering the immense

bureaucratic structure of Hungarian agricultural and rural development at multiple levels,

coordination problems seem less surprising. Additionally, the accounts of abuses of

24 Broadly, support instruments may include subcommittees or Advisory Committees within the Ministry of Agriculture and/or the Ministry of Rural Development. Centralized, high-level support instruments may also involve the common strategy, managing authority, and administrative body responsible for coordination (2012, 82). 147

power within LEADER organizations and rural development bodies as a whole may have

hindered effective and transparent administration (Finta 2013; interviews 1, 4).

Reflections, Lessons Learned, and Future Planning

The European Network for Rural Development (ENRD) website provides

information on National Rural Network (NRN) self-assessment profiles and tools, which could provide insights into how Member States evaluate their own programs. Such self- assessments from Hungary are notably missing.25 However, LEADER focus group

reports provide a way to analyze how the program is evaluating its approach. Despite the

focus on implementing LEADER’s bottom-up approach, the report of one focus group meeting gave no mention to integrating gender equality principles (2010). Similarly, in another focus group that Hungary participated in, the report, which concentrated on

“preserving the innovative character of LEADER,” does not address gender (2011).

These reports demonstrate a common contradiction in official reports, innovative community development without community members. That is, “innovation” and

“community-led local development” are not discussed with the specific needs of different

community members. Rather, these empty buzzwords are invoked, divorced from the

local community they are supposed to serve.

Future Plans

Although the 2014-2020 NRDP has not yet been finalized, public discourse about

the program, expresses grand promises of equality and inclusion. In Brussels on August

25 However, it should be noted that currently only 16 Member States present self- assessment profiles of their National Rural Networks (NRN). 148

29, 2014, Andor László, the Commissioner of employment, social affairs, and social

inclusion declared:

Hungary needs to fully use the European Structural and Investment Funds, keeping in

mind the Europe 2020 Strategy’s objectives, among which – is the fight against poverty.

According to our expectations, EU support will help with the establishment of an

investment-friendly environment, the formation of sustainable economic activity, and the

creation of an inclusive society. In these efforts, human capital investment taking place

through education and training, job-search support, social services, and the integration of

disadvantaged people is of crucial importance, so that in Hungary there should be

opportunities for everyone to utilize their capabilities and skills to receive these benefits

in a fair way to contribute to prosperity.

Despite the lofty rhetoric of inclusion, equality, and shared prosperity, the research has

shown that gender is still missing. At the higher levels of government, very little attention

has been paid to gender mainstreaming policies anywhere – least of all in rural

development programs. At the EU level as well, only a few reports have been presented

to the European Parliament that call for required sex-disaggregated data, gender sensitive indicators, and gender analyses.26 The Hungarian evaluations of the impact on gender

have also been weak. Despite the problems indicated in some national documents, in

addition to criticisms from advisory bodies, notably the CEDAW Committee in

Hungary,27 the national government has not prioritized the livelihoods of most of its

citizens.

26 See Advisory Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men. Opinion on Gender Equality in the Cohesion Policy 2014-2020 (2013). 27 See Concluding Observations on the combined seventh and eighth periodic reports of Hungary adopted by the Committee at its fifty fourth session (11 February – 1 March 2013). 149

Chapter 6: Discussion, Best Practices, and Recommendations

Gender mainstreaming has yet to be an established and salient policy in

Hungarian rural development. The reasons for this lack of attention and enforcement are

diverse. In this chapter, I provide a holistic interpretation of the research results to identify some of the main reasons for missing gender equality policy in Hungarian rural development programs. After discussing these factors, I identify a few best practices found in this research that have the potential to promote gender-sensitive planning in

future rural development programs and projects. Based on the research results, I outline

concrete recommendations that could encourage the integration of gender equality

principles into development policy and programs. I have tailored recommendations that

could potentially contribute to rural women’s leadership, education, work, and

entrepreneurship.

Factors Influencing the Lack of Gender Mainstreaming Policies

Weak Policies

This research has demonstrated that Hungary has not simply neglected or

diverged from an international norm. This is not a “dialogue of the deaf” in which the EU

and Hungary are destined to disharmony (Kovács 2006). Rather, the dynamics observed

among diverse actors in multilevel governance reveal varying conceptions and

constructions of gender equality policy. In the case of Local Action Groups, the research

observed that in places where women’s leadership was stronger, more attention seemed

to be given to the specific gender needs of local residents. This conscientiousness was

reflected in local policies that addressed the different challenges rural women face in

150

terms of educational, work, and entrepreneurship opportunities. However, even when

local plans paid particular attention to these needs, concrete measures and indicators were

absent. Beyond demographic information, rarely were sex-disaggregated data available.

Although national documents presented relatively more sex-disaggregated statistics in various monitoring and evaluation reports, this was not done consistently for every measure and intervention. Because the collection of sex-disaggregated data was not required by the Commission, Hungarian policies rarely presented this information. In turn, mid-term evaluations and monitoring documents have very little to report about how the programs impacted gender. Indeed, it remains ambivalent if the 2007-2013 programming period even had any effect on job creation or participation in education.

Moreover, even the experts and rural development professionals interviewed for this research cannot be sure about how programs have affected women and men because this was never prioritized. Following the EU’s example, Hungary presents “results” in money spent and grants awarded.

While acknowledging the tensions implicated in negotiating and translating policies and norms, the EU has still played an important role in how Member States formulate policy. However, in rural development, the EU itself does not appear to uphold its own formalized policies of gender mainstreaming. In fact, as this research described, select Hungarian texts gave more thought to gender equality principles in development policies. This is not to say that these very few examples were ideal, but critically, using the language of the EU, they expressed some of the core tenets of gender mainstreaming policies. Although gender equality has become weaker in Hungary since 2010, even in rural development policy, there are voices who support stronger policies to ensure

151

equality between women and men. Most recently, Gabriella Pócsi and Judit Rácz

published an article in the publication, Hungarian Rural Mosaic, calling for the

integration of gender in all aspects of rural development policy, programs, projects, and

monitoring and evaluations (2014). This marks one of the first, if not the first instance in

which domestic rural development actors have advocated for a gender-integrated approach in rural development.

At the EU level, the Advisory Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and

Men has recommended to the European Parliament a number of measures that call for the mandatory collection of sex-disaggregated data, the creation of gender-sensitive indicators in multiple areas of rural development, and the promotion of women’s leadership and education.1 The opinion points out that “There has been no gender

analysis undertaken in many of the other thematic objectives. These thematic priorities

encompass areas in which there are persisting and serious gender inequalities” (7). To

address the lack of gender-sensitive planning across different development objectives, the

opinion recommends that each Member State carry out a Gender Impact Assessment (7).

However, while emphasizing that rural development policies need to actively integrate

gender mainstreaming principles and practices, as an opinion, it carries no binding force.

In comparison to the common regulations and “detailed” rules set down in 2005

and 2006 by the Commission, the 2013 regulations for use of the European Structural

Funds indicate relatively more detailed mandates. Under the section, Promotion of

equality between women and men and non-discrimination, the regulation states that

1 Opinion on Gender Equality in the Cohesion Policy 2014-220. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender- equality/files/opinions_advisory_committee/opinion_on_gender_equality_in_the_cohesion_policy_2014- 2020_en.pdf. 152 gender equality should be pursued and protected at all stages. In contrast to earlier versions, it also states that “Member States shall also carry out gender analyses where appropriate. In particular, specific targeted actions shall be supported through the ESF”

(EU 1303/2013). Although the stipulation of an “optional” gender analysis “when appropriate” continues to contradict gender mainstreaming principles, in comparison to earlier versions, this shows signs of improvement. More attention is also given to the roles of the Managing Authorities and Monitoring Commissions, which “…shall undertake evaluations or self-assessment exercises in coordination with the monitoring committees, focusing on the application of the gender mainstreaming principle” (EU

1303/2013). Even though this provision seems to put forward a stronger stance on monitoring activities and coordination, in Hungary this could be particularly problematic.

Given the power struggles described earlier between these two bodies, as well as the lack of any discussion regarding gender issues, closer collaboration between seems unlikely.

Moreover, thoughtful discussions and “self-assessments” explicitly on gender equality seem highly doubtful. As evidenced in the research, gender equality lack grassroots advocacy, and at the state level, gender issues are among the most peripheral at best, and at worst, completely nonexistent.

Political Will and Communication

Given the weakness of the policies described at all levels, in Hungary, there has been little political will to actively implement gender mainstreaming policies in any policy field. Despite the increasing differentiation between agricultural and rural development policies, the male-bias that has dominated agricultural policy still has a strong influence over rural development policies. Moreover, the research demonstrated

153

that generally, gender equality policies have not been salient in Hungarian society. In

addition to the disappearance of autonomous national gender machineries, the

appointment of a special commissioner for women’s employment has been seen as an

empty symbol by gender equality advocates. According to a report from the Hungarian

Women’s Lobby (HWL) and the European Roma Rights Centre (ERRC), the report

issued by this “special commissioner” (2013), “does not refer to the issue of gender

equality at all, which further indicates that her appointment is not related to the economic

equality of men and women” (6). Indeed, by selectively manipulating data,2 the report conveys an optimistic view of women’s employment that even recommends measures to encourage further employment in care sectors (HWL and ERRC 2013, 6). This demonstrates that this office is not only an empty symbol, but a distorted one. Even though silence typically rules in gender equality measures, such gross misrepresentations ignore the labor rights of rural and urban women alike. Considering the manner in which gender equality is treated within the explicit context of women’s labor, in rural development, the chances for an honest discussion of gender among national authorities appear bleak. Although the lack of political will has been expressed from both women and men working in rural development, the women interviewed for this research have demonstrated their openness to initiating a gender-sensitive approach.

Lack of Women’s Leadership in Rural Development Decision-Making

Leadership matters. The often missing leadership of women in rural development

organizations has hindered advocacy for gender equality issues. Despite the majority of

2 The HWL and ERRC report criticizes the commissioner’s report misrepresents data on women’s employment in comparison to other EU countries and not in comparison to men’s employment in Hungary. 154

women who do the lion’s share of the work in program administration and management,

the leadership bodies responsible for program design and planning are predominantly

men. This has been to the detriment of women beneficiaries, whose needs and interests

go unserved by male-biased policies (Prügl 2012; Prügl 2009; Hoskyns 1996). The

research has shown that even among leadership bodies in rural development, women

have less influence. Moreover, the kind of self-serving, corrupt leadership that tends to

dominate in Hungary has created an environment that may exclude women within these

bodies and discourage those outside from entering.

Indeed, the leadership both in rural development organizations and local

government has been criticized for its corruption (Finta 2013; Rácz 2013). Kulcsár (2010;

interview 4) argues that such patterns illustrate the coexistence of two contradictory

cultures in Hungary, which through their interactions, have affected processes of social

and economic modernization. This can be described by weak civil society, patron-client

relations, political corruption, and a strong reliance on informal networks. Although some women have exercised considerable autonomy and have achieved success through their informal networks (Szalai 2000; 1998), the processes described here have often been controlled by men for political and financial gain. Because of this endemic corruption, women have often expressed a disdain for political office and may be discouraged from pursuing leadership positions. However, considering that research has shown that women leaders tend to benefit the entire community by providing better services and effective management (Szalai 1995; 1998 page 200, Timár 2004; Rácz 2013; IFAD 2012) women’s absence from decision making deters the realization of rural development goals.

Although more women in leadership positions could provide a wider space for gender to

155 be discussed, quantitative changes alone are not enough. Transformative cultural change must occur that challenges the notion that politics and public office fall largely under men’s domain.

Administrative Cultures

In Hungary’s system of ‘centralized decentralization,’ (Cartwright and Kovács

2007) political favors and organizational in-fighting have been a few of the factors that have been detrimental to the meaningful consideration of gender issues in rural development policies and programs. The various organizations responsible for different aspects of administration, planning, and implementation often seem more immersed in power struggles and bureaucratic dysfunction to fully consider the disparities between rural women and men presented in this research. As evidenced by the 2004-2006 programming period, the most disadvantaged, peripheral areas were excluded from funds because of contradictory programming administration schemes (Szőke 2013; Kovács and

Váradi 2013; Finta 2013; Kovács 2010). This disorder effectively ignored the urgent needs of the country’s poorest women and men (Kovács and Váradi 2013; Váradi 2013;

Bock 2010, 22).

Structural and Normative Factors

The absence of a strong gender equality agenda in rural development policies and programs was often attributed to cultural attitudes and stereotypes. This research has shown that it is not culture alone that causes inequalities and discrimination. Rather, the interactions between structural factors and cultural norms contribute to women’s lower wages, diminished leadership, and higher vulnerability to poverty. The contradictions that

156 emerged from this research also point to these interactions. Women have been described as having a traditional caregiving, maternal role in the family, which is much stronger in rural, agrarian-based regions. However, it is not only a cultural norm or tradition that prescribes women to stay at home. Many mothers in rural areas face nearly impossible challenges to pursue formal work because of transportation schedules, non-existent childcare facilities, and discrimination from employers, to only name a few. Therefore, it is a gross misunderstanding to claim that cultural norms relegate rural women to traditional domestic roles when very concrete factors also prevent women’s full participation in economic and public life.

Best Practices & Prospects for Gender Mainstreaming in Rural Development

Despite the challenges described in integrating gender mainstreaming principles in Hungarian rural development programs, progress is being made to prioritize this issue at a grassroots level. Although very few projects expressly for women have targeted vocational training, the awareness of this need is spreading. Through the advocacy of

Local Action Group leaders, gender equality could become a more important issue. The networks developed through the LEADER program, especially through international collaboration, could lead to more changes in policy making and program design.

LEADER programs in Spain and in neighboring Austria were described as having prioritized gender equality in all of their programs, and through this network and sharing of experiences, this could possibly become adopted in Hungary (interviews 2, 3).

157

Nálunk Nem Project

The Nálunk Nem project was initiated by sociologist György Csepeli and Judit

Rácz to fight discrimination against Roma in towns and villages across Hungary.

Modeled after the American Not-in-Our-Town program, the project has organized

“circles of tolerance,” (tolerancia körei) in different villages to prevent hate speech, intolerance, and prejudice (interview 2). This program has the potential to expand to gender equality advocacy by demonstrating how gender stereotypes perpetuate social and

economic inequalities.

AAUW and Alcoa

Although few trainings have targeted women’s labor market skills, a joint project

between the American Association for University Women (AAUW) in Washington, DC

and Alcoa Hungary has been initiated that encourages middle and high school aged girls

to study STEM fields (interviews 13, 14). The project, which was launched in

Székesfehérvár in Central Hungary, has expanded to schools across the country in both

urban and rural areas. With the partnership of two Hungarian NGOs that work to promote

women in science, this program aims to counter negative perceptions of girls and

women’s abilities in STEM subjects through confidence-building activities, mentorship, and a toolkit that will help prepare them for STEM studies (interview 14). Considering that fewer women work in STEM fields in Hungary and that the EU aims to increase women’s participation in STEM fields, similar projects could be adopted by rural development organizations. Such programs have the possibility to encourage positive self-perceptions in these fields from a younger age and may possibly result in a larger representation of women in this field. With such partnerships that recognize the need to

158 encourage future women engineers, and making the investment to do so, fulfills the need to support women’s educational and work opportunities.

Recommendations

Here, I present recommendations that have been inspired by this research and that could encourage more robust measures to incorporate gender mainstreaming principles in

Hungarian rural development policies and programs.

Policies and Program Administration

• The Commission needs to make the collection of sex-disaggregated data a

requirement for every Member State’s National Rural Development Plan and

should have mechanisms in place at the EU and national level to monitor proper

data collection.

• Similarly, gender-sensitive indicators need to be created for every measure in

national and local RDPs. This process should take place domestically, with the

meaningful and transparent participation of stakeholders at all levels. Experts in

gender equality policy, development, and monitoring and evaluation should play

key, consultative roles in developing the indicators and training program staff.

The FAO Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia (REU), which is located

in Budapest, could play an especially important part in training program and

project administrators at all levels about how to develop and apply gender-

sensitive indictors. The REU Gender Team has created a preliminary set of

essential gender-sensitive indicators for agriculture (Tayyib et al. 2012) that

159

could be appropriate for Hungarian rural development programs.3 As the REU

has previously consulted with national ministries (interview 12), this could

perhaps allow for smoother collaboration, as opposed to an EU-appointed

consultative body. Although the national gender-sensitive indicators could serve

as a general framework, regional and local rural development organizations

should also be given the autonomy to create gender-sensitive indicators specific

to the needs of their communities.

• Gender trainings should be offered regularly to rural development administrators

and operational managers.

• The gender analysis should be made a part of every rural development program

and should be carried out at least once during the planning stages. Ideally, the

gender analysis would be an ongoing process. This should be conducted through

continued consultations with local stakeholders whose recommendations, needs

and interests must be carefully protected.

• The EU should give more authority to the Monitoring Commission and checks

should be put in place to prevent conflicts of interest in this body as well as in the

Managing Authority.

Leadership & Participation

• Rural development policies should also seek to actively promote women’s

leadership. Although mandatory quotas might be met with opposition and may not

improve the influence among women leaders, given the number of women already

3 See Appendix for excerpt of FAO gender-sensitive indicators table. 160

present, a critical mass in decision-making bodies could encourage gender-

integrated planning.

• Local Action Groups should organize meetings with women in their communities

on a regular basis so that their interests and concerns are duly considered.

Moreover, planning should become more participatory so that the distinct gender

needs will be represented in projects and activities.

• Local Action Groups could also encourage the establishment of a Gender Equality

Advisory Committee among the community. Such an organization could be

responsible for ensuring that women and men’s interest are being upheld through

all stages of the program.

Education, Training, Employment & Entrepreneurship

• The gender analysis should also include an education and training needs

assessment. Trainings need to be held at times when women will be able to

participate and transportation should also be provided to make them more

accessible.

• To encourage employment, the EU and Hungarian government could provide

grants to companies to train women in men in rural areas. Such programs could

possibly be incentivized through tax breaks.

• Local Action Groups should promote women’s entrepreneurship through ongoing

trainings. Because international collaboration is going to be prioritized in the

2014-2020 programming period, the LEADER network could encourage trade

through international partners. Local products that perhaps now are only sold

161

domestically could reach other EU markets. Such measures could foster the

creation of an international rural network of women entrepreneurs.

• Stronger relationships between Local Action Groups and marketing professionals

could help rural entrepreneurs reach a wider customer base.

• Rural development organizations could forge partnerships with Hungary’s

growing class of visual artists and designers to create folk-inspired products that

may appeal to a wider customer-base.

• The international partnerships formed among Local Action Groups could provide

Hungarian entrepreneurs with a larger customer base. Local agricultural products

and crafts could reach Western European markets, potentially resulting in higher

revenues for rural entrepreneurs.

Future Research

• To be able to formulate better policies about how rural development programs

affect gender, the EU needs to fund comprehensive, long-term research projects

across Member States.

• In the vein of the QUING and MAGEEQ projects,4 rural development policies

need to be thoroughly analyzed and mapped to see how gender equality is being

translated into Member States’ national plans. This would allow for a better

understanding of how women’s practical and strategic needs are being addressed

by policymakers.

4 Quality of Gender+ Equality Policies in Europe (QUING) and Policy Frames and Implementation Problems: the Case of Gender Mainstreaming (MAGEEQ) 162

• Research should be conducted on the effects of training and educational programs

offered through Hungarian rural development programs to see how these have

supported women and men’s employment and education.

• More research needs to be conducted on the experiences of local women leaders.

This should not only include elected officials, but those who have taken on active

roles in the community, perhaps on a voluntary basis.

• More broadly, policy makers need a better understanding of how rural

development programs affect beneficiaries. Large sample, quantitative and

qualitative research on how programs affect grant beneficiaries would contribute

to policies more aligned with individuals’ needs.

In Hungarian rural development, gender mainstreaming has been translated into an environment with contradictory equality policies – one of sameness and one of difference. These approaches interact in policy documents. Hungary’s universal equal opportunity approach often ignores rural women’s needs; yet, when women are recognized in texts, they are framed by their difference, their “disadvantage.” However, beyond being granted an extra point in the application process, concrete measures to rectify the inequalities rural women face are largely absent. Despite the disparities this research has illustrated, policies have not expressed a contemplative, thorough approach to these ongoing problems. Rather, when rural women are mentioned, they are often described as undereducated, and underemployed. Yet, specific programs for rural women to promote quality training that would lead to better job opportunities appear to be missing. Grants for microenterprises and agro-tourism have been zealously promoted by the EU and the Hungarian government alike, but without real thought to women’s unpaid

163

labor and the gender gap in assets. And within rural development organizations, the many

women who demonstrate the most leadership through their dedication to their

communities often have the least influence and decision-making power. Effectively,

those who are “disadvantaged” in policy rhetoric, are overlooked in practice.

However, the women interviewed for this research did not perceive themselves to

be disadvantaged and felt this was a disempowering qualification. Some believed that the

opportunities for women to build a career and to pursue their goals are widely available.

Although the data demonstrated that these opportunities are not always equal, and that

persistent discrimination against women may hinder the fulfillment of these goals,

women did not feel that their sex made them inherently disadvantaged. Indeed, on the

national level, it seems strange to characterize the more educated half of the population as a “disadvantaged” group. Stranger yet, if the Hungarian government truly perceives women as disadvantaged, then why are policies in place that discourage women’s employment, that perpetuate sex-based discrimination, and that largely disregard gender equality principles? If women are truly “disadvantaged,” then why are policies that have the potential to empower them largely missing? Although prospects for stronger gender policies in Hungary may appear bleak, this research has demonstrated that EU gender equality norms have resonated with women who are in a position to make this a more salient issue in their communities. Through the ongoing translation of gender equality in rural development, women’s increased civic participation could very well create more room for growth.

164

Bibliography

Abels, Gabriele, and Joyce Marie Mushaben. 2012. “Introduction.” In Gendering the European Union: New Approaches to Old Democratic Deficits, edited by Gabriele Abels and Joyce Marie Mushaben, 1–22. Palgrave Macmillan.

Adamik Maria. 1993. “Feminism and Hungary.” In Gender Politics and Post- Communism: Reflections from Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, by Nanette Funk and Magda Mueller, 207–23. New York: Routledge.

Advisory Committee on Equal Opportunities for Women and Men. 2013. “Opinion on Gender Equality in the Cohesion Policy 2014-2020.” http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender- equality/files/opinions_advisory_committee/opinion_on_gender_equality_in_the_ cohesion_policy_2014-2020_en.pdf.

Alsó Tisza Association for Rural Development. 2013. “Local Rural Development Plan.” http://www.also- tiszavidek.hu/docs/atvfe_helyi_videkfejlesztesi_strategia2013.pdf.

Association for Women’s Career Development in Hungary [Magyar Női Karrierfejlesztési Szövetség]. 2013. “Women for Sustainable Development – Women’s Role in Rural Development Conference.” http://www.noikarrier.hu/files/tajekoztato121124.pdf.

Asztalos Morell, Ildikó. 1999. 46. “Emancipation’s Dead-End Road? Studies in the Formation and Development of the Hungarian Model for Agriculture and Gender (1956-1989).” In Acta Universitatis Uppsaliensis, Sutdia Sociologica Uppsaliensia. Stockholm: Elanders Gotab.

———. 2007. “Between Harmony and Conflicting Interests: Gendered Marital Negotiations in Hungarian Post-Socialist Farm Family Enterprises.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies 38 (3): 435 – XI.

Asztalos Morell, Ildikó and Berit Brandth. 2007. “Family and Gender in the Transformation of the Countryside.” Journal of Comparative Family Studies 38 (3): 371 – IX.

Avdeyeva, Olga. 2010. “States’ Compliance with International Requirements: Gender Equality in EU Enlargement Countries.” Political Research Quarterly 63 (1): 203–17.

Bacchi, C. 1999. Women, Policy and Politics: The Construction of Policy Problems. London: Sage.

165

Batory, Ágnes, and Andrew Cartwright. 2008. “Monitoring EU Spending in Hungary.” In Monitoring Development Series. Vol. 1. Budapest: Central European University, Center for Policy Studies. https://cps.ceu.edu/sites/default/files/publications/batory-cartwright-monitoring- euspending-working-paper.pdf.

Bettio, Francesca, Marcella Corsi, Carlo D’Ippoliti, Antigone Lyberaki, Manuela Samek Lodovici, and Alina Verashchagina. 2012. The Impact of the Economic Crisis on the Situation of Women and Men and on Gender Equality Policies. European Commission Synthesis Report. Brussels.

Beveridge, Fiona. 2012. “Soft and Hard Measures in EU Gender Law and Policy.” In The Europeanization of Gender Equality Policies: A Discursive-Sociological Approach, edited by Maxime Forest and Emanuela Lombardo, 28–48. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Bock, Bettina. 2006. “Introduction.” In Rural Gender Relations: Issues and Case Studies, edited by Bettina Bock and Sally Shortall. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.

Bock, Bettina. 2010. Personal and Social Development of Women in Rural Areas of Europe, Note. European Parliament. Directorate General for Internal Policies. Policy Department B: Structural and Cohesion Policies. Agriculture and Rural Development. Brussels.

Bock, Bettina, and Petra Derkzen. 2006. “Gender and Rural Development Budgets.” In Rural Gender Relations: Issues and Case Studies, edited by Bettina Bock and Sally Shortall. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.

Booth, Christine, and Cinnamon Bennet. 2002. “Gender Mainstreaming in the European Union.” European Union of Women’s Studies 9 (4): 430–46.

Boserup, E. 1970. Woman’s Role in Economic Development. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Brown, David L., and László Kulcsár. 2001. “Household Economic Behavior in Post- Socialist Rural Hungary.” Rural Sociology 66 (2): 167–80.

Bruno, Isabelle, Sophie Jacquot, and Lou Mandin. 2006. “Europeanization through Its Instrumentation: Benchmarking, Mainstreaming and the Open Method of Coordination. Toolbox or Pandora’s Box?” Journal of European Public Policy 13 (4): 519–36.

166

Buzogány, Aron. 2012. “Swimming against the Tide: Contested Norms and Antidiscrimination Advocacy in Central and Eastern Europe.” In The Europeanization of Gender Equality Policies: A Discursive-Sociological Approach, edited by Maxime Forest and Emanuela Lombardo, 145–67. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Cartwright, Andrew. 2007. “Social Network Analysis of Regional Policy Making in the Northern Great Plain Region of Hungary.” http://cps.ceu.edu/sites/default/files/publications/cps-research-report-social- network-analysis-northern-great-plain-2007.pdf.

Cartwright, Andrew, and Katalin Kovács. 2007. “Controlled Decentralization. Local, Regional, and Central Power in the Making of Hungarian Regional Development Policy.” http://cps.ceu.edu/sites/default/files/publications/cps-working-paper- controlled-decentralization-2007.pdf.

Cartwright, Andrew, Katalin Kovács, Endre Sik, Marton Kemeny, and Johanna Giczi. 2006. “Social Capital, Regional Development, and Europeanization in Hungary. A Literature Review.” http://cps.ceu.edu/sites/default/files/publications/cps- research-report-soccoh-literature-review-2006.pdf.

Chant, Sylvia, and Caroline Sweetman. 2012. “Fixing Women or Fixing the World? ‘Smart Economics,’ Efficiency Approaches, and Gender Equality in Development.” Gender and Development 20 (3): 517–29.

Cockburn, Cynthia. 1991. In the Way of Women: Men’s Resistance to Sex Equality in Organisations. Basingstoke: Macmillian.

Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. United Nations. 2013. Concluding Observations on the combined seventh and eighth periodic reports of Hungary adopted by the Committee at its fifty fourth session (11 February – 1 March 2013).

Cornwall, Andrea. 2000. Making a Difference? Gender and Participatory Development. IDS Discussion Paper 378. Institute of Development Studies, Brighton.

Council of the European Union. 2005. “COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on Support for Rural Development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD).” http://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex:32005R1698.

Crenshaw, Kimberlé Williams. 1989. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Anti-Discrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics.” University of Chicago Legal Forum, 139–67.

167

Csáki, Csaba. 2009. “Global, Regional, and Local Challenges in Hungarian Agriculture.” Society and Economy 31 (1): 45–70.

Daly, Mary. 2005. “Gender Mainstreaming in Theory and Practice.” Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society 12 (3): 433–50.

Dél-Borsodi Rural Development Organization. 2011. “2011 Local Action Plan.” http://www.dble.hu/images/stories/hirek/2011/hvs/HVS2012_0808.pdf.

———. 2013. “Tagok [Members].” http://www.dble.hu/images/stories/hirek/2013/tagok.pdf.

———. n.d. “Elnökség [Presidency].” http://www.dble.hu/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4&Itemid =54.

Dey de Pryck, Jennie, and Paola Termine. 2014. “Gender Inequalities in Rural Labor Markets.” In Gender in Agriculture: Closing the Knowledge Gap, edited by Agnes R. Quisumbing, Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Terri L. Raney, André Croppenstedt, Julia A. Behrman, and Amber Peterman, 343–70. Dordrecht: FAO Springer.

“DG AGRI Elaboration from Eurostat Data in Women in EU Agriculture and Rural Areas Brief 2012.” 2012. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rural-area- economics/briefs/pdf/07_en.pdf.

Dolan, Catherine, and Sorby, Kristina. 2003. Gender and employment in high-value agriculture industries. Agriculture and rural development working paper 7. World Bank, Washington, DC.

Dombos, Tamás, Anna Horváth, and Andrea Krizsán. 2007. “Where Did Gender Disappear? Anti-Discrimination Policy in the EU Accession Process in Hungary.” In Multiple Meanings of Gender Equaltiy. A Critical Frame Analysis of Gender Policies in Europe, edited by Mieke Verloo. Budapest: CEU Press.

Einhorn, Barbara. 1993. Cinderella Goes to Market: Citizenship, Gender and Women’s Movements in East Central Europe. London: Verso.

Elgström, Ole. 2000. “Norm Negotiations: The Construction of New Norms Regarding Gender and Development in EU Foreign Aid Policy.” Journal of European Public Policy 7: 457–76.

Engel-Di Mauro, Salvatore A. 2006. “Citizenship, Systemic Change, and the Gender Division of Labor in Rural Hungary.” In Women and Citizenship in Central and Eastern Europe, by Jasmina Lukic, Joanna Regulska, and Darja Zavirsek, 61–81. Hampshire, Burlington: Ashgate.

168

Europa. 2014. “Press Release of 2014-2020 HU RDP Program.” http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-955_hu.htm.

European Commission. 1996. Communication from the Commission of 21 February 1996. Incorporating Equal Opportunities for Women and Men into All Community Policies and Activities. 67 Final. EU. http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:51996DC0067&from=EN.

———. 2008. “Manual for Gender Mainstreaming: Employment, Social Inclusion and Social Protection Policies.” http://eige.europa.eu/content/manual-for-gender- mainstreaming-employment-social-inclusion-and-social-protection-policies.

———. 2009. National Strategic Report according to Article 29 of Council Regulation (EC). 1083/2006. Hungary.

———. 2010. Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union. 2010/C 83/02.http://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2010:083:0389:0403:en:PDF .

———. 2010. Communication from the Commission of 5 March 2010. A Strengthened Commitment to the Equality between Women and Men. A Women’s Charter – Declaration by the European Commission on the Occasion of the 2010 International Women’s Day in Commemoration of the 15th Anniversary of the Adoption of a Declaration and Platform for Action at the Beijing UN World Conference on Women and the 30th Anniversary of the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. 78 Final. http://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=URISERV:em0033&rid=2.

———. 2011. “Strategy for Equality between Women and Men 2010-2015.” http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender- equality/files/strategy_equality_women_men_en.pdf.

———. 2012a. “EU Agricultural and Economic Briefs Women in EU Agriculture and Rural Areas: Hard Work, Low Profile. Brief No. 7.” http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rural-area-economics/briefs/pdf/07_en.pdf.

———. 2012b. Rural Development in the EU - Statistical and Economic Information Report 2012. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/statistics/rural- development/2012/full-text_en.pdf.

———. 2012c. Directorate General for Agriculture and Rural Development (2007-2010 EAGF Financial Reports) and Commission Decision. 236. European Commission Rural Development Report. EU. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/statistics/rural- development/2012/full-text_en.pdf.

169

———. 2013. “The Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) and Agriculture in Europe – Frequently Asked Questions.” http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_MEMO-13- 631_en.htm.

———. 2014a. Council Recommendation on Hungary’s 2014 National Reform Programme and Delivering a Council Opinion on Hungary’s 2014 Convergence Programme. 418 Final. http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/pdf/csr2014/csr2014_hungary_en.pdf.

———. 2014b. “Emerging Trends in Earnings Structures of Couples in Europe.” http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender- equality/files/documents/140502_gender_equality_workforce_ssr5_en.pdf.

———. 2014c. “Member States Factsheets Hungary.” http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/statistics/factsheets/pdf/hu_en.pdf.

———. 2014d. “Tackling the Gender Pay Gap.” http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender- equality/files/gender_pay_gap/140319_gpg_en.pdf.

———. 2014e. “The European Union Explained – Agriculture: A Partnership between Europe and Farmers. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.” http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-overview/2014_en.pdf.

———. 2015a. “A New Method to Understand Occupational Gender Segregation in European Labour Markets.” http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender- equality/files/documents/150119_segregation_report_web_en.pdf.

———. 2015b. “Axes & Measures.” http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/en/policy-in-action/rural- development-policy-overview/eu-strategic-approach.

———. 2015c. “EU Strategic Guidelines for Rural Development.” http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/en/policy-in-action/rural-development-policy- overview/eu-strategic-approach.

———. 2015d. “Financing the Common Agricultural Policy.” http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/cap-funding/index_en.htm.

———. 2015e. “Rural Development 2014-2020.” http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rural- development-2014-2020/index_en.htm.

———. n.d. “Common Agricultural Policy.” http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/faq/#2.

———. n.d. “Europe 2020 in Hungary.” http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/europe-2020-in- your-country/magyarorszag/country-specific-recommendations/index_en.htm.

170

———. n.d. “Europe 2020 Targets.” http://ec.europa.eu/europe2020/targets/eu- targets/index_en.htm.

European Commission Directorate-General for Agriculture and Rural Development. 2000. “Women Active in Rural Development.” http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/publi/women/broch_en.pdf.

———. 2012. “Rural Development in the European Union: Statistical and Economic Information Report 2012.” http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/statistics/rural- development/2012/full-text_en.pdf.

European Institute for Gender Equality. 2013. Gender Equality Index Report – Country Profiles. http://eige.europa.eu/apps/gei/content/Gender-Equality-Index-Country- Profiles.pdf.

European Institute for Gender Equality. 2013 Gender Equality Index Report. http://eige.europa.eu/sites/default/files/Gender-Equality-Index-Report.pdf.

European Network for Rural Development. 2011. “Leader Subcommittee Focus Group on Preserving the Innovative-Experimental Character of Leader. Summary of Extended Report.” http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/sites/enrd/files/fms/pdf/7CC26BBD- 0366-C2E0-F125-B9B1B25424D0.pdf.

———. n.d. “Leader Subcommittee Focus Group on the Implementation of the Bottom- up Approach of LEADER. Summary of Extended Report.”

European Parliament. The Policy on Gender Equality in Hungary: Update 2013. European Union: Brussels. http://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/note/join/2013/493017/IPOL- FEMM_NT(2013)493017_EN.pdf.

———. n.d. “RDP Database.” http://enrd.ec.europa.eu/en/policy-in-action/rdp_view.

Eur-Lex. Council Regulation (EC) No 1303/2013 of 20 December 2013. Laying down common provisions for rural development http://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2013:347:0320:0469:EN:PD F.

———. Council Decision 2006/144/EC of 20 February 2006 on Community strategic guidelines for rural development (programming period 2007 to 2013. http://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/LSU/?uri=CELEX:32006D0144.

171

Eur-Lex. Council Decision 1974/2006/EC of 15 December 2006. Community Regulation (EC) No 1974.2006. 23 December 2006. Laying down detailed rules for the application of Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32006R1974.

Eur-Lex. Council Regulation (EC) No 1698/2005 of 20 September 2005 on support for rural development by the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal- content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32005R1698.

EU Rural Review. 2010. “Supporting the Female Entrepreneurial Spirit.” In Employment and Social Inclusion, 49–51.

Fábián, Katalin. 2009. Contemporary Women’s Movements in Hungary. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Fairclough, Norman. 1989. Language and Power. London: Longman.

Falkner, Gerda, and Oliver Treib. 2008. “Three Worlds of Compliance or Four? The EU- 15 Compared to the New Member States.” Journal of Common Market Studies 46 (2): 293–313.

Falkner, Gerda, Oliver Treib, M. Hartlapp, and S. Leiber. 2005. Complying with Europe: EU Harmonization and Soft Law in the Member States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

FAO. 2010. Rural Women’s Entrepreneurship is “Good Business!”. Gender and Rural Employment Policy Brief #3.

FAO. 2011. Rural Development in Europe and Central Asia: A Gender Perspective. The Working Party on Women and the Family in Rural Development, 1(1).

FAO. 2015. “Country Profile Hungary.” http://faostat.fao.org/CountryProfiles/Country_Profile/Direct.aspx?lang=en&area =97.

Feminfo. 2014. “A Nagyvárosokban Alig Lesz Női Polgármester.” Feminfo. October 13. http://feminfo.444.hu/2014/10/13/a-nagyvarosokban-alig-lesz-noi-polgarmester/.

FHI360. 2012. “Gender Integration Framework: How to Integrate Gender in Every Aspect of Our Work.” http://www.fhi360.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/FHI 360_Gender Integration Framework_3.8 %2528no photos%2529.pdf.

172

Finta, István. 2013. “Az Aprófalvak Fejlesztési Igényei És a Nemzeti Szintű Fejlesztési Tervek Által Nyújtott Lehetőségek [The Development Needs of Small Villages and the Opportunities Offered through the National Level Development Plans].” In Hátrányban Vidéken [Disadvantge in the Countryside], edited by Katalin Kovács and M. M. Varadi, 199–219. Budapest: Argumentum.

Fodor, Éva, and Erika Kispéter. 2014. “Making the ‘reserve Army’ Invisible: Lengthy Parental Leave and Women’s Economic Marginalization in Hungary.” European Journal of Women’s Studies 21 (4): 382–98. doi:10.1177/1350506814541796.

Fontana, Marzia, and Cristina Paciello. 2010. “Gender Dimensions of Rural and Agricultural and Public Works Programmes. Experience from South Africa. Differentiated Pathways out of Poverty: A Global Perspective.” In Gender Dimensions of Rural and Agricultural Employment: Differentiated Pathways out of Poverty Status, Trends, and Gaps. Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations, the International Fund for Agricultural Development, and the International Labour Office, 171–84. Rome.

Forest, Maxime, and Emanuela Lombardo. 2012. “The Europeanization of Gender Equality Policies: A Discursive-Sociological Approach.” In The Europeanization of Gender Equality Policies: A Discursive-Sociological Approach, edited by Maxime Forest and Emanuela Lombardo, 1–27. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Fraser, Nancy. 1997. Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflection on the “Postsocialist” Condition. New York: Routledge.

Frey, Maria. 2009. Nők És Férfiak a Munkaerőpiacon – a Lissaboni Növekedési És Foglalkoztatási Stratégia Céljainak a Tükrében [Women and Men in the Labor Market in Light of the Lisbon Strategy]. Szerepváltozások: Jelentés a Nők És Férfiak Helyzetéről 2009 [Changing Roles: Report on Women’s and Men’s Situation 2009]. http://www.tarsadalomkutatas.hu/kkk.php?TPUBL-A- 877/publikaciok/tpubl_a_877.pdf.

Funk, Nanette. 1993. “Introduction.” In Gender Politics and Post-Communism: Reflections from Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, edited by Nanette Funk and Magda Mueller, 1–14. New York: Routledge.

Funk, Nanette, and Magda Mueller, eds. 1993. Gender Politics and Post-Communism : Reflections from Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union. New York: Routledge.

Galligan, Yvonne, and Sara Clavero. 2007a. “Gender Equality and Multi-Level Governance in East Central Europe.” In Democratic Dilemmas of Multilevel Governance, edited by J. de Bardeleben and A. Hurrelmann, 216–39. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

173

———. 2007b. Gender Politics and Democracy in Post-Socialist Europe. Opladen: Barbara Budrich.

———. 2012. “Gendering Enlargement of the EU.” In Gendering the European Union: New Approaches to Old Democratic Deficits, edited by Gabriele Abels and Joyce Marie Mushaben, 104–23. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

Gal, Susan, and Gail Kligman, eds. 2000a. Reproducing Gender: Politics, Publics, and Everyday Life after Socialism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

———. 2000b. The Politics of Gender After Socialism. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Goven, Joanna. 1993. “Gender Politics in Hungary: Autonomy and Antifeminism.” In Gender Politics and Post-Communism: Reflections from Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, edited by Nanette Funk and Magda Mueller, 224–40. New York: Routledge.

———. 2000. In Reproducing Gender: Politics, Publics, and Everyday Life after Socialism, edited by Susan Gal and Gail Kligman, 286–306. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Haney, L. 1993. “From Proud Worker to Good Mother: Women, State, and Regime Change in Hungary.” Frontiers 14 (3): 113–50.

Havel, Vaclav. 1988. “Antipolitical Politics.” In Civil Society and the State, edited by John Keane. New York: Verso.

High, Chris and Gusztáv, Nemes. 2007. “Social Learning in LEADER: Exogenous, Endogenous and Hybrid Evaluation in Rural Development. European Society for Rural Sociology 47(2): 103-119.

Hortobágyi Leader Association. 2013. “Megvalósított Projektek [Implemented Projects]. Egyek Nagyközség Önkormányzata – Csipkekészítő Képzés – Projekt Beszámoló Feltöltés Ideje: 2013.08.15. [Egyek Local Government – Lace Making Training – Project Report. Uploaded Date: 15 August 2013].” http://www.hortobagyileader.hu/wp- content/uploads/2012/12/Besz%C3%A1mol%C3%B3-csipke.pdf.

Horváth, Gyula. 2010. “Cohesion Deficiencies in Eastern and Central Europe – Inequalities and Urban Problems.” In Regional Aspects of Social and Economic Restructuring in Eastern Europe: The Hungarian Case, edited by László Kulcsár, 9–23. Budapest: Hungarian Central Statistical Office.

Hoskyns, Catherine. 1996. Integrating Gender: Women, Law and Politics in the European Union. London: Verso.

174

Hungarian National Rural Network. n.d. “Jó Gyakorlatok a Magyar Vidékfejlesztésben – Válogatás a Megvalósult Projektötletekből [Best Practices of Rural Development in Hungary – A Selection of Implemented Project Ideas].” http://www.mnvh.eu/sites/default/files/jo_gyakorlatok_vegleges_0.pdf.

Hungarian Women’s Lobby and the European Roma Rights Centre. 2013. “Alternative Report Submitted to the UN CEDAW Committee for Consideration in Relation to the Examination of the Combined Seventh and Eighth Periodic Reports of Hungary January 2013.” http://tbinternet.ohchr.org/Treaties/CEDAW/Shared Documents/HUN/INT_CEDAW_NGO_HUN_13260_E.pdf.

HVG.hu. 11 September. “A Fideszes Varga Kijelentése Miatt Szerveznek Tüntetést a Kossuth Térre.” http://hvg.hu/itthon/20120911_A_fideszes_Varga_kijelentese_miatt_szerve.

Innovative Dél-Zala Rural Development Organization. 2013a. “Az Innovatív Dél-Zala Vidékfejlesztési Egyesület Által Végzett Települési Elégedettség Mérés Összegzése. [Innovative Dél-Zala Rural Development Organization Final Summary of the Regional Satisfaction Survey].” http://www.innovativdelzala.hu/images/dokumentumok/tanulmanyok/telepulesi_e legedettseg_meres_osszegzese_2013.pdf.

———. 2013b. http://www.innovativdelzala.hu/images/dokumentumok/hvs/2013/helyi_videkfejl esztesi_strategia_2013_majus.pdf.

Interagency Gender Working Group (IGWG). 2012. “Gender Equality Continuum Tool.” USAID. http://www.igwg.org/igwg_media/Training/FG_GendrIntegrContinuum.pdf.

International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). 2012. “Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment.” http://www.ifad.org/gender/policy/gender_e.pdf.

International Labour Organization of the United Nations (ILO). n.d. “Hungary.” http://www.ilo.org/gateway/faces/home/ctryHome?locale=EN&countryCode=HU N®ionId=5&_adf.ctrl-state=am4qyhra9_4.

Inter-Parliamentary Union. 2015. “Women in National Parliaments Statistical Archive.” http://www.ipu.org/parline-e/reports/2141_A.htm.

Jaquette, Jane S., and Sharon L. Wolchik, eds. 1998a. Women and Democracy: Latin America and Central and Eastern Europe. Johns Hopkins University Press.

175

———. 1998b. “Women and Democratization in Latin American and Central and Eastern Europe: A Comparative Introduction.” In Women and Democracy: Latin American and Central and Eastern Europe, 1–28. Johns Hopkins University Press.

Katharine, Rankin. 2001. “Governing Development: Neoliberalism, Microcredit, and Rational Economic Woman.” Economy and Society 31 (1): 18–37.

Katona-Kovács, Judit. 2014. “Where to Put the Focus in Rural Development: Changing the Focus from Funding to Learning.” Studies in Agricultural Economics 116: 41– 48.

Katona-Kovács, Judit, Chris High, and Gusztáv Nemes. 2011. “Importance of Animation Actions in the Operation of Hungarian Local Action Groups.” European Countryside 3 (4): 227 – n/a.

Kierzenkowski, Rafal. (2012). “Towards a more inclusive labour market in Hungary,” OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 960, OECD Publishing. http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=ECO/W KP(2012)37&docLanguage=En.

Kiss, Agnes. 2012. “Nők a Fenntartható Fejlődésért – A Nők Szerepe a Vidékfejlesztésben [Women for Sustainable Development – Women’s Role in Rural Development Conference].” November 24. http://www.noikarrier.hu/.

Kiss, Éva. 2000. “Rural Restructuring in Hungary in the Period of Socio-Economic Transition.” GeoJournal 51 (3): 221–33.

Kocze, Angela, and Raluca Maria Popa. 2009. “Missing Intersectionality: Race/Ethnicity, Gender, and Class in Current Research and Policies on Romani Women in Europe.” http://gender.ceu.edu/sites/default/files/publications/cps-policy-study- missing-intersectionality-2009.pdf.

Kovács, János Mátyás. 2006. “Between Resentment and Indifference: Narratives of Solidarity in the Enlarging Union.” In What Holds Europe Together?, edited by Krzysztof Michalski. Budapest: CEU Press.

Kovács, Katalin, and Monika Maria Varadi, eds. 2013. Hátrányban Vidéken [Disadvantaged in the Countryside]. Budapest: Argumentum.

Kovács, Katalin, and Mónika Maria Váradi. 2000. “Women’s Life Trajectories and Class Formation in Hungary.” In Reproducing Gender: Politics, Publics, and Everyday Life after Socialism, edited by Susan Gal and Gail Kligman. Princeton University Press.

176

Krizsán, Andrea. 2012. “Equality Architectures in Central and Eastern European Countries: A Framework for Analyzing Political Intersectionality in Europe.” Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society 19 (4): 539–71.

———. 2009. “From Formal Adoption to Enforcement: Post-Accession Shifts in EU Impact on Hungary in Equality Policy Field.” Edited by Frank Schimmelfennig and Florian Traumer. Post-Accession Compliance in the EU’s New Member States, European Integration Online Papers 13 (22). http://eiop.or/at/eiop/texte/2009-022a.htm.

Krizsán, Andrea, Tamás Dombos, Erika Kispéter, Linda Szabo, Jasminka Dedic, Martin Jaigma, Roman Kuhar, Ana Frank, Birgit Sauer, and Mieke Verloo. 2009. Quality in Gender+ Equality Policies: Final LARG Report: Framing Gender Equality in the European Union and Its Current and Future Member States. Deliverable 61. Final LARG Report. Vienna, Austria: Institut für die Wissenschaften vom Menschen (IWM). http://cps.ceu.edu/sites/default/files/publications/quingfinal- larg-report2010.pdf.

Krizsán, Andrea, Hege Skjeie, and Judith Squires. 2014. “The Changing Nature of European Equality Regimes: Explaining Convergence and Variation.” Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy 31 (1): 53-68.

———. 2012. “European Equality Regimes: Institutional Change and Political Intersectionality.” In Institutionalizing Intersectionality: The Changing Nature of European Equality Regimes, edited by Andrea Krizsán, Hege Skjeie, and Judith Squires, 209–39. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Krizsán, Andrea, and Violetta Zentai. 2006. “Gender Equality Policy or Gender Mainstreaming?” Policy Studies 27 (2): 135–51.

———. 2012. “Institutionalizing Intersectionality in Central and Eastern Europe: Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Slovenia.” In Institutionalizing Intersectionality: The Changing Nature of European Equality Regimes, edited by Andrea Krizsán, Hege Skjeie, and Judith Squires, 179–208. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

Kulcsár, László. 2010. “A Modernizáció Társadalmi Gátjai [The Social Barriers of Modernization].” Gazdaság És Társadalom [Journal of Economy and Society], 44–63.

Kulcsár, László, and Csilla Obádovics. 2011. “Who Lives in Forgotten Places? – Age Structure and Socio-Economic Development in Hungary.” Edited by Péter Szaló. Journal of the Hungarian Central Statistical Office 14 (51): 100-121.

———. 2004. “The Human Development Index in Rural Hungary.” Gazdálkodás Különkiadása 8: 26–37.

177

———. 2011. “Unemployment in the Hungarian Villages.” In Regional Aspects of Social and Economic Restructuring in Eastern Europe: The Hungarian Case, edited by László Kulcsár, 57–71. Budapest: Hungarian Central Statistical Office.

LeCompte, Margaret.D., and Jean.J. Schensul. 2013. Analysis and Interpretation of Ethnographic Data: A Mixed Methods Approach. 2nd ed. Lanham, MD: AltaMira Press.

Ledeneva, Alena V. 1998. Russia’s Economy of Favours: Blat, Networking and Informal Exchange. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Lendvai, Noemi. 2005. “Central and Eastern European Social Policy and EU Accession – Time for Reflections.” Financial Theory and Practice 29 (1): 1–12.

Lendvai, Noemi, and Paul Stubbs. 2007. “Policies as Translation: Situating the Transnational Social Policies.” In Policy Reconsidered, edited by Susan M. Hodgson and Zoë Irving, 173–89. Bristol: Policy Press.

Liebert, Ulrike. 2002. “Europeanising Gender Mainstreaming: Constraints and Opportunities in the Multi-Level Europolity.” Feminist Legal Studies 10: 21–256.

Little, Jo, and Owain Jones. 2000. “Masculinity, Gender, and Rural Policy.” Rural Sociology 65 (4): 621–39.

Lodovici, Manuela Samek, Flavia Pesce, Bruno Dente, Davide Barbieri, Daniela Loi, Erica Melloni, Cristina Vasilescu, and Irene Zancaro. n.d. Gender Mainstreaming in Committees and Delegations of the European Parliament: Study for the Femm Committee. Italy: Istituto per la Ricerca Sociale (IRS).

Lombardo, Emanuela, and Petra Meier. 2007. “European Union Gender Policy Since Beijing: Shifting Concepts and Agendas.” In Multiple Meanings of Gender Equality: A Critical Frame Analysis of Gender Policies in Europe, edited by Mieke Verloo, 51–75. Budapest: CEU Press.

Lovenduski, Joni. 1998. “Gendering Research in Political Science.” Annual Review of Political Science 1: 333–56.

Lukesch, Robert. 2007. The LAG Handbook: A Guide through the Stunning World of Local Action Groups. Brussels: LEADER + Observatory Contact Point.

MacRae, Heather. 2010. “The EU as a Gender Equal Polity: Myths and Realities.” Journal of Common Market Studies 48 (1): 155–74.

Marinov, Vasil, Hachemi Bahoul, and Ben Slay. 2006. “EU Funds and the New Member States: Lessons Learned.” Development and Transition, no. 4.

178

Mazey, Sonia. 1998. “The European Union and Women’s Rights: From the Europeanization of National Agendas to the Nationalization of a European Agenda?” Journal of European Public Policy 5 (1): 131–52.

———. 2002. “Gender Mainstreaming Strategies in the E.U.: Delivering on an Agenda?” Feminist Legal Studies 10 (3-4): 227–40.

Meinzen-Dick, Ruth, Nancy Johnson, Agnes R. Quisumbing, Jemimah Njuki, Julia A. Behrman, Deborah Rubin, Amber Peterman, and Elizabeth Waithanji. 2014. “The Gender Asset Gap and Its Implications for Agricultural and Rural Development.” In Gender in Agriculture: Closing the Knowledge Gap, edited by Agnes R. Quisumbing, Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Terri L. Raney, André Croppenstedt, Julia A. Behrman, and Amber Peterman, 91–115. Dordrecht: FAO Springer.

Merry, Sally Engle. 2006. Human Rights and Gender Violence: Translating International Law into Local Justice. Chicago Series in Law and Society. Chicago: University Of Chicago Press.

Metis GmbH, and subcontractors European Association for Information on Local Development (AEIDL), and Central European University (CEU). 2010. “Ex-Post Evaluation of LEADER+ Program. Executive Summary.” http://cps.ceu.edu/sites/default/files/field_attachment/news/node- 25663/Leader+_executive summary_Dec2010.pdf.

Modláné Görgényi, Ildikó. 2012. “A Szak- És Felnőttképzés Magyarországon [Vocational and Adult Education in Hungary].” presented at the “Women for Sustainable Development – Women’s Role in Rural Development Conference, [Nők a fenntartható fejlődésért – A nők szerepe a vidékfejlesztésben], November 24. http://www.noikarrier.hu/.

Molyneux, Maxine. 1985. “Mobilization without Emancipation? Women’s Interests, State and Revolution in Nicaragua.” Feminist Studies 11 (2).

Momsen, Janet. 2002. “Gender and Entrepreneurship in Post-Communist Hungary.” In Work, Employment and Transition: Restructuring Livelihoods in Post- Communism, edited by Al Rainnie, Adrian Smith, and Adam Swain, 135–54. London: Rout.

———. 2006. “Gender at the Border.” In Rural Gender Relations: Issues and Case Studies, edited by Bettina Bock and Sally Shortall, 136–51. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.

———. 2010. Gender and Development. 2nd ed. London: Routledge.

Moser, Caroline O.N. 1993. Gender Planning and Development: Theory, Practice and Training. London: Routledge.

179

Nagy, Éva. 2014. “Ferge: The Government of Hungary Is Practically Waging War on the Poor.” The Budapest Beacon, November 21. http://budapestbeacon.com/public- policy/ferge-the-government-is-practically-waging-war-on-the-poor/.

“National Rural Development Strategy 2012-2020.” n.d. http://videkstrategia.kormany.hu/download/4/37/30000/Nemzeti Vid%C3%A9kstrat%C3%A9gia.pdf.

“National Rural Development Strategy 2012-2020. [Nemzeti Vidékstratégia 2012- 2020].” http://videkstrategia.kormany.hu/admin/download/6/87/50000/nyomdai_leporello _angol_121110.pdf.

Nemes, Gusztáv. 2005. Discussion Paper, No. MT-DP The Politics of Rural Development in Europe. Budapest: Institute of Economics, Hungarian Academy of Science. http://www.policy.hu/nemes/publikaciok/muhelytanulmany 2005- 5.pdf.

Nemes, Gusztáv, and Zsuzsanna Fazekas. 2002. “Integrating Rural Women – EU Policies and the Evolution of Rural Development.” In The New Challenge of Women’s Role in Rural Europe. Nicosia: Agricultural Research Institute.

Nemes, Gusztáv, Chris High, and Farah Huzair. 2007. “Reflexive Agency and Multi- Level Governance: Mediating Integrated Rural Development in Hungary.” In Rural Governance: International Perspectives, edited by Lynda Cheshire, Vaughan Higgins, and Geoffrey Lawrence, 98–112. Routledge.

New Hungary Rural Development Program. 2009. “Ex-Post Evaluation 2004-2007.” http://sapard-avop- nvt.kormany.hu/download/3/b9/10000/NVT_expost_ertekeles_zarojelentes_2009 0324_EU.pdf.

———. 2010a. Agrár- És Vidékfejlesztési Operatív Program Záró Végrehajtási Jelentés [Agricultural and Rural Development Operational Program Closing Executive Report]. 2004-2006 SAPARD Program. nvt.kormany.hu/download/3/79/10000/AVOP%20MB%20%C3%A1ltal%20j%C 3%B3v%C3%A1hagyva,%20a%20P%C3%A9nz%C3%BCgyminiszt%C3%A9ri um%20%C3%A9szrev%C3%A9telei%20alapj%C3%A1n%20kieg%C3%A9sz% C3%ADtve,%20a%20KEHI%20r%C3%A9sz%C3%A9re%20hivatalosan%20ben y%C3%BAjtva%20avop_zaro_jelentes_v15_2010_07.pdf.

———. 2010b. “Stratégiai Monitoring Jelentés [Strategy Monitoring Report].” http://umvp.kormany.hu/download/d/3d/40000/%C3%9AMVST_SMJ_2010.pdf.

180

———. 2013. “2012 Yearly End Reports.” Monitoring Commission. http://umvp.kormany.hu/eves-vegrehajtasi-jelentesek.

———. n.d. “Local Action Groups.” http://www.umvp.eu/english/local-action-groups.

“New Hungary Rural Development Program 2007-2013, Version 11.” 2014.

New Hungary Rural Development Program Monitoring Committee. n.d. “New Hungary Rural Development Program 2007-2013. Consultative Members.” http://www.umvp.eu/sites/default/files/umvp_mb_szavazati_joggal.pdf.

Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development, and European Union. 2014. The Missing Entrepreneurs 2014 Policies for Inclusive Entrepreneurship in Europe. Paris: OECD.

Österreichisches Institut für Raumplanung (ÖIR). n.d. Synthesis of Mid-Term Evaluations of Rural Development Programmes 2007-2013. Final. Vienna: Directorate- General of Agriculture and Rural Development.

Parizán, Anna. 2014. “Community Led Local Development 2014-2020.” The Ministry of Rural Development, May 18.

Plantenga, J., C. Remery, H. Figueriredo, and M. Smith. 2009. “Towards a European Union Gender Equality Index.” Journals of European Social Policy 19 (1): 19– 33.

Pócsi, Gabriella, and Judit Rácz. 2014. “Nők Szerepe a Vidékfejlesztéshez Kapcsolódó Hálózatokban [Women’s Role in Rural Development in Related Networks].” Magyar Vidéki Mozaik [Hungarian Rural Mosaic] 5 (4): 12–13.

Pongrácz, Marietta. 2006. “Opinions on Gender Roles.” In Changing Roles: Report on the Situation of Women and Men in Hungary 2005, edited by Ildikó Nagy, Marietta Pongrácz, and István György Tóth, 71–84. Budapest: TARKI Social Reserach Institute.

Prügl, Elisabeth. 2009. “Does Gender Mainstreaming Work? Feminist Engagements with the German Agricultural State.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 11 (2): 174–95.

———. 2011. Transforming Masculine Rule: Agriculture and Rural Development in the European Union. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

Prügl, Elizabeth. 2012. “The Common Agricultural Policy and Gender Equality.” In Gendering the European Union: New Approaches to Old Democratic Deficits, edited by Gabriele Abels and Joyce Marie Mushaben, 127–45. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

181

Quisumbing, Agnes R., Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Terri L. Raney, André Croppenstedt, Julia A. Behrman, and Amber Peterman. 2014. “Closing the Knowledge Gap on Gender in Agriculture.” In Gender in Agriculture: Closing the Knowledge Gap, edited by Agnes R. Quisumbing, Ruth Meinzen-Dick, Terri L. Raney, André Croppenstedt, Julia A. Behrman, and Amber Peterman, 3–27. Dordrecht: FAO Springer.

Rácz, Judit. 2013. “Vidéki Nők Részvétele a Döntéshozatali Folyamatokban [The Participation of Country Women in the Decision Making Process].” Master’s Thesis, King Sigismund Business School.

Rankin, Katharine. 2001. “Governing Development: Neoliberalism, Microcredit, and Rational Economic Woman.” Economy and Society 30 (1): 18–37.

Rees, T. 1992. Women and the Labour Market. London: Routledge.

———. 1998. Mainstreaming Equality in the European Union. Education, Training, and Labor Market Policies. London: Routledge.

Reeves, Hazel, and Sally Baden. 2000. Gender and Development: Concepts and Definitions. 55. University of Sussex, Brighton: BRIDGE – Institute of Development Studies. http://www.bridge.ids.ac.uk/sites/bridge.ids.ac.uk/files/reports/re55.pdf.

Reisigl, Martin, and Ruth Wodak. 2001. “Discourse and Discrimination.” In Transnational Identities: Becoming European in the EU, edited by R.K. Hermann, T. Risse, and M.B. Brewer. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

Repassy, Helga. 1991. “Changing Gender Roles in Hungarian Agriculture.” Journal of Rural Studies 7 (1-2): 23–29.

Risteska, Marija, Goran Lazarevski, and Ana Mickovska-Raleva. 2012. “Perspectives of Women in Rural Areas: Baseline Study of the Status and Livelihoods of Women in Rural Areas and Recommendations for Gender Responsive Policy Responses.” Edited by Marija Risteska. Center for Research and Policy Making.

Rossilli, Mariagrazia, ed. 2000. Gender Policies in the European Union. New York: Peter Lang.

Rueschemeyer, Marilyn. 1998. “Women’s Participation in Postcommunist Politics.” In Central and East European Politics: From Communism to Democracy, edited by Sharon L. Wolchik and Jane L. Curry. London: M.E. Sharpe.

——— 2014. “Women’s Participation in Postcommunist Politics.” In Central and East European Politics: From Communism to Democracy, edited by Sharon L. Wolchik and Jane L. Curry. London: M.E. Sharpe.

182

Safilios-Rothschild, Constantina. 2006. “CAP Regulations and Farm Household Relations.” In Rural Gender Relations: Issues and Case Studies, edited by Bettina Bock and Sally Shortall, 260–75. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.

Sartori, Davide, and Massimo Florio. n.d. “Getting Incentives Right: Do We Need Ex Post Cost-Benefit Analysis?” Centre for Industrial Studies (CSIL). http://www.csilmilano.com/docs/WP2010_01.pdf.

Schadt, Mária. 2003. Feltörekvő Dolgozó Nő: Nők Az Ötvenes Években [The Rising Working Woman: Women in the 1950s]. Pécs: Pannónia Kiadó.

Schimmelfennig, Frank. 2002. “Introduction: The Impact of International Organizations on the Central and Eastern European States—Conceptual and Theoretical Issues.” In Ronald H. Linden (Ed.), Norms and Nannies: The Impact of International Organizations on the Central and East European States, pp.1-19. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.

Shortall, Sally. 2002. “Gendered Agricultural and Rural Restructuring: A Case Study of Northern Ireland.” Sociologia Ruralis 42 (2): 160–76.

———. 2006. “Gender and Rural Politics: An Overview.” In Rural Gender Relations: Issues and Case Studies, edited by Bettina Bock and Sally Shortall, 217–23. Wallingford: CABI Publishing.

Šiklová, Jirina. 1993. “Are Women in Central and Eastern Europe Conservative?” In Gender Politics and Post-Communism : Reflections from Eastern Europe and the Former Soviet Union, edited by Nanette Funk and Magda Mueller, 72–83. New York: Routledge.

Simai, Mihály. 2007. “Poverty and Inequality in Eastern Europe and the CIS Transition Economies.” In Flat World, Big Gaps: Economic Liberalization, Globalization, Poverty and Inequality, edited by K.S. Jomo and Jacques Baudot, 216–41. New York: United Nations.

Smith, Adrian, and Judit Timár. 2010. “Uneven Transformations: Space, Economy and Society 20 Years after the Collapse of State Socialism.” European Urban and Regional Studies 17 (2): 115–25. doi:10.1177/0969776409358245.

Squires, Judith. 1999. Gender in Political Theory. Cambridge/Oxford: Polity Press.

———. 2005. “Is Mainstreaming Transformative? Theorising Mainstreaming in the Context of Diversity and Deliberation.” Social Politics 12 (3): 366–88.

183

Szakácsiné, János, and Flóra Tápai. 2012. “A Feleségek, Családanyák Szerepe a Vidékfejlesztésben [The Role of Wives, Family Mothers in Rural Development].” presented at the Nők a fenntartható fejlődésért – A nők szerepe a vidékfejlesztésben [Women for Sustainable Development – Women’s Role in Rural Development Conference], Budapest, November 24. http://www.noikarrier.hu/.

Szalai, Julia. 1998. “Some Notes on Recent Changes in Hungary.” In Women and Democracy: Latin American and Central and Eastern Europe, edited by Sharon L. Wolchik and Jane S. Jaquette, 185–202. Johns Hopkins University Press.

———. 2000. “From Informal Labor to Paid Occupations: Marketization from below in Hungarian Women’s Work.” In Reproducing Gender: Politics, Publics, and Everyday Life after Socialism, edited by Susan Gal and Gail Kligman, 200–224. Princeton University Press.

———. 2001. “Conflicts of Gender and Class: Paradoxes of Women’s Occupational Mobility in Post-1989 Hungary.” In Women’s Employment in a Comparative Perspective, edited by Tanja van der Lippe and Liset van Dijk, 19–36. New York: Walter de Gruyter.

Szikra, Dorrotya, and Dorota. Szelewa. 2010. “Do Central and Eastern European Countries Fit the ‘Western’ Picture?: The Example of Family Policies in Hungary and Poland.” In Welfare States and Gender in Central and Eastern Europe: Continuity and Post-Socialist Transformation in the EU Member States, edited by C. Klenner and S. Leiber, 81–116. Brussels: ETUI.

Szőke, Alexandra. 2013. “Projecting the ‘Disadvantaged’ : Project Class, Scale Hopping and the Creation of Ruralities.” In Shaping Rural Areas in Europe : Perceptions and Outcomes on the Present and the Future, edited by Luís Silva and Elisabete Figueiredo. Springer. http://gwu.eblib.com/patron/FullRecord.aspx?p=1317484.

Takács, Judit. 2008. “Ha a mosogatógép nem lenne, már elváltunk volna…” Ferfiák és nők otthoni munkamegosztása európai összehasonlításban [‘If there hadn’t been a dishwasher, we would have divorced…’ European Comparison of Men and Women’s Sharing of Household Chores].” Esely 6: 51–73.

Tang, Ning., and Christine. Cousins. 2005. “Working Time, Gender and Family: An East-West European Comparison.” Gender, Work and Organisation 12 (6): 527– 50.

Tayyib, Salar, and Zsofia Bossanyi. 2012. “Gender Statistics: The Work of the FAO Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia (REU). UNECE Work Session on Gender Statistics.” FAO Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia. http://css.escwa.org.lb/sd/1699/4-1.pdf.

184

Tayyib, Salar, Rocca, Valeria, and Bossanyi, Zsofia. 2012. “Core gender indicators for assessing the socio-economic status of the agricultural and rural population.” FAO Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia. Budapest. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Europe/documents/WPW/gender_files/ Gender_Indicators_en.pdf.

Tésits, Róbert. 2012. “The Non-Profit Sector and Employment Expansion in the Rural Areas of Hungary.” Eastern European Countryside 18 (1). doi:10.2478/v10130- 012-0007-6.

The International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). 2012a. “Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Policy.” http://www.ifad.org/gender/policy/gender_e.pdf.

———. 2012b. “Gender Equality and Women’s Empowerment Policy.” http://www.ifad.org/gender/policy/gender_e.pdf.

The New Hungary Rural Development Program Monitoring Committee. n.d. “New Hungary Rural Development Program 2007-2013. Voting Members.” http://www.umvp.eu/sites/default/files/umvp_mb_szavazati_joggal.pdf.

Timár, Judit. 2000. “Geographical Aspects of Changing Conditions of Women in Post- Socialist Hungary.” In Hungary Towards the 21st Century – The Human Geography of Transition, edited by Z. Kovács, 151–67. Budapest: Geographical Research Institute.

———. 2001. “Introduction: Uneven Development in Hungary.” European Urban and Regional Studies 8 (4): 319–20. doi:10.1177/096977640100800403.

———. 2002. “Restructuring Labor Markets on the Frontier of the European Union: Gendered Uneven Development in Hungary.” In Work, Employment and Transition: Restructuring Livelihoods in Post-Communism, edited by Al Rainnie, Adrian Smith, and Adam Swain, 135–54. London: Routledge.

———. 2004. “Gendered Urban Policy-Making: The Role of Geographical Scale in Women’s Participation in Hungarian Local Governments.” In Gendered Cities: Identities, Activities, Networks: A Life-Course Approach, edited by Gisella Cortesi, Flavia Cristaldi, and Joos Droogleever Fortuijn, 227–43. Rome: Societa Geografica Italiana.

Timár, Judit, and Gábor Velkey. 1998. “The Question Marks of the Relatively Favourable Rate of Female Unemployment in Hungary.” In Windows on Hungarian Geography, edited by László Bassa and László Kertész, 199–209. Budapest: Geographical Research Institute HAS.

185

———. 2011. “Kiegyensúlyozatlan Nemi Arányok Az Észak-Alföldi Régióban – Migrációs Válaszok Két Tisza-Parti Település Fejlődési Problémáira. Konferencia Előadás Az MRTT IX. Vándorgyűlésén (‘A Vizek Szerepe a Területi Fejlődésben’).” Révkomárom, November 24. http://www.semigra.eu/files/web/publ/kom.pdf.

———. 2012. “Reimagining Rural Communities through Women’s Experiences of New- Capitalism in Rural Hungary.” In . Budapest, Hungary. http://www.semigra.eu/files/web/publ/ceu.pdf.

Timár, Judit, Gábor Velkey, and Terézia Nagy. 2012. “Gender-aspektusok a területfejlesztésben? – Kiegyensúlyozatlan nemi arányok az észak-alföldi régióban [Gender aspects in regional development? Unbalanced gender proportions in the Észak-Alföld Regio].” Perspective 16 (18): 89–94.

Timár, J., and M. M. Varadi. 2001. “The Uneven Development of Suburbanization during Transition in Hungary.” European Urban and Regional Studies 8 (4): 349– 60. doi:10.1177/096977640100800407.

Tinker, Irene, and Michelle Bo Bramsen. 1976. Women and World Development. Washington, D.C.: Overseas Development Council.

Torda, Márta. 2012. presented at the “Women for Sustainable Development – Women’s Role in Rural Development Conference, [Nők a fenntartható fejlődésért – A nők szerepe a vidékfejlesztésben], Budapest, November 24.

Tornay, Krisztina. 2012. “A Nő, Mint Közvetítő – a Nő És a Női Közösségek Küldetése [Women as Mediators – Women and Women’s Mission to Communities].” presented at the “Women for Sustainable Development – Women’s Role in Rural Development Conference, [Nők a fenntartható fejlődésért – A nők szerepe a vidékfejlesztésben], Budapest, November 24.

Tóth, Herta. 2006. “Roma Women’s Unemployment in Hungary: Research-Based Assessment and Recommendations.” CEU Press. http://cps.ceu.edu/sites/default/files/publications/cps-working-paperroma- womens-unemployment-hungary-2005.pdf.

Tayyib, Salar, Valeria Rocca, and Zsófia Bossányi. 2012. "Core gender indicators for assessing the socio-economic status of the agricultural and rural population." FAO Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia (REU). http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Europe/documents/WPW/gender_files/ Gender_Indicators_en.pdf

United Nations. 2013. “What Are Gender Statistics?” http://unstats.un.org/unsd/genderstatmanual/Print.aspx?Page=What-are-gender- stats.

186

———. 2015. “Facts & Figures: Rural Women and the Millennium Development Goals.” http://www.un.org/womenwatch/feature/ruralwomen/facts- figures.html#footnote1.

United States Agency for International Development (USAID). 2013. “Integrating Gender Equality and Female Empowerment in USAID’s Program Cycle.” ADS Chapter 205.

United States Agency for International Development. 2012. “Gender Equality and Female Empowerment Policy.” USAID Policy. Washington, D.C.

UN Women. 2015. “Facts and Figures: Economic Empowerment.” http://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/economic -empowerment/facts-and- figures#notes.

Van der Vleuten, A. 2007. The Price of Gender Equality: Member States and Governance in the European Union. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Váradi, Monika Mária, and Gyöngyi Schwarcz. 2013. “‘Itt Kis Léptekben Kell Gondolkodni’ [“Here You Have to Think in Small Steps].” In Hátrányban Vidéken [Disadvantge in the Countryside], edited by Katalin Kovács and Monika Mária Váradi, 199–219. Budapest: Argumentum.

Varga, Dora. 2014. “NOL.hu. Most Sem Jutott Be Több Nő Az Országgyűlésbe.” http://nol.hu/belfold/most-sem-jutott-be-tobb-no-az-orszaggyulesbe-1456087.

Verloo. 2006. “Multiple Inequalities, Intersectionality and the European Union.” European Journal of Women’s Studies 13 (3): 377–365.

Verloo, Mieke. 2005. “Displacement and Empowerment: Reflection on the Concept and Practice of the Council of Europe Approach to Gender Mainstreaming and Gender Equality.” Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State, and Society 12 (3): 344–65.

Verloo, Mieke, and Emanuela Lombardo. 2007. “Contested Gender Equality and Policy Variety in Europe: Introducing a Critical Frame Analysis Approach.” In Multiple Meanings of Gender Equality: A Critical Frame Analysis of Gender Policies in Europe, edited by Mieke Verloo. Budapest: CEU Press.

Vidra, Zsuzsanna. 2013. “A Szakképzetlen Bérmunka Szerepe Falusi Romák Megélhetési Stratégiáiban [Unskilled Manual Labour in the Self-Sustaining Strategies of Disadvantaged People Living in Segregated Rural Areas].” In Hátrányban Vidéken [Disadvantge in the Countryside], edited by Katalin Kovács and Monika Mária Váradi, 57–74. Budapest: Argumentum.

187

Vidueira, Pablo, José M. Diáz-Puente, and María Rivera. 2014. “Socioeconomic Impact Assessment in Ex Ante Evaluations: A Case Study on the Rural Development Programs of the European Union.” Evaluation Review 38 (4): 309–35.

Walby, Sylvia. 2005. “Gender Mainstreaming: Productive Tensions in Theory and Practice.” International Studies in Gender, State and Society 12 (3): 321–43.

———. 2007. Review of the Literature on Gender Equality Policies in the EU and Its Member States. Deliverable 12. Vienna: IWM.

Wolchik, Sharon L. 1998. “Gender and the Politics of Transition in the Czech Republic and Slovakia.” In Women and Democracy: Latin American and Central and Eastern Europe, 153–84. Johns Hopkins University Press.

“Women in EU Agriculture and Rural Areas Brief.” 2012. http://ec.europa.eu/agriculture/rural-area-economics/briefs/pdf/07_en.pdf.

World Bank, Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) of the United Nations, and International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD). 2008. The Gender in Agriculture Sourcebook.

World Economic Forum. 2014a. “The Global Gender Gap Report 2014.” http://www3.weforum.org/docs/GGGR14/GGGR_CompleteReport_2014.pdf.

———. 2014b. “The Global Gender Gap Report 2014. Hungary.” http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report- 2014/economies/#economy=HUN.

188

Data Sources

Eurostat. Economically active population by sex and age 1 000. Last update: 10-10-2014. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do.

Eurostat. Employment rates by sex and age (%) (15-64). http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do . Last update: 10-10-2014.

Eurostat. People at risk of poverty or social exclusion by degree of urbanization. 14-01- 2015 . http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do.

Eurostat. At-risk-of-poverty rate by degree of urbanization. Last update: 16-12-2014. . http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do.

Eurostat. source: SILC At-risk-of-poverty rate by sex. Last update of data: 13.02.2015. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/refreshTableAction.do?tab=table&plugin=1&pco de=tessi010&language=en.

Eurostat. At-risk-of-poverty rate after deducting housing costs by degree of urbanization. Last update: 12-02-2015 . http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=ilc_li48&lang=en.

Eurostat. Gender pay gap in unadjusted form in % - NACE Rev. 2 (structure of earnings survey methodology). Last update: 17-02-2015. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/setupDownloads.do

Eurostat. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do. Population by educational attainment level, sex, age and degree of urbanisation (%)[edat_lfs_9913] Last update: 13.11.2014.

Eurostat . Employed persons having a second job by sex and highest level of education attained (1 000)[lfsa_e2ged]. Last update: 04-03-2015. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=lfsa_e2ged&lang=en.

Eurostat. Employed persons having a second job by sex and professional status of both jobs (1 000)[lfsa_e2gps]. Last update: 04-03-2015. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do.

Eurostat. Severe material deprivation rate by degree of urbanization. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do. Last update: 16-12-2014.

189

Eurostat. Structure of Earnings Survey 2006 and national sources 2007 in Strategy for Equality between women and men 2010-2015. p.17.

Eurostat. Lifelong learning. Last update: 04.03.2015. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/table.do?tab=table&init=1&language=en&pcode =tsdsc440&plugin=1.

Eurostat. Share of women among tertiary students. http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/tgm/refreshTableAction.do?tab=table&plugin=1&pco de=tps00063&language=en, Last update of data: 04.03.2015.

Eurostat. Unemployment rates by sex and age (%)[urt_lfu3rt]. Last update: 10-10-2014. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do.

Eurostat. Employment rates by sex, age and degree of urbanisation (%)[lfst_r_ergau]Last update: 04-03-2015. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do;jsessionid=96 UAgBgxJPe55XB2U0j-uHPxKWCsF64uTVm7DEKBRRKwwOpD2hSP!- 1292080782.

Eurostat . Participation rate in education and training by degree of urbanisation[trng_aes_105] Last update: 22-07-2014. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=trng_aes_105&lang=en.

Eurostat . Participation rate in education and training (last 4 weeks) by sex, age and degree of urbanisation[trng_lfs_14] Last update: 24-10-2014. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do.

Eurostat . Employment by sex, age, highest level of education attained and NUTS 2 regions (1 000)[lfst_r_lfe2eedu]. Last update: 04-03-2015 http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/setupDownloads.do.

Eurostat . Annual population by sex, age, degree of urbanisation and labour status (1 000). Last update: 17-04-2015. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do

Eurostat. Population aged 25-64 with lower secondary education attainment by sex and NUTS 2 regions. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do. Last updated: February 16, 2015.

Eurostat. Number of establishments, bedrooms and bed-places by degree of urbanisation (from 2012 onwards). Last update: 15-01-2015. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do.

190

People at risk of poverty or social exclusion by NUTS 2 regions[ilc_peps11]Last update: 18-03-2015. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=ilc_peps11&lang=en.

Severe material deprivation rate by NUTS 2 regions[ilc_mddd21]Last update: 18-03- 2015. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=ilc_mddd21&lang=en.

Eurostat. Unemployment rates by sex, age and degree of urbanisation (%) [lfst_r_urgau] Last update: 04-03-2015. http://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/submitViewTableAction.do.

Hungarian Central Statistical Office. Unemployment rate by highest educational qualification and sex (2008–). Last update: March 6, 2015. http://www.ksh.hu/docs/eng/xstadat/xstadat_annual/i_qlf046.html.

Hungarian Central Statistical Office. Interactive Maps. Full-time students in tertiary education 2012/2013. http://www.ksh.hu/interaktiv/terkepek/mo/oktat_eng.html?mapid=ZOI001?mapid =ZOI012&layer=regi&color=1&meth=sug&catnum=4.

Hungarian Central Statistical Office. http://www.ksh.hu/docs/eng/xstadat/xstadat_annual/i_qlf005a.html. Last Updated March 5, 2013.

Hungarian Central Statistical Office . 2.1.14. Employment rate by highest educational qualification and sex (2006–. Last update: March 6, 2015. http://www.ksh.hu/docs/eng/xstadat/xstadat_annual/i_qlf045.html.

Hungarian Central Statistical Office. Regional Statistics. 6.2.1.11. Unemployment rate (2000–). Last updated: March 6, 2015. http://www.ksh.hu/docs/eng/xstadat/xstadat_annual/i_qlf027b.html.

Hungarian Central Statistical Office. Regional Statistics. 6.2.1.9. Participation rate (2000–). Last updated: March 6, 2015. http://www.ksh.hu/docs/eng/xstadat/xstadat_annual/i_qlf025b.html.

Hungarian Central Statistical Office. Methodology. Society. http://www.ksh.hu/docs/eng/modsz/modsz21.html.

Hungarian Central Statistical Office. Regional Statistics. 6.2.1.10. Employment rate (2000–). Last updated: March 6, 2015. http://www.ksh.hu/docs/eng/xstadat/xstadat_annual/i_qlf026b.html.

191

Hungarian Central Statistical Office. Regional Statistics. 5.1.2.7. Employment Rate by Age-group and Sex (1992–). Last update December 10, 2014. http://www.ksh.hu/docs/eng/xstadat/xstadat_long/h_qlf009c.html?down=1273

Hungarian Central Statistical Office. Regional Statistics. 5.1.3.3. Unemployment Rate by Age-group and Sex (1992–). Last update December 10, 2014. http://www.ksh.hu/docs/eng/xstadat/xstadat_long/h_qlf012a.html.

Hungarian Central Statistical Office. Regional Statistics. Unemployed Persons by Highest Educational Qualification and Sex (1992–). Last update December 10, 2014. http://www.ksh.hu/docs/eng/xstadat/xstadat_long/h_qlf011a.html.

Hungarian Central Statistical Office. 2011. 2011. Évi Népszámlálás - Országos adatok. [2011 Yearly Census - National Data.] http://www.ksh.hu/docs/hun/xftp/idoszaki/nepsz2011/nepsz_orsz_2011.pdf.

Hungarian Central Statistical Office. Regional Statistics. 5.1.4.4. Participation Rate by Age-group and Sex (1992–). Last update December 10, 2014. http://www.ksh.hu/docs/eng/xstadat/xstadat_long/h_qlf016a.html.

Hungarian Central Statistical Office. Economic activity of population aged 15–74 by age- groups and sex (2006-2013). http://www.ksh.hu/docs/eng/xstadat/xstadat_annual/i_qlf047h.html. 10 December 2014.

Hungarian Central Statistical Office. Employed persons by status in employment. http://www.ksh.hu/docs/eng/xstadat/xstadat_annual/i_qlf036.html. Last update: March 6, 2015.

Hungarian Central Statistical Office. Number of employed persons by industries, economic branches and sex. http://www.ksh.hu/docs/eng/xstadat/xstadat_annual/i_qlf005c.html. Last update: March 6, 2015.

Hungarian Central Statistical Office. Indicators of poverty and social exclusion, survey year 2010–2014 (reference year 2009–2013). http://www.ksh.hu/docs/eng/xstadat/xstadat_annual/i_zhc013.html. Last Update: December 9, 2014.

OECD. Database on gender and entrepreneurship. http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=GID2#

OECD. Earning gap in Self-Employment. http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=GID2#.

192

Appendices

Appendix A: Regional Data

Regional Educational Attainment by sex (%), ages 25-64 2014 Source: Eurostat, Last update: 04/17/2015

Pre-primary, primary, and lower secondary education: ISCED levels 0-2 Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education: ISCED levels 3-4 Tertiary education: ISCED levels 5-8 Central Hungary Northern Hungary Southern Great Plain Women Men Women Men Women Men Pre-primary to lower secondary 12.0 9.0 24.8 17.7 19.9 17.1

Upper secondary and post- 50.8 57.8 54.8 68.5 58.0 67.2 secondary Tertiary education 37.2 33.2 20.4 13.8 22.1 15.6

Regional Unemployment Rates by Educational Attainment and Sex (%) 2013 (KSH) Source: HCSO Central Hungary Northern Southern Great Hungary Plain Women Men Women Men Women Men Primary school or less 41.9 58.1 42.8 57.2 42 58

Apprentice and Vocational 34.4 65.6 36 64 37.2 62.8 School

193

Appendix B: National Data

Table 4.2: Economic Activity of Population ages 15-74 by sex, 2014 Source: HCSO 2014 Participation Rate Employment Rate Unemployment Rate Women 52.1 48.0 7.9 Men 65.7 60.8 7.6

UNADJUSTED GENDER PAY GAP (%) BY ECONOMIC ACTIVITY IN HUNGARY 2013 SOURCE: HCSO 2013 NUMBER OF EMPLOYED PERSONS BY INDUSTRIES, ECONOMIC BRANCHES AND SEX

Unadjusted Gender Pay Gap (%) by Economic Activity in Hungary 2013 Industry, construction and services Business economy Manufacturing Wholesale and retail trade Accommodation and food service activities Information and communication Financial and insurance activities Administrative and support service activities Education Human health and social work activities 38 36 40 23.2 25.5 18.4 13.9 14.8 15.7 16.2 20 9.1

0 1

194

Appendix C: European Institute for Gender Equality Index Data

EIGE Index Scores: Hungary and EU-27 Average (2010) Source: Gender Equality Index (2013), Country Profiles, Hungary (91)

EU-27 Domains Hungary Average Work 55.9 69.0 Money 54.4 68.9 Knowledge 35.1 48.9 Time 32.5 38.8 Power 24.4 38.0 Health 83.7 90.1

EIGE Index Scores by Domain and Indicators, Hungary and EU-27 Average (2010) Source: Gender Equality Index (2013), Country Profiles, Hungary (91) Hungary EU-27 Average Work 55.9 69.0 participation 68.3 76.6 segregation and quality of work 45.7 62.2 Money 54.4 68.9 Financial resources 30.5 59.5 Economic situation 97.1 79.6 Knowledge 35.1 48.9 Attainment and Segregation 42.3 57.2 Lifelong Learning 29.1 41.8 Power 24.4 38.0 Political 15.1 49.9 Economic 39.4 29.0

195

Appendix D: Sample of Stakeholder Interview Questions In-Depth Interview

Questions for Thought Leaders and Stakeholders involved in Rural Development

1. Tell me about your background and experience in and/or knowledge of rural

development.

2. Could you describe some of your organization’s main objectives? How have these

changed?

3. What has the progress been like in reaching these goals with the New Hungary

Rural Development Plan? How flexible is your planning from the guidelines set by

the Ministry of Rural Development?

4. How does your organization collaborate with other government offices, especially

with LEADER organizations?

5. How are vocational training programs implemented in Hungary? Which

organization(s) carries this out and how? What are the results like?

6. Generally, what kind of skills do they target?

7. Are there requirements for participants to take part in these programs or to receive

aid? If so, how do you think these affect possible beneficiaries/applicants?

8. From your experience, could you describe the participants in these training

programs (or in any kind of rural development program)? (ex. educational level,

employment situation, age group, gender)?

9. Could you tell me about the gender balance in these programs? What have you

observed? What do you think might explain this?

10. How have these programs affected women and men? If you know, how successful

have participants been after completing the training? 196

11. How do you think women are being included in Hungarian rural development aid

programs? Could you describe how your organization has done this (or perhaps is

planning to)?

12. When a project or training is finished, what is the monitoring process like? How

are the effects on the participants considered?

13. What are your recommendations for future rural development policies/strategies

that would directly target women’s needs?

In-Depth Interview Questions for Thought Leaders and Stakeholders

involved in Gender Policy

1. Tell me about your background and experience in gender policy in Hungary and

Europe.

2. What have you learned about gender equality regimes across Europe?

3. What do you think about Hungary’s general equal opportunity policy approach?

How effective do you think it has been in addressing intersectional inequalities?

Why/not?

4. What have been your experiences in gender mainstreaming trainings in

Hungary?

5. Have you observed a greater interest from NGOs and/or the private sector in

developing programs to support gender equality? If so, could you describe these?

197

6. How do you think government offices at all levels could benefit from gender

training and/or policies that explicitly target women?

7. How would you recommend to mainstream gender equality principles into rural

development organizations?

8. How might international collaboration help with advancing the situation of gender

equality in Hungary? What are some examples from other EU countries that

Hungary could possibly adapt?

9. What are your recommendations for future gender equality policies and strategies

that could target intersecting inequalities? (From which sector/collaboration could

this change come from?)

198

Appendix E: Nők a fenntartható fejlődésért – A nők szerepe a vidékfejlesztésben

Women for Sustainable Development – Women’s Role in Rural Development Conference.

24 November 2012. Budapest

Source: http://www.noikarrier.hu/

199

Appendix F: A szak- és felnőttképzés Magyarországon Presentation

Vocational and Adult Education in Hungary

Select slides from Ildikó Görgényi Modláné’s presentation for the National Labor Affairs

Office, the Vocational and Adult Education Board at the Nők a fenntartható fejlődésért –

A nők szerepe a vidékfejlesztésben (Women for Sustainable Development – Women’s Role in Rural Development Conference). 24 November 2012. Budapest. Author’s translations.

200

201

Appendix G: Excerpt from presentation by Salar Tayyib and Zsófia Bossányi

The FAO Socio-economic and Gender Analysis Framework (SEAGA) – Excerpt of

Livelihoods Framework, full table available in “Core gender indicators for assessing the socio-economic status of the agricultural and rural population.” Salar Tayyib, Valeria

Rocca, and Zsófia Bossányi. pp. 27-32. http://www.fao.org/fileadmin/user_upload/Europe/documents/WPW/gender_files/Gender_Indicators_en.pdf.

202