The Enlarged EU and its Agenda for a Wider Europe: What Considerations for Gender Equality? - EU Candidate Countries - By Irina Moulechkova, Ph.D. with the contribution of Plamenka Markova, Ph.D. and Genoveva Tisheva, Bulgarian Gender Research Foundation, Bulgaria |
Short description of the region The European Union (EU) membership candidate countries are Bulgaria, Romania, Croatia and Turkey. All of them are situated in South Eastern Europe (SEE) but they are culturally, economically and socially very different. This paper does not examine Turkey as it is at a very different stage with respect to membership of the EU. As a part of the accession process these countries will take on board a different set of values, commonly included in the concept of the European Social Model, with its emphasis on employment, equality, social protection and social dialogue. Bulgaria: Population: 7.8 million; Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita of USD 2.538. Bulgaria lags far behind EU countries, including the new member states, in per capita GDP with an average monthly income of 120 Euro. The discrepancy between economic growth and living standards in Bulgaria is obvious. Bulgaria’s corruption index has risen from 2.9 in 1998 (compared to 4.6 for Poland; 5.0 for Hungary and 3.0 for Romania [1]) to 4.1. Since November 2002, when Bulgaria was invited to join the NATO, Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) has increased four times and is expected to be 2.5 billion Euro in 2004. Croatia: Population: 4.7 millions. Romania: Population: 22.41 million. Turkey: Population: 67.8 million. All four countries candidate countries are members of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Overview on common macroeconomic tendencies Romania and Bulgaria began the process of transition to the market economy at the end of 1980s. Croatia’s process of transition was delayed by several years due to armed conflicts and the break up of former Yugoslavia. All three countries show a trend of high growth for this last period. The average growth of all the eight SEE countries is 5.1 % for 2003 and 4.5% for 2004 [2]- but their GDP is still much lower than in other EU member states. The real GDP per capita for 2002 for the all the eight SEE countries was USD 6.372,50 compared to USD 26.047 for the fifteen old member states and USD 11.906,10 for the new member states. Bulgaria and the other candidate countries (excluding Turkey) have many common characteristics. This has allowed us to draw many conclusions and arguments for the region based on information from and the experience of Bulgaria. Bulgaria joined the WTO as of 1 December 1996 and has signed onto every multilateral trade agreement annexed to the Marrakech Agreement from the date of accession, without recourse to a transitional period. The country has also accepted as a single undertaking the three major agreements - the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs (GATT), the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS), and Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Prior to this, until 1991, Bulgaria belonged to the Council of Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON) and practised state monopolisation of foreign trade. The International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank (WB), as in many other countries, promoted trade liberalisation as an essential element of Bulgaria’s structural reform and financial stabilisation package. Facing the challenge of deregulation and abandoning the socialist planning and centralised system, the Bulgarian government took too long to find a form of regulation that would stimulate competition and as a result enterprises have been exposed to the chaos of a hazardous post-communist market. Bulgaria’s difficulties have been compounded because it joined the WTO as a developed country, which meant that structural reforms had to be conducted in a framework of fully liberalised markets and exposure to strong international competition. Trade liberalisation can only correct trade imbalances and reduce foreign debt if the national economy is healthy and competitive. Instead, the unrealistic terms on which Bulgaria joined the WTO have jeopardised the country’s structural reforms and they have had a negative impact on crucial sectors of economy, in particular industry. Shortly before joining the WTO Bulgaria began the process of EU accession, which has also entailed structural reforms in order to comply with EU standards. The establishment of a free market economy is a core EU requirement for a country and its citizens to be able to operate within the liberal European market. The positive aspect of the EU accession for Bulgaria is that the process imposes high environmental and social, including gender, standards. The Bulgarian government has had to respond to the double challenge from the EU and the WTO of carrying out structural reforms and raising social and environmental standards. The Bulgarian government is now involved in a complex dual process. In its pursuit of liberalisation as required by GATS, the Bulgarian government has had to provide extensive market access to foreign suppliers of services in sectors, such as business, research and development, information technology, transport and tourist services. But because of the EU accession, the government is bound to a large extent by the common trade policy of the Union, and therefore has had to harmonise its position regarding the liberalisation of trade in services with that of the EU. EU accession, economic restructuring and liberalisation [3]and their impact on gender equality Structural reform, privatisation, attracting FDI and accession to the EU in 2007 are the main priorities of the Bulgarian government - but the government is not taking into consideration the negative effects of globalisation on social protection, especially among vulnerable groups (women, young people, pensioners). Armed conflicts in the Balkans and financial constraints related to structural adjustment programmes have negatively affected the ability of the previous and the current governments of Bulgaria to promote social development through better safety nets. Unemployment is a main concern of the region [4]despite clear signs of improvement in Bulgaria and Romania. SEE countries have seen a deterioration in employment security and social protection. Employment growth and quality remain core issues to be addressed. Gender discrimination is another serious issue - women still encounter greater difficulties than men in securing decent work with equal wages; in obtaining adequate social protection; and in being able to participate in social dialogue. Unemployment often affects women more acutely than men and gender segregation in employment is widespread, with women tending to be concentrated in low-paid occupations and sectors. The employment rate of women in Bulgaria (38.4 % compared to 46.8% of men in 2003) is still far from the ambitious goals set at the Lisbon Summit. From the first quarter of 2004 to September 2004 unemployment rate fell from 13.3% to 11.74%. Despite that, the analysis of the data of the State Employment Agency shows that from 1990 women’s unemployment is higher than men’s. Bulgaria does not receive funding from EU programmes such as PHARE [5]for gender equality issues and no accession funds have been allocated to gender issues [6]. At the same time Bulgaria’s domestic labour, social security and non-discrimination laws have been harmonized with the European Community law, including directives regulating equal opportunities for men and women and gender issues, such as non-discrimination based on gender, equal remuneration of men and women, elimination of sexual harassment at the work place as well as paid and unpaid parental leave for both parents or grand parents [7]. Formally the government is able to declare compliance with the EU standards of gender equality. However, NGOs and trade unions have revealed gross violations in all sectors, especially in relation to the principle of equal remuneration especially as this relates to private small and medium size companies. Problems of enforcement and implementation of the adopted new labour and anti-discrimination legislations are common for all the countries under review. The negative consequences of privatisation of formerly state-owned property and liberalisation of public services have led to the violation of labour and social security legislation by both Bulgarian and foreign investors. Such violations include low salaries, forced and unpaid overtime, non payment of social and health security instalments by the employer, etc. “Podkrepa” Labour Confederation estimates that around 65% of Bulgaria’s population live in moderate to serious poverty. The trade union states that the most vulnerable groups in the current economic situation are families with children, long-term unemployed, old people and the disabled. Muslims and the Roma also find it very difficult to meet even their basic needs for physical survival. And poverty is growing among women-headed households which comprise 21.4% of households in Bulgaria and their number continues to increase partly because of the higher life expectancy of women. Of women-headed households, 64.9% live in absolute poverty and they are poorer than male-headed households. For women, balancing their roles as breadwinners and primary caretakers has become especially difficult. As state support for families shrinks, especially for single mothers, more responsibility is shifted to individuals, who, in turn, appear to rely more heavily on kinship systems and local support networks. The average monthly earnings for women as a share of male earnings in Bulgaria in the public sector is around 69%. The government claims that women earn less because they have different levels of education and qualifications and they accrue shorter working records, often as a result of family responsibilities. All major amendments to the Labour Code in the past four years are reported to be in response to a need to increase labour market flexibility, but it is the women that have been most adversely affected. During the transition period differences in opportunities and income levels became more pronounced and had a negative effect on the social and economic status of women. Women traditionally have had very limited access to financial resources for independent economic activity and today there are no targeted programmes or affirmative action policies to increase the access of women to credit or finance to try and narrow the gap. Opportunities to acquire industrial or real estate property or to make any profits apart from salaries were restricted in socialist times. As a result the majority of Bulgarian citizens lack the financial means to participate actively in the case-by-case cash privatisation. Lack of clear, consistent regulations and control over the privatisation process has meant effectively that privatisation of the existing state and municipally owned assets has occurred behind closed doors and in a very un-transparent manner. To sum up, trade liberalisation and related structural adjustment policies in Bulgaria have resulted in:
Gender equality legislative and mechanisms Well-functioning and transparent regulations and institutions have not been established in Bulgaria: the ombudsperson for equal opportunities was not supported by the Parliament Act on equal opportunities; a commission against discrimination was not included under the Act on Protection against Discrimination (in force since 1 January 2004); and the envisioned consultative body on gender equality - the consultative council on equal opportunities - was not approved by the government. However, the Employment Agency has started the project ‘Back to work’ for the period 2003-04 aimed at promoting real gender equality through interim affirmative measures for access to employment [8]. Other projects incorporating affirmative actions include the ‘New professional qualification in the field of information technologies and computer networks’ [9]and the ‘Promotion of independent economic activities of women in child care services’ [10] . These projects should be evaluated as a first step to articulate a unified strategy on gender equality in Bulgaria. During 2004, the first EU funded governmental project was implemented in the field of gender mainstreaming. In addition, a special unit on equal opportunities was created in the Ministry of Labour and Social Policy. Romania and Croatia are further ahead on gender equality in terms of legislation and institutional frameworks. Both countries have gender equality acts. Romania adopted a National Action Plan for equal opportunities in 2000 and established a commission for equal opportunities within the Economic and Social Council. Croatia has a deputy ombudsperson on equal opportunities and a national office on equal opportunities. In addition a commission on gender equality was established in the government, which approved a National Policy for promotion of gender equality. Despite this institutional progress, the effectiveness of these bodies need to be improved and the level resources allocated to them need to be increased. Conclusions The Bulgarian government would like us to believe that its sole priority is the harmonisation of domestic legislation on equal opportunities for men and women with EU standards. However, it ignores the obligation to take measures, including affirmative action interim measures, to guarantee the real equality of opportunities for men and women. Transposing the acquis communautaire in Bulgarian domestic legislation is not enough to declare that gender equality objectives have been reached in Bulgaria, and that the state has no further obligations to promote and protect gender equality through state policy and programmes initiated and funded by state agencies. The above mentioned projects are not enough to promote an integral strategy on equality and equal opportunities for women and men. In order to guarantee proper implementation of the new standards, further strengthening of the capacities of labour administration is needed, particularly a mechanism for labour inspection and a properly functioning and effective legal system. Recommendations for policy change To the EU institutions:
To the national governments:
This infosheet was produced with the financial assistance of the European Commission, DG Education and Culture. The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and can therefore in no way be taken to reflect the official opinion of the EC or of WIDE.
Women in Development Europe © ---------------------------------------------
[1] The higher the index, the lower the level of corruption in the country. For example, the three top countries – that is, those with the lowest levels of corruption - are Finland – 9.7, New Zealand – 9.6 and Denmark -9.5.
|
 |
