You are looking at 1 - 4 of 4 items

  • Author or Editor: Rianne Mahon x
Clear All Modify Search
You do not have access to this content

Rianne Mahon

Given women’s traditional (and ongoing) responsibilities for unpaid domestic work, the rise in women’s labour market participation gives rise to work–family tensions and the need for policies to address these. This chapter examines the way the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and the Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC) – two important international organizations (IOs), widely known for their policy-orientated research – have attempted to grapple with the issue. It addresses two key questions: through which kind of unit does each IO see the issue and how does this affect its understanding of thereof? Are femocrats – staff who combine feminist knowledge with skills in administration and management – well-placed to develop and assert their perspectives within the organization?

You do not have access to this content

Rianne Mahon

You do not have access to this content

Rianne Mahon

The chapter will reflect on various arrangements for governing early childhood education and care spaces. In part it will draw on the author’s knowledge of the Canadian case – a country that has accepted the adult worker-parent norm, but whose federal system has permitted the development of a fragmented early childhood education and care system, with pockets of innovation but a lack of overall standards. Quality, accessibility and affordability are thus highly uneven which contributes to (socio-economic and territorial) inequality. The Canadian case will be set in comparative perspective with particular reference to two other Anglo-American countries with liberal social policy regimes (Australia and the United Kingdom) as well as the ‘gold standard’ Scandinavian countries, with particular reference to Norway and Sweden.

You do not have access to this content

Rianne Mahon

This chapter focuses on the role of three important international organizations – the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), the World Bank, and the International Organization for Migration (IOM) – in developing and disseminating policy knowledge. In particular, it examines the way their organizational structures have affected their capacity to see global care chains. Consistent with the book’s first hypothesis (international organizations as collective constructs involving a variety of actors whose conceptions and interests vary), I argue that the OECD and the World Bank each see pieces of the problem but neither has been able to grasp the connections among them. The IOM has done a better job at seeing the links in the chain, but its perspective on migrant women workers more often takes a back seat to anti-trafficking, a more comfortable fit with the IOM’s ‘managed migration’ discourse. This bias is reinforced by the IOM’s decentralized structure.