Expanded unitary strategy

The expanded unitary strategy focuses on a single line of inequality or social differentiation that is considered privileged or a priority, and from this, other subordinate lines incorporate, in which crossings, it is understood, the experiences of discrimination of particular subgroups intensify. It is a hierarchical additive model of inequalities that corresponds to an intra—categorial problematization of gender inequality ^{(McCall, 2005)} , and in which the internal differences and inequalities of a collective are examined. It bases upon a pragmatic approach which states that complex intersections between inequalities do not need new intervention instruments or specific policies, making it possible to use and extend the existing resources of the unitary approach to deal with intersectional problems ^{(Verloo, 2006)} .

In the case of gender equality policies, resorting to the expansive unitary policy is becoming usual to try to amplify the effects toward subgroups of women in situations of particular vulnerability ^{(Jiménez Rodrigo, 2020}; ^{Lombardo and Agustin, 2012)} . In the European sphere, we have numerous examples, as noticed in the EU Gender Equality Strategy 2020—2025 ^{(Comisión Europea, 2020)}, which addresses particular situations of women regarding age, ethnicity / racial, religion, disability, or sexual identity. At national level, the 2018 — 2030 National Strategy for Equality and No—Discrimination of Portugal has been distinguished, as it recognizes that the experiences of women cannot be considered homogeneous, and calls for addressing the specific needs of Roma, Afro—descending, elderly, migrant or refugee women ^{(Portugal, Presidência do Conselho de Ministros, 2018)}.

For its part, Ireland’s National Strategy for Women and Girls (2017—2020) states the need to assist women in disadvantage, elderly women, disabled elderly women, Roma and Traveller women, as well as migrant women (Ireland, Department of Justice and Equality, 2017). In Spain, the incorporation of this expansive, hierarchical and additive perspective into the integral plans for gender equality is still limited and uneven between regions. Above all, age, rurality and social exclusion are the main lines that intersect gender to identify certain profiles pointed out as vulnerable such as girls, female youth, elderly, rural and prostituted women as well as victims of trafficking, drug—user or homeless women (^{Jiménez Rodrigo, 2020}).

In the Latin American sphere, the incorporation of multiple inequalities is tangibly present in security plans, especially in relation to the intersection of gender, race, and ethnicity, focusing on the needs and problems of indigenous and Afro—descendant women (CEPAL, 2017).

Bolivia’s Plan Nacional para la Igualdad de Oportunidades [National Plan for Equal Opportunities] follows, additionally, a “decolonization approach to the concept of gender by stressing the importance of considering the relationship between urban indigenous and rural indigenous nuclei, between mestizo and indigenous women, and between white and mestizo women” (Ministerio de Justicia de Bolivia, 2008: 30). For its part, Guatemala’s Plan de Equidad de Oportunidades (2008—2023) [Plan for Equity in Opportunities] articulates gender and cultural—ethnic approaches to incorporate indigenous women into the core of its policies (Gobierno de la República de Guatemala, 2009). Adding to this, the importance given to the promotion of the autonomy and participation of indigenous women in decision—making processes is noticeable (CEPAL, 2017).

Expanded unitary models have advantages and limitations to approach multiple inequalities. Among the main advantages one finds the harnessing of already existing regulations, structures, experiences, methods and tools for gender mainstreaming (^{Verloo, 2013}) or to approach other inequality lines on the basis of ethnic—racial discriminations or migration status, for example. They allow focusing specific actions on multi—discriminated subgroups by means of ‘intra—categorial diversification’ ^{(Krizsan, 2012)} within a broader perspective. In such manner that the expansion of unitary policies for equality toward the complexity of intersectional inequality may be a way to increase their efficacy, equity and quality ^{(Lombardo and Agustin, 2012)} , enriching gender mainstreaming^{(Walby, 2009)} . At once, the ontological and political identity of gender equality as a goal would be preserved by considering “the minorities in disadvantage within the minorities in disadvantage” ^{(Squires, 2008: 56)} .

On the one side, the expanded hierarchical models have difficulties to work with intersectionality ^{(Crowley, 2016)} , since the subordinate condition of various inequality lines may lead to an uneven coverage and intensity as regards the attention to determinate subgroups ^{(Hankivsky and Grace, 2015)} . Oftentimes, this expansive strategy is limited to the particular addition of certain profiles that experience the issues dealt with in the policies in an intensified manner, but without addressing their problems and necessities from an integral approach.

It is the case of women with disabilities, who are included very marginally in some actions of Spanish equal—opportunity plans ^{(Jiménez Rodrigo, 2020)} . Likewise, hierarchical models are highly vulnerable to the development of competitive relationships between categories of inequality ^{(Hankivsky, 2012}; ^{Krizsan 2012)} , with the risk of potentiating subordination or dependency relationships subjecting determinate groups to determinate main categories ^{(Squires, 2008)} .

Multi—strand strategy

The multi—strand strategy bases on the development of general frameworks of equality policies that may comprehend various lines of differentiation and inequality ^{(Parken, 2010)} . This model is not very extended, though some referents can be found in the field of political inclusion and no discrimination, in which it is tried to apply gender mainstreaming to other social hierarchization lines in a broader structure with a view to approaching inequalities ^{(Hankivsky and Cormier, 2011)} . These lines of inequality are defined independently and separately, being gender understood as another line of inequality within the set of social inequalities.

An instance of this strategy is Guatemala’s Plan de Acción Nacional en Derechos Humanos 2007-2017 [National Human Rights Action Plan] ^{(Gobierno de la República de Guatemala, 2007)}, which establishes, from a common actuation framework, various protection lines particularly aimed at women, indigenous peoples, people with disabilities, children and adolescents, the youth, the elderly, migrants or people with HIV—AIDS. This multi—strand approach is also observed in Mexico’s Programa Nacional para la Igualdad y No Discriminación (2019-2024) [National Program for Equality and No Discrimination], which integrates several objectives and lines of action to address the problems and needs of various collectives that face discrimination on the basis of gender, age, ethnicity, territory, disability or sexual—gender diversity ^{(Gobierno de México, 2021)}.

In this regard, such strategy would be at the risk of de—gendering equality policies ^{(Lombardo and Agustin, 2012)} , by attenuating the importance of gender as a priority and transversal line to address determinate social problems in which it is fundamental, as it is the case of violence against women ^{(Strid et al., 2013)} . Likewise, in the multi—strand approach a thorough examination of the existing policies and dynamics of inequality that affect the target group of the policy in question is necessary ^{(Parken, 2010)} in order to avoid thoughtlessly developing decontextualized “one—size—fits—all solutions” ^{(Verloo, 2006)} .

Intersectional strategy

This strategy characterizes by interactively dealing with various lines of inequality and focusing on the intersections of such inequalities. There are two sorts of applications. On one side, intersectional policies may focus on certain groups at intersectional positions ^{(Choo and Ferree, 2010)} to specifically and comprehensively address their problems and needs; a noticeable instance is I Plan de Acción Integral para Mujeres con Discapacidad [1^st Comprehensive Action Plan for Disabled Women] (2008—2013), in Andalusia (Spain), which addresses a number of problems faced by disabled women in employment, health care, education, violence, social participation and decision making ^{(Junta de Andalucía, 2008)}.

On the other side, intersectional policies could focus on certain intersectional problems or needs which cannot be dealt with disregarding the concurrence of gender with other inequalities. This is noticed in the various violences against women ^{(Guzmán Ordaz and Jiménez Rodrigo, 2015)} ; hence, “honor killings”, female genital mutilation, or forced marriage have given rise to numerous intersectional plans in Europe ^{(Alonso and Arnaut, 2017}; ^{Asamblea General de Naciones Unidas, 2019)}. A significant referent is UK’s Together We Can End Violence against Women and Girls ^{(HM Government, 2009)}, which recognizes ethnicity, age, disability, family and residential status as other lines of inequality that affect the experiences of violence faced by women, identifying the most vulnerable groups such as girls and female youth, homeless women and from ethnic minorities as well as refugees ^{(Strid et al., 2013)} .

In Spain and El Salvador highly significant pioneering policies have been developed regarding women, peace and security to address the context of migrant women, refugees and victims of armed conflicts and human trafficking and smuggling ^{(Gobierno de El Salvador, 2017; Gobierno de España, 2015)}.

Problematization

First. Intersectional approach, applied to social intervention, tries to rescue experiences of exclusion, inequality and discrimination in the periphery to place them at the core of its content ^{(Collins and Bilge, 2018)} . In this way, the problematization of policies has to be carried out from simple static homogeneous categories to simultaneous interactions between categories, also going beyond the traditional “gender—race—social class” categories to consider other lines for differentiation and inequality such as ethnicity, indigenousness, territory, age, religion, disability or migration. The intersectional approach contributes to identify and reveal new problems and needs of profiles that have remained invisible or underrepresented in unitary policies and which might not be taken into account without crossing gender and other inequality lines ^{(Hankivsky and Jordan—Zachery, 2019)}. It also contributes to refocus “old” problems from a new and complex standpoint as with the problematization of violence against women ^{(Guzmán Ordaz and Jiménez Rodrigo, 2015)} .

Diagnosis

Second. The incorporation of an intersectional framework into equality policies needs to structurally understand power relationships, which leads to complex, contextual, comparative and relational diagnoses that allow apprehending and understanding the intersections between inequality lines regarding the problems and needs that are objects of intervention.

Intersectional diagnoses focus on the problems and needs of groups at the crossing of multiple lines of social hierarchization, intending to visualize, explain and comprehend their specific situations and experiences. The intersectional framework rejects, thereby, a binary excluding thinking, and invites to think social relationships in inclusive and interactive terms ^{(Collins and Bilge, 2018)} . Moreover, an intersectional diagnosis has to explicitly identify the structural and systematic sources of discrimination and marginalization that affect the groups that face multiple discriminations ^{(Crowley, 2016}; ^{Walsh and Xydias, 2014)} .

Third. Intersectional diagnoses need improved and innovated instruments and techniques to access, explain and understand the experiences of multi—discriminated groups, usually ignored or simplified in homogeneous unitary categories. The production of data and research works with gender perspective is an essential condition to be able to correctly identify and characterize the needs, problems and interests of groups that face multiple discriminations and guide decision—making regarding equality policies ^{(Comisión Europea, 2007; Crowley, 2016}; ^{Fredman, 2016)} .

From a qualitative standpoint, it is pressing to advance in the production of disaggregated data with two or more inequality lines and intersectional indicators ^{(Esteves and Santos, 2013}; ^{Instituto Europeo para la Igualdad de Género, 2019)}. Adding to developing quantitative data, intersectional diagnoses require the incorporation of qualitative methods that allow grasping the experiences and relationships of interdependence, power and privilege between groups ^{(Collins and Bilge, 2018}; ^{Hankivsky and Grace, 2015)} . Additionally, the complexity of intersectionality demands the combination of methods and the integration of qualitative and quantitative techniques ^{(Choo and Ferree, 2010)} . The incorporation of participatory methods that foster the empowering of the groups affected by the policies is deemed fundamental ^{(Kóczé, 2018)} to facilitate the involvement of those groups in diagnoses, interventions and assessments ^{(Seta, 2016)} .

Fourth. Incorporating the intersectional framework into equality policies entails a critical and reflective examination of the existing policies. The intention would be to apply a “reactive approach” ^{(Verloo, 2013)} , which intends to assess the noxious or beneficial effects of equality policies regarding collectives at the intersections of inequalities. From an intersectional standpoint, it is necessary to examine the effects of the policies in maintaining, questioning or removing the multiple inequalities as a consequence of the reproduction of intersectional biases that might affect their creation and setting into motion.

The first of these biases refers to the omission of troubling experiences and needs of multi—discriminated groups. This has been called “intersectional invisibility” ^{(Purdie—Vaughns and Eibach, 2008)}. A second bias refers to the thoughtless and decontextualized consideration of intersections between multiple inequalities as a consequence of the bad practices of “adding and removing” inequalities ^{(Hankivsky, 2012)} . While a third bias is the reproduction of essentialist proposals, prejudices and stereotypes regarding certain multi—discriminated profiles ^{(Hankivsky, 2012)}, contributing to their stigmatization ^{(Lombardo and Agustin, 2012)} .

This critical and reflexive analysis would allow valuing the intersectional (in)sensibility of the policies developed for their improvement and future reorientations. In this sense, in a previous study on regional and national equality plans in Spain, the underrepresentation of certain social groups was disclosed, as for example, Roma, foreign migrant and disabled women and also women with identities different from the cisheteronormativity, as they were insufficiently assisted or had been made invisible ^{(Jiménez Rodrigo, 2020)} .

Design

Fifth. Policies with intersectional approach intend to identify and define their intervention objects as a result not of a single factor, but the intersection of various factors, making a broad range of social inequalities explicit and visible ^{(Lombardo and Agustin, 2012)} . As previously exposed, intersectional policies may focus well on determinate multi—marginalized groups ^{(Walsh and Xydias, 2014)} , or on specific problems and needs that could not be suitably approached without an intersectional perspective as it is the case of violence against women ^{(Alonso and Arnaut, 2017}; ^{Strid et al., 2013)} .

Sixth. Intersectional policies are characterized by the adoption of new goals and targets aimed at protecting, empowering and strengthening the rights of women who face multiple discriminations ^{(Walsh and Xydias, 2014)} . Moreover, policies with an intersectional approach not only try to improve the situation of discriminated groups, also incorporate a transforming approach before power relations ^{(Lombardo and Agustin, 2012}; ^{Verloo, 2006)} for they question the fundamental structures that produce situations of exclusion, marginalization or discrimination women face ^{(Walsh and Xydias, 2014)} on the basis of the heterogeneity proper to them. Intersectional policies, thereby, are defined by a critical approach to the status quo and by a clear and defined orientation toward social justice ^{(Collins and Bilge, 2018)} .

Proceedings

Seventh. Policies with an intersectional approach potentiate participatory processes in the target groups regarding their design, setting into motion and assessment ^{(D’Agostino, 2015}; ^{Lombardo and Agustin, 2012)} . The incorporation of voices and standpoints of multi—marginalized groups in the devising of policies is a fundamental aspect in the advancement and deepening of democratic values ^{(Martínez Palacios, 2017}; ^{Verloo, 2006)} , in the processes of political action inclusion ^{(Collins and Bilge, 2018)} and, all in all, in the empowerment of these groups ^{(Walsh and Xydias, 2014)} . An instance of this is the strategy Together We Can End Violence against Women and Girls developed by the British government ^{(HM Government, 2009)}. From focal groups, various female profiles addressed in the policies were gathered in function of age, disability, sexual diversity, migrant—alien origin, and also heeding specific circumstances as being a refugee or asylum seeker, homeless, experiences of abuse and sexual violence, or being a victim of genital mutilation, exercising prostitution, or having mental health problems or drug addictions ^{(Strid et al., 2013)} .

Eighth. Collaboration and cooperation between various actors —institutions of equality, entities of civil society, unions, entrepreneurial organizations, education communities, communication means, research agents…— are key elements for a successful implementation of policies and practices of intervention against multiple inequalities ^{(D’Agostino, 2015}; ^{Strid et al., 2013)} . The institutions of equality perform an important role in the articulation of these networks of inclusive and participatory collaboration and dialogue between various governmental and non—governmental agents ^{(Crowley, 2016}; ^{Krizsan, 2012)} . It is the case of projects promoted by Instituto de la Mujer [Institute for Women] in Spain, for the socio—labor insertion of women who experience multiple discrimination on the basis of their foreign migrant origin, rurality, disability, poverty, belonging to ethnic minorities, or age ^{(Instituto de la Mujer, 2021)}.

Assessment

Ninth. The assessment of the impact of policies with intersectional approach demands to analyze the effects of experiences of groups located at the intersections of social inequalities. Following the objectives of intersectional policies, the assessment must reveal information whether these have contributed to protect, empower, and strengthen the rights of multi—marginalized groups ^{(Walsh and Xydias, 2014)} ; or, if on the contrary, they contribute — though unexpectedly and indirectly — to the reproduction of inequalities and their stigmatization ^{(Lombardo and Agustin, 2012)} .

Tenth. The assessment of the impact of equality policies has to report about their consequences in the effective transformation of underlying structures and processes of inequality and the needs of groups at the intersections of inequalities ^{(Jiménez Rodrigo, 2020)} . To do so, and as pointed out in the diagnosis section, it is necessary to develop assessment indicators sensitive to intersectional inequalities, as well as innovative and multimodal assessment methodologies ^{(Hankivsky and Grace, 2015)} that include qualitative and participatory instruments.