Feminist Perspectives on the

Internationalization of The State

Birgit Sauer and Stefanie W ohl
Department of Political Science, University of Vienna, Neues Institutsgeb aude,
Universit atsstrae 7, A-1010 Vienna, Austria;
birgit.sauer@univie.ac.at, stefanie.woehl@univie.ac.at
Abstract: The state is often described in transition: public spaces are rearranged by private
companies, national social welfare is being privatized to some extent, and supranational
institutions have more influence on national policies. A view from the kitchen (Diane
Elson) is helpful for understanding the changing dynamics of states and societies because
different women are affected by these policies in different and often ambiguous ways: women
of the globalized South migrate to the North, creating global care chains, while women in
Western industrialized countries are confronted with changing welfare regimes, leaving mainly
highly educated women to profit from this situation. This article contributes to feminist debates
on economic globalization and state internationalization. Our feminist materialist perspective
allows a critical view on dominance and power in governance. Thus, the article adds to
feminist debates on globalization from the perspective of state transformation and to debates on
governance from the perspective of state transformation grounded in gendered social relations.
Keywords: gender, state transformation, feminist materialist state theory, global governance
critique, re-masculinization of politics
Asking Gender-Critical Questions: An Introduction
The feminist literature of the last decade has usually been rather sceptical
about the consequences of globalization for women (see, among others,
Klingebiel and Randeria 1998; Meyer and Pr ugl 1999; Sassen 1996,
1998; Sauer 2001a). For example, structural adjustment measures put
women in Africa in a precarious and exploitable position between
subsistence and informal economy (Connelly 1996; Mulyampiti 2001).
Additionally, in the Asian globalization crisis, women were especially
affected by unemployment (Elson 2002:29ff), and the reconstruction
of welfare states in countries of the North, despite all the critique of
the patriarchal welfare state, was seen as an unfriendly act towards
women. Both as employees in these welfare systems and as those
reliant on social benefits in the form of childcare or financial support
women are negatively affected (see, among others, Jenson 1996;
Sainsbury 1996; Wright 1997). Social reproduction is still politically
ignored as a crucial topic in processes of global restructuring; instead,
Antipode Vol. 43 No. 1 2011 ISSN 0066-4812, pp 108128
doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8330.2010.00813.x
C
2010 The Authors
Antipode
C
2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.
Feminist Perspectives on the Internationalization of The State 109
welfare-to-work programmes have been installed, not only in the United
States (Mitchell, Marston and Katz 2003) but also in strong welfare
states such as Germany and Austria.
The globalization of politics and state transformation, on the other
hand, is perceived as being far more positive (see, among others,
Holland-Cunz 2000; Meyer and Pr ugl 1999). In the last decade economic
globalization and political internationalization gave birth to new forms
of political decision-making at international, national and local levels.
In political science, these new forms are termed governance (Pierre
and Peters 2000). Examples of such governance structures apply, on
the international terrain, to the political decision-making regimes of
the European Union and the United Nations, and on the national
level, to the new negotiation networks in the local area, and to extra-
parliamentary forms of cooperation on specific topics (for example,
the German Ethikrat, or Ethics Council). The characteristic of these
discussion fora and decision-making structures is that the (nation) states
administration is no longer the dominant actor; rather, social groups are
already integrated at an early stage in political processes. The states
defining and decision-making monopoly is thereby relativized so that
the attempt to create non-hierarchical, cooperative and more specifically
heterarchical forms of politics is associated with governance structures.
Additionally, in feminist debates in the German-speaking context,
governanceespecially on an international levelis seen as an
opportunity structure to overcome androcentric, racist and classist
forms of world order that are based on (nation) statehood and as a
chance to establish more inclusive, more deliberative, more participatory
and more responsive forms of political decision-making (see, among
others, Holland-Cunz 2000:26). Governance structures are here
conceived as a gain for womens groups in the area of decision-making
and participation, because the nation states hierarchical structures
(must) make room for new groups of actors and women who
obtain more possibilities of influencing the formulation of policies
(Ruppert 2002:54). Ilse Lenz (2002:82) even considers a global gender
democracy possible.
Governance is certainly an indication of the reworking of gender
relations in a globalized political space. However, besides the issue
of representation, the contradictory social foundations for these new
forms of statehood must also be viewed critically so as not to fall
into the trap of power-blind argumentation (Brush 2003; W ohl 2008).
Moreover, the contradictions and the hegemonic process of inclusion
of subaltern positions have to be recognized in order to avoid the risk
of underestimating the state-centredness of new governance regimes.
The new institutional power structures at the national and international
level as well as their neoliberal orientation, which has led to new forms
of gendered exploitation of labour and new export-producing zones
C
2010 The Authors
Antipode
C
2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.
110 Antipode
in countries of the periphery, lead to the further vulnerability of the
poorest (Wright 1997). The hegemonic neoliberal frame (Runyan
1999) of these policies and processes, as well as the ambiguous and
repressive effects that thereby emerge can easily disappear from view
(Ruf 2000:170; Young 2002). Even the political perspectives for women
that governancethe new political field of actiondoes allow are
often falsely interpreted or simply overestimated (Brand et al 2001:8).
Therefore, we would like to outline the gendered processes of this
international transformation of statehood.
Our article seeks to contribute to these feminist debates on economic
globalization and state internationalization with a feminist materialist
approach towards state and state transformation (the second and third
sections). This approach allows a critical view on dominance and power
in the political field of action described as global governance (fourth
section). Thus, we would like to add to feminist debates on globalization
the perspective of state transformation and to debates on governance
the perspective of state transformation grounded in gendered social
relations.
In the process of the restructuring of the (nation) state, one thing
is certain so far: gender regimes that are fenced in by the nation
state are breaking up and new gender identities are being interpellated
as a foundation for political action. The dynamic of globalization
can admittedly lead in the direction of further hetero-normative re-
genderingespecially along the lines of class and ethnicity in the
case of migrant women as care workers in Western countries. But
economic globalization can also lead in the direction of de-gendering
of social institutions such as the family and to greater gender equality,
as for instance in the dual (adult) breadwinner model. Thus Western
industrialized countries can no longer organize their gender regimes
based on the model of the Keynesian welfare state; rather, these regimes
must be readjusted. As a result, well-educated women in the North are
definitely counted as being among the winners as a result of globalization
and, in the course of global capital restructuring, traditional gender
regimes in the countries of the South are also rearranged (Mulyampiti
2001). However, the social and political transition we currently find
ourselves in has the gendered structure of modernity. There is much
indication that globalization, as Janine Brodie (1994:8) writes, results
in a phallocentric restructuring. New gender identities are developed
from processes of simultaneous persistence and dissolution as well as
from the non-concurrence of different social and political spaces, and
individuals are required to assume these new identities.
The reconfiguration of state and politics in the guise of governance
at various local, national, and supranational levels has the organization
of gender-specific, ethnic and classist structures of inequality at its
foundation. It is therefore not a democratic form of political action and
C
2010 The Authors
Antipode
C
2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.
Feminist Perspectives on the Internationalization of The State 111
decision-making, but instead has only narrow scope with regard to
gender equality or fairness. The deregulation of political fields of action
as conceived by the nation state, in the context of the internationalization
of state and the development of forms of governance, does not as
yet suggest gender-democratic structures. Rather, governance is the
political form of regulation of still unequal ethnicised binary gender
identities (Gutierrez Rodriguez 1999). It restructures the hierarchic
topography of gender relations in the political field of action.
To explore these considerations, we firstly clarify our feminist
materialist concept of state and present a feminist reading of
contemporary globalization processes, which reveals the gender
ambivalences in the processes of state restructuring at various levels.
Secondly, we outline the current social shifts in the process of
economic globalization. These social changes are the material basis
of current political state transformations. Thirdly, we argue that these
changes show that the internationalization of state in the new forms of
governance rests on unequal gender relations, and therefore instead
of democratically increasing womens political agency it tends to make
politics less accessible to women.
Global Restructuring of State as a Hegemonic Project:
an Analysis from a Feminist Materialist Perspective
To grasp the gendered dimension of state transformations in the era of
globalization we first need a feminist materialist concept of the state. In
this perspective, the state is not only conceptualized as a bureaucratic
apparatus and a liberal-democratic framework of institutions, but
according to Nicos Poulantzasas a field of social relations and power,
where social forces fight over meaning, representation and interests
(Poulantzas 1973). This is the material basis of states. To explain
state transformation it is therefore important to analyse this material
basis of the statethat is, the transformation of social relations and
social forces. The state is, further, the institutionalization of a discursive
field of social and political identities as well as social practices (Pringle
and Watson 1992). State institutions and norms originate from social
discourse about the organization of social relations. The state is a terrain
upon which structures of inequality are built, where they consolidate, and
where hegemonic forms of perception are developed (Sauer 2001; W ohl
2007). Additionally, each nation stateits specific gender and ethnic
regimewhich Encarnacion Gutierrez Rodriguez (1999:252) describes
as gendered ethnicityoriginates from this state-driven discourse.
Typical of the patriarchal state relations of Western industrialized
societies were, for instance, gender-discriminatory welfare state regimes
as well as the male bias of state institutions.
C
2010 The Authors
Antipode
C
2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.
112 Antipode
These ethnicized gender regimes are made secure by hegemonic
compromises. Common norms, systems of belief and conviction about
gender, ethnicity and class make up the hegemonic foundation of any
state (Stienstra 1999:265). The divisions of social spheres into public
and private, or state, market and household economies, are essential
techniques in these hegemonic state compromises. Furthermore, the
modern state is also based on the existence of borders between nation
states. All these structured differences, which are coupled with the
border regimes, have always been and are still the modes of constructing
social inequality: state borders and citizenship construct inequality
qua ethnicity or nationality; power over resources for production, and
the division of manual and mental labour, produce class inequality;
and the granting of access to gainful employment or assignment
to reproductive labour creates gender inequality. However, in the
discourses and practices of the state, social positions and political
identities are not simply prescribed compulsorily; rather, they must
be actively appropriated or contrived. In this sense, the state is not
only a repressive monolithic apparatus, but also an arena where subjects
actively develop their identities and interests, and in which they could
also potentially initiate change. Gender identities and gender regimes
are also objects of social discourse and change.
The material basis of the androcentric state and its political
institutions are consequently configured by these social power relations
and hegemonic constellations. Liberal democracy, the political
representational form of the bourgeois-masculinist state, is not only an
institutional setting of participation, of majority rule and of the selection
of political elites, but rather a social relationship. Democratization then
means inversely the transformation of state in a more comprehensive
sense, as outlined above.
The catch-all term globalization in mainstream literature (see, for
example, Beisheim and Geworg 1997) encompasses social, political,
cultural as well as economic transformation dynamics. Globalization
is characterized by the dissolution of boundaries between nation states
through media-communicative networking and migratory movements,
the internationalization of political decision-making bodies, and the
reduction of distance in space and time through rapid media interaction.
Most of these concepts of economic globalization assume the decline
and erosion of the nation state due to international regime-building
or due to the power of international companies. Critical accounts of
economic globalization and political internationalization point to the fact
that globalization first of all refers to the almost worldwide expansion
of capitalist modes of production. Critical economists and state theorists
define globalization as the unleashing of capitalism after the decline
of real socialism and the disembedding of capital and financial flows
from national contexts. These processes do not erode nation states but
C
2010 The Authors
Antipode
C
2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.
Feminist Perspectives on the Internationalization of The State 113
create a new material basis for statehood in nation states, once the
political bed of capitalism (Altvater and Mahnkopf 1996:107). These
dynamics also create new forms of political democratic representation,
labelled governance, at the national and international level.
The change in economic and political post-war relations is not
inherently necessary for capitalism. The globalization of capitalism,
like its nationalization after the Second World War, is politically
produced and intended (Bergeron 2001:996). Globalization is also not
a linear, but a multidimensional process which is temporally, spatially
and socially unequal. Globalization should hence be conceptualized
as a set of contingent political, economic and cultural transformation
discourses and practices (see also Marchand 1996:597). The hegemonic
globalization discourses and practices are one and the same: they
reconfigure economic, social, political and symbolic spaces at local,
national and international levels and frame them in a competitive and
efficiency-related context. Globalization is hence more appropriately
characterized as a global neoliberal restructuring (Marchand and
Runyan 2000:3; emphasis added).
Globalization also encompasses specific thought patterns, rooted in
the minds and bodies of people, which explain the world and at the same
time prefigure political solutions. In the current globalization practices,
people (re)produce identities and interests and develop new norms
and institutions (Brodie 1994:52). In other words, globalization as a
structural context (Jessop 1998:280) must be appropriated by citizens:
Women and men . . . are struggling to make sense of the conditions
of economic restructuring and to find better ways of living under the
conditions of globalisation (Jenson 1996:10). These newtechnologies
of the self are based on neoliberal knowledge about effectivity and
accomplishment, employability and forms of depreciation and exclusion
associated with neoliberalism (Foucault 2000).
The dynamic of global restructuring is nowpropelled by the processes
of the drawing-up and dissolution of boundaries. Not only do newborder
regimes between nation states emerge, not only is the domestic-foreign
frontier shifted (Rosenau 1997), but new limitations and boundaries
also come into being within nation states between the spheres of market,
state and everyday life or family economy. The market, under the magic
word deregulation, is enlarged in comparison to the state sphere,
social state regulation of work and everyday life is minimized, and
finally, the ratio of employment and reproductive labour is reformatted.
Globalization therefore fundamentally changes social relationslabour,
reproduction, international and gender-specific division of labour, social
paradigms and hegemonic compromises are restructured. The politics
of neoliberal restructuring can also be characterized as a political
revolution (Brodie 1994:55) because the spheres of the political are
rearticulated and the boundaries of the political are likewise newly
C
2010 The Authors
Antipode
C
2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.
114 Antipode
defined. The transformations of border regimes require new state
projects as well as new forms of political regulation and democratic
representation, as expressed in the political paradigm of governance.
Governance is thereby the political regulation of neoliberal social
relations. Governance is a description of statehood in the context of its
globalization and internationalization, of a new technique of governing
and controlling. Governance consequently does not describe the other
of state organization and dominance, it is hence not a counter model
to the eroding nation state, it is rather its successive form (Brand
et al 2001:9). In other words, governance is aprimarily discursive
project of the revision of dominant statehood as defined by neoliberalism
and only understandable in the context of globalization of politics and
economy (for more detail, see W ohl 2008:64ff).
Global restructuring is therefore not a transformation beyond the
logic of gender that then (only) affects gender relations; rather, it is
an intrinsically gendered process, which on the one hand is based
on specific gender arrangements, and on the other hand reproduces
and thereby also modifies these arrangements (Marchand 1996:602),
because the gender-specific and ethnicized grammar of current
transformations is also based on a shifting of boundaries, as outlined
above (Eisenstein 1997:142f). Neoliberal discourses and practices
enable new gender identities and new gender relations to develop
because they implylike all hegemonic discoursesa reshuffling in
everyday life and a new way of regulating the conditions of social
experience. Such a conceptualization focuses on how institutional
practices reproduce gender relations in the global restructuring process,
but also on how gender identities, the configuration of femininities and
masculinities, communicate the global transformation process.
In the following, we seek to outline the material basis of the new
form of statehood from a gender perspective. This new state form and
structure originate in new gender relations, which develop out of major
social shifts in the context of global neoliberal restructuringthe shift
between markets and the household economy and between capitalist
production in the North and the South.
The Materiality of the Neoliberal State: New Gender
Relations or an Androcentric Gender Compromise?
The new ways of regulating gender relations, in the countries of the
North as well as in the South, focus on the reorganization of market
and state, of gainful employment, as well as on the reshaping of
the reproduction of population. In the context of globalization, the
decline of labour is often spoken of in Western industrial countries.
This thesis needs to be reformulated: society has not run out of labour;
rather, traditional forms of gainful employment and the associated
C
2010 The Authors
Antipode
C
2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.
Feminist Perspectives on the Internationalization of The State 115
binary division of societymen as employees and women as
reproductive workersare tailored anew. The protected segment of
lifelongmasculinefulltime employment also loses its boundaries
or is dissolved, as are the firmly established family and reproductive
labour relations. More and more men are falling out of the formalized
labour force and are unprotected, exposed to the capitalist conditions
of valorizationa reality that previously primarily affected women,
or women reproductive workers. Even when the correlations between
globalization and the transformation of working conditions are too
complex to trace back to a distinct causal relationship (Leitner and
Ostner 2000:40) they still allow for an explanation of the simultaneous
trends of economic flexibilization and the dissolution of the
boundaries of labour.
With the orientation of national production and reproduction towards
international competition and international markets, traditional forms of
gender-specific division of labour as well as traditional gender identities
begin to weaken. Femininity can no longer be identified merely as the
responsibility for reproduction, and hegemonic masculinity is being
defined less and less by lifelong employment, and increasingly by
a specific kind of performance-related and efficient employment. In
particular, work in the management of the world market is masculinized
and coded with being white. Wendy Larner calls these groups of well-
educated manager elites, who are primarily employed in finance and
higher service sectors in international corporations, the new boys
(a group to which, no doubt, a few girls also belong) (Larner
1996:33f). These new forms of gendering of employment are connected
to ethnicity and locality. A good education will still have to be bought
in global centres like the USA. This, of course, requires opportunities
and resources for temporary or permanent mobility.
On the other hand one can currently speak of a feminization of
labour in three ways (Bakker 2002:18f): firstly, feminization signifies the
increasing number of employed women in the so-called First World,
as well as in the Third World. Capitalization means, for instance,
that many women in southern Africa have the chance to engage in
although more precariousself-employment (Mulyampiti 2001). The
emancipation of women through employment and self-employment,
with the concept of entrepreneurship for instance, strives towards the
goal that women will be able to fulfil their tasks in the family (that is,
reproduction) more and better than before (as argued in a paper from
UNCTAD, cited in Runyan 1999:214). In Western states, educational
policy since the 1970s has created conditions for womens employment
and made employment a self-evident element of feminine everyday life.
A group of well-educated women is increasingly able to find entry into
the established world market, into highly paid jobs, even when their
progress is slowed down by the existence of a glass ceiling. However,
C
2010 The Authors
Antipode
C
2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.
116 Antipode
the simple financial necessity for (married) women to be employed is
on the rise, since the mans and thereby, familys income is decreasing.
In the class of the working poor, a McJob no longer suffices to support
a family.
Secondly, feminization means a casualization and informalization
of labour conditions: namely, the increase in intermittent employment,
unprotected employment, temporary contracts, new self-employment
and part-time employment that does not secure or provide a livelihood
(Jenson 1996:6). Production in the so-called First World, but also in
the Third World, develops a demand for flexible working conditions
which accommodate the demands of global capital: for example, part-
time work is a way for companies to reduce costs (salaries, insurance,
entitlement to pension). This new segment of unprotected work is a
segment of womens labour, and the demand for a feminine labour
forceor more accurately, the demand for what is construed as a
feminine labour forceis increasing. Expressed euphemistically, the
demand for feminine workers fits with the necessityprimarily of
mothers with small childrento combine work and family. Thirdly,
feminization of employment means a decrease in the wage level
to that of womens labourto that of additional labouras well
as a differentiation in womens salaries. The politics of structural
adjustment, for example, initiates a feminization of poverty in the
South. In industrial countries women and migrants who are not well
educated are ghettoized in a segment of miserably paid and casualized
employment.
The feminization of employment is an aspect of the contradictory
redefinition of the circumstances of productive and reproductive labour.
The dissolution of the boundaries of employment is accompanied in
Western welfare states by a reprivatization of former state-organized
sections of care-giving labour as well as other services and benefits
formerly provided by the welfare state. The increasing integration
of women into the labour market in the countries of the North
occurred simultaneously with the withdrawal of the welfare state from
specific areas. For example, all OECDcountries decreased expenditures
on family allowances and reprivatized the costs of childcare between
1965 and 1990parallel to the increasing integration of women
into the labour market (Mitchell and Garrett 1996). Furthermore,
welfare state measures that enabled a minimum of social redistribution,
further education opportunities for women and more fair-to-women
participation in labour, fall victim to the state project of the
Schumpeterian workfare state (Jessop 1994) and its strategies of
reprivatization. This limitation of the welfare state pushes women
back to the private realm and restricts womens agency and self-
determination. Diane Sainsbury (1996) concludes that women in all
welfare regimes are clearly disadvantaged by this process of
C
2010 The Authors
Antipode
C
2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.
Feminist Perspectives on the Internationalization of The State 117
restructuring, because it limits the fields of action and decision-making.
Vulnerable social groups, like single parents, are especially and
drastically affected by the restructuring of the welfare state.
These strategies of reprivatization now assume that an unlimited
supply of unpaid womens labour exists, which the political
transformations of the welfare state can absorb. Yet these strategies
are based on a construction of family that has not existed for a long
time: the nuclear family is neither a dominant form of life, nor does the
idea of a single family income depict reality. Women are no longer at
home in front of the stove, and the global transformations in employment
contribute considerably to the fact that they also no longer return to the
stove. Through the withdrawal of state and the mobilization of familial
back-up systems, the private sphere is expanded and enlargedand
women are overburdened (Larner 1996:46). Because the labour of care-
giving remains a form of badly paid work, these politics produce new
gender relations in the private sphere: the social responsibility for the
reproduction of future as well as current generations is (once again) more
firmly bound to the feminine gender. A gender-specific redistribution of
productive and reproductive labour is not in sight and is also politically
not intended.
In the course of the re-privatization of care-giving labour, households
with top earners gain a new employer function. The integration of
women into top positions in Western industrial societies ensues on the
basis of a broadening of informal feminine working conditions in the
home economy. The feminine members of the global club must and
can buy a woman reproductive workerusually from the South or from
Eastern Europe (Rommelspacher 1999:245). Reproductive labour is also
not only feminized, but also ethnicized. This has, in recent years, given
rise to flexible and de-normalized care-giving markets. De-normalized
means that the people employed in the home economy are usually
operating in completely unprotected working conditions. Strategies of
differentiation therefore cause the economic, ethnic and class differences
between women in Western metropolizes to become even greater.
Through the neoliberal dissolution of boundaries, the forms of
international gender-specific division of labour are reconfigured. In
the era of national capitalism, the international division of labour
was a division of labour between zones of production and markets
of nation states. International gender-specific division of labour was
based on a duplication of the structures of inequality in the countries
of the periphery, namely on an export of gender-unequal forms of
labour and the housewifization
1
of employment in the countries of
the South as additional labour in the masculinized so-called centres.
The international unequal division of labour has been de-territorialized
over the past decades through the relocation of production and through
migration streams; it is no longer tied to the locality on-site. Rather,
C
2010 The Authors
Antipode
C
2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.
118 Antipode
the international assembly line returns to the metropolises. These shifts
of boundaries as well as the processes of dissolving or recreating
boundaries allow ethnicized gender regimes, gender practices and
gender identities to develop, especially in the industrial countries, such
as in eastern Europe.
Todays border regimes construe, using citizenship, belonging to
a community or the exclusion from it. Border regimes are therefore
also means of regulating productive and reproductive labour, formal
and informal or illegal labour. Neoliberal practices of dissolving
boundaries imply first and foremost the easier crossing of boundaries for
commodities and services, but these practices also imply a limitation,
in terms of the exclusion of people. The new border regimes are usually
gender selective and racist, because they construct subjects that are
useful and useable in the local or national labour market and
subjects that are of no value to the national economy. Women fromthe
South primarily make up the new (sexualized) service class of the North
(Gather, Geissler and Rerrich 2002). Neoliberal economic restructuring
is hence not only a process of a new kind of gendering, but it is also one
of racification (Larner 1996:40f).
The changes in the relations between productive and reproductive
labour result in an intensified intertwining of formal and informal labour
markets in the countries of the South as well as in the countries of
the North. The formal economy (of industrial countries) increasingly
needs the informal, semi-public economy (of the South). The new
neoliberal labour conditions thus produce new gender-coded positions
of employment all over the world: the more formal the employment
is, the more likely it is that it remains a white mans reservation; the
more informal it is, the greater the probability that it is the work of a
non-white reproductive labourer.
Marianne Marchand (1996:586) hence identifies two simultaneous
and interwoven global gender-specific restructuring processes: a
masculinist process of a highly technologized world of global finance
and production, and a feminized globalization process of the inferior
economy of sexualized and ethnicized services with intimate activities
in the home or private sphere. The feminized globalization is the
privatised other of the masculinized processes.
Statehood is without a doubt undergoing changes specific to gender
and ethnic identities, because of the relocation of production facilities,
the conquest of global markets, and migration in a globalized world:
ethnicization as a form of state discourse becomes more visible, more
manifest as well as, and even in connection with, gender discourse.
The dissolution of boundaries and condensation of space and time
in the context of globalization is also a process of the intensification
of gendering and ethnicizing of the worldwide production of centres
and peripheries and the structures of inequality they are bound to.
C
2010 The Authors
Antipode
C
2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.
Feminist Perspectives on the Internationalization of The State 119
The production of ones own and of foreign becomes a hegemonic
form of the nation states discourse in the process of neoliberal
restructuring.
Neoliberal discourses and practices are furthermore masculinist
because they do not in principle eliminate the sedimented gender
asymmetry; rather, they restore itin its individual components. The
economic and political restructuring process takes gender inequality
into consideration as a resource to legitimize the new functional
divisions and boundaries (W ohl 2007). Gender relations therefore
remain power relations. The following section closes with a gender-
critical acknowledgement of the political regulations of these global
social changes. The section looks critically at global governance as a
new form of statehood based on unequal gender relations.
Global Governance: Womens Political Perspectives on the
Internationalized State
Denationalization and internationalization, and the fact that democracy
in nation states is challenging boundaries, therefore allowing for new
political spaces and needing to find new forms of institutionalization,
definitely offer appealing feminist perspectives. Since the nation state
as the container for democracy never was very favourable to women, it
seems froma feminist point of viewthat in this shift there are aspects that
are open and formable: even conceptualizations of a cosmopolitization
or post-national democracy (see, among others, Held 1995:108ff)
partially overlap with feminist ideas of democracy.
Of course, the state and its forms of representation do not erode;
rather, the state apparatus executes a change of formin the architecture
(Altvater and Mahnkopf 1996:116). The end of the (nation) state is
hence more accurately identified as the adjustment of states to the new
economic doctrine: nation states primarily produce optimal conditions
of valorization for local capital, or the capital it wants to attract, so as to
allow it to be a high-performance player in the context of international
competition (Hirsch 1995:103). This reorganization of nation states
creates new political institutions and forms of representation at the
national as well as the international level. These new institutions
are there to effectively accompany, moderate and legitimatize the
globalization of capital. The new forms of political representation
and decision-making at the national as well as the international level
must thereby be seen within the context of economic and social
transformations. In the following we briefly discuss these new forms of
political representation in a gendered perspective, having in mind that
the project of state transformation is contested, that the internationalized
state is an arena of struggles between different social forces, and one
in which new identities and anti-hegemonic strategies are created.
C
2010 The Authors
Antipode
C
2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.
120 Antipode
Hence, the project of restructuring hegemonic masculinities through
economic globalization and political internationalization has not yet
been finalized, but is a contradictory and ambiguous process.
On the national level, an informalization of politics can be identified
in the substructures of negotiation rounds and in networks in the extra-
parliamentary area. State institutions are now only facilitators; they
are no longer the only, or even the privileged, actors in politics. Even
the importance of political parties in decision-making processes is
decreasing. In these networks, the social actors as well as the social
movements are no doubt partially integrated. However, these forms
clearly have problematic effects: Vivien Schmidt (1995:85) speaks
of asymmetries of state power, because through the process of
informalization, primarily the power of the executive is strengthened
compared with that of the legislature. In the negotiating state,
democratically legitimate institutions lose their monopoly on political
problem definition, agenda-setting and problem-solving strategies to
corporatist networks, strong social groups such as industry, the churches,
the media and academia. This process of de-parliamentarization also
becomes obvious with the invention and appointment of newbrain trusts,
for example the Ethikrat (Ethics Council) in Germany which works
on issues such as genetic bio-banks.
These processes of privatizing politics result in gender-political
ambivalences: the national negotiation regimes entail de-
democratization and remasculinization because they weaken any
organs of representation and negotiation, like parliament, where women
have fought to gain a quota of access. The decision-making in systems
of negotiation also usually excludes the public. Privatization then
means that politics tend to remain withdrawn from an examining
public. This removal of the public results in decisions being made
by old boy networks, because in these negotiation networks men are
almost exclusively the actors in important positions. Usually linked to
such forms of arcanization of politics is its homogenizationand a
gender homogenization as well. The more intensive form of informal
interweaving of lobbies, bureaucracy and private actors tends to
increase the influence of men, making successful interventions for
women and equality difficult.
With the nation states loss of the primacy of regulation to capital and
labour, nation states increasingly cede authority to supranational bodies
like the EU or the IMF. Internationalization and denationalization of
politics mean that political and social interactions are expanded beyond
the nation states boundaries and political decisions are negotiated
in international regimes or governance rounds. Compared with
international relations in the years of the Cold War and to the Realist
Theory of international relations, global governance appears to be a
revolutionary paradigmshift, since it seems to indicate a shift away from
C
2010 The Authors
Antipode
C
2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.
Feminist Perspectives on the Internationalization of The State 121
the ideas of military security to a model of conflict resolution through
cooperation (Ruppert 2000:51ff).
Politics beyond the nation state, in international networks of
cooperation between women of the South and of the North, has in fact
opened up newfeminist fields of action in the last decade. The history of
womens NGOs at the UN conferences can in this regard be considered
success stories: in this way the descriptive and therefore quantitative
representation (Pitkin 1967) of women in international bodies like the
World Bank and the UN has noticeably increased (DAmico 1999), and
in the context of UN conferences, womens groups or womens NGOs
have grown to become important global actors. The fields of action
and decision-making in international negotiation regimes could also
be considerably expanded to include women politicians and womens
NGOs. Womens movements became one of the central building blocks
of global governance; in fact the international womens movement
can even be considered a co-initiator of global governance structures
(Ruppert 2002:61).
Additionally, the substantial representation of women
2
was also
achieved more widely in the last decade: in international regulation
regimes, womens groups were successful in gendering the political
agenda (Meyer and Pr ugl 1999:5). Because of these engagements, it
was possible to establish the political field of international womens
politics (Ruppert 2002:60) and make gender an important international
issue. Feminist experts were able to increase the knowledge about
gender in important international institutions like the UN and the
World Bank, sensitizing these organizations to the questions of gender
and the gender-sensitive framing of their political issues. The
international womens movement, for example, gave determining
impetus to including womens rights (including reproductive rights,
protection from violence against women, and the recognition of rape as
a war crime) on the human rights agenda (Klingebiel 2000:162; Meyer
and Pr ugl 1999:3, 7). Similar successes can also be noted at the EU
level. The European Commission, which can likewise be identified as a
governance structure, is considered the initiator of European womens
networks (Abels 2001). The European Commission, in cooperation
with the European Court of Justice, adopted quite women-friendly
policies and was able to implement them in unwilling nation states like
Germany. Without doubt, new governance forms were also fought for
by international movements and NGOs, and by womens movements.
They are the results of negotiation processes between different elements
of civil society, including economic actors, and the nation states
administrative structures at national and international levels. Global
governance is the political regulation of social relations in the process
of global neoliberal restructuring, the political form of economic
regime-building (Runyan 1999:211). This state-theoretical and
C
2010 The Authors
Antipode
C
2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.
122 Antipode
dominance-critical view sheds a more differentiated light on the
process and structures of global governance. Against this background
we would like to outline some of the problematic consequences
of governance that affect the democratic configuration of gender
relations.
As we have shown, governance is a deeply gendered process. The
redefinition of political space is coupled with a remasculinization of the
public and institutions, as well as a narrowing of the roomfor manoeuvre
for womens politics. Additionally, supranational institutions were
historically developed by excluding women; they are inscribed with
a masculinist bias. The apparatuses of international statehood are very
obviously manned. In powerful institutions like the World Bank, the
IMF, the European Central Bank or the WTO, women are significantly
underrepresented (Lenz 2002:84ff). Beyond that, women are not only
marginalized in the largest organizations of global governance, but even
in NGOs (Lenz 2002:79). Symbolic as well as nominalist masculinism
has not been abolished on these levels. In these new political forms,
women are perhaps more visibly integrated; yet the gender-specific and
ethnicized invocations associated therewith are integrated into a setting
that is not free of power and dominance, which reconfigures the power
relations of gender, ethnicity and class: being white, being a man and
belonging to the new class of the hyperbourgeoisie (Duclos 1998),
acting worldwide, are rearticulated in the process of the transformation
of the international gender-specific division of labour and have become
the social foundations of power in the new neoliberal state. The
anarchy of single states manhoods are replaced by new powerful
networks of world manhood. The global economy and international
politics create new heroes of manhood, new masculine conqueror types
(Kreisky 2001:85ff): it is no longer the warriors and military heroes
who conquer the world, although even these are also becoming more
dominant; global virility obtains in the stockbroker, in the manager-
manhood of transnational corporations (Connell 1998:102) or in the
mondial spin doctor a refined nuanceand is thereby also potentially
accessible to women. The hegemonic manhood of neoliberalism is
also defined by the pattern of calculated egocentrism of the stock
market and by the compliance and dominance of bureaucracy (Connell
1998:101).
Uta Ruppert (1998:96ff) therefore arrives at the sobering conclusion
that traditionally strong international organizations are not questioned in
their dominant positions by womens NGOs, but that these organizations
are in fact more interested in a political supplement of womens
organizations. This hegemonic inclusion of womens movements fosters
their image and even strengthens their power, since subaltern positions
can be silenced through integration. They are marginalized in the
political process and are dominated by commercial organizations. The
C
2010 The Authors
Antipode
C
2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.
Feminist Perspectives on the Internationalization of The State 123
womens movements of the North as well as of the South lack the
resourcesfinances, professional and symbolic capitalto be able
to participate as powerful players in the international governance
structures (Ruppert 2000:60). Despite the growth of international
organizations magnitudes and breadths, the international womens
movement can only expect a few improvements when it comes to their
involvement or the implementation of their demands.
The informal institutions of a post-national network democracy
are just as impermeable to gender-specific themes as the national
institutions, because the channels of influence are additionally installed
underground: they seal themselves up against new, unknown women
actors more successfully than the formalized structures do, because
they are not transparent and are hidden from public (Sauer 2001b).
The generation of international regulation patterns is by no means
connected to the questioning of the reified pattern of manhood. On the
contrary, even the supranational state operates traditionally masculine
practices.
One reason lies in the fact that the neoliberal framing of global
governance creates and privileges the economic hegemony of
international organizations like the World Bank and the WTO (Cox
1996) and market-friendly NGOs (Runyan 1999:212). Even feminist
organizations run the risk of mutating into a trade-related feminism
(Shiva 1995:37, cited in Runyan 1999:218)perhaps because that is
the only way they can successfully put gender issues on the political
agenda. Furthermore, the danger exists that global women experts will
be absorbed by the process of neoliberal hegemony and their anti-
hegemonic potential will get lost. Gayatri Spivak criticizes, for example,
the feminist apparatchiks who identify conference organising with
activism (Spivak 1996:4, cited in Runyan 1999:212). Additionally,
Christa Wichterich identifies a group of jet-set female lobbyists
(Wichterich 1998:236, cited in Klingebiel 2000), who lack reference
to womens movements.
Women are substantially underrepresented in global governance
structures; their interests are dismissed and are only selectively
perceived. Gender was indeed made a central category of international
politics, and women from the so-called Third World were recognized
for their importance to economic growth and to population politics,
in short to development. But gender equality is developing much more
into a resource for economic growth in the countries of the periphery (as
stated in the World Bank Report 2001, ch II, cited in Ruppert 2002:56;
Klingebiel 2000:164) rather than being the foundation for emancipation
and empowerment. In this sense, empowerment programmes (such as
reproductive rights and womens health) are economically framed and
reinterpreted, and women are assessed on the basis of their value to
growth and economic development.
C
2010 The Authors
Antipode
C
2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.
124 Antipode
This precarious discovery of gender places women primarily in
relation to men and to the so-called First World (keyword: population
explosion). Feminine empowerment is reduced to economic success
and economic efficiency, and womens freedom is sacrificed to
commercial freedom (Runyan 1999:218; W ohl 2008:69). Anne Sisson
Runyan therefore fears that governance perceives and construes
women in a way that can undermine feminism (Runyan 1999:210).
Women are functionalized as symbolsas per Gayatri Spivaks verdict
at the Beijing Conference: [T]he financialization of the globe must be
represented as the North embracing the South. Women are being used
for the representation of this unity (Spivak 1996:2, cited in Runyan
1999:210). Thus, the global South is constructed by the feminized
discourse of the North, instead of governance advancing gender
equality.
Conclusions
In this article we have shown that global governance is not a gender-
democratic alternative to masculinist forms of decision-making at the
national level. Global governance in our feminist materialist perspective
is a new form of statehood, originating in the (global) change of social
relations in the context of neoliberal restructuring. While the forms
of global governance at first glance promise a transformation of the
state apparatus towards more participation and inclusion of womens
movement actors in decision-making, a second look at social power
relations reveals that global governance is the restructuring of patriarchal
statehood in the process of globalization and thus a political form
which neoliberal restructuring requires in advancing the global project
of capitalist transformation.
The advancement of masculinist hegemony of the international state is
still an incomplete project in which womens movements can intervene
and which they can change. Many aspects of this neoliberal project are
of course already in place, yet the deregulation of national patriarchal
fields of action also allows chances for anti-hegemonic political action.
For feminists, the chance that remains is the paradoxical intervention
of anti-state politics with state actors at national and international
levelsand thereby also the engagement in governance structures.
State- and dominance-critical reflections must certainly remain part
of such an emancipatory project if it does not want to be defeated
in the struggle against economic and masculinist hegemony. At the
same time, feminist politics should not overlook that it is itself a
part of the neoliberal discourse to negate and disarticulate existing
politicalspecifically womens politicalconditions, resistances and
oppositions. Now, as before, the everyday life of women is the source
of discrepancy and contradictions. Womens movements in the global
C
2010 The Authors
Antipode
C
2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.
Feminist Perspectives on the Internationalization of The State 125
South could sing a loud song about this (Bergeron 2001:1000f).
Feminist perspectives can reveal these contradictions of womens
everyday practices, show the gaps and broken pieces that neoliberal
restructuring leaves behind, politicize and change them. These politics
from the kitchen (Elson 2002) are still a way to more democracy
and to politicizing contradictions in the male hegemonic project of
globalization.
However, the latter requires more feminist theoretical work on the
transformation of statehood to fill remaining gaps (Rai and Waylen
2008). The focus on state theory in our article has been on a materialist
conception of the state, relying on a neo-marxist debate in the German-
speaking countries. Another strand of feminist state theory, which
focuses on subjectivation and knowledge/power complexes (W ohl
2008), might be useful to explain not only the politics of identity but also
the politics of intersectionality and the interplay of womens movements
and states in a globalizing context (Sauer 2008).
Endnotes
1
This expression refers to the degradation of waged labour into unpaid or worse-paid
and precarious work, such as housework (Mies, Bennholdt-Thomsen and von Werlhof
1988).
2
Action taken for women within an institution or within a policy process is what is
to be understood by this term (Pitkin 1967).
References
Abels G(2001) Das Geschlechterdemokratiedefizit der EU. Politische Repr asentation
und Geschlecht im europ aischen Mehrebenensystem In E Kreisky, S Lang and B
Sauer (eds) EU. Geschlecht. Staat (pp 185202). Wien: WUV
Altvater E and Mahnkopf B (1996) Grenzen der Globalisierung.

Okonomie,

Okologie
und Politik in der Weltgesellschaft. M unster: Westf alisches Dampfboot
Bakker I (2002) Who built the pyramids? Engendering the new international economic
and financial architecture. femina politica 1:1325
Beisheim M and Geworg W (1997) GlobalisierungKinderkrankheiten eines
Konzepts. Zeitschrift f ur Internationale Beziehungen 1:153180
Bergeron S (2001) Political economy discourses of globalisation and feminist politics.
Signs 26(4):9831006
Brand U, Demisovic A, G org C and Hirsch J (2001) Einleitung. In U Brand et al
(eds) Nichtregierungsorganisationen in der Transformation des Staates (pp 712).
M unster: Westf alisches Dampfboot
Brodie J (1994) Shifting boundaries: Gender and the politics of restructuring. In I Bakker
(ed) The Strategic Silence: Gender and Economic Policy (pp 4660). London: Zed
Brush L (2003) Gender and Governance. Walnut Creek: AltaMira
Conelly P A(1996) Gender matters: Global restructuring and adjustment. Social Politics
3(1):1231
Connell R W (1998) M anner in der Welt: M annlichkeit und Globalisierung.
Widerspr uche 67:91105
Cox R (1996) Labour and hegemony. In R Cox and T Sinclair (eds) Approaches to
World Order (pp 420470). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
C
2010 The Authors
Antipode
C
2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.
126 Antipode
DAmico F (1999) Women workers in the United Nations. In M K Meyer and E Pr ugl
(eds) Gender Politics in Global Governance (pp 1940). New York: Rowman &
Littlefield
Duclos D (1998) Die Internationale der Hyperbourgeoisie. Le Monde Diplomatique
August:1011
Eisenstein Z (1997) Womens publics and the search for new democracies. Feminist
Review 57:140167
Elson D (2002) International financial architecture. femina politica 1:2637
Foucault M (2000) Staatsphobie. In U Br ockling, S Krasmann and T Lemke (eds)
Gouvernementalit at der Gegenwart. Studien zur

Okonomisierung des Sozialen
(pp 6871). Frankfurt a.M.: Suhrkamp
Gather C, Geissler B and Rerrich M S (eds) (2002) Weltmarkt Privathaushalt. Bezahlte
Hausarbeit im globalen Wandel. M unster: Westf alisches Dampfboot
Gutierrez Rodriguez E (1999) Intellektuelle MigrantinnenSubjektivit at im Zeitalter
von Globalisierung. Opladen: Leske und Budrich
Held D (1995) Democracy and the new international order. In D Archibugi and D Held
(eds) Cosmopolitan Democracy. An Agenda for a New World Order (pp 96120).
Cambridge: Polity
Hirsch J (1995) Der nationale Wettbewerbsstaat. Staat, Demokratie und Politik im
globalen Kapitalismus. Berlin and Amsterdam: Edition ID-Archiv
Holland-Cunz B (2000) Politiktheoretische

Uberlegungen zu Global Governance. In
B Holland-Cunz and U Ruppert (eds) Frauenpolitische Chancen globaler Politik.
Verhandlungsverfahren im internationalen Kontext (pp 2544). Opladen: Leske und
Budrich
Jenson J (1996) Some consequences of economic and political restructuring and
readjustment. Social Politics 3(1):111
Jessop B (1994) Ver anderte Staatlichkeit. Ver anderungen von Staatlichkeit und
Staatsprojekten. In D Grimm (ed) Staatsaufgaben (pp 4373). Baden-Baden: Nomos
Jessop B (1998) Nationalstaat, Globalisierung, Gender. In E Kreisky and B Sauer (eds)
Geschlechterverh altnisse im Kontext politischer Transformation (pp 262292). PVS-
Sonderheft 28. Opladen: Westdeutscher Verlag
Klingebiel R (2000) Global Governance contra Nationalstaat? Internationale
Konferenzen aus Frauensicht. In B Holland-Cunz and U Ruppert (eds)
Frauenpolitische Chancen globaler Politik. Verhandlungsverfahren im
internationalen Kontext (pp 159168). Opladen: Leske und Budrich
Klingebiel R and Randeria S (eds.) 1998 Globalisierung aus Frauensicht. Bilanzen und
Visionen. Bonn: Dietz
Kreisky E (2001) Die maskuline Ethik des NeoliberalismusDie neoliberale Dynamik
des Maskulinismus. femina politica 2:7691
Larner W (1996) The new boys: Restructuring in New Zealand, 19841994. Social
Politics 3(1):3256
Leitner S and Ostner I (2000) Frauen und Globalisierung. Vernachl assigte Seiten der
neuen Arbeitsteilung. Aus Politik und Zeitgeschichte B 48:3946
Lenz I (2002) Geschlechtsspezifische Auswirkungen der Globalisierung in den
Bereichen Global Governance, Arbeitsm arkte und Ressource. Gutachten f ur die
Enquete-Kommission Globalisierung der WeltwirtschaftHerausforderungen und
Antworten, http://www.bundestag.de (last accessed 13 September 2010)
Marchand M H (1996) Reconceptualising gender and development in an era of
globalisation. Millennium 25(3):577603
Marchand M H and Runyan A S (2000) Feminist sightings of global restructuring:
conceptualizations and reconceptualizations. In M H Marchand and A S Runyan
(eds) Gender and Global Restructuring: Sightings, Sites and Resistances (pp 122).
London and New York: Routledge
C
2010 The Authors
Antipode
C
2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.
Feminist Perspectives on the Internationalization of The State 127
Meyer M K and Pr ugl E (eds) 1999 Gender Politics in Global Governance. New York:
Rowman & Littlefield
Mies M, Bennholdt-Thomsen V and von Werlhof C (1988) Frauen, die letzte Kolonie.
Zur Hausfrauisierung der Arbeit. Reinbek bei Hamburg: Rowolth
Mitchell D and Garrrett G (1996) Women and the welfare state in the era of global
markets. Social Politics 3(1):185194
Mitchell K, Marston S A and Katz C (2003) Lifes work. An introduction, review and
critique. Antipode 35(3):415442
Mulyampiti T (2001) African women in the globalisation process.

Osterreichische
Zeitschrift f ur Politikwissenschaft 2:171181
Pierre J and Peters GB(2000) Governance, Politics and the State. NewYork: St Martins
Press
Pitkin H F (1967) The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California
Press
Poulantzas N (1973) Political Power and Social Classes. London: NLB
Pringle R and Watson S (1992) Womens interests and the post-structuralist state. In
MBarrett and APhillips (eds) Destabilizing Theory. Contemporary Feminist Debates
(pp 5373). Stanford: Stanford University Press
Rai S M and G Waylen (2008) (eds) Global Governance: Feminist Perspectives.
Basingstoke: PalgraveMacmillan
Rommelspacher B (1999) Neue Polarisierung und neue Konvergenzen: das
Geschlechterverh altnis im Zeitalter der Globalisierung. In G Schmidt and R Trinczek
(eds) Globalisierung.

Okonomische und soziale Herausforderungen am Ende des
zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts (pp 243258). Baden-Baden: Nomos
Rosenau J (1997) Along the Domestic-Foreign Frontier: Exploring Governance in a
Turbulent World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Ruf A (2000) Kritische Anmerkungen zu Global Governance. In B Holland-Cunz and
U Ruppert (eds) Frauenpolitische Chancen globaler Politik. Verhandlungsverfahren
im internationalen Kontext (pp 169177). Opladen: Leske und Budrich
Runyan A S (1999) Women in the neoliberal frame. In M Meyer and E Pr ugl
(eds) Gender Politics in Global Governance (pp 210220). New York: Rowman
& Littlefield
Ruppert U (1998) Die Kehrseite der Medaille? Globalisierung, global governance
und internationale Frauenbewegung. beitr age zur feministischen theorie und praxis
47/48:95105
Ruppert U (2000) Global governance: Das Ende der Illusionen oder ein neues
Ideal internationaler Frauenpolitik? In B Holland-Cunz and U Ruppert
(eds) Frauenpolitische Chancen globaler Politik. Verhandlungsverfahren im
internationalen Kontext (pp 4566). Opladen: Leske und Budrich
Ruppert U (2002) Aufgaben und Chancen im Rahmen der Globalisierung, um
die Situation der Frauen in der Gesellschaft zu verbessern. Gutachten f ur die
Enquete-Kommission Globalisierung der WeltwirtschaftHerausforderungen und
Antworten, http://www.bundestag.de (last accessed 13 September 2010)
Sainsbury D (1996) Gender, Equality and Welfare States. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press
Sassen S (1996) Toward a feminist analytics of the global economy. Indiana Journal of
Global Legal Studies 4(1):741
Sassen S (1998) Women under fire. In id. Globalisation and Its Discontents (pp 79131).
New York: The New Press
Sauer B (2001a) Feminisierung eines m annlichen Projekts? Sozialstaat im Zeitalter
der Globalisierung. In E Appelt and A Weiss (eds) Globalisierung und der
Angriff auf die europ aischen Wohlfahrtsstaaten (pp 6783). Hamburg and Berlin:
Argument
C
2010 The Authors
Antipode
C
2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.
128 Antipode
Sauer B (2001b) Vom Nationalstaat zum Europ aischen Reich? Staat und Geschlecht in
der Europ aischen Union. Feministische Studien 1: 820
Sauer B (2008) Bringing the state back in. In K Hagemann, S Michel and G Budde
(eds) Civil Society and Gender Justice: Historical and Comparative Perspectives
(pp 285301). Oxford: Berghahn Publishers
Schmidt V (1995) The New World Order, Incorporated. Daedalus 124(2): 3442
Stienstra D (1999) Of roots, leaves, and trees: Gender, social movements and global
governance. In M Meyer and E Pr ugl (eds) Gender Politics in Global Governance
(pp 260272). New York: Rowman & Littlefield
W ohl S (2007) Mainstreaming Gender? Widerspr uche europ aischer und
nationalstaatlicher Geschlechterpolitik. K onigstein/Taunus: Ulrike Helmer Verlag
W ohl S (2008) Global governance as neoliberal governmentality. In G Waylen and S
M Rai (eds) Global Governance: Feminist Perspectives (pp 6383). Basingstoke:
Palgrave Macmillan
Wright M W (1997) Crossing the factory frontier: Gender, place, and power in the
Mexican Maquiladora. Antipode 29(3):278302
Young I M (2002) Imagining a global Rule of law. Ethnicities 2(2):154156
C
2010 The Authors
Antipode
C
2010 Editorial Board of Antipode.