Women’s Political Underrepresentation in the United States

There is a fascinating new book out by Jennifer Lawless and Richard Fox entitled “Women, Men & U.S. Politics: Ten Big Questions.” It covers topics that range from contemporary feminism to campaign finance to reproductive rights in the United States.

Of course, the chapter that caught my attention is “Falling Further Behind: Women’s Underrepresentation in U.S. Politics” which focuses on the question of why the U.S. ranks 100th globally for the number of women elected at the national level. As it lays out, Rwanda (61.3%), Bolivia (53.1%), Cuba (48.9%), Iceland (47.6%) and 90+ other countries have more women serving in their national legislature than does the United States (19.1%).

As I have traveled around the world, I have created my own theories about why this is the case and this book tends to back up my ideas. First, while quota laws have been shown to be the best tool used to increase women’s political participation, the U.S. “first past the post” rather than proportional representative system makes it very difficult to initiate a quota law for women. Not surprisingly, 15 of the top 20 countries for women’s representation have instituted some type of quota. Moreover, political parties in the U.S. are considered weak institutionally, as voters, rather than the parties create the candidate lists. So while candidates running for Congress do receive some help from their political party, they must also create their own political organizations, raise money, build coalitions, and deliver their own message both the primary and general elections. In other countries, a strong central committee of the party selects the candidates for  the party list and in what order they will appear. Finally, what is strong in the U.S. system is the power of incumbency. Overall, in the last 10 election cycles, 95 percent of the House incumbents who wanted to keep their posts were re-elected. In 2016, 394 of 435 incumbents from the House of Representatives chose not to run for reelection. Of those who ran, only 13 lost their races.  

If that isn’t daunting enough, Lawless and Rich discuss barriers that exist at the individual level for women seeking public office in the U.S. First, as they have documented for over a decade, there is a gap in the political ambition of women and men. “Deeply embedded patterns of traditional gender socialization make it far less likely, even today, for women to emerge as candidates.” Because of the attitudes and norms of men AND women about what is “appropriate” for women, men are considerably more likely than women to think about seeking elective office. The 16 percentage point gap existed in 2001 and continues today. Moreover, the “work-family” balance that Anne-Marie Slaughter and others have written about is even further out of whack for women thinking about running for office. Often women have jobs outside of the home that are necessary for their family’s income. Next, they are in charge of the household duties and are taking care of the majority of the childcare, cleaning, etc. at home. And now, we’re asking women to take on a “third shift” of politics – attending community meanings and fundraisers in order to run a viable campaign. For many women, there are just not enough hours in the day.  

Where I part with Lawless and Rich is in the conclusion of this chapter where they say “even an optimist would be hard-pressed” to see major increases in women’s representation in the U.S. in the near future. In addition to the outpouring of increased interest of women in running for office (SF article) I believe that here in the U.S. we may be thinking too narrowly about how to increase women’s political participation. While I can name a half dozen groups that are recruiting women to run for office, we aren’t working on the larger structural issues that keep the numbers low. We might not get constitutional amendments passed, but we can address factors that can change over time: the political parties, time use and attitudes about women’s leadership.

First, although the role of political parties in the U.S. is not as strong as those in other countries, the Democratic and Republican parties here are not doing all they could do to recruit and support women candidates. Until they understand and value the role women can play in the party and in Congress, these outside groups will be on the outside looking in. When I worked to increase the number of women in politics in other countries as diverse as Kosovo and Zambia, no training program for female candidates was complete until we met with the (largely male) party leadership to talk about the benefits of women candidates on their party lists. Secondly, we must step out of the political sphere and address the issues of time use and public attitudes about women’s leadership. Both of these issues are not only keeping women out of Congress but also out of the Boardrooms and C-suites of companies across the country. According to Pew Research, the share of Fortune 500 chief executives who are female remains very small, reaching a record 5.4 percent in the first quarter of 2017 and women hold just 20.2 percent of the seats on boards of Fortune 500 companies – very similar to the political statistics. We need to change that social norms that exist that have women spending about six hours more than men doing household work and about three additional hours taking care of the children each week. And finally, we must help men and women, boys and girls in the U.S. see the value of women’s leadership. In a 2014 poll, 57 percent of respondents said that it made no difference to them if a female were elected president in their lifetimes.

What a shame that despite evidence that a diversity of views in decision-making roles can help drive innovation and a recent poll that showed that only 33 percent of likely U.S. voters now think the country is heading in the right direction, we in the United States are not willing to ask the big questions and increase women’s political representation in order to improve our communities and the everyday lives of our citizens.

Girls Plus on International Day of the Girl

There are 1.1 billion girls in the world today, and they can be a powerful force for progress if their talents and skills are nurtured and developed.  

October 11 is International Day of the Girl, an annual day to raise awareness of the critical importance of focusing on girls.  It’s also a day to recommit to ensuring that girls have equal access to education, skills, and services so that, as they mature into young women and adults, they can fully contribute to their families, communities and countries. Yet, while it is important to focus on the potential and promise of girls, we can’t ignore the building blocks put into place by the generations of women who have come before them.  

We know that educating girls can help end poverty. Preventing child marriage or early pregnancy for a girl 10-14 years old translates into her being healthier as she grows up.  If we can keep her in school, she will learn critical thinking skills that will help her continue her education, and create value in her community.  If we can inspire her to think of herself as a community leader,  she may grow up to lead a civil society organization or run for political office.

Having said that, we also cannot ignore the vital role that adult women have and continue to play in families and countries around the world. We need to salute the progress that has been made to bring families above the poverty line, to close the wage gap and to represent citizens in public life, in large part due to the efforts of women across the globe. We must acknowledge this work, and the willingness of these women to fight against gender stereotypes, often putting themselves at personal, physical risk, and take part in the global conversation around changing gender norms and creating a more equitable world.

As part of this, we need to acknowledge that women of every age, from adolescence through old age can play a valuable role in their families and communities. For while older women are often the backbone of their families, making an enormous contribution as caregivers, income-earners, educators and mediators, they are also some of the most vulnerable and invisible in society because of the combined effects of age and gender-based discrimination. Older women’s role in society and the skills they can offer should be recognized. For example, in times of food shortages, it is generally older women who know how to collect, process and prepare wild foods. Older women can also play an important role in social norm change for the younger women in their lives.

We also need to use this day to continue to expand the conversation, and engage men and boys.  We need to bring entire families and communities into this discussion, making the case for why women’s equality, and girls’ participation, is good for everyone. From parents, siblings and grandparents to religious or tribal leaders, teachers and reporters, we all must be engaged if efforts to improve the lives of young women are going to succeed.  Let’s redouble these efforts, starting this October 11.

Bottom Line Up Front: Women Key to Economic Growth

To their detriment, the world’s economies don’t fully utilize women’s talents and skills to drive economic growth and create jobs. If women participated in the labor force at the same rate as men, global GDP could increase from $12 to $28 trillion by 2025. To translate, this is an 11-26 percent increase, which at the highest level is roughly equal to the GDP of the U.S. and China, the world’s largest two economies. Bringing it home, U.S. GDP could increase by five percent.

Last week, I spoke on a panel at the Americas Competitiveness Forum (ACF) in Mexico City. The ACF brings together government officials, private sector leaders, academics and non-governmental advocates from across the Americas to strategize about how to increase growth. The panel focused on how to effectively break down barriers – whether legal or normative – to women’s economic participation.

All the panelists agreed on the need to address these barriers. That alone is progress: the conversation is no longer about why we need policies to support women’s participation in the economy at levels commensurate with their skills, but about what works to get them there.

We addressed what government and the private sector can each do, and the exponential impact when they work together. We discussed concrete recommendations for legal reform, the need for confidence building and skill development for women and girls, the insidious nature of gender bias, and whether quotas for job categories work.

Legal reform is key. According to the World Bank’s Women, Business & the Law Report, 90 percent of countries have at least one law impeding women’s access to jobs and entrepreneurship – some limit the types of jobs women can hold, some the hours we work, some the amount of paid family leave available, and some our ability to borrow money or sign a contract.

We grappled with the negative economic impact of gender based violence (GBV). At least 35 percent of women worldwide have experienced GBV. This is a scourge, as well as a tremendous drag on economic and workplace productivity. The U.S. loses $1.8 billion in productivity annually, and 8 million days of paid work due to GBV. Ensuring that women have economic opportunity is fundamental; but, if we don’t pass and implement laws to counter GBV, we won’t make the progress we need.

Here are some takeaways:

1) Working together, government and business can accelerate women’s economic participation. For example, government can remove legal barriers to women’s access to financial services, like requiring a husband’s signature for a business loan. Banks can support creative ways for women to bank, including mobile technology and mobile bankers, where women at marketplaces can bank on the spot. Taken together, these reforms make it easier for women to start businesses and safely save their proceeds.

2) Leading by example is important. Governments and businesses can procure goods and services from women-owned enterprises. Both can commit to considering women for promotion to senior management in equal numbers, providing child care at the workplace, and examining and addressing pay gaps. For example, in 2015, Salesforce reviewed its salary structure, and if unexplained differences in pay popped up by gender, made salary adjustments. These steps are not just good practice, but effective tools to recruit talented workers – both men and women.

3) Harnessing interest in women’s economic empowerment can start a conversation about other issues that hold women and girls back. Every country and community wants more jobs and more prosperity. We can use this imperative to raise other issues like the need to address GBV, and the need for girls to complete their educations and learn much needed job skills.

4) Investing in girls and young women is transformative. This is true whether we ensure that girls have equal access to education, or are exposed to the broad range of economic opportunities. Every additional year of a girl’s education increases her wage potential by 12 percent. While in Mexico City, I was heartened by an event taking place alongside ACF. There were literally thousands of young women and men thronging the convention hall, jostling each other for the best seats, and lining up to hear speakers from Mexico and beyond. The topic wasn’t sports, music, or the latest video game – it was entrepreneurship. We need to capture this enthusiasm from young women especially and keep it going.

BOOK REVIEW: Maid in India – All in a Day’s Work

In July, I read the Washington Post article about 150 maids who rioted at the Mahagun Moderna apartment complex in Noida, outside Delhi, India. These workers stormed the complex because they believed a maid had been beaten and held captive overnight by her employers after asking for unpaid wages. The footage of the day is chaotic, with police (or security guards) clubbing protesting workers, and people running between parts of the complex. This story surprised me, given the disparity in power between maids and employers, and the economic pressure they face to send needed funds to their families.

The article quoted Tripti Lahiri, the Asia editor for Quartz, who has written Maid in India, a nuanced book on the proliferation and complexity of domestic help in that country. The book is riveting, disturbing, timely, and important. It is a richly textured picture of societal and household dynamics in India, and provides an understanding of who takes these jobs, voluntarily or not, what their lives are like, and the challenges they face. In Lahiri’s words: “We [the employers] eat first, they later, often out of food portioned out for them; we live in front, they in the back; we sit on chairs and they on the floor; we drink from glasses and ceramic plates and they from ones made of steel set aside for them; we call then buy their names, and they address us by titles.”

As India’s middle class grows, more Indians can, and do, hire domestic help to do virtually everything: driving, taking care of children, cooking, serving meals, and gardening. In some households, there are ten or twelve servants, supervised and micro-managed by a family member, most often when the worker is tending to children.

We meet employees who can’t speak for themselves, employees who haven’t been paid for years of work, who have been abused and in some cases raped. We meet parents from rural villages who haven’t heard from their children, working as domestic servants, in years. We meet employment brokers, some with the flimsiest of excuses about why a worker is missing and can’t be found, or hasn’t been paid, and who then turn off their phones. We meet employers, some of whom seem decent and others who are shockingly unabashed about paying the maids virtually nothing for literally years of service, and demanding constant work. We also meet domestic servants who see this occupation as a way into the middle class, and especially if working for expats, can make more than some government workers.

One of the most harrowing stories is of a member of parliament, who along with his wife is charged with murdering a maid. The description brings to light the lack of accountability in general and the flaws in the grindingly slow Indian criminal justice system, along with unrealistic expectations that illiterate servants can navigate these complexities.

But, this is not just a story about what happens in Delhi or Mumbai. It’s also about the impact economic growth has had in rural India. Many rural families depend on these workers to send money back. Young people (literally often boys and girls, despite laws prohibiting those under 14 from working) travel from far villages to work in the households of acquaintances or strangers. The contrast between village life and life in the cities, where homes have running water, wood or marble floors and numerous appliances, is stark. Many employers prefer these rural workers because are more malleable, but then complain that they don’t speak Hindi or understand how to run a washing machine.

This book helps us understand the larger phenomena. It also documents a nascent commitment to legal reform to protect these workers and hold employers accountable. It highlights some of the NGOs that are advocating for stronger laws and better treatment, as well as the challenges they face. There’s certainly a long way to go, but Lahiri’s telling of these stories and highlighting them is another step along that path.

Q&A Angelic Young: Women Fundamental to Peace & Conflict Resolution

Over fifty percent of peace agreements fail within 5 years. But when women participate, agreements last anywhere from two to 15 years longer. Planning for women’s substantive engagement is fundamental to conflict resolution, mitigation and prevention. National Action Plans (NAPs) are a tool that governments can use to do just that. They make real the global commitment to women leading in peace processes, as set forth in UN Security Council Resolutions, starting with UNSCR 1325 (2000).

I recently spoke with Angelic Young, Director of National Action Plans at the Washington, DC-based Institute for Inclusive Security. Angelic is an expert on NAPs, how they work and the difference they make.

FOSTER: Why are National Action Plans important?

YOUNG: High-impact NAPs – detailed strategies created through an inclusive, consultative process – prompt meaningful changes in behavior, policies, and funding. They help hold governments accountable for promises and increase transparency.

Such strategies are a roadmap, taking us from Step A – acknowledging that women are not regularly included in formal peace negotiations — to Step Z – women are leading peace processes. It’s easy to agree that women should be included in decision-making; it’s another to map out how to get there. NAPs matter because they help us understand what intermediate actions will lead to better peace and security. Many countries have committed to reducing the gender gap, but more than 90% of countries with NAPs have made progress in doing so – and that’s significant.

FOSTER: Is there a common reason governments commit to a NAP?

YOUNG: There have been several waves of NAP development, and reasons vary. Some governments do this to demonstrate their commitment to democratic governance, human rights and rule of law to the international community. Others, especially those on their second, third or even fourth NAP, prioritize these plans because they consider advancing the status of women and girls integral to foreign policy and national security. Others use them to address very specific internal challenges. There isn’t a common reason, and I think that’s a good thing. NAPs ought to be adjusted to meet the specific needs dictated by the country context.

FOSTER: What is a good example of a NAP process? What is civil society’s role?

YOUNG: When a country is on the path to a high-impact NAP, they’ve addressed six key pillars: political will; design; coordination; civil society; monitoring and evaluation; and resources.

The gold standard is a NAP that is visibly supported by key leaders throughout the government, preceded by a needs assessment and designed in collaboration with civil society. It will have a defined mechanism for how activities will be coordinated across sectors, a monitoring and evaluation strategy for tracking both short and long-term results and dedicated budget.

I’ve yet to see a NAP that consistently meets the “gold” standard across all six pillars. There are still plenty that lack budgets and strategies for monitoring and evaluation. There’s an assumption, especially in countries with outwardly focused NAPs (e.g., countries providing foreign assistance to countries or regions experiencing conflict, rather than in conflict themselves), that there’s no need for a specific line item budget. Or, that monitoring and evaluation is just too difficult. Both are dangerous assumptions, in my experience, and lead to NAPs that are under-resourced and difficult to measure.

Inclusion of civil society is vital. For the past year or so, I’ve been providing technical support to the Jordanian National Commission for Women as Jordan launches its first NAP. JNCW began by establishing a National Coalition for the Implementation of UNSCR 1325, which consists of government, military and civil society. Civil society has been integral to NAP design from the beginning, and have helped ensure that the plan has clear priorities, timeframes, accountability measures and realistic budget.

FOSTER: Why should non-conflict or post-conflict countries develop a NAP?

YOUNG: Great question, and one I hear quite frequently. Resolution 1325 is often interpreted as only applying to countries directly affected by conflict, but in fact, it applies to ANY efforts to maintain and promote peace and security. That can include daily operations of a police force in a stable country, or contributions to peacekeeping. It can include care for refugees fleeing conflict. Peace and security is a globally shared responsibility. While a NAP in a country not directly affected by conflict might look different from a NAP in a country recovering from conflict, both are vital.

FOSTER: What about the U.S. NAP?

YOUNG: I have mixed emotions about the U.S. NAP. I was at the State Department when the NAP was first developed, so I have the experience being on the inside, and appreciate how challenging it is to create a strategy for the mammoth structure that is the U.S. government.

Still, if I’m perfectly objective, there are gaps. On the plus side, the U.S. NAP aligns well with U.S. foreign policy and national security priorities. Though I wish there was a more formal mechanism (like that in Jordan), the USG regularly solicits civil society input.

On the other hand, political will is inconsistent across agencies. The USG could also do better at engaging mid-level leaders. I’ve seen this with many similar strategies; you’ll have top-level cover, so to speak, and great support at the working level – but mid-level managers aren’t as involved as they ought to be; and they are key. The USG also lacks a formal coordination mechanism – my sense (from the outside) is that coordination happens on the backs of incredibly dedicated individuals; but there’s no enduring structure.

The two biggest concerns are monitoring and evaluation and resources. Measuring progress is complicated for the US, not the least because each agency takes different approaches to tracking performance. Still, a monitoring and evaluation strategy could help with this challenge, and I would like to see the US commit to creating one.

The largest issue is that there is no line-item budget. Without this, and in my experience, it means that vital training initiatives an agency might undertake can’t happen because there’s no money. It means that there aren’t dedicated NAP focal points in every sub-organization within every agency, because there’s no money for dedicated billets. I think the USG has done a remarkable job considering the lack of resources, but it’s quite disappointing that we don’t match our public posture with actual dollars.

FOSTER: Thank you.

Women’s Political Empowerment Benefits Democracy in the U.S. and Around the World

Last week there were two events held in Washington, DC and focused on women’s political participation: NDI’s Madeleine K. Albright event focusing abroad and the EMILY’s List’s national conference focusing on politics in the U.S. Although the events focused differently, I was struck by the similarities of issues highlighted.

Those attending both agreed that women’s meaningful participation in politics affects the range of policy issues seriously considered and the solutions proposed. As elected officials, women can impact the legislative body itself, the way issues are addressed, and public attitudes about women in leadership. Yet women remain underrepresented in almost every country and at every level of elective politics.

According to a recent report, just over 23 percent of the world’s parliamentarians are women. The United States ranks 100th; women comprise 19.3 percent of the House of Representatives and 21 percent of the U.S. Senate.  Based on progress to date, women in the U.S. are not likely reach political parity until 2121.

Why do women remain underrepresented in elected politics around the world?

Globally, women face similar challenges.

Attitudes and norms regarding the role of women in public life can dissuade a woman from running for office. In the United States, numerous polls from Gallup and Pew reflect that men and women believe that women and men are equally good political leaders. Around the world, public opinion towards women’s political leadership varies.  In a Pew Research Poll, researchers found that majorities in many countries including Mali (65 percent), the Palestinian territories (64 percent), and say that men make better political leaders than women.

Because of the low number of women in public office, there are disproportionately fewer role models for women. Studies in the U.S. and abroad show the positive impact role models can have. A recent U.S. study concluded that young women voters were more engaged when new, viable female candidates run. In a much-cited MIT study in India, the presence of long-serving female leaders in local government closed the gender gap in adolescent education.

Around the world, the threat of or actual physical and emotional violence is a tactic discouraging women from political participation. Women in politics around the world have experienced violence, including aggression, harassment, or threats of death, rape, or beatings, and that their experiences have implications for their ability and willingness to participate actively in public life.  This is true in the U.S. as well; in 2016, some supporters of the Republican nominee for President threatened to assassinate Hillary Clinton, “hang that b*tch,” or shoot her for treason.

Women often lack the same access to resources as men, specifically the funds that are necessary to run a campaign. While the gender gap in overall campaign finances may have closed in the U.S., differences remain in the types of donors who give to women, the level of contributions and the amount women contribute to their own campaigns. While the amount of funds a candidate needs to seek office in other countries is much smaller than in the U.S. because of political party support, there are still gaps in the amount of support received by women candidates, and in access to other resources, such as media time, materials and campaign staff assistance.

Beyond the social barriers to women’s political participation (or perhaps because of them), at the individual level, many women in both the U.S. and abroad lack the confidence or ambition to run.  A 2016 poll found that nearly half of the American men polled believed they are very or somewhat qualified to run for public office, while only about a quarter of women believed the same about themselves.

Outside of the political system itself, women thinking about running for office, like women in general, face the burden of a disproportionate portion of the home and caregiving responsibilities. Around the world, women spend two to ten times more time on unpaid care work than men. Time is a limited resource. Every minute more that a woman spends on unpaid work represents one minute less that she could be potentially active in public life.

While there is some overlap between the strategies used to support women running for office in the United States and abroad, there are also key differences. In the U.S., non-profit organizations and political action committees recruit and train women candidates and campaign staff. Because of the enormous need for campaign funds in the United States, some organizations also focus on raising money with and for women seeking public office. Largely, efforts in the U.S. are not focused on changing the political system, but to helping women succeed within it.

In the developing world, democracy programs, often funded by donor governments, work to recruit and train women candidates, however, there has also been an effort to pass and implement gender quota laws that set a minimum number (often 20-30 percent) of women that must appear on the party list for election to a legislative body. Over 130 countries around the world have some type of gender quota. Finally, in many countries, there are often media campaigns to change the public’s attitude about women in leadership and specifically in political office.

While neither conference in DC came up with all the answers, the message was clear: citizens and democracy itself benefit when there are more women in elected office and this important work must continue in the U.S. and around the world.

Women’s Economic Empowerment: Measuring Progress & Championing Results

In April, World Bank President Jim Kim and Ivanka Trump made a case in the Financial Times for the importance of closing the gender pay gap, increasing access to finance for women, and enacting regulatory and legal policies to increase women’s economic participation. These goals cannot be achieved without businesses committing to action, and many already have done so. These actions make their workplaces more fair and create an advantage in the race to attract and retain talent, while also increasing their bottom line and shareholder value. Highlighted here are principles and indices that have been developed over the last decade to mark, report on, and reflect the depth of companies’ commitments to women’s empowerment.

Certifications and Reporting

Economic Dividends for Gender Equality (EDGE) Certification. EDGE, a global business certification standard, was launched at the World Economic Forum in 2011. EDGE applies business discipline to achieving workplace gender equality, focusing on metrics and accountability. It assesses policies, practices and data across five areas: equal pay for equivalent work; recruitment and promotion; leadership development; flexible work; and company culture. There are three stages of EDGE certification:

● EDGE Assess: The company makes a public commitment to a strong gender balance across the talent pipeline, pay equity, a solid framework of gender equality policies and practices and an inclusive workplace culture. The company identifies a concrete action plan.

● EDGE Move: The company has implemented a framework for change and achieved significant milestones on the key issues, and commits to sharpening its action plan.

● EDGE Lead. The company has a strong gender balance across the talent pipeline, pay equity, a solid framework of gender equality policies and practices and inclusive workplace culture, and puts gender equality to work for business results.

EDGE works with more than 150 companies and organizations in over 40 countries. Examples include SAP, L’Oréal, Asian Development Bank, and the IFC.

Women’s Empowerment Principles (WEPs). The WEPs were established by UN Women, in conjunction with the UN Global Compact, the business community and governments in 2010. The WEPs emphasize the business case for corporate action to promote gender equality and women’s empowerment. Each principle is accompanied by concrete actions. In brief, the principles are to:

1. Establish high-level corporate leadership for gender equality.

2. Treat all women and men fairly at work.

3. Ensure the health, safety and well-being of all workers.

4. Promote education, training and professional development for women.

5. Implement enterprise development, supply chain and marketing practices that empower women.

6. Promote equality through community initiatives and advocacy.

7. Measure and publicly report on progress to achieve gender equality.

Principle 7 underscores the importance of accountability. To date, 1,450 plus companies have signed onto the WEPs from across the globe, including Alcoa, ANN Inc., Coca-Cola entities, Deloitte, Hilton, Merck, and Pepsi. The G7 and the US Chamber of Commerce also promote the WEPs.

Indices of Progress

PAX Ellevate Global Women’s Index Fund. To say PAX has been a trailblazer in this field is an understatement. This fund invests in companies that are leaders in advancing women through gender diversity. Companies are rated by PAX World Gender Analytics, with representation of women on boards and in senior management receiving the highest weights. Other factors include whether the company has a woman CEO, a woman CFO and is a signatory to the WEPs.

Equileap. Launched in 2017, this analysis compares corporate progress towards gender equality across sectors. The Gender Scorecard examines 19 data points in four categories: gender balance in leadership and workforce; equal compensation and work/life balance; policies to promote gender equality; and commitment to women’s empowerment. The highest score possible was 35, and top performers received 22 points. In addition to measuring progress, the scorecard allows investors to see which companies are doing well by their employees; employees to obtain critical information when making career decisions; and governments to identify role models. Companies ranking highest were L’Oréal, Pearson, National Australia, Sodexo, BTG and Telia; the highest-ranking U.S. company was Merck. Highest ranked countries were Norway, Sweden, the Netherlands, Finland and the UK. Top sectors were communications, finance and utilities.

Bloomberg Financial Services Gender Equality Index (GEI). In 2016, Bloomberg unveiled GEI to showcase what the biggest financial players are doing to promote gender equality. It includes 52 best-in-class public companies in the financial industry in terms of providing opportunities for women. GEI was created to satisfy investor demand, as a growing number are looking to gender equality data to inform investment decisions.

Using Soft Power is Not a Hard Choice

Effective U.S. foreign engagement is based on both soft and hard power. Soft power – winning hearts and minds — helps shape global public opinion about the United States, showcases our values, core beliefs, and aspirations, and highlights who we are as a people. Soft power is about diplomacy, both public and private, providing development assistance and aid, and facilitating direct exchanges and interactions between people. Military leaders, charged with the responsibility for hard power, acknowledge that soft power goes hand in hand with the tools they wield. In 2013, now Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis now famously said “[i]f you don’t fully fund the State Department, then I need to buy more ammunition.”

What is soft power? Besides governments talking to each other in formal and informal settings, soft power is comprised of programs and policies that have an impact on people’s lives. Examples include PEPFAR (the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief), President George Bush’s signature initiative to combat the spread of HIV/AIDS; the prestigious Fulbright program, which for 71 years has brought scholars to the U.S. and sent American scholars abroad to teach and study; and our role in providing humanitarian assistance to countries in crisis. We do this work, and so much more, spending only one percent of our federal budget. The impact is real, though sometimes difficult to measure and quantify, and a critical long-term investment in our global stature and role as a nation with values that others want to emulate.

I have seen first-hand how this makes a difference. I spent the last five years at the U.S. Department of State, working to bring a focus on women and girls into US foreign policy. I served at the US Embassy in Kabul, where we helped women learn entrepreneurship skills, girls go to school, and ensure woman had better access to maternal health services. When I returned to the Secretary’s Office of Global Women’s Issues in Washington, DC, we did this same work – empowering women politically, economically and socially – because it builds strong societies, increases stability and prosperity, and because it reflects our core values of inclusion, utilizing talent, and our interest in stability and fighting extremism.

I watched John Kerry meet with women business leaders from every corner of the globe; advocate for ways to end sexual violence in conflict; and encourage women and girls to fully participate in every aspect of their lives. This type of engagement – from the Secretary of State on down — promotes our values and beliefs, as well as approaches to problem solving that we have seen work at home. This happens everywhere, and using every possible platform. Whether it is working with China on how to address domestic violence, Malawi on ensuring that girls can access education, Liberia on developing a strong rule of law and legal system, or Vietnam on how to build job skills, these engagements matter. We not only help others, we help ourselves, building good will, understanding and working with leaders who will be influential in their countries for years to come.

We need soft power – and we need to wield in constantly, everywhere and with a strong voice about who we are. Living in a secure and stable world is important to every U.S. citizen. The more people know about us, and about what we stand for, the better able we are to participate in the global public square, and convince others to join us.

What “I’m With Her” Means in 2017

As I wrote in early November, I cannot help but to think of the many women and men who I have stood by, learned from and worked with over the past 20+ years. From my time as an advocate and working in U.S. politics, to the many women who are so brave to think about running for office in their countries as well as those women and girls not involved in public life but just working every day to make their lives better for their families and communities. I was so proud and scared and thankful on election day.

But, as well all know, things did not turn out as I expected. So I publicly mourned on social media. And you know what happened? There was a lovely outpouring of love and support for me and the work I’ve been doing. I was even inspired! One dear friend wrote, “I have been thinking about you the most through all of this…hang in there. And you know? The next time I say “I’m with Her” I’ll be thinking about you, Susan Markham.”

Read More

Contact Us

+1.202.262.9743 – Stephenie Foster
+1.202.744.0892 – Susan Markham
smash@smashstrategies.com

Sign-Up for Our Newsletter



© Smash Strategies 2017 | All Rights Reserved