شمارۀ جدید فصلنامه (تابستان 1404) منتشر شد
Volume 16, Issue 1 (3-2025)
Social Problems of Iran 2025, 16(1): 195-228 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Falahati L. (2025). Development Plans and Women's Issues: The Challenge of Policymakers’ Problem Framing, Idealism, and Discursive Conflict. Social Problems of Iran. 16(1), : 6 doi:10.61186/jspi.16.1.195
URL: http://jspi.khu.ac.ir/article-1-3818-en.html
URL: http://jspi.khu.ac.ir/article-1-3818-en.html
Corresponding Author, Associated Professor, Department of Women Studies, Institute for Social and Cultural Studies, Ministry for Science, research and Technology, Tehran, Iran. , falahati@iscs.ac.ir
Abstract: (375 Views)
Since the Islamic Revolution, Iran’s six national development plans have consistently prioritized women as a key target group. Official statistics highlight significant progress in women’s health and education, yet economic and political participation remain limited, with Iran ranking 144th and 143rd globally in these domains among 146 countries (World Economic Forum, 2024). This study critically examines the shortcomings of these plans in addressing women’s issues through gender and development theories, drawing on the lived experiences of 18 experts and policymakers in women’s policy formulation. Using a descriptive phenomenological approach and semi-structured interviews conducted in 2022, the research identified 55 concepts, synthesized into 10 sub-themes and 3 main themes: (1) conceptual and epistemological challenges, (2) planning and implementation barriers, and (3) deficits in monitoring, evaluation, and impact assessment. The most critical challenge is the lack of consensus on gender concepts, exacerbated by conflating women’s roles with family duties and reductionist views limiting women’s agency. Political rivalries and frequent administrative changes disrupt program continuity, while inadequate monitoring systems and politicized gender metrics undermine accountability. These factors, combined with partisan discourse eroding past achievements, have weakened public trust in the transformative potential of development initiatives, particularly among women. The study underscores the need for theoretical clarity, robust institutional frameworks, and inclusive policymaking to achieve equitable and sustainable development for women in Iran.
Extended Abstract
1. Introduction
For over four decades since the Islamic Revolution, Iran’s six national development plans have positioned women as a central focus of socioeconomic policy. The first and second plans (1989–1998) prioritized women’s education and healthcare, achieving notable gains, such as increasing female life expectancy from 66.3 to 77.5 years and schooling expectancy from 4.6 to 10.7 years (UNDP, 2024). From the third plan onward (1999–2004), the scope expanded to include economic, legal, social, and cultural participation, with subsequent plans emphasizing empowerment, social protection, gender justice, and institutional development. The seventh plan (2024–2028) focuses on family strengthening, marriage promotion, and support for female-headed households. Despite these efforts, significant gender disparities persist, particularly in economic and political participation, with Iran ranking 144th and 143rd, respectively, among 146 countries (World Economic Forum, 2024). These gaps reflect systemic challenges in gender-responsive planning and the limited effectiveness of past policies in achieving gender equity.
This study critically evaluates these shortcomings through the lens of gender and development theories, notably Women in Development (WID) and Gender and Development (GAD), which highlight the need for culturally sensitive, participatory approaches to address structural inequalities (Tinker, 1990; Connelly et al., 2000). By analyzing the lived experiences of 18 experts and practitioners in women’s policymaking, the research identifies key obstacles across four pillars of gender planning: needs assessment, planning instruments, implementation mechanisms, and monitoring systems. The findings aim to inform more equitable and sustainable development strategies for women in Iran.
2. Methodology
This qualitative study adopted a descriptive phenomenological approach to explore the lived experiences of experts in women’s development planning in Iran. Data were collected in 2022 through 18 semi-structured interviews with a purposively and theoretically selected sample of academics, policymakers, civil society actors, and parliamentarians with direct experience in women-related policymaking. Purposive sampling ensured diversity in perspectives, while theoretical sampling allowed for iterative refinement of themes as data collection progressed. Interviews focused on challenges in policy formulation, implementation, and evaluation, emphasizing women’s issues independent of family roles.
Data analysis followed Colaizzi’s (1978) seven-step method: (1) transcribing interviews, (2) extracting significant statements, (3) formulating meanings, (4) clustering themes, (5) developing an exhaustive description, (6) identifying fundamental structures, and (7) validating findings with participants. This process yielded 55 concepts, synthesized into 10 sub-themes and 3 main themes. To ensure trustworthiness, member checking was conducted by sharing findings with select interviewees, and triangulation with existing literature (e.g., Moser & Moser, 2005; Kabeer, 2013) validated the results. Ethical considerations, including informed consent and confidentiality, were rigorously upheld throughout the research process.
3. Findings
The analysis identified 55 concepts, organized into 10 sub-themes and 3 overarching themes: (1) conceptual and epistemological challenges, (2) planning and implementation barriers, and (3) monitoring, evaluation, and impact deficits.
Conceptual and Epistemological Challenges: The most significant barrier is the lack of theoretical consensus on gender concepts, driven by the conflation of “women” and “family” in policy frameworks. For instance, strategic documents often prioritize family-centric roles, marginalizing women’s independent identities and reinforcing reductionist views that confine them to domestic spheres. This contrasts with GAD approaches, which advocate for analyzing gendered social relations (Connelly et al., 2000). Political and ideological rivalries further exacerbate this issue, with competing discourses (e.g., traditional vs. modern gender roles) undermining policy coherence. Interviewees highlighted the ambiguous “third model” of womanhood—neither Western nor traditional—as a contested concept lacking clear policy translation.
Planning and Implementation Barriers: Unrealistic goal-setting, such as expecting a 25% reduction in divorce rates within five years, reflects a disconnect between ambitious objectives and limited institutional capacities. Fragmented responsibilities across multiple agencies, such as those addressing female-headed households, lead to duplication and inefficiency. Frequent political turnover disrupts program continuity, as seen in the suspension of gender-related initiatives during government transitions. A critical shortage of gender-sensitive expertise among mid-level managers further hampers effective implementation, with many officials relying on goodwill rather than specialized training.
Monitoring, Evaluation, and Impact Deficits: The absence of standardized gender indicators and transparent feedback systems undermines accountability. For example, the suspension of gender equality indicators in 2021, due to perceived Western influences, halted progress on national reporting (Khazali, 2022). Politicized metrics and partisan narratives erode past achievements, fostering public skepticism about the transformative potential of development plans. This lack of trust is particularly pronounced among women, who perceive limited tangible outcomes in economic and political spheres.
4. Conclusion
This study reveals that Iran’s development planning for women is hindered by deep-rooted conceptual, structural, and operational challenges, impeding gender justice and sustainable development. The conflation of women’s and family roles in policy frameworks marginalizes women’s agency, contrasting with international best practices, such as Sweden’s gender mainstreaming model, which integrates gender analysis across all policy areas (Verloo, 2005). The lack of a cohesive theoretical foundation, compounded by ideological rivalries, prevents the formation of a shared vision for gender equity.
Operationally, the misalignment between ambitious goals and limited institutional capacities—exemplified by the under-resourced Vice Presidency for Women and Family Affairs—undermines implementation. Global examples, such as Rwanda’s Ministry of Gender and Family Promotion, demonstrate the value of robust institutional mechanisms (Minto & Mergaert, 2018). The scarcity of gender expertise among policymakers, as noted by interviewees, necessitates systematic capacity-building, aligning with recommendations for gender training in developing contexts (Roggeband & Verloo, 2006).
Monitoring and evaluation systems suffer from a lack of standardized indicators and politicized reporting, which erodes accountability and public trust. The suspension of gender metrics in Iran mirrors challenges in other developing nations, where ideological shifts disrupt policy continuity (Muyomi, 2014). Furthermore, the marginalization of civil society organizations limits grassroots engagement, unlike successful models in Bangladesh, where NGOs drive gender-inclusive development (Jaquette, 2017).
To address these challenges, Iran’s policymaking must prioritize: (1) theoretical clarity through consensus-building on gender concepts, (2) institutional strengthening by elevating the authority and resources of gender-focused agencies, (3) capacity-building through gender-sensitive training for policymakers, and (4) participatory processes that integrate civil society. These reforms, grounded in political will and global best practices, are essential for transforming development plans into platforms for women’s empowerment and equitable social progress.
Extended Abstract
1. Introduction
For over four decades since the Islamic Revolution, Iran’s six national development plans have positioned women as a central focus of socioeconomic policy. The first and second plans (1989–1998) prioritized women’s education and healthcare, achieving notable gains, such as increasing female life expectancy from 66.3 to 77.5 years and schooling expectancy from 4.6 to 10.7 years (UNDP, 2024). From the third plan onward (1999–2004), the scope expanded to include economic, legal, social, and cultural participation, with subsequent plans emphasizing empowerment, social protection, gender justice, and institutional development. The seventh plan (2024–2028) focuses on family strengthening, marriage promotion, and support for female-headed households. Despite these efforts, significant gender disparities persist, particularly in economic and political participation, with Iran ranking 144th and 143rd, respectively, among 146 countries (World Economic Forum, 2024). These gaps reflect systemic challenges in gender-responsive planning and the limited effectiveness of past policies in achieving gender equity.
This study critically evaluates these shortcomings through the lens of gender and development theories, notably Women in Development (WID) and Gender and Development (GAD), which highlight the need for culturally sensitive, participatory approaches to address structural inequalities (Tinker, 1990; Connelly et al., 2000). By analyzing the lived experiences of 18 experts and practitioners in women’s policymaking, the research identifies key obstacles across four pillars of gender planning: needs assessment, planning instruments, implementation mechanisms, and monitoring systems. The findings aim to inform more equitable and sustainable development strategies for women in Iran.
2. Methodology
This qualitative study adopted a descriptive phenomenological approach to explore the lived experiences of experts in women’s development planning in Iran. Data were collected in 2022 through 18 semi-structured interviews with a purposively and theoretically selected sample of academics, policymakers, civil society actors, and parliamentarians with direct experience in women-related policymaking. Purposive sampling ensured diversity in perspectives, while theoretical sampling allowed for iterative refinement of themes as data collection progressed. Interviews focused on challenges in policy formulation, implementation, and evaluation, emphasizing women’s issues independent of family roles.
Data analysis followed Colaizzi’s (1978) seven-step method: (1) transcribing interviews, (2) extracting significant statements, (3) formulating meanings, (4) clustering themes, (5) developing an exhaustive description, (6) identifying fundamental structures, and (7) validating findings with participants. This process yielded 55 concepts, synthesized into 10 sub-themes and 3 main themes. To ensure trustworthiness, member checking was conducted by sharing findings with select interviewees, and triangulation with existing literature (e.g., Moser & Moser, 2005; Kabeer, 2013) validated the results. Ethical considerations, including informed consent and confidentiality, were rigorously upheld throughout the research process.
3. Findings
The analysis identified 55 concepts, organized into 10 sub-themes and 3 overarching themes: (1) conceptual and epistemological challenges, (2) planning and implementation barriers, and (3) monitoring, evaluation, and impact deficits.
Conceptual and Epistemological Challenges: The most significant barrier is the lack of theoretical consensus on gender concepts, driven by the conflation of “women” and “family” in policy frameworks. For instance, strategic documents often prioritize family-centric roles, marginalizing women’s independent identities and reinforcing reductionist views that confine them to domestic spheres. This contrasts with GAD approaches, which advocate for analyzing gendered social relations (Connelly et al., 2000). Political and ideological rivalries further exacerbate this issue, with competing discourses (e.g., traditional vs. modern gender roles) undermining policy coherence. Interviewees highlighted the ambiguous “third model” of womanhood—neither Western nor traditional—as a contested concept lacking clear policy translation.
Planning and Implementation Barriers: Unrealistic goal-setting, such as expecting a 25% reduction in divorce rates within five years, reflects a disconnect between ambitious objectives and limited institutional capacities. Fragmented responsibilities across multiple agencies, such as those addressing female-headed households, lead to duplication and inefficiency. Frequent political turnover disrupts program continuity, as seen in the suspension of gender-related initiatives during government transitions. A critical shortage of gender-sensitive expertise among mid-level managers further hampers effective implementation, with many officials relying on goodwill rather than specialized training.
Monitoring, Evaluation, and Impact Deficits: The absence of standardized gender indicators and transparent feedback systems undermines accountability. For example, the suspension of gender equality indicators in 2021, due to perceived Western influences, halted progress on national reporting (Khazali, 2022). Politicized metrics and partisan narratives erode past achievements, fostering public skepticism about the transformative potential of development plans. This lack of trust is particularly pronounced among women, who perceive limited tangible outcomes in economic and political spheres.
4. Conclusion
This study reveals that Iran’s development planning for women is hindered by deep-rooted conceptual, structural, and operational challenges, impeding gender justice and sustainable development. The conflation of women’s and family roles in policy frameworks marginalizes women’s agency, contrasting with international best practices, such as Sweden’s gender mainstreaming model, which integrates gender analysis across all policy areas (Verloo, 2005). The lack of a cohesive theoretical foundation, compounded by ideological rivalries, prevents the formation of a shared vision for gender equity.
Operationally, the misalignment between ambitious goals and limited institutional capacities—exemplified by the under-resourced Vice Presidency for Women and Family Affairs—undermines implementation. Global examples, such as Rwanda’s Ministry of Gender and Family Promotion, demonstrate the value of robust institutional mechanisms (Minto & Mergaert, 2018). The scarcity of gender expertise among policymakers, as noted by interviewees, necessitates systematic capacity-building, aligning with recommendations for gender training in developing contexts (Roggeband & Verloo, 2006).
Monitoring and evaluation systems suffer from a lack of standardized indicators and politicized reporting, which erodes accountability and public trust. The suspension of gender metrics in Iran mirrors challenges in other developing nations, where ideological shifts disrupt policy continuity (Muyomi, 2014). Furthermore, the marginalization of civil society organizations limits grassroots engagement, unlike successful models in Bangladesh, where NGOs drive gender-inclusive development (Jaquette, 2017).
To address these challenges, Iran’s policymaking must prioritize: (1) theoretical clarity through consensus-building on gender concepts, (2) institutional strengthening by elevating the authority and resources of gender-focused agencies, (3) capacity-building through gender-sensitive training for policymakers, and (4) participatory processes that integrate civil society. These reforms, grounded in political will and global best practices, are essential for transforming development plans into platforms for women’s empowerment and equitable social progress.
Article number: 6
Keywords: Women and Development, Development Plans, Gender Inequality, Women’s Empowerment, Gender-Responsive Planning
Type of Article: Original Research |
Subject:
Women
Received: 2024/12/25 | Accepted: 2025/02/11 | Published: 2025/05/11
Received: 2024/12/25 | Accepted: 2025/02/11 | Published: 2025/05/11
References
1. Brown, A. M. (2007). WID and GAD in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania: Reappraising Gender Planning Approaches in Theory and Practice. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 28(2), 57–83. https://doi.org/10.1300/J501v28n02_03
2. Caglar, G. (2013). Gender mainstreaming. Politics & Gender, 9(3), 336-344. doi:10.1017/S1743923X13000214
3. Charlesworth, H. (2005). Not Waving but Drowning: Gender Mainstreaming and Human Rights in the United Nations. Harvard Human Rights Journal, 18(Spring), 1-18.
4. Connell, R. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics. John Wiley & Sons.
5. Connelly, M. P., Li, T. M., MacDonald, M., & Parpart, J. L. (2000). Feminism and development: Theoretical perspectives. Theoretical perspectives on gender and development, 51-159.COUNCIL, O. E. (1998). Gender mainstreaming. Conceptual framework, methodology and presentation of good practices. Final Report of Activities of the Group of Specialists on Mainstreaming, EG Á/S Á/MS (98), 2.
6. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2014). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches. Sage publications.
7. Currie, D. H. (1999). Gender Analysis from the Standpoint of Women: The Radical Potential of Women’s Studies in Development. Asian Journal of Women’s Studies, 5(3), 9–44. https://doi.org/10.1080/12259276.1999.11665853
8. Daly, M. (2005). Gender mainstreaming in theory and practice. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 12(3), 433-450. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxi023
9. Derbyshire, H. (2002). Gender manual: a practical guide for development policy makers and practitioners. DFID (UK Department for International Development).
10. Díaz González, O. S., & Torres, M. A. (2001). Gender and change in the organisational culture: Tools to construct a gender-sensitive organisation. Deutsche Gesellschaft für technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) Publishing.
11. Duflo, E. (2012). Women empowerment and economic development. Journal of Economic literature, 50(4), 1051-1079. DOI: 10.1257/jel.50.4.1051
12. Haqia Purnama, T., Ekha Putera, R., & Rika Valentina, T. (2024). Gender Mainstreaming National Development Plan: Analysis of its Integration into Public Policy. KnE Social Sciences, 9(23), 69–81. https://doi.org/10.18502/kss.v9i23.16642
13. Jaffe, S. (2013). Trickle-Down Feminism. Dissent 60(1), 24-30. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/dss.2013.0000.
14. Jahan, R. (1995). The Elusive Agenda: Mainstreaming Women in Development, London and New York.
15. Jaquette, J. S. (2017). Women/gender and development: the growing gap between theory and practice. Studies in Comparative International Development, 52, 242-260. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12116-017-9248-8
16. Kabeer, N., & Natali, L. (2013). Gender equality and economic growth: Is there a win‐win?. IDS Working Papers, 2013(417), 1-58. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2040-0209.2013.00417.x. https://dolat.ir/detail/378687
17. Lee-Gosselin, H., Brière, S., & Ann, H. (2013). Resistances to gender mainstreaming in organizations: toward a new approach. Gender in management: An International journal, 28(8), 468-485.. https://doi.org/10.1108/GM-10-2012-0081
18. Mazey, S. (2000). Introduction: Integrating gender - intellectual and “real world” mainstreaming. Journal of European Public Policy, 7(3), 333–345. https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2000.11500071
19. McGauran, A. (2009). Gender mainstreaming and the public policy implementation process: round pegs in square holes?. Policy & Politics, 37(2), 215-233. Retrieved Sep 21, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.1332/030557323X16769752601769
20. Mergaert, L. A. K. (2012). The reality of gender mainstreaming implementation. The case of the EU Research Policy. Nijmegen: Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen.
21. Miller, C., & Razavi, S. (1995). From WID to GAD: Conceptual shifts in the women and development discourse (No. 1). UNRISD Occasional Paper.
22. Minto, R., & Mergaert, L. (2018). Gender mainstreaming and evaluation in the EU: comparative perspectives from feminist institutionalism. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 20(2), 204–220. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2018.1440181
23. Morrow, R., Rodriguez, A., & King, N. (2015). Colaizzi’s Descriptive Phenomenological Method. The Psychologist, 28, 643-644. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcin.2015.03.004
24. Moser, C., & Moser, A. (2005). Gender mainstreaming since Beijing: A review of success and limitations in international institutions. Gender & Development, 13(2), 11–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552070512331332283
25. Muyomi, J. N. (2014). Challenges facing implementation of gender mainstreaming in selected government ministries in Nairobi county, Kenya (Doctoral dissertation, University of Nairobi). http://hdl.handle.net/11295/72510
26. Pal, K, K., Piaget, k., & Zahidi, S. (2024, Jun). The global gender gap report 2024. World Economic Forum.
27. Parpart, J. L., Connelly, P., & Barriteau, E. (Eds.). (2000). Theoretical perspectives on gender and development. IDRC.
28. Rees, T. (2006). Mainstreaming equality in the European :union:. Routledge.
29. Roggeband, C., & Verloo, M. (2006). Evaluating gender impact assessment in the Netherlands (1994–2004): a political process approach. Policy & Politics, 34(4), 615-632. Retrieved Sep 21, 2024, from https://doi.org/10.1332/030557306778553097
30. Squires, J. (2005). Is mainstreaming transformative? Theorizing mainstreaming in the context of diversity and deliberation. Social politics: international studies in gender, state & society, 12(3), 366-388. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxi020
31. Tinker, I. (1990). Persistent Inequalities: Women and World Development. New York: Oxford University Press
32. UNDP (United Nations Development Programme). (2024). Human Development Report 2023-24: Breaking the gridlock: Reimagining cooperation in a polarized world. New York.
33. Verloo, M. (2005). Displacement and empowerment: Reflections on the concept and practice of the Council of Europe approach to gender mainstreaming and gender equality. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 12(3), 344-365. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxi019
34. Verloo, M. M. T. (2001). Another velvet revolution. Gender mainstreaming and the politics of implementation.
35. Waal, M. de. (2006). Evaluating gender mainstreaming in development projects. Development in Practice, 16(2), 209–214. https://doi.org/10.1080/09614520600562454
36. Walby, Sylvia (2005) Gender mainstreaming: Productive tensions in theory and practice, Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 12(3), pp. 321– 343. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxi018
37. Alipoor, Parvin., Zahedi, Mohammad Javad., Maleki, Amir., & Javadi Yeganeh, Mohammad Reza. (2017). Discourse Analysis of Gender Equality in the Sixth 5-years Plan for Economic, Cultural and Social Development of Islamic Republic of Iran. Social Studies and Research in Iran, 6(2), 203-229. SID. https://sid.ir/paper/242862/en. (In Persian).
38. Ghadimi, Akram., Ghorbani Shikh Neshin, Arsalan., & Hariri, Rahman. (2011). Comparing the situation of women in development programs in the I.R. Iran. The Journal of Women Studies, 5(3), 5-26SID. https://sid.ir/paper/133253/en. (In Persian).
39. Ghanipour Khondabi, Fatemeh., Asadi Davodabadi, Mohammad Hossein., Aliahmadi, Omid., & Roshanaei, Ali. (2023). A Comparative Study of Women's and Men's Employment Programs in Iran's Development Programs. Razi Journal of Medical Sciences, 29(12), 497-509. http://rjms.iums.ac.ir/article-1-8074-fa.html. (In Persian).
40. Khazali, Ensiyeh. (2022, January 23). Khazali: Gender justice indicators will be revised. Government Information Portal (PAD). https://dolat.ir. (In Persian).
41. Safari Shali, Reza. (2016). Discourse analysis of gender justice on economic, social and cultural development plans in Islamic Republic of Iran. Sociological Review, 22(2). 211-237. SID. https://sid.ir/paper/264388/en. (In Persian)
42. Samvati, Zahra., Satvati, Jafar., & Zerang, Mohammad. (2016). The evaluation women and family status in development plans in the national documents. Journal of Iranian Social Development Studies (JISDS), 8(2-30), 49-68. https://sanad.iau.ir/Journal/jisds/Article/821580/FullText. (In Persian)
43. Shirzadi, Reza., & Susani shirvan, Sepideh. (2013). Gender Consideration in Five tears period development program in Iran. Political Science Quarterly, 8(21), 151-173. SID. https://sid.ir/paper/174133/en. (In persian).
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (CC-BY-NC).
