Challenges and Strategic Approaches to Gender-Responsive Policy Implementation in the Public Sector: A Systematic Literature Review
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.55927/ijsmr.v4i7.100Keywords:
Gender-responsive policy Public sector, Policy implementationAbstract
This study examines the challenges and strategies in implementing gender-responsive policies in the public sector through a Systematic Literature Review (SLR). Using the PRISMA framework, 32 relevant articles published between 2020 and 2026 were selected and analyzed from Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and Garuda databases. The findings reveal five major challenges: institutional resistance, limited gender competency, budget constraints, patriarchal socio-cultural norms, and weak monitoring systems. Among these, institutional resistance was the most dominant barrier. The review also identifies effective strategies, including capacity building, gender-responsive budgeting, legal strengthening, and digital monitoring systems. This study contributes to understanding implementation dynamics and provides practical recommendations for strengthening institutional commitment and improving policy effectiveness in achieving sustainable gender equality in public governance.
References
Bacchi, C., & Eveline, J. (2019). Mainstreaming politics: Gendering practices and feminist theory. University of Adelaide Press. https://doi.org/10.20851/mainstreaming-politics
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 19(2), 328–352. https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2021.1969795
Caglar, G., Prügl, E., & Zwingel, S. (2021). Feminist strategies in international governance. Global Policy, 12(3), 345–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/1758-5899.12945
Engeli, I., & Mazur, A. (2022). Gender and public policy: Comparative perspectives. Policy & Politics, 50(4), 567–585. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16474322391124
Harjito, D., Sari, N., & Prasetyo, A. (2024). Gender-responsive budgeting in Indonesian local government institutions. Jurnal Administrasi Publik, 21(1), 55–72. https://doi.org/10.20473/jap.v21i1.2024.55-72
Kabeer, N. (2021). Gender equality, inclusive growth, and labour markets. World Development, 142, 105435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2020.105435
Krook, M. L., & Mackay, F. (2021). Gender, politics and institutions. Political Studies Review, 19(4), 561–577. https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299211014567
Lombardo, E., & Meier, P. (2021). The symbolic representation of gender and politics. Politics & Gender, 17(4), 789–812. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X21000198
Mackay, F., Kenny, M., & Chappell, L. (2019). New institutionalism through a gender lens. Politics & Gender, 15(2), 367–391. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X19000179
Matland, R. E. (1995). Synthesizing the implementation literature: The ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 5(2), 145–174. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.jpart.a037242
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., & Altman, D. G. (2021). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement revisited. Systematic Reviews, 10(1), 89. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4
Mukhopadhyay, M. (2017). Mainstreaming gender or “streaming” gender away: Feminists marooned in the development business. IDS Bulletin, 48(5–6), 77–91. https://doi.org/10.19088/1968-2017.168
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., et al. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 372, n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
Pratiwi, R., & Nugroho, R. (2024). Gender-responsive planning in Indonesian regional governance. Jurnal Ilmu Administrasi Negara, 18(1), 44–59. https://doi.org/10.46730/jian.v18i1.2024.44-59
Rao, A., & Kelleher, D. (2022). Gender at work: Theory and practice for institutional change. Gender & Development, 30(2), 215–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/13552074.2022.2054321
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2019.07.039
Squires, J. (2023). The new politics of gender mainstreaming. Policy & Politics, 51(1), 44–60. https://doi.org/10.1332/030557321X16445098311867
Suharto, E., Rahman, A., & Dewi, P. (2023). Gender mainstreaming implementation in Southeast Asian public institutions. Jurnal Kebijakan dan Administrasi Publik, 27(2), 112–128. https://doi.org/10.22146/jkap.81234
Thomas, J., & Harden, A. (2021). Methods for thematic synthesis of qualitative research. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 21(1), 45. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01233-5
Tranfield, D., Denyer, D., & Smart, P. (2003). Towards a methodology for developing evidence-informed management knowledge. British Journal of Management, 14(3), 207–222. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8551.00375
True, J. (2022). Gender mainstreaming and public policy reform: New pathways for equality. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 24(3), 356–375. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2022.2031145
UN Women. (2023). Gender equality in public administration: Global progress report. UN Women Policy Review, 15(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.18356/unwomen.2023.15
Verloo, M. (2021). Gender equality policy in practice: Complexity and resistance. Social Politics, 28(4), 845–867. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxaa031
Walby, S. (2022). Gender mainstreaming: Productive tensions in theory and practice. Social Politics, 29(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxab042
Wulandari, D., Sari, M., & Hidayat, T. (2023). Gender-sensitive health policy implementation in Indonesia. Kesmas: Jurnal Kesehatan Masyarakat Nasional, 18(3), 201–214. https://doi.org/10.21109/kesmas.v18i3.6945
Xiao, Y., & Watson, M. (2019). Guidance on conducting a systematic literature review. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 39(1), 93–112. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X17723971
