The article “Budgeting with Women in Mind” by Janet G. Stotsky, provides an analytical review of various proposed macro-economic benefits of the reduction of the gender disparities during budgeting. One aspect that strikes with the review is how hypocritical it is for economies to emphasize and even promote gender equality at the microeconomic level, while on the other hand turning a blind eye at the macro-economic level. Stotsky explains that this inconsistency is evidenced by the scant literature addressing the correlation between gender equality and the overall macro-economic growth. Furthermore, Stotsky explains that in instances where gender-based budgeting has been incorporated into the general budgeting; the results have been rather disappointing. The irony is that the same institutions that claim to advocate for gender equality across all sectors are not too excited about employing the same in terms of gender budgeting and perhaps promoting macro-economic growth. Another striking effect is how economic variables and factors get much more complex at the macro-economic level. This makes it difficult to extrapolate micro-economic findings on the benefits of gender-sensitive economic undertakings, into macro-economic perspectives. The review outlines a point of interaction between gender issues and overall economic development.
Stotsky explains that the major hurdle in incorporating gender budgeting into the general budget of an economy is the existence of more complex variables. Theoretically, Stotsky explains that breaking down the macro-economic aspect into various areas of interest may make the incorporation more uniform and fruitful. These areas of interest as proposed by the author are revenue and expenditure. Stotsky outlines that when a balance is created between providing gender equality in terms of expenditure and revenue, then perhaps macro-economic development can be attained. However, this provision seems rather shallow and it would have been more analytical and convincing if Stotsky had provided an additional theoretical perspective. The additional theoretical perspective would address aspects such as the extent to which equality in terms of revenue and expenditure is connected to macro-economic development. Furthermore, additional information about cost-effectiveness, timeline, and implementation strategy would also be beneficial. Such an approach would shed more light on the importance of adopting such an approach and building confidence.
It is however observable that the author missed an important aspect in her review. Remarkable results have been achieved in other sectors via the advocacy of gender equality strategies. However, when it comes to macro-economic perspectives, there seem to be discontinuities between the advocacy, the implementation, and the successes. Gender budgets even in economies such as South Africa and Australia where implementation has already taken place; successes have not been outlined strongly and convincingly. Such propositions as gender budgeting require much more than just an empirical and sentimental approach, but require backings by verifiable data, specific objectives, and proposed strategies. Stotsky outlines that the major challenge has always been the integration of gender budgeting into the complexities of macro-economic operations. This is because of the presence of additional variables. However, after identifying the problem Stotsky still fails to convincingly support her propositions. The fact that the review integrates a cultural aspect in terms of gender into economic development requires much clarification.