evidoria

← Back to browse

Good practice Imported

Informe de Impacto de Género — Spain's Annual Gender Impact Report on the National Budget

Spain · Madrid · See the Spain profile · See the Madrid profile

Evidence: Descriptive / self-reported Top 55% 63/100 · Ask Evidence Copilot about this practice

Since 2009 Spain has screened every national budget programme for gender relevance — 372 of 379 rated gender-sensitive in 2023 — though economists call the exercise technically strong but largely 'window dressing', with no proven shift in real allocations.

372 of 379 %
Spending programmes classified as gender-sensitive (2023)

Details

Maturity
Established
Promoter
Ministerio de Hacienda / Ministerio de Igualdad
Period
2009–present
Keywords
public finance, budget policy, gender equality, government

Context

Spain has required an annual Gender Impact Report to accompany its draft national budget since Ley 30/2003, reinforced by the 2007 Gender Equality Organic Law and written directly into the General Budget Law since 2020. It is produced jointly by the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry of Equality.

Results

The 2023 edition assessed 379 spending programmes: 372 (98%) were classified as gender-sensitive (75 high, 162 medium, 135 low relevance), with only 7 rated as having no gender relevance. The OECD's 2022 Gender Budgeting Index places Spain among a small group of 'advanced practice' countries.

Conclusions

Independent economist Maria Pazos Moran argues the exercise functions largely as 'window dressing': conclusions are almost always positive or neutral, rarely flag negative gender impact, and the reports have historically lacked figures tying budget lines to measurable objectives.

Implementation
Indicative cost
Low (< €50k)
Time to results
Long (> 3 years)
Staffing & skills
Ministry of Finance, Ministry of Equality

Conditions for success

  • Figures tying budget lines to measurable gender objectives
  • Willingness to flag negative gender impacts, not only positive/neutral ones

Common failure modes

  • Conclusions almost always positive or neutral, described as 'window dressing' by an independent former Women's Institute director

Commonly funded by

National / regional programmes

Indicative funding routes for practices of this type — always check each programme's current calls and eligibility rules.

Do you run this practice? Claim it — verified implementers get a public contact pathway and can propose corrections.

Data sources

Where this practice's information was retrieved from, and when.

Similar practices you may find useful