Normative Power and Europeanization: The EU’s Global Agenda for Gender Equality

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The article tackles an important topic concerning the EU’s engagement with gender equality and Europeanisation. The topic is timely and relevant, particularly given the increasing attention to how the EU presents itself as a normative power globally and the limits to this. However, there are several areas that require further development and clarification in order for the article to make a more substantive contribution.

 

First, the research question as currently framed focuses on assessing the impact of the EU on gender equality through Europeanisation. However, the methods employed—policy and content analysis—are more suited to interrogating the EU’s discursive framing and normative positioning rather than evaluating tangible impact. The findings themselves reflect this, offering insights into how the EU frames gender equality as a normative export rather than assessing implementation or effects on the ground. I would encourage the authors to revise the research question accordingly to better align with the methodology and the evidence presented.

 

Second, the article would benefit from more sustained and up-to-date engagement with the extensive literature on Normative Power Europe (NPE). While the authors note earlier contributions by Manners, they do not adequately engage with more recent critiques and developments, including those by scholars such as Mark Langan. In particular, the 2023 JCMS special issue on “Planetary Politics and Normative Power Europe” offers valuable critical perspectives—one contribution of which specifically addresses gender. This literature would strengthen the conceptual grounding of the paper and situate the analysis more clearly within current debates.

 

Relatedly, there is a substantial body of work on gender and Europeanisation which remains unaddressed. This omission is significant, particularly given the centrality of gender to the paper’s stated aims. I strongly recommend engagement with this literature, especially foundational texts from the field of EU gender studies. For instance, MacRae’s 2010 article in JCMS, “The EU as a Gender Equal Polity: Myths and Realities,” offers crucial context for evaluating the EU’s claims around gender equality.

In terms of interdisciplinarity, the paper briefly notes that authors from engineering and STEM backgrounds are involved, yet it is unclear how their expertise informs the paper’s contribution. As it currently reads, the paper is very much rooted in a social science approach. The authors should either more clearly articulate the value added by this interdisciplinary collaboration or reconsider including it if not relevant.

 

The discussion of the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda is also somewhat underdeveloped. While the paper gestures toward political resistance as a barrier to the EU’s engagement with WPS, this is presented in a rather cursory way. There is a rich and growing body of scholarship in this area, including work by Toni Haastrup, Katharine Wright, Roberta Guerrina, Miriam Mona Mukalazi, and others such as Hoijtink, Muehlenhoff and Welfens. These should be drawn upon to offer a more nuanced and empirically grounded account of the EU’s engagement—or lack thereof—with the WPS agenda.

In sum, the paper addresses an important topic and has clear potential. However, it would benefit greatly from reframing the research question to better fit the evidence, engaging more fully with the relevant literature, and clarifying the interdisciplinarity of the work. I look forward to seeing how the authors take this forward.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the constructive feedback and valuable suggestions. We appreciate the careful reading of the manuscript and the detailed remarks, which have helped us to improve the clarity and coherence of the paper. Below we provide point-by-point responses to the comments, along with a summary of the revisions made to the manuscript.

 

Comments 1. „I would encourage the authors to revise the research question accordingly to better align with the methodology and the evidence presented.”

Response 1. We thank the reviewer for highlighting this misalignment. In response, we have reformulated our research question to better reflect the conceptual nature of the study: “How can the European Union’s external Europeanisation process conceptually contribute to the promotion of gender equality beyond its borders, and what theoretical mechanisms explain this influence?” Accordingly, the paper has been reframed as a conceptual and theory-driven inquiry, rather than an empirical impact assessment. Other sections of the manuscript have been also updated to reflect this shift.

 

Comments 2. „they do not adequately engage with more recent critiques and developments, including those by scholars such as Mark Langan. In particular, the 2023 JCMS special issue on “Planetary Politics and Normative Power Europe” offers valuable critical perspectives—one contribution of which specifically addresses gender. This literature would strengthen the conceptual grounding of the paper and situate the analysis more clearly within current debates”

Response 2. We appreciate this important observation. In response, we have expanded the theoretical discussion on Normative Power Europe by incorporating recent critical perspectives that problematize the EU’s asymmetric relationships with its neighbourhood and its tendency to universalise norms. Specifically, we have engaged with several works which offer valuable critiques of the EU’s external action as a form of normative or soft imperialism.

 

Comments 3. „There is a substantial body of work on gender and Europeanisation which remains unaddressed. This omission is significant, particularly given the centrality of gender to the paper’s stated aims. I strongly recommend engagement with this literature, especially foundational texts from the field of EU gender studies”.

Response 3. We thank the reviewer for pointing out the omission of key literature at the intersection of gender and Europeanisation. We have now revised the theoretical framework to acknowledge foundational contributions in EU gender studies, exploring the EU as a gendered polity and the contested nature of gender equality in EU governance.

 

Comments 4. „The authors should either more clearly articulate the value added by this interdisciplinary collaboration or reconsider including it if not relevant.”

Response 4. We acknowledge the ambiguity regarding the interdisciplinary framing. Following the reviewer’s feedback, we have removed references to STEM and the involvement of engineering expertise, as they are not substantiated in the current version of the paper.

 

Comments 5. „These should be drawn upon to offer a more nuanced and empirically grounded account of the EU’s engagement—or lack thereof—with the WPS agenda”.

Response 5. We fully agree that our initial treatment of the Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda was insufficient. In response, we have expanded this discussion in the manuscript to include critical literature on the EU’s role within WPS frameworks. We now highlight how the EU’s engagement with WPS is shaped by strategic considerations, institutional constraints, and sometimes contradictory objectives.

 

We hope the changes implemented and the clarifications offered meet the reviewer’s expectations. We are grateful for the insightful comments and for the opportunity to revise our manuscript accordingly. Please see the revised version of the paper, with the new parts marked in green.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper addresses an important and timely research question: how much influence does the European Union (EU) actually exert on gender equality policies in countries beyond its borders, particularly in non-candidate countries and beyond Europe? Investigating the EU’s external impact on gender equality, especially outside the immediate context of enlargement, would be a valuable contribution to the literature. The authors’ ambition to frame this inquiry through the lens of Europeanisation offers an interesting and potentially fruitful theoretical approach. The paper’s aim to examine norm diffusion in EU foreign policy from this angle is interesting and could generate important insights into the EU’s role as a normative actor in a global context.

However, in its current form, the paper does not really deliver on what it promises centrally. Most significantly, it claims to empirically test the process of Europeanisation, but fails to do so in a substantive way. The research question posed on page 2 as “to what extent does the European Union’s external Europeanisation process influence gender equality policies in neighbouring countries?” remains completely unanswered throughout the paper. Thus, while the research question is very compelling and would be original, the paper lacks the data, methods and analytical rigour to answer it.

If the authors want to stick to this empirical analysis, several major revisions would be required. First, the paper would need to include a clearly defined data and methods section, specifying how the authors intend to measure Europeanisation, which indicators they employ, which data they use to analyse this, which countries are analysed, and what form of Europeanisation is observed. The selection and analysis of relevant EU policy documents should be treated thoroughly rather than referred to only in passing, and the time period under consideration must be clearly defined, given that EU policies changed over time.

That said, I would strongly recommend an alternative, and in my view more productive, direction: rewrite the whole paper as a conceptual paper rather than an empirical one. The authors could take section 4.4 - where they acknowledge the difficulties in testing Europeanisation empirically - as the new starting point. This would allow them to problematize the lack of comprehensive data, the methodological complexity of tracking norm diffusion, and the influence of intervening variables. Rather than attempting an empirical analysis that the current paper just does not provide, the authors could position their work as a state-of-the-art literature review that builds toward a conceptual framework for understanding how the EU COULD influence gender equality abroad through its external Europeanisation processes.

Such a conceptual perspective would allow the authors in large parts on the paper’s existing content. For example, the long list of “several factors” on page 13 contains terms that play a role in any kind of political process, not only Europeanisation. It could be revised to consider how these factors might interact with EU policies. To strengthen the argument, the authors could connect these variables more explicitly to the Europeanisation framework and illustrate them with examples from either their own previous studies or from existing secondary literature.

Regardless of the direction the authors choose (empirical or conceptual) several major revisions are necessary:

1. The paper currently presents the EU as an unambiguously progressive actor committed to promoting gender equality. However, there is a well-established body of literature critically examining the EU’s ambivalent track record on gender equality. The authors should engage with this literature to avoid reproducing an overly idealistic narrative. The EU often prioritizes economic or geopolitical interests over human rights, including gender equality, and a more critical engagement with this tension would strengthen the paper’s analytical depth. This is equally true for the European External Action Service (EEAS), whose role in gender policy also warrants more critical scrutiny. The paper would benefit from engaging with the growing literature on gender in EU external relations, which has developed extensively over the past decade.
2. Any references to STEM should be removed, as the topic is not addressed anywhere in the paper.
3. The authors should clarify that the EU does not apply gender mainstreaming consistently across policy fields. Existing research shows considerable variation and, in many areas, outright absence of gender mainstreaming. Acknowledging this would offer a more accurate portrayal of EU practices.
4. The geographical perspective of the paper also needs to be clarified. At times, the paper appears to refer to candidate countries, while at other points it seems to discuss broader neighbourhood states or countries entirely outside Europe. The authors should specify which countries or regions are under discussion and align the paper accordingly.
5. The discussion of the “velvet triangle” concept should be realigned in light of the paper’s focus on external action. It was traditionally used to analyse internal EU gender policy, and thus this concept must be reconceptualized if applied to EU foreign policy contexts. How would velvet triangles appear within the structures and practices of the EEAS? What actors would they involve? Without this reworking, the concept appears misapplied.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the constructive feedback and valuable suggestions. We appreciate the careful reading of the manuscript and the detailed remarks, which have helped us to improve the clarity and coherence of the paper. Below we provide point-by-point responses to the comments, along with a summary of the revisions made to the manuscript.

 

Comments 1. „the paper would need to include a clearly defined data and methods section, specifying how the authors intend to measure Europeanisation, which indicators they employ, which data they use to analyse this, which countries are analysed, and what form of Europeanisation is observed. The selection and analysis of relevant EU policy documents should be treated thoroughly rather than referred to only in passing, and the time period under consideration must be clearly defined, given that EU policies changed over time”.

Response 1. We thank the reviewer for raising this important point. Following the recommendation, we have reframed the manuscript as a conceptual paper rather than one aiming for empirical measurement. As such, the “Materials and Methods” section has been revised to clarify that this is a theory-driven, exploratory study, based on document and discourse analysis, without a focus on country-specific data collection or causal tracing.

 

Comments 2. „I would strongly recommend an alternative, and in my view more productive, direction: rewrite the whole paper as a conceptual paper rather than an empirical one. The authors could take section 4.4 - where they acknowledge the difficulties in testing Europeanisation empirically - as the new starting point. This would allow them to problematize the lack of comprehensive data, the methodological complexity of tracking norm diffusion, and the influence of intervening variables. Rather than attempting an empirical analysis that the current paper just does not provide, the authors could position their work as a state-of-the-art literature review that builds toward a conceptual framework for understanding how the EU COULD influence gender equality abroad through its external Europeanisation processes”.

Response 2. We are grateful for this suggestion and have followed it fully. The article has been restructured as a conceptual contribution. The revised aim is to theorise how the EU externalises gender norms through ideational, institutional, and symbolic mechanisms. Throughout the manuscript, the focus now lies on theoretical mechanisms, normative strategies, and conceptual tools, rather than on assessing empirical outcomes.

 

Comments 3. „the long list of “several factors” on page 13 contains terms that play a role in any kind of political process, not only Europeanisation. It could be revised to consider how these factors might interact with EU policies. To strengthen the argument, the authors could connect these variables more explicitly to the Europeanisation framework and illustrate them with examples from either their own previous studies or from existing secondary literature”

Response 3. We thank the reviewer for this observation. We agree that the list of factors initially presented lacked conceptual anchoring. In response, we have clarified that these are not explanatory variables but rather mediating conditions grounded in the Europeanisation literature. We have also revised the relevant section to frame them as part of a heuristic framework and provided illustrative examples of how specific political or institutional factors might shape the reception of EU-promoted gender norms.

 

Comments 4. „1.           The paper currently presents the EU as an unambiguously progressive actor committed to promoting gender equality. However, there is a well-established body of literature critically examining the EU’s ambivalent track record on gender equality. The authors should engage with this literature to avoid reproducing an overly idealistic narrative. The EU often prioritizes economic or geopolitical interests over human rights, including gender equality, and a more critical engagement with this tension would strengthen the paper’s analytical depth. This is equally true for the European External Action Service (EEAS), whose role in gender policy also warrants more critical scrutiny. The paper would benefit from engaging with the growing literature on gender in EU external relations, which has developed extensively over the past decade”

Response 4. We appreciate this crucial observation. In response, we have revised the article to include a more critical account of the EU’s gender agenda. Drawing on recent literature, we now acknowledge that EU gender promotion is often shaped by geopolitical interests, strategic ambiguity, and technocratic instruments that risk depoliticising gender.

 

Comments 5. „Any references to STEM should be removed, as the topic is not addressed anywhere in the paper”.

Response 5. We agree with the reviewer. All references to STEM and engineering have been removed from the manuscript, as they were not integrated into the main analysis and could have created confusion regarding the scope of the article.

 

Comments 6. „The authors should clarify that the EU does not apply gender mainstreaming consistently across policy fields. Existing research shows considerable variation and, in many areas, outright absence of gender mainstreaming. Acknowledging this would offer a more accurate portrayal of EU practices”.

Response 6. Thank you for this observation. We have added a discussion on the uneven application of gender mainstreaming across EU policy domains, noting that while gender equality is prioritised in some areas, it remains marginal in others.

 

Comments 7. „The geographical perspective of the paper also needs to be clarified. At times, the paper appears to refer to candidate countries, while at other points it seems to discuss broader neighbourhood states or countries entirely outside Europe. The authors should specify which countries or regions are under discussion and align the paper accordingly”.

Response 7. We appreciate this clarification request. In response, we have explicitly specified that the article focuses on the EU’s neighbourhood countries, particularly those in the Eastern Partnership framework, rather than on formal candidate countries.

 

Comments 8. „The discussion of the “velvet triangle” concept should be realigned in light of the paper’s focus on external action. It was traditionally used to analyse internal EU gender policy, and thus this concept must be reconceptualized if applied to EU foreign policy contexts. How would velvet triangles appear within the structures and practices of the EEAS? What actors would they involve? Without this reworking, the concept appears misapplied”.

Response 8. We thank the reviewer for this important conceptual clarification. We agree that the original formulation of the velvet triangle pertains to internal EU gender policy. In response, we have revised the relevant section to explicitly acknowledge this origin and to reconceptualise the idea for external action. We now present the triangle as an analytical heuristic for understanding how EU institutions, transnational experts, and civil society actors may cooperate in external gender promotion, while noting the limitations and contextual differences of this adaptation.

 

We hope the changes implemented and the clarifications offered meet the reviewer’s expectations. We are grateful for the insightful comments and for the opportunity to revise our manuscript accordingly. Please see the revised version of the paper, with the new parts marked in green.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The manuscript aims to examine the EU’s role in promoting gender equality through the process of external Europeanisation in neighbouring countries by integrating theoretical frameworks such as Europeanisation, post-functionalism, and Manners’ concept of normative power Europe. It also addresses criticisms of “soft imperialism,” asymmetrical power dynamics, and highlights the limitations of EU policies. While the document offers a valuable theoretical exploration of the EU’s role in promoting gender equality, major revisions are needed to strengthen the methodological framework and more effectively situate the study within the existing literature.

First, although the authors state that “the research uses qualitative methods, including document analysis of EU foreign policy frameworks and development instruments, as well as content analysis of key political speeches and strategic communications,” they do not clearly explain how these sources were systematically selected or how the risk of cherry-picking was avoided. Therefore, the authors should provide a more detailed explanation of the research methodology and how it was applied in the study.

Second, and closely related to the first point, the manuscript lacks empirical data or case studies to substantiate its claims about the EU's impact on gender equality in third countries. In other words, the analysis of the EU’s impact on gender equality in neighboring countries is generalized. The authors should include case studies to validate their theoretical arguments regarding the EU’s normative influence.

Third, while the manuscript rightly highlights the interaction between the “EU-driven Europeanisation process” and “local political and societal dynamics in third countries” (thus justifying the use of post-functionalism as a theoretical framework), it unfortunately overemphasises the EU’s role. The authors should give greater attention to the role of local actors and dynamics in promoting gender equality and assess their interactions with EU policies.

Lastly, several sections contain repetitive discussions on the mechanisms of Europeanisation and the EU’s normative power. These repetitions should be avoided to focus more on the critical arguments of the study.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for the constructive feedback and valuable suggestions. We appreciate the careful reading of the manuscript and the detailed remarks, which have helped us to improve the clarity and coherence of the paper. Below we provide point-by-point responses to the comments, along with a summary of the revisions made to the manuscript.

 

Comments 1. „Although the authors state that “the research uses qualitative methods, including document analysis of EU foreign policy frameworks and development instruments, as well as content analysis of key political speeches and strategic communications,” they do not clearly explain how these sources were systematically selected or how the risk of cherry-picking was avoided. Therefore, the authors should provide a more detailed explanation of the research methodology and how it was applied in the study”.

Response 1. We thank the reviewer for this important observation. As a result, we have clarified that the paper follows a conceptual approach based on purposive selection of policy and strategic documents. We have also acknowledged the limits of such an approach and justified our criteria of analytical relevance over empirical representativeness.

 

Comments 2. „The manuscript lacks empirical data or case studies to substantiate its claims about the EU's impact on gender equality in third countries. In other words, the analysis of the EU’s impact on gender equality in neighboring countries is generalized. The authors should include case studies to validate their theoretical arguments regarding the EU’s normative influence”.

Response 2. We agree with the reviewer’s assessment. Accordingly, we have reoriented the article as a conceptual exploration rather than an empirical study. This change is now clearly stated throughout the manuscript, and especially in the revised research question, methodology, and conclusion. Rather than measuring impact, we theorise the EU’s normative strategies and mechanisms of influence.

 

Comments 3. „[The manuscript] unfortunately overemphasises the EU’s role. The authors should give greater attention to the role of local actors and dynamics in promoting gender equality and assess their interactions with EU policies”.

Response 3. Thank you for this valuable suggestion. We agree that norm diffusion is shaped by domestic agency and not solely by EU strategies. While this paper focuses on the EU’s conceptual framing, we now acknowledge that local actors play a crucial role in interpreting or resisting external norms.

 

Comments 4. Several sections contain repetitive discussions on the mechanisms of Europeanisation and the EU’s normative power. These repetitions should be avoided to focus more on the critical arguments of the study”

Response 4. We thank the reviewer for this very helpful observation. Following the suggestion, we have carefully reviewed the manuscript to remove or streamline repetitive formulations related to the mechanisms of Europeanisation and the EU’s normative power. In particular, we have shortened redundant definitions and ensured that conceptual references support, rather than duplicate, the development of the article’s core critical arguments. This has helped improve the clarity and focus of the paper.

 

We hope the changes implemented and the clarifications offered meet the reviewer’s expectations. We are grateful for the insightful comments and for the opportunity to revise our manuscript accordingly. Please see the revised version of the paper, with the new parts marked in green.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The revised version of the article shows significant improvement. The author(s) have done a valuable job in addressing the suggestions from the first review. The manuscript is now clearer and more focused, and the revisions have strengthened its argument and structure.

Overall, this is a much improved and valuable contribution. Given the remaining minor revisions (see below) are addressed, I would recommend publishing the article.

Minor revisions:

In the abstract, “interact” should be replaced with “may interact” to avoid creating the expectation of an empirical analysis of interactions, which the article just does not provide.

Throughout the manuscript, the term “paper” could be replaced with “article” to reflect the current stage of scholarly work.

The first paragraph of Section 2 (Materials and Methods) should be rewritten, as it too closely repeats sentences from the introduction.

The author(s) should clarify from which political institutions or actors the analysed documents originate, for example, European Commission, European Parliament, Council of the EU, or ENP countries? It is also necessary to improve transparency by indicating how many documents were collected and analysed. Additionally, providing references need to be added, e.g. for “critical document analysis,” the “Women, Peace and Security agenda”, and claims such as “Even if it is often argued that most studies on Europeanisation focus on the influence that the EU exerts over its older or newer member states.” Which studies here exactly?

Please correct to “EU acquis communautaire”.

I would also recommend considering renaming the current “Results” section to “Mechanisms of Influence.” The former title suggests empirical findings, whereas the latter more accurately reflects the analytical focus of the discussion.

Author Response

We would like to thank the reviewer for their thoughtful and constructive feedback. We have carefully revised the manuscript in accordance with the minor revisions suggested. Below is a summary of the changes made:

• We have replaced "interact" with "may interact" to clarify that the article does not empirically test interactions but conceptually explores them.
• Throughout the manuscript, we have replaced the term "paper" with "article" to reflect the scholarly nature of the work.
• We rewrote the first paragraph of the "Materials and Methods" section to avoid repetition from the introduction and better highlight the methodological framework.
• We specified the institutional origin of the analysed documents (e.g., European Commission, EEAS, European Parliament), provided an indicative time frame (2015-2024), and clarified the selection criteria.
• The term "EU acquis communautaire" has been corrected for consistency and accuracy.
• The section formerly titled "Results" has been renamed "Mechanisms of Influence" to better reflect its analytical rather than empirical orientation.

We believe these revisions have improved the clarity and precision of the manuscript and thank the reviewer again for their helpful guidance.

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The author took my comments into consideration and addressed most of the concerns I raised in my review. The revised version of the paper is significantly improved. I recommend that this article be published.

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for the positive evaluation and kind words. We are grateful for the encouraging feedback and are pleased that the article was now found to be well structured and ready for publication.