Laws, Aid, and Change: The Effect of Gender-Mainstreamed Aid on Legal Provisions Shaping Women’s Economic Opportunities

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

This paper addresses a critical and timely topic in international development, highlighting the intersection of gender-mainstreamed aid and legal reforms. By employing quantile regression, it studies nuanced distributional impacts of aid across diverse contexts, enhancing the applicability of its findings. This innovative approach allows for a detailed understanding of how aid influences countries at varying levels of legal and regulatory development, making a meaningful contribution to the literature.
However, the theoretical framework could be strengthened by elaborating on how institutional and cultural factors, such as corruption and entrenched norms, mediate the effects of aid. Expanding Section 3.1 to include a discussion of these mediating factors would provide a more comprehensive foundation for interpreting the results.

The robustness checks using IV regression are a notable addition, though the reliance on maternal mortality rates as instruments could benefit from further validation of exclusion restriction assumptions. Acknowledging the limitations of the IV approach and exploring alternative instruments or sensitivity analyses would bolster the credibility of the findings. Additionally, the dimensional analysis of the WBL index provides actionable insights, particularly in areas such as marriage and parenthood regulations, where the impact of aid is most pronounced. However, the interpretation of weaker effects on entrepreneurship and workplace dimensions remains underdeveloped. Investigating whether these areas require complementary interventions, such as capacity-building programs or initiatives to shift societal norms, can be added to fully address existing barriers.

Author Response

This paper addresses a critical and timely topic in international development, highlighting the intersection of gender-mainstreamed aid and legal reforms. By employing quantile regression, it studies nuanced distributional impacts of aid across diverse contexts, enhancing the applicability of its findings. This innovative approach allows for a detailed understanding of how aid influences countries at varying legal and regulatory development levels, making a meaningful contribution to the literature.

However, the theoretical framework could be strengthened by elaborating on how institutional and cultural factors, such as corruption and entrenched norms, mediate the effects of aid. Expanding Section 3.1 to discuss these mediating factors would provide a more comprehensive foundation for interpreting the results.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s thoughtful suggestion to expand Section 3.1 by discussing how institutional and cultural factors, such as corruption and entrenched norms, mediate the effects of gender-mainstreamed aid. This is indeed a critical point, as these factors can significantly influence the effectiveness of aid in strengthening legal frameworks.

In response, we have enhanced Section 3.1 (please see pages 10-11, paragraphs 4 and 5) by explicitly discussing the mediating roles of corruption and entrenched cultural norms. Specifically, we note how corruption can undermine aid effectiveness by misdirecting resources or weakening enforcement and how entrenched norms may resist reforms despite improved legal frameworks. Furthermore, we have emphasized that these mediating factors are already captured in our empirical estimation by including variables such as the Institutional Quality Index (to account for governance and corruption) and Cultural Globalization (as a proxy for openness to international norms, including those promoting gender equality). By incorporating these variables, our empirical model provides a robust foundation for analyzing how gender-mainstreamed aid interacts with institutional and cultural contexts, aligning with the reviewer’s suggestion for a more comprehensive framework.

The robustness checks using IV regression are a notable addition, though the reliance on maternal mortality rates as instruments could benefit from further validation of exclusion restriction assumptions.

We appreciate the reviewer's thoughtful feedback and their acknowledgment that the robustness checks using IV regression are a valuable addition to the analysis. Below, we address the specific concerns raised:

1. Validation of Exclusion Restriction Assumptions:

Response: Since we employ a single instrument (maternal mortality) for the endogenous variable (contemporaneous gender-related aid), formal statistical tests for exclusion restrictions (overidentification) are not applicable. Thus, we have provided a clear theoretical justification for why/how maternal mortality influences gender-related aid allocations while not directly affecting the WBL index. Our explanation aligns with existing literature that uses maternal mortality as an instrument in similar contexts. See page 23, paragraph 4 and page 24 paragraph 1 and 2.

In addition, to address the reviewer's suggestion, we regressed maternal mortality rates (the sole instrument) on all control variables in our model (excluding gender-related aid) using contemporaneous values and a fixed-effects panel regression. Residuals from this regression were then tested for their correlation with the WBL index. The analysis revealed no significant correlation (correlation = 0.017, p = 0.830), (Presented at the bottom of Table-7) suggesting that maternal mortality rates affect the WBL index exclusively through their impact on gender-related aid. To further strengthen the exogeneity of the instrument, we repeated this analysis using two period-lagged values of maternal mortality rates (t-2). The results were consistent, showing no significant correlation between the residuals and the WBL index. Combined with the strong first-stage regression results (F-statistic > 14.6, p < 0.001), these findings support the validity of maternal mortality rates as an instrument.

2. Lagged Gender-Related Aid Values:

Response: lagged values of gender-related aid are determined by past decisions and reflect historical conditions rather than contemporaneous shocks to the WBL index. (Please see our note above, also reported in Footnote #12)

Acknowledging the limitations of the IV approach and exploring alternative instruments or sensitivity analyses would bolster the credibility of the findings.

Response: We acknowledge the inherent limitations of the IV approach, particularly the reliance on the exclusion restriction assumption for maternal mortality. We have clarified these limitations in the revised manuscript (See footnote #13). However, we believe the combination of theoretical justification, strong first-stage results, and the alignment of our findings with existing literature underscore the robustness of our approach.

Reviewer Commet: Additionally, the dimensional analysis of the WBL index provides actionable insights, particularly in areas such as marriage and parenthood regulations, where the impact of aid is most pronounced. However, the interpretation of weaker effects on entrepreneurship and workplace dimensions remains underdeveloped. Investigating whether these areas require complementary interventions, such as capacity-building programs or initiatives to shift societal norms, can be added to address existing barriers fully.

Response: We thank the reviewer for their insightful observation regarding the dimensional analysis of the WBL index and their suggestion to explore complementary interventions for areas with weaker effects, such as entrepreneurship and workplace dimensions. We agree that these areas likely require additional support beyond direct aid to address deeper systemic barriers.

Thus, in the revised manuscript, we have expanded the discussion to include potential explanations for the weaker effects observed in these dimensions. Specifically, we highlight how entrenched societal norms, insufficient capacity-building programs, and structural barriers may limit the impact of aid on entrepreneurship and workplace outcomes. Furthermore, we have included a brief discussion on the importance of complementary interventions, such as initiatives to shift societal attitudes and targeted capacity-building programs, which could amplify the effectiveness of aid in these areas. Please see page 20, Paragraph 2)

While this topic warrants deeper investigation, we believe the added discussion provides a more balanced interpretation of the findings and offers actionable insights for policymakers. We thank the reviewer for encouraging us to explore this critical aspect.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The introduction provides a clear background to the study. However, additional information on gaps in current research could benefit. This allows the authors to show the unique contribution of the study. The study design is appropriate. The methods section is adequately described, detailing the variables, their sources and the research techniques used (mainly econometric). Clarity can be enhanced by briefly summarising the rationale for specific econometric choices, such as solving multicollinearity or endogeneity problems. The results are clearly presented. Conclusions support the results, which highlight how gender-sensitive assistance affects WBL results. Slight improvements in identifying research gaps and methodological justifications would increase its impact. The manuscript makes a significant contribution to understanding the role of aid in supporting legal reforms for women's empowerment which is an important voice in the academic discourse.

Author Response

The introduction provides a clear background to the study. However, additional information on gaps in current research could benefit. This allows the authors to show the unique contribution of the study. The study design is appropriate. The methods section is adequately described, detailing the variables, their sources, and the research techniques used (mainly econometric). Clarity can be enhanced by briefly summarizing the rationale for specific econometric choices, such as solving multicollinearity or endogeneity problems. The results are presented clearly. Conclusions support the results, which highlight how gender-sensitive assistance affects WBL results. Slight improvements in identifying research gaps and methodological justifications would increase its impact. The manuscript contributes significantly to understanding the role of aid in supporting legal reforms for women's empowerment, which is an essential voice in the academic discourse.

Thank you for your thoughtful and constructive feedback on our manuscript. We appreciate your suggestions and have revised to strengthen the manuscript based on your comments. Below, we outline how we have addressed your concerns:

1. Research Gaps in the Introduction:

Response: We have refined the introduction section to highlight gaps in the current research explicitly. Specifically, we state the limited theoretical and empirical studies examining how gender-mainstreamed aid impacts legal frameworks governing women's economic opportunities. This addition underscores the unique contribution of our study, which provides both a theoretical framework and empirical evidence to address this gap, making it particularly relevant for policymakers and scholars. (Please See Page 2, Paragraph 2; Page 4, Paragraph 2)

2. Methodological Justifications:

Response: In response to your suggestion, we added a concise explanation in the methodology section to clarify the rationale for our econometric choices. This includes discussing how the panel fixed-effects model accounts for unobserved heterogeneity across countries and time and how lagged independent variables mitigate potential endogeneity issues. Additionally, we elaborated on quantile regression, explaining its importance in capturing heterogeneity across varying legal and regulatory development levels. (Page 11, Paragraphs 4 and 5).

3. Clarity in Presentation of Results and Conclusions:

Response: We have refined the results and conclusion sections to ensure alignment with the study's objectives and better articulate the broader policy implications. Specifically, the language was refined to emphasize the practical significance of our findings for policymakers and practitioners, ensuring accessibility to a broader audience (Page 23, paragraph 4, page 26, paragraph 5, and page 27-paragraph 1)

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The submitted manuscript is relevant to the topic. It can be noticed that the author uses the word OUR three times in the introduction. I would recommend a change since writing from yourself in scientific texts is not recommended. Despite the topic's relevance in the introduction, the research problem and the research gap the author wants to close are not very clear. In his research, the author mentions these initiatives, but from the previous text, it is unclear what kind of initiatives are mentioned in the research question. Gender-mainstreamed aid is also a very vague term that is not examined in the theoretical part. Unfortunately, the literature analysis is very limited and only 3 innovative sources (2020 - 2024) are mentioned. There is also no focus on gender communication, and help without communication is not provided. I recommend getting inspiration here: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-67900-1_4

I couldn't really check the reliability of the data. But the discussion was lacking. The conclusions do not provide an answer to the research question, perhaps it is necessary to rewrite the conclusions distinguishing what is the contribution to theory, what is to practice, and the implications and limitations.

General conclusion: the review of the literature needs to be improved, and the positions of other authors' similar studies should be added in the empirical part.

Author Response

The submitted manuscript is relevant to the topic. It can be noticed that the author uses the word OUR three times in the introduction. I would recommend a change since writing from yourself in scientific texts is not recommended. Despite the topic's relevance in the introduction, the research problem and gap the author wants to close are unclear. The author mentions these initiatives in his research, but from the previous text, it is unclear what kind of initiatives are mentioned in the research question. Gender-mainstreamed aid is also a vague term not examined in the theoretical part. Unfortunately, the literature analysis is minimal, and only three innovative sources (2020 - 2024) are mentioned. There is also no focus on gender communication and help without communication is not provided. I recommend getting inspiration here: https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-031-67900-1_4.  I could not check the reliability of the data. However, the discussion was lacking. The conclusions do not answer the research question; perhaps it is necessary to rewrite the conclusions, distinguishing the contribution to theory, what is to practice, and the implications and limitations.

General conclusion: The literature review needs to be improved, and the positions of similar studies by other authors should be added to the empirical part.

We sincerely thank the reviewer for the time and effort devoted to reviewing our manuscript. We appreciate the insightful comments and suggestions, which have helped us reflect further on the clarity and presentation of our research. While we believe that several of the points raised have already been addressed in the current version of the manuscript, we understand that some areas may require additional clarification or elaboration to enhance the paper’s accessibility and rigor. Below, we provide a point-by-point response to each of the core points made by the reviewer, highlighting how the existing manuscript addresses these concerns and, where appropriate, outlining refinements we have incorporated.

1. Use of "Our" in the Introduction

Reviewer's Comment: "Our" is discouraged in scientific texts.

Response: The usage of "our" emphasizes the authors' contribution. It is accepted in many scientific publications, particularly in empirical and policy-oriented research, to acknowledge the authors' unique role in framing and conducting the study. While we firmly believe this choice does not compromise the manuscript's clarity or objectivity, we have replaced "our" with neutral language such as “This study” to acknowledge the reviewer’s suggestion.

2. Research Problem and Gap

Reviewer's Comment: The research problem and gap are unclear, and the term "initiatives" is vague.

Response: The introduction explicitly articulates the research gap (Page 2, Paragraph 2): " While research (IMF, 2022; World Bank, 2022) highlights these barriers, the role of gender-mainstreamed aid in addressing systemic legal issues remains underexplored. This study seeks to fill this gap by analyzing how such aid impacts legal frameworks shaping women’s economic opportunities."

The original submission (Page 3, Paragraph 3) clearly described the "initiatives" in the context of gender-mainstreamed aid, including legal reforms, advocacy, capacity-building programs, and institutional strengthening. To clarify, we have removed the term in our revised submission.

3. Definition and Theoretical Examination of Gender-Mainstreamed Aid

Reviewer's Comment: Gender-mainstreamed aid is a vague term not examined theoretically.

Response: We have revised the manuscript and clearly defined gender-mainstreamed aid on Page 2, Paragraph 3: "Gender-mainstreamed aid, a key outcome of this initiative, provides financial and technical assistance to address structural inequalities and empower women and girls through systemic legal, social, and economic changes. This includes targeted measures such as legal reforms, capacity building, advocacy, awareness campaigns, institutional strengthening, and broader programs embedding gender considerations (United Nations, 1997).”

Also, the theoretical framework (Section 3.1) explicitly incorporates gender-mainstreamed aid as a determinant influencing legal frameworks and shaping women's economic opportunities. This connection is formalized through Equations 6 and 7 on page 10 of the manuscript. Thus, we would like to point out that the manuscript goes beyond definitions by empirically validating the theoretical claims.

4. Limited Literature Analysis

Reviewer's Comment: Only three innovative sources are cited.

Response: Thank you for your comments. Our manuscript integrates foundational and contemporary research to create a robust theoretical and empirical foundation. While seminal works like Acemoglu et al. (2001) and North (1990) that we cite in the literature review establish institutions' fundamental role, recent studies such as Berlin et al. (2024) and Annen & Asiamah (2023) investigate gender-related aid and women's empowerment.

The revised version of our manuscript also cites significant contemporary research, including International Monetary Fund (2022) and World Bank (2022) on gender-discriminatory laws, Kleven et al. (2019) on maternity leave policies' impact on workforce retention, and OECD (2021) on gender-related aid disbursement trends.

Notably, our introduction section presents empirical evidence from Gonzales et al. (2015), Klugman et al. (2014), and Hallward-Driemeier & Gajigo (2013), demonstrating how gender-sensitive legal frameworks enhance women's economic participation and development outcomes. We further strengthen this with observations from the European Institute for Gender Equality (2018) on institutional strengthening, UNDP (2016) on capacity-building initiatives, the World Bank (2020) on female labor force participation, and Duflo (2012) on capacity-building impacts.

While we appreciate the reviewer's focus on the need for recent sources, the comment overlooks our manuscript's deliberate synthesis of established theoretical frameworks with current empirical findings. We trust the reviewer will recognize how our manuscript balances foundational theory with contemporary scholarship, demonstrating historical depth and relevance by integrating established frameworks and recent empirical evidence.

5. Focus on Gender Communication

Reviewer's Comment: Gender communication is not addressed.

Response: We thank the reviewer for highlighting the relevance of gender communication and providing a citation to draw motivation. We address the issue in the context of capacity building and advocacy and awareness campaigns, extensively discussed as mechanisms through which gender-mainstreamed aid influences regulatory reforms. (Please see Page 3, Paragraphs 2 and 3):

…." Capacity building ensures policymakers, legal professionals, and enforcement agencies have the knowledge and skills to implement gender-sensitive laws effectively. For example, training programs may help judges and lawyers interpret and apply gender equality laws better, improving legal outcomes for women. Educated policymakers about the economic benefits of gender equality are more likely to prioritize and implement relevant reforms. Duflo (2012) indicates that capacity-building initiatives have been instrumental in equipping policymakers with the tools and understanding needed to prioritize gender-sensitive reforms. Furthermore, UNDP's (2016) efforts in training legal professionals have shown well-informed enforcers' importance in ensuring that symbolic gender equality laws are actively implemented and enforced.

Advocacy and awareness campaigns can transform societal attitudes and norms, often hindering women's economic opportunities. These campaigns facilitate gender communication by employing targeted messaging, media platforms, and community engagement to promote gender equality. By reshaping public discourse, they create environments supportive of reforms and challenge entrenched stereotypes. Studies show public awareness efforts can shift perceptions and foster gender equality reforms (Bicchieri & Xiao, 2009). For example, NGO advocacy in various regions has successfully led to adopting gender equality laws, demonstrating the impact of sustained awareness campaigns (True & Mintrom, 2001).”

These paragraphs directly address the reviewer’s concerns about “gender communication.” While we value the reviewer's citation feedback, the suggested reference would not substantively enhance our current analysis.

6. Data Reliability

Reviewer's Comment: Data reliability is unclear.

Response: The data used in our analysis comes from highly reputable international organizations and follows rigorous documentation standards. The gender-related aid data is sourced from the OECD's credit reporting system, the authoritative database for tracking development assistance flows globally. This database provides standardized, comprehensive information on aid activities targeting gender equality and women's empowerment, ensuring consistency and reliability in our aid measures.

We employ the Women, Business, and Law Index from the World Bank to measure legal and regulatory frameworks. This index is the leading benchmark for assessing gender-related legal provisions across countries. It is methodically compiled through an extensive review of national laws and regulations, with systematic verification processes to ensure accuracy.

The reliability of both data sources is further demonstrated through our comprehensive descriptive statistics in Table 1 and validated through multiple robustness checks presented in Tables 6 and 7, which confirm the consistency and stability of our findings across different specifications and estimation methods.

7.  Discussion and Conclusion

Reviewer's Comment: The discussion lacks focus, and the conclusion does not distinguish theoretical and practical contributions.

Response: We appreciate the reviewer’s feedback regarding the need for a more focused discussion and a more apparent distinction between theoretical and practical contributions in the conclusion. We strongly disagree with the reviewer’s observation. To make our points, we outline specific sections in the manuscript illustrating how the current version addresses the reviewer's concerns.

Section 4.2 and related discussions on dimensional and distributional variations have been revised to emphasize the nuanced effects of gender-mainstreamed aid (GMA) on the Women, Business, and the Law (WBL) index and its components. The updated discussion highlights how significant gender-related aid (SGRA) and principal gender-related aid (PGRA) impact distinct WBL dimensions. For instance, SGRA demonstrates stronger and more consistent effects on parenthood and mobility, while PGRA significantly influences marriage and pension-related provisions. Additionally, the synergy between SGRA and PGRA is emphasized, with their interaction yielding measurable improvements across multiple WBL dimensions, as shown in Table 3, column (e). The revised section also integrates mediating factors, including institutional quality and cultural norms, which affect the effectiveness of GMA. This is explored in Section 4.4 through robustness checks and quantile regression analysis, demonstrating that stronger institutions amplify the impact of GMA, whereas cultural resistance can limit its influence. Evidence from the quantile regression analysis (Section 4.4, Table 5) further underscores how SGRA consistently benefits countries across all quantiles of the WBL index, while PGRA's effects are most pronounced in countries with lower WBL scores and diminish in contexts with more advanced legal frameworks.

The revised conclusion in Section 5 delineates the study’s theoretical and practical contributions. Theoretically, the study develops a utility maximization model in Section 3.1 that links GMA to legal reforms, incorporating mediating factors such as government effectiveness and cultural norms. This advances the literature by formalizing mechanisms through which aid influences gender-related outcomes.

Section 5, paragraph 2, synthesizes these theoretical insights to provide a robust foundation for further research. On the practical side, the study offers actionable recommendations for policymakers and donors. Evidence from Table 3 highlights the complementary roles of SGRA and PGRA, demonstrating the need for balanced investments. Findings from Section 4.4 emphasize the importance of tailoring aid strategies to specific legal and regulatory contexts, with quantile regression results suggesting that PGRA is most effective in countries with lower WBL scores, while SGRA has broader applicability. Dimensional analysis in Section 4.2 (Table 4) identifies areas where targeted interventions, such as workplace and entrepreneurship, may require additional support to overcome weaker impacts. These revisions address the reviewer's concerns by sharpening the discussion’s focus and ensuring the conclusion clearly distinguishes the study’s theoretical and practical contributions.

Structure and Clarity:  The revisions ensure a sharper focus in the discussion, with redundant or tangential content removed, and a conclusion that clearly distinguishes theoretical contributions (framework development) from practical implications (policy recommendations and actionable insights). We hope the updates and explanations we provided here clarify how the manuscript has been improved in response to the reviewer's valuable feedback.

8. Empirical References

Reviewer's Comment: Similar studies are not referenced in the empirical section.

Response: The reviewer notes the lack of references to similar studies in the empirical results section. We want to note that we have integrated relevant literature throughout the section to contextualize our findings and highlight their alignment with our contributions to prior research.

For instance, in Section 4.2 (Table 3), where we analyze the positive effects of gender-mainstreamed aid (GMA) on the Women, Business, and the Law (WBL) index, we now reference Arndt et al. (2015). Their study demonstrates that gender-targeted aid significantly improves long-term outcomes for women in areas such as health and education, which are critical for driving legal reforms and fostering economic empowerment. This complements our findings that SGRA and PGRA improve legal frameworks in key WBL dimensions, such as parenthood and marriage, by creating enabling environments for women's participation in economic activities. Furthermore, Arndt et al.'s evidence from Mozambique, where gender-mainstreamed aid enhanced women's health and education outcomes, underscores the transformative potential of GMA, aligning closely with our observations.

Similarly, our findings on the distinct impacts of SGRA and PGRA across WBL components draw parallels with the work of Dreher et al. (2016), who found that targeted gender aid fosters progressive gender laws, as demonstrated in Rwanda. In addition, Hallward-Driemeier and Hasan (2013) provide a basis for our conclusion that institutional quality mediates the effectiveness of gender-related aid, amplifying its impact when governance structures are strong. These connections enrich the discussion of how contextual factors such as institutional strength and cultural norms influence the outcomes of GMA, as explored in Section 4.4.

The inclusion of Berlin et al. (2024) strengthens the discussion on distributional variations (Section 4.4, Table 5). Their study highlights cultural norms' role in moderating foreign aid's effectiveness. This finding parallels our observation that PGRA is more impactful in countries with lower WBL scores but diminishes in advanced legal contexts. Similarly, we connect our dimensional analysis (Section 4.2, Table 4) to the insights of Busse et al. (2017), who emphasize the effectiveness of targeted aid in improving regulatory quality, reinforcing our conclusion that SGRA is particularly effective in improving mobility and parenthood dimensions of the WBL index.

These references ensure that the empirical results section is thoroughly situated within the broader literature and provides a richer discussion of how our findings align with and contribute to existing research, effectively addressing the reviewer’s concerns. We hope the reviewer finds these enhancements to have strengthened the rigor and relevance of the empirical results section.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

accept