Dr. Claire Keane:

The major advantage of this type of modelling is that it can be used before the changes happen, so it is not necessary to wait for a policy change in order to discover if it is going to impact upon men and women differently. Departments have this and are using it for pre-budget analysis. It is used by the Government in terms of budget secrecy as well so it can look at different changes. It has been used in the past. One can see in budget documents reports from this model in terms of distributional impact.

If one wishes to add a gender aspect to that, one can relatively simply use this model and propose five different changes and see which one might be preferable. They are all going to generate the same amount of income or they are all going to cost the same but using this methodology one can compare the five and see which is causing the largest gaps. It is not like I have an ideal gap where I can say that it is okay if women lose out by 2% more than men, it is about comparing the alternative budget options. If there is one where it emerges that women are losing out by a lot and men are gaining by a lot or vice versa, at least that is helping to inform the decision. This is given in percentage terms so, very simply, it will show the percentage impact on men's and women's incomes if one makes a change or suite of changes.

That is why we are saying it is quite practical. It provides numbers for comparison. One can say, "If we bring in this budget package this will be the gender impact" and one can compare it with the gender impact of a similar one of similar cost. It is for the policymakers to decide what they feel is acceptable. Of course, there will be competing objectives. One could have one that is gender neutral but perhaps regressive or changes that are progressive and perhaps not so gender neutral. Unfortunately, deciding is a balancing act for policymakers. It is ultimately their decision as to which is the most acceptable.