Better for whom? Sanction type and the gendered consequences for women

Abstract

How does sanction type negatively impact women in gendered ways in the target state? I argue that economic sanctions place a financial burden on the target state which leads to government cuts to social spending, specifically in public education. Women rely disproportionately upon spending on public education, and thus, are impacted more harshly than men when these programs are underfunded by the government. I find that contrary to policy expectations, targeted sanctions do not have a reduced impact on women’s human rights in the target state compared to comprehensive sanctions once this impact is disaggregated from standard human rights indices and specific mechanisms in the state are examined. In fact, compared to comprehensive sanctions, I find that targeted and human rights sanction types are worse for women’s gender equality metrics via this influence on government social spending. Using a panel analysis, I show that targeted and human rights sanctions lead to a decrease in government spending on public education and that these cuts negatively impact women in the post-sanctions period. However, I illustrate that when the target state increases spending on primary education in the post-sanctions period, the overall negative impact of sanctions on women can be mitigated.