Their cards are overblown and incorrectly read institutional engagement

Feminist development and political economy literature currently finds itself in a peculiar position, where the high visibility of gender equality issues in global governance is tempered by the recognition of problematic associations between liberal feminism and neoliberal economic policies. As a result, significant debate has emerged in the field about the extent to which feminism has been forcibly coopted, seduced by, or consciously aligned with neoliberalism and the impact of prominent liberal feminist discourses which stress the instrumental value of gender equality for extant economic policies. This debate has revolved around a few key themes: the difference between rhetorical and substantive engagement with feminist aims, the peril of collaboration with mainstream governmental and financial institutions, and the future directions for feminist action. Overriding this debate is one central question: to what extent can these new, technocratic discourses of gender equality be identified as feminist? Do they represent feminism corrupted or simply fragmented? Ultimately, the question of ‘what is really feminist’ is an elusive and unproductive one because it can only be answered with reference to an arbitrary and subjective set of boundaries. Moreover, this kind of litmus test is anathema to the plural and inclusive nature of feminism. I have argued above that accounts of feminism’s co-optation by neoliberalism are flawed, in part because they misrecognize the efforts of feminists to work within institutions and develop politically resonant narratives that align feminist aims with the institutional priorities, and because in doing so they erase the diversity of feminist voices. The successes of liberal feminists to articulate a politically appealing account of gender equality as economic growth represents an ambiguous achievement, however, for the ways in which narratives of ‘Gender Equality as Smart Economics’ legitimize harmful neoliberal economic policies, empower corporate actors in the governance process, compound the invisibility of social reproduction, and close off space for resistance by anti-capitalist feminists. Using Peck and Tickell’s roll-back and roll-out neoliberalisms as a framing device, I have suggested that new ‘Smart Economics’ gender equality initiatives are manifestations of roll-out neoliberalism which cannot be adequately explained through co-optation accounts, but which require direct engagement with the power of femocrats and corporations in the development process.