ArticlePDF Available

A Feminist Approach to Quotas and Comparative Politics

A Feminist Approach to Quotas and Comparative Politics
Denise Walsh, University of Virginia
Mainstream comparative politics (CP) rarely attends to gender scholarship.
Conventional wisdom urges gender scholars to speak to the broader
concerns of CP to avoid this marginalization. But feminist concerns are
broader than those of CP. Feminism promotes changes in power
relations to advance “justice for women and everyone” and offers tools
for assessing injustice (Weldon 2011, 443). In contrast, CP promotes
stability and order that benefits elites; it values predictive models over
usefulness (Clarke and Primo 2012). How can feminist quota scholars
address their broader concerns and speak to CP? I argue that we need to
lead with feminism. Doing so not only ensures that our work will address
broader concerns, but also ensures that we will have insights to offer CP
that demonstrate the value of feminist analysis. Leading with feminism, I
evaluate whether legislative quotas for women change the political
dynamics sustaining gender injustice. I find that they rarely do so. I then
draw on feminist quota scholarship to highlight the limits of CP toward
democracy and institutional change to demonstrate the value of feminist
analysis. I conclude with suggestions on how to advance a feminist
agenda in the discipline.
“I propose that it is ontologically impossible not to have a gender
perspective: It is implicit in all domains of academic inquiry.” So Htun
argued in the first issue of Politics & Gender (2005, 162; italics in
original). Yet political scientists have not embraced this claim. Tripp, for
example, points to the invisibility of gender in the APSA Task Force on
Difference and Inequality in the Developing World, a telling oversight,
given the gendered nature of global poverty (2010, 194). Although
prominent women were on that committee, their presence did not
ensure a gender perspective.
Integrating feminism in the discipline is an even greater challenge than
integrating gender. Feminism endorses an emancipatory agenda and offers
I would like to thank the editors, Jennifer Petersen, Allison Pugh, and Jennifer Rubenstein for their
322 POLITICS & GENDER, 9(3) 2013
valuable analytical tools, such as knowledge is situated, politics is
everywhere, and context is critical. Driscoll and Krook argue that a
feminist perspective is “essential for devising accurate empirical accounts
of gender quota reform” (2012, 16). Nonetheless, mainstream political
science does not value feminism: It creates a false trade-off between
rigorous research and feminism, pressuring scholars to downplay the
latter. This pressure is mounting as mainstream scholars enter the field,
bringing new methodological tools but not a feminist perspective.
Feminist quota scholars thus need to maintain their broader concerns,
resist false trade-offs, and speak to CP. We can do all three by leading
with feminism.
Quota scholars can pursue broader concerns by investigating whether
quotas advance gender justice. Gender refers to how individual attitudes
and behaviors, institutions, and structures produce and reproduce
inequalities of power based on mainstream understandings of sex.
Gendered processes target “women and everyone” who deviate from
hegemonic man, limiting their participation in making the rules that
govern their lives, undervaluing their labor, and constraining their
autonomy (Young 1990). Do quotas alter the political dynamics that
produce and reproduce gender injustice?
Quotas have the potential to advance gender justice by improving
women’s representation. Yet research does not confirm that quotas do so
consistently. Occasionally, quotas reduce women’s domination through
their symbolic effects. Some scholars find that quotas undermine
stereotypes justifying women’s exclusion from leadership and encourage
their political participation (Beaman et al. 2009; Kittilson and Schwindt-
Bayer 2010). Where quotas are perceived as attacking merit, however, they
can fuel a backlash (Meir 2012). Across a range of countries, researchers
have found that quotas sometimes encourage women’s political
participation (Kittelson and Schwindt-Bayer 2012), and sometimes they do
not (Zetterberg 2012). Discriminatory attitudes toward women in politics
and toward gender issues persist (Franceschet, Krook, and Piscopo 2012).
Although quotas sometimes advance gender justice by undermining sexist
attitudes, more research is needed to confirm when and why.
Quotas appear better positioned to undermine women’s domination in
political parties and the legislature, as they directly alter electoral
procedures. When quotas increase women’s descriptive representation,
they expand the political opportunities of party loyalists (Baldez 2006;
O’Brien 2012). By this measure, quotas diminish domination by
bringing a few women into the halls of power. This limited effect
sometimes facilitates substantive representation in policy making. Quotas
have the potential to reduce domination indirectly in the legislature by
providing sufficient numbers of women for a caucus. Women who want
to increase their effectiveness can rally others on the basis of their shared
priorities (Weldon 2011, 442), for example, by requesting an end to
meetings that extend into the dinner hour or by establishing gender
Altered institutional practices make it easier for women to put new issues
on the legislative agenda and to involve new actors from civil society (Goetz
and Hassim 2002; Walsh 2012). Quotas do not guarantee that these
challenges will succeed, but they can facilitate them. Yet these reforms
often have limits and are short lived. Party divisions among women
stymie their sustained activism; powerful political bosses co-opt or reverse
practices that threaten their control (Paxton and Hughes 2007; Walsh
2012). Moreover, although women are more likely to introduce and
sponsor bills associated with women’s issues (Schwindt-Bayer 2006;
Swers 2002), one or two legislators usually become “critical actors”
advancing these issues. Indeed, even where institutional obstacles are
high and quotas absent, one or two critical actors can alter policymaking
dynamics (Childs and Krook 2009). Thus, quotas are not necessary for
substantive representation in policymaking.
Feminists most prize substantive representation that results in policy
change, as it has the greatest potential to redress injustice throughout
Yet as Franceschet, Krook, and Piscopo admit, quotas “have
rarely altered policy outcomes” (2012, 12). Further, quotas rarely alter
the political dynamics that do enhance policy passage, such as strong
women’s movements, open and inclusive debate, effective women’s
policy agencies, or international pressure (Walsh 2011; Waylen 2007).
Where quotas have been associated with substantive representation as
policy change, democratic institutions are weak (Hassim 2009). In South
Africa, quotas ensured women’s participation in negotiations over the
constitution and in the first parliament that helped secure a gender
equality clause and women’s rights legislation. But party elites soon used
1. Implemented laws may not advance gender justice, but they do advance knowledge about how to
do so. If passed but not implemented, then they offer a strong basis for claims-making.
324 POLITICS & GENDER, 9(3) 2013
the quota to pack parliament with loyalists, co-opt the gender agenda, and
stymie advances in women’s rights (Walsh 2012). A similar pattern
emerged in Uganda (Goetz and Hassim 2002). In Peru and Rwanda,
“quota women” supported authoritarian rulers who used women’s rights
to distract international attention from civil and political rights violations
(Blondet 2002; Longman 2005). In these cases, political elites used
quotas to signal a commitment to inclusionary democracy that did not
exist. Hence, quotas rarely disrupt the political dynamics that produce
and reproduce gender injustice.
Moreover, as Chappell observes, “the rewards ... have been
incommensurate with the effort needed to enter Parliament” (2002,
173). These are important findings for advocates of gender justice.
Quotas may be cheap politics for elites projecting the illusion of
inclusion, but they are not cheap for feminists with scarce time and
resources. Activists would do better to focus on building strong,
autonomous women’s movements within and across institutions that can
support women’s policy agencies, broaden the content of public debate,
and pressure political elites to comply with international standards.
Feminist scholarship can assist this effort by analyzing the passage and
implementation of policies that undermine injustice.
By leading with feminism, quota scholars also can expose the narrowness of
CP and convey the value of feminist tools. Feminist quota scholarship
reveals the low quality of democracy within democratic institutions and
how those institutions thwart efforts to become inclusive. Indeed, CP
scholars rarely investigate how parties or legislatures sustain “oligarchy”
(Pitkin 2004).
CP scholars define democracy as free and fair competitive elections
accompanied by individual civil rights (Diamond and Gunther 2001).
To prevent a slide into authoritarianism, they insist that political parties
guard “the interests of socioeconomic elites,” discipline legislatures, and
“provide the foundation for a democratic political class” that excludes
“amateur or ‘outsider’ politicians” (Levitsky and Cameron 2003, 34). In
contrast, feminist quota scholars highlight how these functions obstruct
women’s entry, constrain their effectiveness, and block legislation that
attacks injustice. Feminist research thus reveals the exclusionary limits
supported by CP.
Those limits may explain why political parties are declining in popular
support, why new democracies have meager levels of legitimacy, and why
established democracies face citizen apathy (Diamond and Gunther 2001)
and — more recently — protest. Indeed, CP scholars increasingly address
the quality of democracy: They add participation to their definition and
recommend that citizens join competitive political parties (Roberts
2010). Yet political parties are not internally participatory. On the
contrary, feminist quota scholarship details how political parties subvert
efforts to reform them. As Baldez quips, quotas “introduce new players to
the political arena but make them play according to old rules” (2006, 106).
Although informal “old rules” have been at the “margins” of political
science (Helmke and Levitsky 2004, 725), they have long been at the
center of feminist analysis (Acker 1992). By attending to how knowledge
is situated, to context, and by expanding the definition of the political,
feminist scholars identify “what drives political behavior” and “explain
important political phenomena” (Hawkesworth 2003, 546). For example,
Hawkesworth’s work on U.S. Congresswomen of color details how
colleagues dominate them through “silencing, stereotyping, enforced
invisibility, exclusion [and] marginalization,” blocking their input on
welfare policy reform (2003, 546). Feminist research thus confirms that
informal rules limit democratic quality and that presence is not enough
to challenge gender injustice.
Informal rules operate in political science as well. Research suggests that
to challenge our marginalization, we will need to do more than attend to
our scholarship. We will need to build strong, autonomous women’s
organizations within the profession, our departments, and home
institutions that can support women’s policy agencies, broaden the
content of debate, and pressure our colleagues to comply with best
practices. In short, we will need to lead with feminism in word and deed.
Denise Walsh is Associate Professor of Politics and Women, Gender, and
Sexuality at the University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA: denise@
Acker, Joan. 1992. “From Sex Roles to Gendered Institutions.” Contemporary Sociology 21
(5): 56569.
Baldez, Lisa. 2006. “The Pros and Cons of Gender Quota Laws.” Politics & Gender 2 (1):
326 POLITICS & GENDER, 9(3) 2013
Beaman, Lori, Raghabendra Chattopadhyay, Esther Duflo, Rohini Pande, and
Petia Topalova. 2009. “Powerful Women.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 124 (4):
Blondet, Cecilla. 2002. “The ‘Devil’s Deal.’” In Gender Justice, Development, and Rights,
ed. Maxine Molyneux and Shahra Razavi. New York: Oxford University Press, 277– 305.
Chappell, Louise. 2002. Gendering Government. Vancouver: University of British
Columbia Press.
Childs, Sarah, and Mona Lena Krook. 2009. “Analysing Women’s Substantive
Representation.” Government and Opposition 44 (2): 12545.
Clarke, Kevin A., and David M. Primo. 2012. A Model Discipline. New York: Oxford
University Press.
Diamond, Larry, and Richard Gunther. 2001. Political Parties and Democracy.
Philadelphia: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Driscoll, Amanda, and Mona Lena Krook. 2012. “Feminism and Rational Choice Theory.”
European Political Science Review 4 (2): 1–22.
Franceschet Susan, Mona Lena Krook, and Jennifer M. Piscopo, eds. 2012. The Impact of
Gender Quotas. New York: Oxford University Press.
Goetz, Anne Marie, and Shireen Hassim. 2002. “In and Against the Party.” In Gender
Justice, Development, and Rights, ed. Maxine Molyneux and Shahra Razavi.
New York: Oxford University Press, 306–43.
Hassim, Shireen. 2009. “Perverse Consequences?” In Political Representation, ed.
Ian Shapiro, Susan C. Stokes, and Elisabeth Jean Wood. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Hawkesworth, Mary. 2003. “Congressional Enactments of Race-Gender.” American
Political Science Review 97 (4): 529– 50.
Helmke, Gretchen, and Steven Levitsky. 2004. “Informal Institutions and Comparative
Politics.” Perspectives on Politics 2 (4): 72540.
Htun, Mala. 2005. “What it Means to Study Gender and the State.” Politics & Gender 1 (1):
Kittilson, Miki Caul, and Leslie A. Schwindt-Bayer. 2010. “Engaging Citizens.” Journal of
Politics 72 (4): 9901002.
—. 2012. The Gendered Effects of Electoral Institutions: Political Engagement and
Participation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Levitsky, Steven, and Maxwell Cameron. 2003. “Democracy without Parties?” Latin
American Politics and Society 45 (3): 133.
Longman, Timothy Paul. 2005. “Rwanda.” In Women in African Parliaments, ed.
Gretchen Bauer and Hannah Britton. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
Meir, Petra. 2012. “Paradoxes in the Meaning of Quotas in Belgium.” In The Impact of
Gender Quotas, ed. Susan Franceschet, Mona Lena Krook, and Jennifer M. Piscopo.
New York: Oxford University Press, 157–72.
O’Brien, Diana. 2012. “Quotas and Qualifications in Uganda.” In The Impact of Gender
Quotas, ed. Susan Franceschet, Mona Lena Krook, and Jennifer M. Piscopo.
New York: Oxford University Press, 57– 71.
Paxton, Pamela, and Melanie M. Hughes. 2007. Women, Politics, and Power. Los Angeles:
Pine Forge Press.
Pitkin, Hannah. 2004. “Representation and Democracy.” Scandinavian Political Studies 27
(3): 33542.
Roberts, Andrew. 2010. The Quality of Democracy in Eastern Europe. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Schwindt-Bayer, Leslie A. 2006. “Still Supermadres?” American Journal of Political Science
50 (3): 57085.
Swers, Michele L. 2002. The Difference Women Make. Chicago: University of Chicago
Tripp, Aili Mari. 2010. “Toward a Comparative Politics of Gender Research in Which
Women Matter.” Perspectives on Politics 8 (1): 19197.
Walsh, Denise. 2011. Women’s Rights in Democratizing States. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
—. 2012. “Party Centralization and Debate Conditions in South Africa.” In The Impact
of Gender Quotas, ed. Susan Franceschet, Mona Lena Krook, and Jennifer M. Piscopo.
New York: Oxford University Press, 119–35.
Waylen, Georgina. 2007. Engendering Transitions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Weldon, Laurel. 2011. “Perspectives Against Interests.” Politics & Gender 7 (3): 44146.
Young, Iris Marion.1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Zetterberg, Par. 2012. “Political Engagement and Democratic Legitimacy in Mexico.” In
The Impact of Gender Quotas, ed. Susan Franceschet, Mona Lena Krook, and
Jennifer M. Piscopo. New York: Oxford University Press, 173– 89.
328 POLITICS & GENDER, 9(3) 2013
... Por su parte, otra de las críticas hacia el sistema de cuotas, se puede argumentar, yace en la introducción de nuevos participantes en la escena política, con reglas institucionales que suelen permanecer iguales. De ahí que para Walsh (2013), las cuotas muy rara vez suelan irrumpir en las dinámicas políticas para combatir la discriminación en torno a la brecha de género. ...
Full-text available
Con el retorno de la democracia en 1979, Ecuador enfrenta nuevos desafíos políticos, entre ellos lograr la paridad política y de representación. Es por esto que el objetivo de este trabajo se centra en realizar una evolución de la representación femenina en el Poder Legislativo unicameral ecuatoriano mediante el uso de un enfoque metodológico cuantitativo y con datos obtenidos de fuentes oficiales (Biblioteca de la Asamblea Nacional). Los primeros resultados indican que factores como el tipo de lista, sistema de cuotas y tipo de sistema electoral inciden en la representación femenina. De igual manera, las pruebas de Chi-Cuadrado rechazan la hipótesis nula y demuestran una relación entre el género y la distribución geográfica, tipo de cargo parlamentario y eje ideológico (izquierda-derecha).
Full-text available
Nos últimos anos lideranças políticas femininas perderam a disputa pelo poder em vários países e outras foram afastadas de seus cargos. Primeiras-ministras e presidentes saíram do jogo da política e o abismo da participação feminina voltou a se aprofundar. O presente artigo tem como objetivo compreender, a partir do comparativo entre a renúncia da primeira-ministra australiana Julia Gillard, ocorrida em 2013 e o impeachment da presidente brasileira Dilma Rousseff, ocorrido em 2016, como a imprensa internacional contribuiu para criar representações além das fronteiras e universalizar as percepções sobre as mulheres à frente de seus Estados. Palavras-chave: Mídia; Gênero; Feminismo; Dilma Rousseff; Julia Gillard. En los últimos años líderes políticos femeninos perdieron la disputa por el poder en varios países y otras fueron alejadas de sus puestos. Primeras ministras y presidentes salieron del juego de la política y el abismo de la participación femenina se ha profundizado. El presente artículo tiene como objetivo comprender, a partir del comparativo entre la renuncia de la primera ministra australiana Julia Gillard, ocurrida en 2013 y el impeachment de la presidenta brasileña Dilma Rousseff, ocurrido en 2016, como la prensa internacional contribuyó a crear representaciones además de las fronteras y universalizar las percepciones sobre las mujeres al frente de sus Estados. Palabras clave: Medios; Género; Femenino; Dilma Rousseff; Julia Gillard. In recent years female political leaders have lost the power struggle in several countries of the world and others have been removed from their offices. Prime ministers and presidents have left the game of politics and the abyss of female participation in public debates have deepened after a period of optimism about what seemed to be the beginning of a movement to reduce inequality of gender representation. This article aims to understand, from the comparison between the resignation of Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard in 2013 and the impeachment of Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff in 2016, how the international press helped to create representations beyond borders and universalize perceptions about women ahead of their States.
In this classic work of feminist political thought, Iris Marion Young challenges the prevailing reduction of social justice to distributive justice. It critically analyzes basic concepts underlying most theories of justice, including impartiality, formal equality, and the unitary moral subjectivity. The starting point for her critique is the experience and concerns of the new social movements about decision making, cultural expression, and division of labor--that were created by marginal and excluded groups, including women, African Americans, and American Indians, as well as gays and lesbians. Iris Young defines concepts of domination and oppression to cover issues eluding the distributive model. Democratic theorists, according to Young do not adequately address the problem of an inclusive participatory framework. By assuming a homogeneous public, they fail to consider institutional arrangements for including people not culturally identified with white European male norms of reason and respectability. Young urges that normative theory and public policy should undermine group-based oppression by affirming rather than suppressing social group difference. Basing her vision of the good society on the differentiated, culturally plural network of contemporary urban life, she argues for a principle of group representation in democratic publics and for group-differentiated policies. This is a superb book which opens up many new vistas for theorists of justice. Young makes a number of insightful arguments both about the issues that need to be addressed by a theory of justice, and about the kind of theory capable of addressing them.
This chapter focuses on the extent to which party and legislative quotas in Belgium have altered the beliefs and actions of political elites. Capitalizing on the opportunity to design her own survey, Petra Meier asks specific questions about whether quotas have caused party officials to rethink the importance of gender equality and to recognize a "gender equal public space." She finds that, whereas female politicians believe the quota coincides with, and deepens, the democratic foundations of the Belgian state, male politicians believe precisely the opposite. Meier then analyzes party statutes, linking male politicians' disapproval of quotas to the failure to incorporate greater commitments to women's equality into party documents. The chapter therefore highlights how men and women may think differently about under-representation and discrimination and illustrates how the introduction of a quota may actually aggravate such disagreements.
In most countries around the world, women continue to lag behind men in an array of political orientations and activities. Understanding why this is the case and why some countries have been more successful than others at moderating gender gaps in political involvement is imperative for producing stronger and more representative democracies. Cultural, socioeconomic, and political factors explain some of the gender gaps in political involvement, but not all of them. In this book, the authors argue that electoral institutions attenuate gender gaps in mass political engagement and participation by drawing women, an "undertapped" constituency, into the democratic process. Using cross-national and country-specific analyses, the authors show that electoral institutions play a complementary and significant role in reducing gender gaps in political involvement. The cross-national analyses draw on comparative survey data from a wide range and large number of countries. The cases draw out the processes underlying changes in political attitudes and behaviors with evidence from four country studies: New Zealand, Russia, France, and Uruguay. All four countries have altered their electoral institutions, either through large-scale reform of the electoral system itself or adopting gender quotas, allowing the authors to examine patterns of political involvement pre- and post-reform. The book finds that inclusive electoral systems that produce more proportional electoral outcomes have larger effects on women's political engagement and participation than on men's. Gender quotas also mediate women's engagement and participation, but to a lesser degree. On the whole, the book concludes that electoral rules designed to promote social inclusion in parliament are critical for promoting social group inclusion among the electorate. © Miki Caul Kittilson and Leslie A. Schwindt-Bayer 2012. All rights reserved.
This chapter explores whether the legislative quota in Mexico has altered the attitudes and behaviors of ordinary citizens. Using mass survey data from the federal and state levels, Pär Zetterberg tests whether the quota has increased women's political engagement or enhanced citizens' positive valuation of, or confidence in, democratic institutions. The findings are inconclusive. While the analysis reveals that the period during which the quota has been implemented corresponds to a decrease in rates of men's and women's political participation, this relationship may be spurious. A myriad of other factors, including allegations of electoral fraud and an economic crisis, may also account for political disenchantment among Mexicans. The absence of more conclusive findings in this case draws attention to a key methodological challenge-namely, using secondary surveys to establish a direct, causal link between quotas and trends in women's political engagement and public attitudes.
This chapter 8 explores the substantive effects of the party quota adopted by the leading party in South Africa, the African National Congress (ANC). Scrutinizing women's rights initiatives in the first two post-apartheid parliaments, Denise Walsh discovers a disconnect between women's "access" and "voice," noting that as the numbers of women in parliament have increased, the opportunities for pursuing women-friendly legislation have declined. The data suggest that these outcomes are directly related to the ANC's quota policy: in the second parliament, the quota allowed ANC leaders to handpick women who would toe the party line, allowing leaders to centralize their power while reinforcing the perception that the ANC was committed to women's equality. Consequently, the ability of female MPs to advance women's rights was undermined by an increasingly dominant executive that became emboldened to ignore women's rights while "hiding" behind the quota.
This chapter studies the personal and political characteristics of women elected to reserved seats in Uganda to assess whether quotas promote inexperienced and unqualified female party loyalists. Using biographical sketches, Diana Z. O'Brien compares the profiles of quota women and their non-quota counterparts, both male and female. Although the earlier mode of selecting women to the reserved seats via an electoral college did not contain checks on candidate quality and clearly promoted elitism and patronage, the direct election of candidates implemented in 2006 has altered these patterns in significant ways. The statistical data suggests that, on the vast majority of measures, quota women do not differ significantly from other MPs. Indeed, on some indicators they appear to be better prepared for office than non-quota legislators. The evidence thus demonstrates that quotas have not advanced women that are less qualified or more elite than other MPs.