Hostname: page-component-7bb8b95d7b-495rp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-10-06T20:14:54.579Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Feminist Approach to Quotas and Comparative Politics

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 August 2013

Denise Walsh
Denise Walsh*
Affiliation:
University of Virginia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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.

Type
Critical Perspectives on Gender and Politics
Information
Politics & Gender , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , September 2013 , pp. 322 - 328
Copyright
Copyright © The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acker, Joan. 1992. “From Sex Roles to Gendered Institutions.” Contemporary Sociology 21 (5): 565–69.Google Scholar
Baldez, Lisa. 2006. “The Pros and Cons of Gender Quota Laws.” Politics & Gender 2 (1): 102–109.Google Scholar
Beaman, Lori, Chattopadhyay, Raghabendra, Duflo, Esther, Pande, Rohini, and Topalova, Petia. 2009. “Powerful Women.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 124 (4): 1497–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blondet, Cecilla. 2002. “The ‘Devil's Deal.’” In Gender Justice, Development, and Rights, ed. Molyneux, Maxine and Razavi, Shahra. New York: Oxford University Press, 277–305.Google Scholar
Chappell, Louise. 2002. Gendering Government. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
Childs, Sarah, and Krook, Mona Lena. 2009. “Analysing Women's Substantive Representation.” Government and Opposition 44 (2): 125–45.Google Scholar
Clarke, Kevin A., and Primo, David M.. 2012. A Model Discipline. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Diamond, Larry, and Gunther, Richard. 2001. Political Parties and Democracy. Philadelphia: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Driscoll, Amanda, and Krook, Mona Lena. 2012. “Feminism and Rational Choice Theory.” European Political Science Review 4 (2): 1–22.Google Scholar
Franceschet, Susan, Krook, Mona Lena, and Piscopo, Jennifer M., eds. 2012. The Impact of Gender Quotas. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Goetz, Anne Marie, and Hassim, Shireen. 2002. “In and Against the Party.” In Gender Justice, Development, and Rights, ed. Molyneux, Maxine and Razavi, Shahra. New York: Oxford University Press, 306–43.Google Scholar
Hassim, Shireen. 2009. “Perverse Consequences?” In Political Representation, ed. Shapiro, Ian, Stokes, Susan C, and Wood, Elisabeth Jean. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkesworth, Mary. 2003. “Congressional Enactments of Race-Gender.” American Political Science Review 97 (4): 529–50.Google Scholar
Helmke, Gretchen, and Levitsky, Steven. 2004. “Informal Institutions and Comparative Politics.” Perspectives on Politics 2 (4): 725–40.Google Scholar
Htun, Mala. 2005. “What it Means to Study Gender and the State.” Politics & Gender 1 (1): 157–66.Google Scholar
Kittilson, Miki Caul, and Schwindt-Bayer, Leslie A.. 2010. “Engaging Citizens.” Journal of Politics 72 (4): 990–1002.Google Scholar
Kittilson, Miki Caul, and Schwindt-Bayer, Leslie A.. 2012. The Gendered Effects of Electoral Institutions: Political Engagement and Participation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Levitsky, Steven, and Cameron, Maxwell. 2003. “Democracy without Parties?” Latin American Politics and Society 45 (3): 1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Longman, Timothy Paul. 2005. “Rwanda.” In Women in African Parliaments, ed. Bauer, Gretchen and Britton, Hannah. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.Google Scholar
Meir, Petra. 2012. “Paradoxes in the Meaning of Quotas in Belgium.” In The Impact of Gender Quotas, ed. Franceschet, Susan, Krook, Mona Lena, and Piscopo, Jennifer M.. New York: Oxford University Press, 157–72.Google Scholar
O'Brien, Diana. 2012. “Quotas and Qualifications in Uganda.” In The Impact of Gender Quotas, ed. Franceschet, Susan, Krook, Mona Lena, and Piscopo, Jennifer M.. New York: Oxford University Press, 57–71.Google Scholar
Paxton, Pamela, and Hughes, Melanie M.. 2007. Women, Politics, and Power. Los Angeles: Pine Forge Press.Google Scholar
Pitkin, Hannah. 2004. “Representation and Democracy.” Scandinavian Political Studies 27 (3): 335–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, Andrew. 2010. The Quality of Democracy in Eastern Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schwindt-Bayer, Leslie A. 2006. “Still Supermadres?” American Journal of Political Science 50 (3): 570–85.Google Scholar
Swers, Michele L. 2002. The Difference Women Make. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tripp, Aili Mari. 2010. “Toward a Comparative Politics of Gender Research in Which Women Matter.” Perspectives on Politics 8 (1): 191–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walsh, Denise. 2011. Women's Rights in Democratizing States. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Walsh, Denise. 2012. “Party Centralization and Debate Conditions in South Africa.” In The Impact of Gender Quotas, ed. Franceschet, Susan, Krook, Mona Lena, and Piscopo, Jennifer M.. New York: Oxford University Press, 119–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Waylen, Georgina. 2007. Engendering Transitions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weldon, Laurel. 2011. “Perspectives Against Interests.” Politics & Gender 7 (3): 441–46.Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion.1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Zetterberg, Par. 2012. “Political Engagement and Democratic Legitimacy in Mexico.” In The Impact of Gender Quotas, ed. Franceschet, Susan, Krook, Mona Lena, and Piscopo, Jennifer M.. New York: Oxford University Press, 173–89.Google Scholar