Search results

Parties are the key actors shaping women's representation in advanced parliamentary democracies. Based on traditional patterns of feminist organizing, conventional wisdom suggests that parties of the left are the strongest advocates for women. Despite the prevalence of this claim, a burgeoning body of work indicates that parties on the right can—and often do—seek to represent women. To address these competing narratives, this article offers the first large-N, party-level study of women's descriptive and substantive representation over place and time. The results suggest that party ideology continues to affect women's representation: right parties lag behind their left counterparts with respect to women's presence in elected office, and right and left parties address women differently on their platforms. At the same time, there is significant heterogeneity among right parties. Christian democrats, for example, are more likely than conservatives to adopt voluntary gender quotas and make policy claims on behalf of women. The traditional left-right distinction is thus too coarse to fully explain party behavior in these states.

Party leaders are the main actors controlling campaign strategies, policy agendas, and government formation in advanced parliamentary democracies. Little is known, however, about gender and party leadership. This article examines gendered leadership patterns across 71 political parties in 11 parliamentary democracies between 1965 and 2013. It shows that men and women have different access to, and experiences in, party leadership and that these gendered political opportunity structures are shaped by parties' political performances. Women are more likely to initially come to power in minor opposition parties and those that are losing seat share. Once selected for the position, female leaders are more likely to retain office when their parties gain seats, but they are also more likely to leave the post when faced with an unfavorable trajectory. Together, these results demonstrate that prospective female leaders are playing by a different (and often more demanding) set of rules than their male counterparts.

While significant attention has been dedicated to explaining women's
election to office, fewer studies have assessed female politicians' access
to positions of power within legislatures. This latter topic became
particularly salient in the British House of Commons following the 2010
general election, when recently adopted reforms introduced intracameral
elections for select committee members and chairs. This article outlines
three hypotheses concerning the influence of candidate sex on election
outcomes: a gender bias against female candidates, a gender advantage
favoring female candidates, and gender-neutral outcomes. Drawing on two
original data sets, the results not only fail to support the gender-bias
hypothesis but also demonstrate that women were advantaged in the interparty
elections for committee chairs. These findings offer new insights into both
the position of female legislators in the UK Parliament and gender and the
allocation of power within national assemblies more generally.

Though more than 100 countries have adopted gender quotas, the effects of these reforms on women's political leadership are largely unknown. We exploit a natural experiment—a 50–50 quota imposed by the national board of the Swedish Social Democratic Party on 290 municipal branches—to examine quotas' influence on women's selection to, and survival in, top political posts. We find that those municipalities where the quota had a larger impact became more likely to select (but not reappoint) female leaders. Extending this analysis, we show that the quota increased the number of women perceived as qualified for these positions. Our findings support the notion that quotas can have an acceleration effect on women's representation in leadership positions, particularly when they augment the pool of female candidates for these posts. These results help dispel the myth that quotas trade short-term gains in women's descriptive representation for long-term exclusion from political power.

Though more than 100 countries have adopted gender quotas, the impacts of these reforms on women's political leadership remain largely unknown. We exploit a quasi-experiment - a zipper quota imposed by the Swedish Social Democratic national party on municipal party groups - to examine quotas' effect on women's selection and survival as leaders within their parties. We find that those municipalities where the quota had a larger impact became more likely to appoint female leaders, but not more likely to support the reelection of women to the post. Extending this analysis, we show that the quota increased the number of qualified female candidates without increasing the diversity among women within the group. These results lend support to the notion that quotas may have an acceleration effect on women's representation in leadership posts and help dispel the myth that quotas trade short-term gains in women's descriptive representation for long-term exclusion from political power.

Though instances of party switching have been widely documented, there is little cross‐national research on this phenomenon. The prevalence of switching is therefore unknown, and the factors influencing this behavior remain unclear. Using the most comprehensive dataset on party switching ever constructed, we illustrate both that interparty movement is more common than previously assumed and that there are substantial differences in its prevalence across parties. To explain this variation, we examine the relationship between legislators' motivations, institutional arrangements, and switching. We find that motivational explanations are correlated with interparty movement and that institutional arrangements exhibit only limited direct influence on switching.

AbstractPolitics is increasingly dominated by crises, from pandemics to extreme weather events. These Critical Perspectives essays analyze crises' gendered implications by focusing on their consequences for women's descriptive and substantive representation. Covering multiple kinds of crises, including large-scale protests, climate shocks, and war and revolution, the contributions reveal three factors shaping both the theoretical conceptualization and empirical analysis of crisis and women's representation: (1) the type of crisis, (2) the actors influenced by the crisis, and (3) the aftermath of the crisis. Together, the contributors urge scholars to "think crisis, think gender" far beyond the supply of and demand for women leaders.

Discussions of method, methodology and epistemology play an important role in the study of gender and politics. Contributing to this conversation, this article documents both gender and politics scholars' use of quantitative methods and also quantitative methods scholars' relationship with gender and politics research. Analysing work published in Politics & Gender, the Journal of Women, Politics & Policy and Politics, Groups, and Identities, we show that gender and politics scholars have been more than capable and willing to use quantitative methods. In contrast, our examination of articles published in Political Analysis suggests that the methods community does not typically engage with gender and politics scholarship. This is problematic because the insights provided by gender and politics research could help spur innovations in political methodology. We thus end with a call for greater collaboration between gender and politics scholars and quantitative methodologists.