Annual Reviews

Gender in Politics Author(s): Pamela Paxton, Sheri Kunovich and Melanie M.
Hughes Reviewed work(s): Source: Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 33 (2007), pp. 263-270, C-1b, 271-284 Published by: Annual Reviews Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/29737763 . Accessed: 11/01/2013 01:24
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Annual Reviews is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Annual Review of Sociology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Fri, 11 Jan 2013 01:24:49 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
Gender
in Politics
Pamela Paxton,1 Sheri Kunovich,2 andMelanie M. Hughes1

of Sociology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210; department email: paxton.36@osu.edu 2Department of Sociology, SouthernMethodist University, Dallas, Texas 75205
Annu. Rer. SodaL 2007.33:263-84 ThtAmmslRtukw of Sociology is online at httpy/soc.aniroali?vicwi,oig dou 10.1146/^^nr?Raoc.33.040406.1316Sl
KeyWords
women? political participation, representation Abstract Women% political participation and representation varydramatically within and between countries. We selectivelyreview the literature on gender in politics? focusingon women's formal political partici? We discuss both traditionalexplanationsfor womenfe polit? pation. ical participation and representation,such as the supply ofwomen and the demand for women, and newer explanations such as the role of internationalactors and gender quotas.We also askwhether women are distinctive?does havingmore women in office make a we demonstrate differenceto public policy?Throughout the review thata full understandingofwomen's political representationrequires both deep knowledge of individual cases such as the United States and broad knowledge comparingwomenfeparticipation across coun? tries. for futureresearch: We endwithfour recommended directions (0) globalizing theoryand research, (J) expanding data collection, forms of womenfe agency, and (d) ad? (r) remembering alternative dressing intersectionality.
Tntt nude?
Au limits lesai'ved.
Annual Reviews. ? 2007fay Copyright 036O-O572yD7/0811-O263$20.0O
i63
INTRODUCTION
Scholars Formal representation: to legal right participate in politics; the have documented in politics women's since under of representation the middle
pact
this review) were published since 2000.We selectivelyreview the literature, highlighting
important international citations work topic that cover on women covered. both U.S. in politics and for
(only
one
of the many
topics
covered
in
the last century (Duverger 1955,Kirkpatrick 1974, Epstein & Coser 1981, Lovenduski &
1981). But research on in the past the topic accel? 20 years. This
women
Hills erated
each
broad
having the right to vote and stand for office
dramatically is inspired acceleration
creasingly
ipation even within, such women as
divergent and representation countries.
in part in? by women's levels of political partic? both In some and across, and
GENDER INEQUALITY IN POLITICAL OUTCOMES

Women's representa? fight for formal political won. At the turn ofthe twentieth tion is mostly across many had countries century, women to contest established beliefs
countries, Rwanda, in in other to are lack en?
Sweden, have made
Argentina, remarkable
progress
participation countries, the right tirely
and representation. But women continue either to vote (Saudi Arabia) or
a man's domain (Chafetz & Dworkin 1986).

Early suffrage of victories long and were therefore often the result struggles trying national-level see Flexner States, for elsewhere Chafetz As & time
that politics
was
represented
by male
Kyrgyzstan,
Micronesia,
legislators (e.g., St. Kitts, Solomon of national
(for the United see
Islands, United Arab Emirates). As of June liamentsaround the world and 15% and 14%
in the U.S. House and Senate, comprised 17% par?
1975, McCammon in the world, Dworkin went ment on, the
et al. 2001; Morgan
2006, women
1984,
1986, Hannam these national
et al. 2000). women's struggles women's
(IPU 2006, CAWP 2006).

The broad, ical and literature on gender
respectively in politics is
international
move? for polit? political
linked
in polit? addressing gender inequality acts as diverse as voting, campaigning, as well as in differences leading, gender knowledge, socialization, and atti? In place in political theory. focus on women's participation including suffrage, voting,
rights an accepted practice (Rupp & Taylor 1999, D'ltri 1999, Berkovitch 1999). After
World legally without War II, women's sanctioned were political rights in many often countries,
ical rights, helping
to make
political
tudes, and women's this review, we in formal
1986, Ramirez Today, cept men Saudi
resistance significant (Jayawardena et al. 1997, Paxton et al. 2006). countries with women sometimes ex? legislatures vote alongside even in greater
running for and holding political office, and

political differences influence. We in political and as these also touch on gender attitudes, inwomen's concepts knowledge, social move? help inform
politics
in all
Arabia,
in elections, women took
numbers. Once sometimes right States, to vote it gained political rights, them years to exercise their In the United
and socialization ment our activism,
of women's formal political understanding outcomes. We do not consider, except in pass? the women's women's movement, ing, grass? roots activism, women in the women judiciary, in the or affects women, military, how politics outcomes (such as abortion) relevant to
or stand for office.
for example, women received the vote in 1920, but women's voter turnout nationally 1996, Burrell likely (CAWP women to vote 2006), vote women are more Today, than men in the United States and across most countries
did not equal men's until the 1980s (Andersen

2004).
policy women. Our
knowledge Indeed,
of women the
in politics
is still
expanding. For
literature
on women
in politics could be described as exploding.

over 100 new example, case studies of quota country adoption and and re? im
to men. Yet fairly similar are women more to vote significantly likely than men in countries such as Barbados and Sweden, whereas
at rates
gional 26j.
likely to vote in Romania and India (Pintor
they
are
considerably
less
Paxton ? Kunovich ? Hughes
& Gratschew 2002). And although women

have the legal right to vote and stand for elec? tions in almost every country of the world, to women's use of their po? cultural barriers
(see color women such
insert)
demonstrates important
that
although
have as 20%
reached
milestones, leg? over? over 10% fewer Descriptive representation: numeric similarity between legislative bodies and the electorate represent they in terms of
islatures
litical rights, including familyresistance and

illiteracy, remain (Pintor & Gratschew 2002, in
representation in many countries, remains have
in national women's
all representation 60% of countries women in their
low. Although at least reached legislature, 10% 30%
Moghadam
Research policy choices,
2003).
also documents party of gender affiliations, political gaps vote partici?
national
have crossed the 20% and 30% barriers. By

February nations parliament. Presidents leaders the top prime ministers, are also men of countries, typically Bandaranaike a modern became country and 2006, had only more about than of sovereign women in
preferences, and forms
pation
Conover
(e.g., Shapiro & Mahajan

1988, Manza & Brooks et al. 2004; review). Within of the gender see Kaufmann a society, often
1986,
Box 2006 the size varies
gender, race, or other ethnicity, demographic characteristics; women achieving high percentages representation legislatures in
1998,
Steffensmeier for a recent and direction
(Jalalzai 2004). Indeed, since 1960, when

Sirimavo male the first fe? (Sri Lanka), to lead
of
across different formsof political significantly

action. dential For the 2004 presi? example, during in the United States, men campaign more money than women, are but just as likely to volunteer the United there States, in women's ethnicity, political and class
gap
only 30women have become the top political

executive 2007). top And many of their country (Paxton & Hughes to the ofthe women elected
contributed women 2004). across were In
(Burrell also
differences race,
participation (Burns et al.
Welch & Sigelman 1992; 2001, chapter 11; Bedolla & Scola 2006). 1993; Hardy-Fanta
are less example, politically or black women active than white in voting, on and offi? working campaigns, contacting Latina cials (Burns et al. 2001, gaps Gender chapter also vary across 11). countries. For For women
in their country, es? leadership position in Asia and Latin had fa? America, pecially mous husbands or fathers who them preceded in political life (e.g., Indira Gandhi, Corozon Aquino). dearth Cabinet of female positions faces, show a similar are far and women
more likely to hold cabinet spots in health,

education, or "women's with finance affairs" than posi? (Davis tions associated or defense
women example, whereas cally left party affiliations tries such women as the Netherlands politically are
report more than men
politi? in coun?
1997, Reynolds 1999, Siaroff 2000, Borelli 2002). With 14% women in the Senate and 15%
in the House States of Representatives, the United far from leads the world inwomen's po?
and Denmark, men right of in
to the
And
Spain (Inglehart& Norris 2003, chapter 4).

explanations countries. In a for these study of gaps vary across democ? 10 advanced
litical representation (IPU 2006).Women hold 23% of seats (CAWP 2006). Women
slightly better at the state level, where
do
they
are
racies, Iverson& Rosenbluth (2006) conclude

that both participation characteristics ket conditions) gender gap individual (e.g., women's and marital status) labor force and societal
also only a small percentage of top executives across the U.S. states. Fewer than 30 women have served
rates and labor mar? (divorce are needed to understand the for leftist parties. formal political repre? for granted, the strug? remains. all elected 1
in 2004, women held only 10% of these posi? tions (CAWP 2006).
A discussion belies of global significant trends, or a sin? gle country, and within presents national some variation across 1
as governors
since
1925,
and even
in support
women's Although sentation is now taken gle and for descriptive gender
of the world. Table regions historical trends inwomen's regional legislative
Indeed,
representation across inequality persists.
appointed
positions
Figure
participation along with of regional research. Look? at the table, it is clear, on the one ing hand, examples ? Gender inPolitics
www.annualreviews.org
26$
Table
1 Historical
comparison
of the percentage
of women
in parliaments
across
regions
and selected
regional
readings
Scandinavia
10.4
9.3
16.1
27.5
34.4
38.2
Haavio-Mannila
et al. 1985, Karvonen
&
Selle
1995,
Western Industrial
Eastern Europe
3.6 17.0
4.0 18.4
5.5 24.7
8.6 27.0
12.8 8.4
22.7 15.7
LatinAmerica Africa Asia Middle East
2.8
2.7
5.2
8.1
10.0
17.1
Bergqvist1999_ Norris 1985, Norris 1997, Kitrilson2006 Madand & Wolchik 1998, Rueschemeyer1994, Jaquette & Montgomery2003_ & Crake & Molyneux 2002,Jaquette Craske 1999, Wolchik 1998 2006 Goetz & Hassim 2003,Bauer& Britton & Nelson 1986, Chowdhury1994 Jayawardena
1.0 5.2 1.2
3.2 5.3 1.2
5.3 2.8 2.9
8.0 5.6 3.5
9.8 8.8 3.9
16.3 15.3 8.1
Karam 1999; Chairad 2001 Moghadam 1994,

when explaining women's within a levels single
that Scandinavian other
Middle East has persistendy other hand, the

had the lowest average levels of female repre? sentation. in Latin Although America, women's Africa, show and representation theWest pro?
all nations have surpassed in their levels of women's polit? regions at all time ical representation the points. On
of
across theworld (Randall 1987,Norris 1997, Paxton 1997). Supply-side factorsincrease the pool of women with thewill and experience
to compete Alternatively, acteristics against men for political factors electoral are office. char? or demand-side of countries,
cal representation
country
politi? or
gressed slowlyuntil 1995, in themost recent

decade doubling nations For these regions their for these substantial growth, Expla? region. in previous gains percentage. differ across
political parties that affectthe likelihood that women will be pulled into office from the supply of willing candidates. A third tradi?
tional
systems,
Latin America (Htun 2005), and armed con? flict spurred growth inAfrica (Hughes 2004,
Bauer 2004). Eastern Europe demonstrates levels of women's that high representation as Marxist-Leninist need not be permanent; countries transitioned to
example,
quotas
were
instrumental
liefs and attitudes influenceboth the supply of and demand for female candidates (Paxton & Kunovich 2003; Inglehart& Norris 2003,
chapter 6; Arceneaux tions stress the role tional actors as gender and 2001). and Newer power of explana? interna? such
explanation,
culture,
stresses
that be?
levelsof representationdeclined precipitously (Mailand & Montgomery 2003). Finally, it is

important to remember that women's tive representation deed, that Scandinavia lead the world varies within aside, many regions. legisla? In?
democracy,
women's
institutional
regulations
quotas.
of the countries parliamen? includ? Cuba,
Supply-Side Not
tics. Supply-side
Explanations
arguments acknowledge that
in women's are non-Western, Costa Rwanda,
all types of people participate in poli?
tary representation ing Argentina, Guyana,
Burundi,
Rica,
political participation requires both personal

characteristics knowledge networks, nomic such as well civic as interest, as resources skills, The education, supply ambition, such and and as time, eco? avail?
andTanzania (IPU 2006).
Mozambique,
South Africa,
EXPLAINING WOMEN'S IN REPRESENTATION FORMAL POLITICS

Researchers traditionally distinguishbetween
supply-side i66 factors and demand-side factors
resources.
of women
able for political office is therefore deter? mined partly by gender socialization, which
influences women's interest,
ambition regarding politics, and partly by

large-scale social structures, which enhance or
knowledge,
and
limit women's employment. interest oped
opportunities
for education
and
The gender gap inpolitical knowledge and

iswell established. Across both devel?
prive
for children, patterns that may de? caregivers women to par? of the free time required but see Burns et al.
ticipate in politics (Corrin 1992, Chhibber

2001, chapter to the are ac?
2002;
women (Burns et al. 2001, Chhibber 2002,

Frazer U.S. & MacDonald men scored 2003). the equivalent For example, of an addi?
are con? and developing countries, men to more be in interested sistently found pol? itics and have more than political knowledge
10).
Supply-side financial needed and arguments human also point that capital and both
to run for office
that can be
tional 2 3/4 years of schooling on objective

tests of political women (Verba knowledge et al. 1997; with compared but see Mondak
education and quired through employment. As we might indi? therefore, expect, among viduals differences between men and women important expla? in political participation also expect that (Burns et al. 2001). We might state- or national-level inwomen's differences for differences levels of education their Across levels could explain differences representation. there has been lit? that the is a pre? (e.g., in in levels of education are an
nation
& Anderson 2004). The U.S.

political race and Latinos, interest and knowledge
gender gap in
also varies by and
blacks, ethnicity. Among whites, black women have the smallest
der gap (comparedwith blackmen) in politi? cal knowledge but the largest gap in interestin
national least politics. interested are Latinas the consistently in and of knowledgeable poli? et al. 2001, all 11). Across chapter children or is even re? gap disappears and teenagers (Alozie ambition who is even more decides crit?
gen?
of parliamentary however, to support of women
countries,
tle evidence percentage dictor of
the argument in education representation
tics (Burns races, versed
Paxton 1997, Kenworthy & Malami

But sure it is difficult of education In to establish that
parliamentary
1999).
this gender
among et al. 2003). Direct ical for
a mea? single across is appropriate States, an law and impor? in such female
all countries. other tant
the United
political understanding
professional path, and
to run for
office.Fox & Lawless (2004) compared men

and women likely ness, women pire to in the four U.S. political less professions found most busi? that yield candidates?law,
having
provide degrees more women
& Wilcox
& Fox
leads pipeline occupations state (Arceneaux legislators
to more
2001, Norrander
education, are much
and politics?and
2005) and state executives (Oxley
2004).
in aspiration is that these women were less likely than men in these pro? fessions to view themselves as to run. qualified were Women to run for of? also encouraged fice less often than men. Women's low levels of political ambition may also to a of female political paucity Interest fewer or ambition be attributed
to political for this difference
men to as? likely than office. Part of the explanation
of education sufficient (Johnson
But in seven years Uganda, and English skills are language educational credentials for women et al. 2003).
on research has individuals Similarly, found that some types of pro? employment vide women with financial resources, practi? cal skills for works, debate et al. social organizing, expanded and more to discuss opportunities politics (Andersen 1975, net? and
role models women to
Schlozman find? consis?
(Campbell & Wolbrecht 2006).

aside, resources to participate and around have of the necessary in politics. have Time resource, partici? in politics still
ings
1999). But like the cross-national on education, researchers do not
pate is a critical women
the world
less time than men. Women
&
a positive effect for women's la? tently find on women's bor force participation legislative outcomes across countries (Rule 1987, Moore
Shackman
Gray
1996, Paxton & Kunovich

versus Paxton 1997,
perform as cooking
the lion's share of domestic and cleaning and are
tasks such the primary
2003,
et al. 2006
Kenworthy & Malami
1999, Kunovich &

? Gender inPolitics 267
Paxton ticipation Women's Asia may
2005).
But
the proper dominance
is labor force par? again, measure in all contexts? of factory labor across
counted
forwhen
futurepolitical gains (Darcy & Choike 1986, Darcy et al. 1994, Palmer & Simon 2006). A
wide ences differ? factors generates range of political in the demand in? for women's political In broad terms, a level country's context inwhich into politi? political the elec? structure
predicting
women's
possible
boost women's
tion rates, but supply women
will benefit them politically (Mailand 1998,

Kunovich labor sarily power & force Paxton 2005). Indeed, does have or women's neces? participation indicate that women either in a company The not
labor force participa? to such work roles are unlikely or skills that with experience
corporation.
sets the of democracy general women contest seats or are cal positions. system toral also system Specific and
placed
features
ofthe
economic
affect demand,
in their own
including the presence and Political
homes (Blumberg 1984,Chafetz 1984, Staudt

1986, Karam search or that as part 1999). considers cross-national as managers also exten? from re? women
of professional results but
occupations suffers
finds mixed
sivemissing data (Paxton 1997,Kunovich &

Paxton 2005 versus Kenworthy & Malami
and party parties leaders also pull women into or push women out of the at the indi? And process. political or less vidual level, voters may be more likely to support female candidates over their male quotas. counterparts. on the broad considers and how
of gender
1999).
ac? also gain skills from nonwork as or move? tivities such social volunteering ment In the United activism. States, women Women use the civic skills and networks associations gained from their voluntary 2001, to make the tran?
Democracy. environment, racies, regimes rules parent, women system
Focusing research
political democ?
semidemocracies,
authoritarian po? the trans?
access to shape women's political sitions. On in democracies the one hand, of the political well detailed, to see how to attain hand, game and they power should consistent, can work (Paxton be
sition to politics (Kirkpatrick 1974; Burns

et al. of chapter women's 9). And across a range in the countries participation and in grassroots
helping within the 1997). On
women's
movement
activism
the other
in the absence
of true elec?
provides themwith both political experience and political ambition (Fall?n 2003, Bauer &
Britton 2006). Indeed, some Rwandan non? governmental leaders complain organization are drawn that the best women in civil society or named into government to commissions or (Longman 2006, p. 138). Volun? (Burns churches
tions, women when citizens
Matland & Montgomery 2003). For ex? 2002,

ample, the remaining Marxist-Leninist tries of the world maintain informal coun? quotas
can be even into power placed not do them (Howell support
leading to comparatively high levels of fe?

male con? Given legislative representation. on this one should not flicting theory subject, be surprised that large, cross-national stud? ies do not find that democratic countries have women countries in parliament (Kenworthy Some than less demo? 1999,
ministries
tary associations, et al. 2001, connections portant women
including 9 and chapters
(Hardy-Fanta that minority and lower-class ways are drawn into participation.
11), and personal 1993) are also im?
more cratic
& Malami
Reynolds 1999, Paxton & Kunovich 2003, Demand-Side

Features of the game women ical power. high 2?8 and Paxton
Explanations
systems and how strongly shape influence the rules whether
et al. 2006).
evidence
suggests in demo? when
that women cratic
are less well (Paxton regimes
represented 1997). transition of women
of political can attain,
systems the
Indeed,
authoritarian racy,
to democ? can de?
In the United reelection
they attain, polit? States, for example, rates must be ac
incumbent
cline (Waylen 1994, Yoon 2001,Matland & Montgomery 2003).
representation
Paxton ? Kunovich ?Hughes
An
open should
debate
is whether
women's national
rep?
resentation latures
in nondemocratic be treated in
the same
legis? as women's bodies. or leg?
in New example, women won 43 %
Zealand's of PR
2005 party-list
election, seats but
only 20% of the plurality-majoritydistricts.

of Similarly, state women are in a greater the U.S. districts 2002b; under typically see legislators some multi-member Sanbonmatsu 1994, pp. do these proportion states that (Arceneaux also Darcy be?
representation Certainly, whether
effective
elected
or not. is a democracy in And women's presence high numbers may to be less meaningful if they are unable country
islator fundamentallydiffers depending on

a
the meaning
of candidate
use 2001, etal.
160-66). better PR have systems higher dis? i.e., the electoral of rep? (Rule
Women cause
truly affectpolicy (Goetz & Hassim

these reasons, in some researchers sider women politics (e.g., Mailand argue is visible solely 1998). that
2003).
con?
systems
For
in democratic Alternatively, the position of prestige sym? with
district
trict and party magnitudes, or party sends a larger number to the national
regimes other
resentatives
researchers
1987,Matland & Montgomery 2003). In a

on the bal? district, getting single-member in lot is a zero-sum which process every fe? a male. male In contrast, candidate displaces in multi-member districts, party gatekeepers to balance feel pressure their published lists of candidates across
legislature
parliamentarian in all contexts, bolic power cies alike
and carries women
providing in democracies
and nondemocra 2003). consis? in cross is the system. the votes into general seats and
(e.g., Paxton
& Kunovich
Electoral
system. Perhaps tent and well-documented research on women
the most finding in politics electoral how
national
or in theirown party (Welch & Studlar 1990, Matland 2002).

Gender Recent research has begun quotas. to document the importance of gender quo? tas to women's Over representation. political the past 15 years, more than 60 countries adopted rules
interest groups
in society
importance Electoral systems cast in an election won by parties
of a country's determine get
translated A
and candidates.
simplified distinction is between plurality

proportional In (PR) representation systems. plurality the voters in an electoral systems, majority district represent most typically them, vote and for only one the candidate person with to the majority electoral systems and
or gender quotas?legislation a that certain party require percentage or of candidates to be women. In legislators the first country became in 1990, Argentina to a national the world electoral law adopt in a 17% increase inwomen's quota, resulting in the in Chamber of representation Deputies the subsequent election. Rapid gains like those in Argentina slow and resentation, may no model have led scholars to argue that a rep? of women's
have
In contrast, PR systems typ? voters to vote for a party with a des? ask ically and parties win ignated list of candidates, leg? to the number islative seats in proportion of
votes wins.
votes
Women
office in
they receive.
do better in gaining political

that use PR electoral
steady expansion such as occurred
in Scandinavia,
countries
systems (Rule 1981, Norris

Zimmerman
1985, Rule &
& Malami
& Studlar in countries majority elected system
1994,
Paxton
McAllister 1999, Reynolds 1999,

2002, Paxton both et al. PR 2006). and And, that use plurality women are the PR system
1997, Kenworthy
the ideal or typical longer present for women's in? increasing political & Friedenvall corporation today (Dahlerup Indeed, quotas international in Afghanistan efforts to imple? and Iraq led to
2005). ment some
systems at much than the
simultaneously, rates under higher plurality-majority
sentation
2004, Paxton & Hughes 2007).

But national ways generate gender significant quota
of the largest repre? jumps in women's ever seen & Nordlund (Dahlerup laws do not inwomen's al?
(e.g.,Norris
1993, p. 313; Rule 1987). For
increases
? Gender inPolitics
26c
representation. has examined than effective
In recent years, quota why others some at quotas increasing on
research are more women's
parliamentary 2006). tures the such five Scholars of quota law's
representation often focus
(e.g., Dahlerup particular fea?
that may impact legislation effectiveness. Placement mandates, required prevent among parties of party for noncompli leaders fail the top from lists
must be selected and supported by a politi? cal party (Lovenduski & Norris 1993, Caul 1999, Sanbonmatsu 2002b, Kunovich 2003, Kunovich & Paxton 2005, Kittilson 2006).
The characteristics fore matter forwomen. of political Parties there? parties that are further
and legislators. Parties candidates, an individual, or man For gatekeepers: to run for woman, office, he or she political are
as officers,
as two women candidates, women 2004). set may And
burying (Jones ance to
at the bottom sanctions
consequences
if party regulations quota
left in their political tend to espouse leanings to pro? ideals and are more egalitarian likely mote groups traditionally underrepresented
comply with quota But the same 2006). a much produce on the context
(Dahlerup
such as women (Matland 1993, Caul

the United been more States, for example, achieving successful
1999).
women power than only have
(Schmidt& Saunders 2004, Jones 2005).

Another how
may legislation different outcome depending in which is the quota adopted
In have
in the more
leftist Democratic Party.
Party
seeks to explain body of research are quotas adopted. Where gender quo? tas are resisted by male-dominated legisla? or pres? activism domestic tures, women's sure from the international community may
in the Republican 36% of women
Historically, Congress
in the U.S.
been Republicans (Paxton & Hughes

Across creases countries,
2007).
be required (Dahlerup & Nordlund

Krook 2004, Paxton presence facilitate Yet ties, women's tions may Kittilson also 2006). in high-ranking
2004,
par? posi? 2001, see For
positions (Rule 1987,Kenworthy & Malami 1999,Reynolds 1999,Hughes 2004).

Another important distinction across
left party prominence in? in the percentage of women legislative
et al. 2006). Within
ties is the composition of their leadership. If

women may male male advocate in the party elite, they for a greater number of fe? or may candidates better fe? support present in their bid for public of? are
par?
adoption even without
(Caul
these pres?
sures, party a strategic
and government to
leaders may quotas.
example, of quotas leaders
advantage across Latin
adopting
candidates
America,
the adoption legislators is
fice (Caul 1999,Kunovich & Paxton 2005).

Female male party candidates elites may try to support by fe? in elections influencing to can? contributions in party numbers certain leadership can by push? percent?
explained in part by the desire of political

to present their countries as mod?
by male-dominated
ern (Dahlerup & Friedenvall 2005). Compe?

tition among innovation?a or contagion, political party when parties may first one adopting also lead to quotas? another
or list placement party war didate chests. Women positions, further or even influence
in mid-level women's targeting
positions,
in the system (Mailand & Studlar 1996,Caul 2001, Baldez 2004, Krook 2004, Kittilson
2006). forth But to despite the range of theories quota explain adoption, only and cross-national studies to date comparative have sought a case single to generalize 2004; the process exceptions beyond include put a few
party follows
ages ofwomen as candidates (Caul 1999,2 001 ; Tremblay & Pelletier 2001; Kittilson 2006).
If a party innovates electoral with regard to women, And, be? innovations it may cause made male gain advantage. for voters,
ing for party
rules
parties compete one party such by candidates, to other
Caul 2001, Kittilson 2006).

Political parties and party
(Squires
diffuse
as more fe? fielding are if they succeed, to likely & Studlar (Matland parties are resistant the party parties" to change, structure to (Ishiyama
1996). When leaders. demand Politi? women women form may cal parties may 270
parties go outside
differentially
their own
"women's
Figure 1
Countries achieving political milestones forwomen, 1983-2006.
? Gender inPolitics
C-l
2003).
Women's
parties of countries and Russia.
have
been
formed
absence,
researchers
have
turned beliefs First,
to
in a number Japan, Greece, ties do not benefits
Iceland, including But women's par?
and religious membership stand the impact of culture. expect from Table tries into world power in some 1, studies regions regions
regional to under? might coun? in 1997,
as we
in long-term result necessarily to women's (Moser power political
that break
find more (e.g., 1999). are
women
2003). Cultural
Cultural
Paxton
Kenworthy Scandinavian
& Malami countries
Explanations
and
have both
arguments ideological against to cre? in politics women's right participate ate substantial to women's barriers political beliefs that women participation. Historically, or did not have the temperament capability to or that women in be? participate politics,
higher numbers in the past and present.
For example, to typically found of women in parliament
states researchers Similarly, classify U.S. into three, largely cultures. regional, political states with a traditionalistic Southern political culture islative have fewer women in generally leg? or execu? office (Nechemias in 1987) moralistic found
political thought (Okin 1979, Coole 1988, Pateman 1989). It took until the twentieth
century lenge ory for feminist the position (e.g., Pateman political of women theorists in to chal? the? 1989, affect political 1989, MacKinnon about women can
long
in the private
sphere,
were
codified
in
tive office (Oxley & Fox 2004). In contrast,

states with values, in the Northwest and Northeast, mainly have more
women in legislativeoffice (Nechemias 1987,

Arceneaux United 2001). States's Consider, too, that had the a western states, which the right
Williams Phillips 1995,

Today, women's out cultural levels ideas of
1998, Squires 1999).
were the firstin frontier ideology of equality,

the world (McCammon to grant women et al. 2001). important countries. to men source of to vote
representation through? the political from an individual process, to enter woman's to party decision politics, to the decisions made of candidates, selection by voters Women people culine face a day. face prejudice tend to assume that when on election as leaders because is amas? they autocratic than the lead
is another Religion cultural beliefs inmost about women's across has all
inferiority used
Arguments are present and religion from life
dominant been
long
religions, to exclude political, or
women religious
trait. And
leadership women do evaluate negatively
problem?people women more behavior by Thus, made even in countries in
But
around theworld (Paxton & Hughes

the major religions conservative of the world
aspects
of
social,
2007).
are dif?
same behavior by men (Eagly et al. 1992).

where women have they in poli? gains employment to barriers or education,
ferentially views about church
or in their patriarchal the place of women, both in the exam? and in society. For hierarchy promotes and more nonhierarchical readily compared Christianity Orthodox). accepts with (e.g., And
ple, Protestantism religious women
face cultural tics. For
25% example, population are better suited emotion? still says that men to and 15% of Americans ally politics, agreed with the statement "women should take care of running the country their homes up to men" and (Lawless leave running & Theriault
participation of the U.S.
practices as leaders religious Catholicism and Orthodox Orthodox or Russian
Greek Islamic ner
that
law is typically interpreted constrains the activities 1992; see also Meyer demonstrated numbers
in a man? of women 1998). coun? ad?
(Ahmed Researchers tries with herents lators
et al. that
2005).
When political states, ically attempting across nations representation concrete measures of culture available to researchers. to understand women's or U.S. are In typ? their
have
large are more
of Protestant of female
than
supportive countries with
not
Catholics,
Orthodox
legis? of large numbers or Muslims Christians, ? Gender inPolitics
271
(Paxton 1997, Kenworthy & Malami Paxton & Kunovich 2003).

Substantive representation: advocating the interests and issues of a group; ensuring forwomen, that As surveys we have of attitudes expand across
1999,
the
ever, well crease
female as men.
candidates Across 73
do not
as always do a 1% in? countries, candidates in female re? legis?
in the number a 0.67%
of female increase
that cul? evidence increasing globe, in tural beliefs toward women vary politics across countries For example, widely today. men make better polit? when asked whether ical swer and leaders than women is between In contrast, is between & Kunovich demonstrated do, the average an? inNorway
sults in only
lators (Kunovich & Paxton 2005). Influences

factors
International
In addition already, recent
politicians speak for and act to support women's issues
disagree. erage answer agree have (Paxton recently
strongly in Nigeria agree 2003). and
disagree the av?
to the domestic research
discussed in politics
on women
strongly Researchers
has highlighted the role of internationalac?

tors and transnational political influences rights and in further? representa? ing women's
that differences women in poli? ob? across
in surveyed attitudes about tics are powerful predictors served levels of political (Inglehart & Kunovich 2001). countries 6; Paxton (Arceneaux & Norris 2003)
of women's
tion (Ramirez et al. 1997, Staudt 1998, True & Mintrom 2001, Krook 2004,Gray et al. 2006,
Paxton tional tions et al. 2006). Pressure such from interna? Na? organizations, and women's as the United
representation 2003, and
chapter states inU.S.
international
nongovern?
In fact, Paxton
& Kunovich
(2003) found that the effectof country re?

significant regarding views women
mental organizations (WINGOs),

women's suffrage and (Ramirez policies et al. et al. der mainstreaming 2001),
influence
1997), gen?
is no gional membership longer measures when of citizen attitudes women are included. there may in or politics winning, votes be
(True & Mintrom in national And coun? related Con? of
the number (Paxton sign such
of women 2006).
Although about women from running
pervasive
legislatures tries that to women, vention on
international as the United
treaties Nations
that prevent most they do as men,
researchers run, women at least in the
the Elimination
of all Forms
demonstrate receive United
that when
Discrimination AgainstWomen
have more women
(CEDAW),
office
as many States
In fact, (e.g., Darcy sex does not appear to matter to although seem voters to women as female men, prefer et al. 1997, Dolan candidates 1998, (Seltzer
et al. 1994).
et al. 2006, Kenworthy & Malami

see Paxton 2006). persuade hold treaties mestic Further, nations 1997, Hughes INGOs 2004, have been
in political
1999; but
et al. to shown
(Gray
Paxton
influential
Smith& Fox 2001). And stereotypescanwork

in women's favor with (1996, p. 9), voters. "male As summarized are candidates
persons
in government,
accountable
to the international
by Kahn
considered better able to deal with foreign

the economy, defense arms
Sikkink 1998).
do? ratified, and increase they have awareness of women's (Keck & plight
policy,
spending, foreign trade, and farm issues; female are considered candidates better able to deal control,
health care, day care, poverty, education, civil rights, drug abuse, and the environment." on the issues ofthe Depending day, therefore, women may have an edge in certain policy de? bates. better Indeed, advocates if voters of an think issue that women such as are
with
DO WOMEN MAKE A DIFFERENCE?

It is important lation, that women, even as half the popu? in politics appear the same as men. if they legislate But ifwomen bring interests and priorities than inclusion are even
exactly to office different men, The arguments
poverty,
for their
and voters to support 2002a).
care about female
that issue, then they tend candidates (Sanbonmatsu States, how
more powerful (Carroll & Dodson

difference and is between substantive descriptive representation. sentation
1991).
repre? Do
Outside
of the United
272
women answer whether
make
a difference
to
public
policy? To
There lators ple, vote after
is also
evidence
that female For and
on leg? ent political issues, {b)vote differendy islation, {?) introduce differenttypes of bills, and {d) differin their effectivenessin getting
bills passed. in this Before the research summarizing researchers face area, we note the difficulties in trying cians make to demonstrate a difference to that female politics. politi? so inter?
that question, researchers have asked men and women differ? {a) prioritize
differently accounting Swer
than men. for party s (1998)
legis? exam? district
characteristics,
found
that con
were 103 rd Congress of the U.S. gresswomen more to vote for women's issue bills such likely as the Act. The Leave and Medical Family of Republican this gender party created 2002 for a similar pattern Zealand). ference namics Women But in voting was defections women difference from their
(see Gray inNew of defection
Doing
the presence
requires ests as women For
that we
first separate
women's
example, cratic candidates are male or
from the interest of their party. in the United States, Demo? whether they to es? likely that are also
of party power
of a gender dif? aided by the dy? in the 103 rd Congress. also
and politicians, are more female,
and vote for liberal policies as of interest to women. to be defined likely to separate a female A similar issue is how pouse politician's tions in support eral women, female then actions for women of her from her constituents.
party leadershipwith defection (Swers 2002, p. 17). These Republican female legislators
were the not better able to defect from their party in 103rd Congress because their party was in power. after took Indeed, Republicans did continue to defect from their 2002,
more in governing op? parties have to but simul? portunities generate legislation to anger have more opportunities taneously
ac?
If lib? to elect
constituencies
likely a critic that, if a argue might votes for a health care bill, politician acting for women her liberal legislative but only faith? constituents. As? is fur? is
are more
over the 104th Congress in 1994, Republi?

can women a lower rate (Swers party at times, but at pp. 113-15; Besides see also Vega &
she is not
Firestone
fully representing sessing women's
1995). from the bills propose bills that are different of men? Bratton & Haynie (1999) control
for party that women troduce tion and health bills and district are more to reduce bills characteristics and find to in? men likely than gender related voting for existing bills, do women
effectiveness
thercomplicated bypower differentials within

legislative institutions, legislative committee party power, and distinguishing memberships, a set of "women's interests" (Molyneux unique
1985, Berkman & O'Connor 1993,Thomas 1994, Reingold 2000). Not all previous re?
has addressed these difficulties, al?
discrimina? to education, pol?
to sponsor children's
search
care,
issues, are more
and welfare
Swers 1998, Schwindt-Bayer 2006).

That is not to say that we impact finds on know about women's with policy
newer research account though typically does for party and constituent characteristics (e.g.,
icy (see alsoThomas

legislature, duce women bills on women's
Honduran 1991). In the

to intro? likely are no more but rights
nothing
preferences,
politics. Beginning state research on U.S. are more related to
likely thanmen to initiate bills on children or families (Taylor-Robinson& Heath 2003).

And women in Argentina, initiate Colombia, 11% more and Costa Rica, women's issues bills
children, family,and women (Thomas 1991)

and health care and social services
representatives men likely than
that women bills
to prioritize
et al. 2001). Similarly,in Sweden (Wangnerud 2000) and Latin America (Schwindt-Bayer 2006) female legislators articulate different
legislative priorities than men.
(Little
are also more 2006). They (Schwindt-Bayer to introduce bills related to children and likely the and health. family, education, on
Kathlene Interestingly,
a neutral in the Colorado
(1995) finds that

legisla? of Represen?
topic?crime?female House
tors
tatives introduced differentbills than their

www.annualreviews.org ? Gender inPolitics 275
male duced vention more
intro? Female legislators colleagues. on crime pre? bills that were focused or victim's reactive related rights, whereas response, introduction to stricter men were in their introduc? and of dif?
Critical Mass
A final question in is whether women do better of there are more policy when influencing in the work of Kanter them in office. Based (1977), "critical reach scholars mass" a certain and activists use the term
ing bills longer
sentencing
ferent types of bills stemmed from differ?

ences between male and female of, and legislators solutions in to, Are their views crime. Are women effective of the origins
prison
terms. The
to suggest percentage
that when of a
women
will be better able to pursue theirpolicy they priorities (Dahlerup 1988). Research has of?
ten used 15% to signify movement out of Kan more of? for ter's skewed ten cite women But critical group as category. Activists the necessary a difference to
legislature,
theyable to get theirproposed bills passed?To

preserve work comers Indeed, male their own power, men to undermine the power directly of female new? et al. 2005). a pattern meetings women of may
political
leaders?
30% to make
threshold policy.
1955, Heath (Duverger some research suggests in the committee
of the idea of the importance despite mass to advocates female of greater in politics, little evidence
domination
where bills are first discussed and debated

(Kathlene 1994, p. 569). Further, bills receive more sponsored scrutiny, debate, and hostile than male-sponsored testimony et al. 1991). But women can bills (Kathlene be as effective into as men law. turned women in getting their bills state In U.S. legislatures, in successful than men
research empirical a critical that provides reaching mass matters. In for an effect, re? searching search has either looked over time at a legisla? ture to see whether changes when something women hit 15% of a legislature (e.g., Saint representation Germain pares U.S. women 1989, Gray 2002). Or, research com? states with different percentages of to see if more women's they sponsor
are more
getting bills passed that are directly related

to women, 1991). Women as good as men interest broad children, at and families legislatures bills on (education, are (Thomas are topics also of in state passing to women
issue bills (e.g.,Thomas

As
1991, Bratton 2005).
in the larger literature on impact, demon? an effect of critical mass at? strating requires tention to political parties and constituents. in state sponsorship mat? and
health
Bratton (2005) considered whether the

legislatures of bills
care, etc.) (Bratton& Haynie

the U.S. Congress, women
1999). And in
as successful
of women percentage ters for women's their success at
asmen in shepherding all types of bills into law (Jeydel & Taylor 2003). Men are also
no more amend ing, or women likely than other laws, influence channel money to to successfully spend? dis? home domestic their
found more
ling for party that women women's
those bills, control? passing and district characteristics. She consistently of the sponsored no mat?
interest bills
than men,
ter what held,
tricts.Interestingly, Bratton& Haynie (1999)

also find that women are more troduce bills of interest integration research). to in? likely to African Americans and funding of sickle black legislators bills 1995). of inter?
women
(e.g., cell anemia are more
school
And
that as the percentage of in the legislatures of these states rose from around 5% to around dif? 27%, gender in bill ferences dimin? actually sponsorship ished. Even more were better
suggesting In fact, she found
percentage no
effect
legislature they of critical mass.
to introduce likely est to women (see also Barrett across 22 countries and
women
Finally,
(2000) finds that the percentage ofwomen in

the legislature women. is related to policy relevant to
35 years,
O'Regan
found that striking, Bratton able to pass the legislation a smaller per? were when they proposed they of the In her centage legislature. discussing results, Bratton token women points in other out that, in contrast token women to in
fields,
274
never feel that it is a disadvantage politics may to focus on women's issues. Blanket regarding lie theory bers outcomes assertions by activists and scholars be?
Where we
do we
go from
here?
In this section, directions on current for re? prob?
suggest
four interrelated focusing
search yet to come, lems and
the importance and evidence can have
of critical mass
future promise.
of women
for women.
num? that increasing a effect on negative For classic example,
Globalizing
Researchers
Theory
know a great
and Research
deal about women
on discrimination research sug? sociological as a size increases, gests that minority group's a more to it becomes minority threatening Yoder's suggests theory of intrusiveness women are a small minority, they to their token status to draw attention concerns. But when women increase
in formal politics in theWest,

in countries such as the United
especially
States, the
the majority (Blalock 1967,Lieberson 1980).

(1991)
(e.g.,Norris & Lovenduski 1994), and Norway (Bystydzienski 1995).Much less is ing countries (Waylen 1996,Mailand 1998, Hughes 2004) and in some regions such
as Asia. present Future research understanding must our globalize of women's political and impact by currently known about women in develop?
UK
that when can use women's
in numbers,
and privilege hostility, and discrimination. Indeed, native some evidence
start to threaten the power they to of men, competition, leading this alter? leg?
participation, supports Zealand theWest
(a) determiningwhich theories developed in

apply to the non-Western new theories countries context, for non-Western
representation,
In the New perspective. women when reached islature, 15% ofthe
United States,Rosenthal (1998, p. 25). In the

p. 88) compared legislative men and women's meetings behav? where ior in committee
legislature, women tility toward politicians"
approximately there was a "rise in hos? (Gray 2002,
(b) developing and less developed (c) investigating to other
whether regions or
and regions, and these newer theories globally.
apply
women held few leadership positions and where they held many leadership positions.
She more found that women in the committees were as and cooperative the percentage of women in leadership posi? tions increased. But men were less likely to as women be inclusive and cooperative in? inclusive leadership that both Kanter and Yoder may ing suggests be correct. Women did feel more comfort? creased in power. Rosenthal's find? to be likely
Expanding
appropriate is
Data
Collection
to test
The fieldwill move forwardaswe collect the

data progress being made the collection of data quality and data issues are areas, continue completely especially theories. Although on some fronts, such as data quotas, gender to bedevil research, in some lacking in subnational im? ar?
on
portant eas and on many
&
able using a female legislative style (Eagly

Johnson 1990) when there were more of them in power. But men appear to have been
important amined women's a small
specific parties. Further, case studies have political number outcomes
although ex? already over time cross
within national
of countries,
threatened reduced cooperate.
by female power and subsequently to or their tendency compromise
(for exceptions Studlar 2002, search must
longitudinal see Paxton Paxton expand
research
is in its infancy & 1997, McAllister Future re? on women
et al. 2006). data collection
WHAT IS NEEDED? FUTURE DIRECTIONS FOR RESEARCH

We sive have to summarize the exten? attempted literature on women in formal politics.
measures women's
in politics by (a) developing more precise

of the causes and consequences (b) collecting participation, of political participation; data on women's and
longitudinal representation, ing subnational
and (c) collect? impact; data on women's participation ? Gender inPolitics 275
and representation women in political
and more parties.
extensive
data on
Addressing
Women are
Intersectionality
not a monolithic group
the Alternative Remembering Women's of Agency

Weldon (2002) can have most admonishes
Forms
to
(Crenshaw 1991, Hill Collins 2000, Hooks

2000). Class, are race, just religion divide women. even ifwomen and ethnicity, sexuality, a few of the that cleavages to need We that, recognize are present, laws are likely to are not at the table
researchers
think"beyond bodies" in understanding how

women today ment an impact in politics. have In fact, some national governments
be designed and implemented in exclusive

ways should cited if minorities (Barrett
form of women's office
devoted
of women (Weldon 2002). An institutional?

ized women's policy machinery produces route to government cooper? single, direct move? ation with such as women's agents, ments, who traditionally act outside a
policy machinery to promoting
or govern? the status
1995,Hill Collins 2000, Richards 2005). As

be clear from review, between information of by in this the paucity of research current research often while Our women are ignoring efforts at the
compares distinctions to present
women
and men women. about
the state
intersections complicated
(Stetson & Mazur 1995, Friedman 2000). Indeed, Weldon (2002) found that across
36 democratic movement countries, a strong women's an ef? acting in conjunction with
disadvantage the fact that
currently countries and
political parties do not keep good records of

the race, of ethnicity, and class backgrounds their politicians. divisions Also, introducing reduces statistical sizes, sample making intersection attention
fective women's of government olence. portant One
the extent agency predicted to domestic commitment vi? but im? challenging for the future is to understand power and influence is
analysis difficult(Bedolla et al. 2005). Finally,

understanding requires greater cross-nationally to the experi? address identities
of the most
topics
how women's
affectedby their actions in both traditional

and nontraditional research must political consider through structures. Future women's substantive acts of
political
ence of women in the global South (Tripp

2000). women Future negotiate research must how in competing
the realm of politics by {a) collecting better

data on the race, {b) moving groups, to (e.g., ethnicity, beyond women; different minorities, difference etc., religion, assessments women of of or
representation (b) women's and outside
individualwomen (Childs & Krook 2006),

movements working the state to promote both within women's in?
{a) the critical
e.g., studying assessments of Black 2000,
terests (Beckwith 2000), and (c) the state ap?

paratuses attempts that constrain to influence or enhance women's and policy from within
without (Charrad 2001, Banaszak et al. 2003).
2005, Weldon 2006); and {c) addressing both domestic and global divides among
women.
intersecting et al. Fraga
LITERATURE CITED
Ahmed Alozie L. NO, K. 1992. Women Simon and Gender BD. in Islam. New Merrill J, 2003. Gender and political CT: Yale Univ. Press Haven, and political orientation in childhood. 1952-1972. Politics Soc. Sei.
Andersen
J. 40(1):1-18
1975. Working 1996. After 2001. The
women
participation, and Electoral
Am. J. Polk. theNew
Sei.
19(3):439-53
Andersen K.
Arceneaux
Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press

K. "gender
Suffrage: Women
in Partisan
Before new
Deal.
old question. Polk. Res. Q. 54(1): 143-60

27 6 Paxton ? Kunovich ?Hughes
gap"
in state
legislative
representation:
data
to tackle
an
Baldez
L.
2004.
Elected
bodies:
the gender D,
quota
law for legislative s Movements
candidates
in Mexico.
Legis. State.
Stud.Q.29{2):231-5S
Banaszak LA, Beckwith K, Rucht eds. 2003. Women
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press

Barrett EJ. G. 1995. The
Facing
the
Reconfigured
Stud. Q. 20(2):223-47
Bauer 2004. 'The
policy hand
priorities that
of African
American
women
in state
legislatures.
Legis. to
Namibia. J.Mod. Aft. Stud. 42(4):479-509 parliament in

Bauer G, Britton HE, K. 2000. eds. 2006. Women compare? Beckwith Beyond
stirs the pot
can
also
run
the country':
electing
women
Polit. Res. 37(4):431-68

Bedolla LG, Scola B. 2006. recall vote. Polit. Gender
in CO: Boulder, African Parliaments. Lynne Rienner movements Women's in comparative perspective. Eur.J. intersection: race, class, and gender in the 2003 California
Finding 2(1):5-27
Bedolla LG, T?te K,WongJ.

Congress. pp. Bergqvist Univ. Berkman 152-75. C, ed. In Women Oxford:
2005. Indelible effects:the impactofwomen of color in the U.S.

Office: Past, Present, Press Gender and Politics inNordic Countries. Oslo: Scand. and Future, ed. S Thomas, C Wilcox, Univ.
and Elective Oxford
1999. Equal RE.
Democracies:
Press MB, N. O'Connor 1993. Do women legislators matter? Female legislators and state
abortion policy.Am. Polit. Q. 21(1): 102-24

Berkovitch zations. Black JH. 1999. From Motherhood MD: to Baltimore, 2000. candidates Johns Hopkins the political elite Can.
Citizenship: Univ. in Canada:
Womens Press
Rights
and International
Organi? as
Entering
the case
BlalockHM.
Blumberg Borelli M. RL.
mentary
and MPs.
1967. Toward a Theory of New York: Minority-GroupRelations. Wiley

1984. A general The Presidents
Rev. Sociol. Anthropol.
of minority 37:143-66
women
parlia?
2002.
Sociol. stratification. theory of gender Theory 2:23-101 Cabinet: Gender, Power, and CO: Boulder, Representation. S, Lin TM. 2004. The ofthe
Lynne
Rienner Box-Steffensmeier JM, DeBoef Critical Polit. mass
Am. Polit. Sei. Rev. 98(3):515-28

Bratton KA. 2005. legislatures. KL. 1999. Agenda KA, Haynie effects of gender and race. J. Polit. Univ. Press state theory revisited: Gender 1(1):97?195 setting
dynamics and
partisan
gender
gap. in
the behavior
success
of token women
Bratton
and
legislative
success
in state
legislatures:
the
BurnsN, Schlozman KL, Verba S. 2001. The Private Roots PublicAction. of Cambridge, MA:
Harvard BC. Burrell 2004. Women and Political Participation: A Reference Handbook. Santa Barbara, CA:
61(3):658-79
ABC-CLIO
BystydzienskiJM. Campbell Carroll 1995. Women C. DE, Wolbrecht SJ, Dodson DL. 2006.
inElectoral
cents./ Polit. 68(2):233-47

1991.
See Jane
Politics: Lessons from CT: Praeger Norway. Westport, run: women as role models for adoles? politicians In Gender and NJ: Studies of Women Policymaking: Cent. Am. Woman Polit. parties. in
Introduction.
Caul
pp. 1-11. New Office, ed. DL Dodson, Brunswick, M. 1999. Women's in parliament: representation
the role of political
5(l):79-98
Caul M. 2001. Political
Party Polit.
analysis. J. Polit. 63(4):1214-29

CAWP. 2006. Center for American
parties
and
the adoption
of candidate
gender
quotas:
a cross-national
women
Aug. 15,2006
and politics, http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu.
Accessed
? Gender inPolitics
277
Chafetz
JS.
Totowa, NJ: Rowman & Allanheld Chafetz JS, Dworkin AG. 1986. Female Revolt:Women'sMovements inWorld and Historical
NJ: Rowman Perspective. Totowa, 2001. States and Women's Charrad M. Morocco. Chhibber P. & Allanheld and Tunisia, Algeria, Rights: The Making of Postcolonial Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press are some women 2002. Why active? The household, space, public politically ML. 2006. Should feminists on critical mass? give up 50:985-1010 Misogyny to Contemporary Feminism. A
1984. Sex and Advantage:
A Comparative
Macrostructural
Theory
of Sex Stratification.
and
political participation in India. Int.J. Comp. Sociol. 43(3-5):409-29

Childs S, Krook
Gender 2(4):522-30
Conover Coole DH. PJ. 1988. Feminists 1988. Women and the gender Theory: in Political Books Superwomen and the Former and the Double
contingent
yes. Polk.
Polk. gap.J. From Ancient
Sussex: Wheatsheaf Corrin C, N. ed. 1992.
Burden: London:
Women's Scarlet
Experiences
of Change
in East
Central Craske Craske
and Politics in Latin America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Univ. Press eds. 2002. Gender and the Politics of in Latin M, Molyneux Rights and Democracy America. New York: Palgrave Crenshaw K. 1991. Mapping the margins: and violence intersectionality, identity, politics women of color. Stanford Law Rev. 43(6): 1241-99 against N, D. Stud. D, D, 1988. From a small to large minority: and Politics. women in Scandinavian politics. Scand. 11:275-97 Quotas, London: as a 'fast track' Int. Fem.J. a quotas: key Routledge to equal representation Polk. to 7(l):26-48 A case study of Iraq candidates and
Europe 1999. Women
Soviet Union.
Dahlerup Polk. Dahlerup Dahlerup why Dahlerup
ed. 2006. Women, Freidenvall L. is no AT.
2005.
Quotas the model.
for women:
Scandinavia D, Nordlund
longer 2004. Gender Sei. 3(3):91-98
equality?
Darcy
Afghanistan. R, Choike legislative R, Welch Press RH.
Eur. Polk.
Darcy Davis
turnover: women JR. 1986. A formal analysis of legislative Am. J. Polk. Sei. 30(1):237?55 representation. Lincoln: S, Clark J. 1994. Women, Elections, and Representation. and Power Lincoln: in Parliamentary Univ. Nebraska in the International State Univ. in the Democracies: Press Women's Movement:
and
Univ.
Nebraska
1997. Women 1968-1992. 1999. OH:
Cabinet Appointments 1848-1948.
in Western
Europe, D'Itri PW. Green, Dolan K.
Cross Currents Green
Bowling
Bowling 1998. Voting for women Johnson BT. 1990.
DuvergerM.
Eagly AH,
1955. The PoliticalRole of Women. Paris: UNESCO

Gender and leadership style: and
Press Popular 'year of the woman'.
Am. J. Polk. a
Sei. 42(1):272?93 Bull.
meta-analysis.
Psychol.
108(2):233-56
Eagly AH, Makhijani analysis. Epstein Fall?n CF, KM. BG. MG, Klonsky lll(l):3-22 Psychol. Bull. Coser eds. 1981. Access RL, 2003. women's Transforming of Ghana. Gender Soc. Century 2004. of Struggle: 1992. Gender to Power: the evaluation of leaders: a meta
Cross-National
Studies an
London: George Allen & Unwin

citizenship state: the case 1975. rights within Rights Movement and the decision 17(4):525?43 The Woman's
Women of
and Elites.
emerging
democratic
Flexner
E.
in the United
States.
Fox RL,
Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press Harvard Univ. Press

Lawless JL. Entering the arena? Gender
to run for office. Am.
J. Polk. Sei. 48(2):264-80

2^8 Paxton ? Kunovich ? Hughes
Fraga
LR, Martinez-Ebers ity, and political DC, Aug.
V, Lopez
L, Ramirez
R. 2005.
incorporation. 2003.
Presented
at Annu. Meet.
Strategic intersectionality: gender, ethnic? Am. Polit. Sei. Assoc, Washington, in Britain. Polit. Stud.
Frazer
E, Macdonald
31-Sept.4 K.
Sex
differences
in
political
knowledge
51(l):67-83
Friedman EJ. 2000. State-based National S, eds. advocacy Women's 2003. No for gender the Venezuelan Goetz AM, Hassim Agency. Shortcuts Women quality Polit. in the developing 21(2):47-80 Women in Politics and Policy world: assessing
to Power:
Making. London: Zed Books W. 2006. Women GrayMM, KittilsonMC, Sandholtz tries, 1975-2000. Int. Organ. 60(2):293-33
Grey SJ. 2002. Does size matter? Critical mass
African
and globalization: a studyof 180 coun?

MPs in the New Zealand House
and women
ofRepresentatives. Parliam. Aff. 55(1): 19-29

E, Dahlerup D, Democracy: Women M, Holden CA: ABC-CLIP Politics, Latino Politics: Gender, Culture, and Political Participation the sidelines: Sei. Eduards inNordic K. ML, 2000. Gudmundsdottir E, Halsaa B, et al. 1985. Politics. Oxford: International Pergamon Encyclopedia ofWomens Suffrage.
Haavio-Mannila
Unfinished Hannam J, Auchterlonie Santa Hardy-Fanta Heath Barbara, C.
1993. Latina
inBoston.Philadelphia, PA: Temple Univ. Press

RM, Schwindt-Bayer representation LA, on
women's
49:420-36 Hill Collins P. 2000. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and thePolitics of
Hooks New Empowerment. B. 2000. Feminist York: Theory: Routledge From Margin to Center. London: Pluto
MM. 2005. Women Taylor-Robinson committees in Latin American legislatures.
on Am.
J. Polit.
Howell J. 2002.Women's political participation inChina: struggling to hold up half the sky. Parliam. Aff. 55:43-56
Htun MN. 2005. Women, political in Parliament: Beyond Numbers, In Women systems in Latin America. parties, and electoral A Revised Edition, ed. J Ballington, A Karam, pp. 112-21.
Stockholm: Int. IDEA

Hughes MM. 2004. Another liamentary
World. InglehartR, Norris P. 2003. RisingTide: GenderEquality and Cultural ChangeAround the
Cambridge Union Inter-Parliamentary wmn-e/world.htm. Ishiyama Iverson JT. 2003. Women's New York: Univ. Press 2006. Women 15, 2006 in national parliaments, http://www.ipu.org/ Soc. (IPU). Accessed
50 pp.
road topower? Armed and women s par? conflict, international linkages, in nations. Master's thesis. State Ohio representation Univ., Columbus. developing
304
T, Rosenbluth F. in the gender
Aug. parties in post-communist The
politics.
East Eur. Polit.
17(2):266
2006.
variation
division
political of labor
economy and
of gender: cross-national explaining the gender voting gap. Am. J. Polit. Sei.
50(1):1-19
Jalalzai Jaquette F. 2004. Women JS,Wolchik and present. Women Polit. 26(3/4):85-108 and Democracy: Latin America and Central and Eastern MD: Univ. Press Baltimore, Johns Hopkins K. 1986. Feminism and Nationalism in the Third World. London: Zed Books past SL, Are women Congress. legislators Polit. Res. Q. less effective? 56:19-27 ? Gender inPolitics Evidence from the U.S. House leaders: political eds. 1998. Women
Europe. Jayawardena
Jeydel A, Taylor AJ. 2003. in the 103rd-105th
275?
Johnson Jones MP. Jones MP. Kahn
D, Kabuchu 2004.
H, Kayonga action.
SV.
2003. Women 11(3):8?18 the election
in Ugandan of women:
local government:
the impact Rican
of affirmative
Gender Dev. legislation and
Quota
experience.J. Polk. 66(4):1203-23

2005. The desirability of gender quotas: considering
learning context
from the Costa
and design.
Polk. Gender
l(4):645-52
a Woman: How KF. 1996. The Political Consequences ofBeing Stereotypes Influence the Conduct and Consequences Political New York: Columbia Univ. Press of Campaigns. RM. Kanter and Women the 1977. Men New York: Basic Books Corporation. of women A. 1999. role Karam the in the Arab parliamentarians Strengthening of region: at Meet. Women and Presented 21st Polit. Chali., options. Century challenges Particip.
UNDP-POGAR,
gender/karam Karvonen L, Selle Kathlene L. 1994. 1
March 24-26,New Delhi, India,http://www.pogar.org/publications/

in Nordic Politics: Closing the Gap. Aldershot: the Dartmouth interaction of
/karama.pdf P, eds. 1995. Women Power and
influence
in committee and position gender L. Kathlene views 1995. Alternative
J Polk. 57:696-723
Kathlene L, Clarke SE, Cent. Fox BA.
legislative policymaking: debates. Am. Polk. Sei. Rev. 88(3):560-76 hearing of crime: in legislative policymaking gendered women are
in state
terms.
Gender and Policymaking Studies of Women in Office,ed. DL Dodson,

Brunswick, NJ: Am. Woman Polit.
1991. Ways
politicians
making
a difference.
In
pp. 31-38. New
Kaufmann KM. 2006. The gender gap. PS: Polk. Sei. Polk. 39(3):447-53 K. 1998.Activists Keck ME, Sikkink Networks in International Politics. BeyondBorders: Advocacy
Ithaca, NY: Kenworthy Cornell M. Univ. Press inequality in political representation: a worldwide L, Malami 1999. Gender Soc. Forces
Woman. New York: Basic Books KirkpatrickJ. 1974. Political Kittilson MC. 2006. Challenging Parties, Changing Parliaments:Women in Elected Office in
Krook Contemporary Western 2004. Gender ML. Europe. quotas Columbus: as a global Ohio State Univ. Press actors and strategies in quota phenomenon: and Czech
comparative
analysis.
78(1):235?68
Eur. Polit. Sei. 3(3):59-64 adoption. Kunovich S. 2003. The representation
of Polish
women
in national
Polk. 35:273-91
S, Paxton
politics.
Comp. national
Kunovich
P. 2005.
Pathways
to power:
the role of political
parties
inwomen's
political representation. Lawless SM. JL, Theriault in Politics: ed. Outsiders
Am. J. Sociol. 2005. Women
111(2):505?52 in the U.S. Congress: chapter from 5.New entry to exit. In Women York: Prentice Hall. 4th
or Insiders?,
ed. LD Whitaker,
Lieberson S. 1980.A Piece ofthe Pie: Blacks and White Immigrants Since 1880. Los Angeles: Univ.
Calif. TH, Press Dana Little D, Rebecca ED. 2001. A view from leaders. Women equality or the top: gender Polit. differences in legislative See Bauer &
priorities T. Longman LovenduskiJ,
state among 2006. Rwanda:
legislative achieving
Britton 2006, pp. 133-50

Hills J, eds. tion. London:
serving
22(4):29-50 an authoritarian
state?
LovenduskiJ, MacKinnon Press
and Public of the Second Electorate: Women Participa? & Paul Routledge Kegan Norris P, eds. 1993. Gender and Party Politics. London: Sage CA. 1989. Toward a Feminist MA: Univ. Harvard Theory of the State. Cambridge,
1981. The Politics
28o
Manza J,Brooks C. 1998.The gender gap in U.S. presidential elections: When? Why? Impli? cations?Am. J. Sociol. 103(5): 1235-66
Mailand RE. 1993. Institutional of Norway. variables J. Polk. affecting female representation in national legisla? tures: Mailand RE. the case 55:737-55 in national legislatures: developed and developing and elec? Stockholm:
1998. Women's Stud. Q. Legis. 2002. Enhancing InWomen
representation 23(1): 109-25
countries. Mailand RE.
toral systems. Int. IDEA, Matland
women's political participation: legislative inParliament: ed. AKaram, Beyond Numbers, to Power
recruitment pp. 1-13.
RE, Montgomery Oxford: Oxford Univ. RE, Studlar DT.
http://www.idea.int/publications/wip/index.cfm eds. 2003. Women's Access KA, Press 1996. The contagion electoral of women
in Post-Communist
Europe.
Matland
and proportional McAllister I, Studlar
representation DT. 2002.
systems: Canada
Electoral 39(1):3?14
systems
in district single-member and Norway. J. Polk. 3:707-33 a and women's representation: long-term candidates C. 2001. How movements 1866 win:
perspective. McCammon dered
Representation
Sociol.Rev. 66(l):49-70
Meyer K, Rizzo H, ed. Ali Y.
KE, Granberg HJ, Campbell structures and U.S. opportunity 1998. Islam
EM, Mowery women's
gen?
suffrage movements, of citizenship and Politics
to 1919. Am.
and
the extension
Kuwait. J. Sei. Stud. Relig. 37(1): 131^4

VM, 1994. Gender and National
rights
to women
in
Moghadam
London: Zed Books Middle Moghadam VM. 2003. Engendering citizenship,feminizingcivil society: the case of the East andNorth Africa.Women Polk. 25(l/2):63-88
Molyneux M. 1985. Mobilization Fern. Stud. MR. without emancipation? Women's interests, the state, and revolution. MondakJJ, Moore 88 11:227-54 2004. The knowledge gap: a reexamination of gender-based study. Soc. Sei. Q. differ?
Identity: Women
in Muslim
Societies.
Anderson
ences inpolitical knowledge.J. Polk. 66(2):492-12

G, Shackman G. 1996. Gender and authority: a cross-national
77:2 73
An Anthologyof Women's Liberation Morgan R, ed. 1984. Sisterhoodis Powerful: from the Writings
Movement. RG. New York: Random systems House and women's representation: to U.S. the strange state case of Russia. Moser 2003. Electoral
SeeMatland & Montgomery 2003, pp. 153-72

Nechemias C. 1987.
Stud. Q. 12(l):125-42
Nelson Univ. Norrander islators. pp. Norris Norris P. P. BJ, Chowdhury Press B, Wilcox 176-96. C.
Changes N, eds.
in the election
of women
legislative
seats.
Legis. Yale
1994. Women
and Politics Worldwide.
New
Haven,
CT:
In Women
2005. Change and continuity and Elective Office: Past, Present, Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
in the of women geography and Future, ed. S Thomas,
state leg? C Wilcox,
1985. Women's 1993.
1993, pp. 309-30

Norris UK: Norris P, ed.
in Western West Eur. Polk. 8:90-101 legislative participation Europe. Conclusions: recruitment. See Lovenduski & Norris comparing legislative Recruitment inAdvancedDemocracies.
1997' .Passagesto Power: Univ. Press Cambridge UK:
Legislative
Cambridge,
P, LovenduskiJ. Cambridge,
1994. Political Cambridge
Recruitment: Univ. Press
Gender, Race,
and Class
in the British Parlia?
ment.
? Gender inPolitics
281
WesternPoliticalThought.Princeton,NJ: PrincetonUniv. Press Okin S. 1979.Women in

O'Regan VR. 2000. CT: Fox RL. Gender Matters: Praeger 2004. Women Female Policymakers' office: Influence in Industrialized Nations. Westport, Oxley ZM,
in executive
variation
across
American
states. Polit.
Res. Q. 57(1): 113-20

B, Simon C D. 2006.
Palmer
New York: Routledge

Pateman CA: Paxton 64 Paxton P. Stanford Univ.
Breaking
thePolitical
Glass
Ceiling: Women Feminism,
and Congressional
Elections.
1989. The Disorder Press
Women: of
Democracy,
and Political
Theory.
Stanford, 26:442
1997. Women
in national
legislatures: Politics,
a cross-national
analysis.
Soc. Sei. Res.
CA: Pine Forge

Paxton P, Hughes MM, Green JL. 2006. The international
P, Hughes
MM.
2007. Women,
and Power: A Global
Perspective.
Thousand
Oaks,
women's
movement
and women's
Soc. Forces81{5):87-IH Presence: The PoliticalRepresentation and Race. Gender, Phillips A. 1995. The Politics of Ethnicity, of
Oxford: Clarendon
Sociol. Rev. 71:898-920 1893-2003.^7^. representation, political Paxton S. 2003. Women's the importance P, Kunovich representation: political
of ideology.
Pintor RL, Gratschew M.

IDEA,
2002. VoterTurnout Since 1945: A Global Report. Stockholm: Int.
Ramirez FO, Soysal Y, Shanahan S. 1997.The changing logic of political citizenship: cross
national Randall Reingold V. B. acquisition 1987. Women 2000. to 1990. Am. Sociol. Rev. 62(5):735?45 suffrage rights, 1890 and Politics: An International Macmillan Perspective. London: in Arizona Behavior and Sex, Gender, and Legislative Representing Women: of women's in the and executives of the world at the
http://www.idea.int/publications/vt/index.cfm
California.Chapel Hill: Univ. N. C. Press

A. 1999. Women legislatures
Reynolds
World Polit. 51 (July):547-72 highest glass ceiling. Richards P. 2005. The politics of gender,human rights,and being indigenous inChile. Gender Soc. 19(2): 199-220
CS. 1998. When Press ed. 1994. Women in the Politics run: ofPostcommunist contextual Eastern Europe. Armonk, NY: Women Lead: Integrative Leadership in State Legislatures. New York: Oxford Univ.
knocking
Rosenthal
M, Rueschemeyer M.E. Sharpe Rule W.
women 1981. Why recruitment. West. Polit. 1987. Electoral
don't Q.
the critical
factors
in women's
legislative to
34(l):60-77 contextual factors, West. Systems Greenwood identity in an international Signs 24(2):3 a difference? movement: 63-86 The impact of women on a collective and women's opportunity for election Polit.
Rule W.
systems,
in democracies. parliament twenty-three Rule W, Zimmerman JF, eds. 1994. Electoral Women Rupp and Minorities. V. 1999. to Westport, Forging CT: feminist
Q. 40(3):477-98 Perspective: Their Impact on
in Comparative
LJ, Taylor
identity Saint-Germain
approach twentieth-century MA. 1989. Does their difference in the Arizona Gender
feminism. make
public policy K. 2002a. Sanbonmatsu Sanbonmatsu K.
2002 b. Political
Polit. 64(3):791-809 Schlozman KL, BurnsN, Verba S. 1999. What happened atwork today?A multistage model
of gender, employment, and political participation. J. Polit. 61(1):29?53
70(4):956-68 legislature. and vote choice. Am.J. Polit. Sei. 46(l):20-34 stereotypes to state of women parties and the recruitment legislatures.
Soc. Sei. Q.
J.
282
Schmidt
GD,
Saunders candidates:
KL.
2004.
Effective municipal
quotas, elections
relative
female
Peruvian
Stud. 37(6):704-34 Schwindt-Bayer LA. 2006. Still supermadres? Gender and the policy priorities of Latin Am. J. Polk. Sei. 50(3):570-85 American legislators.
Seltzer RA, Newman in U.S. J, Leigh Elections. H. tonMV. Boulder, CO: 1997. Sex as a Political Lynne Rienner in policy preferences: a summary of trends Variable: Women as Candidates and Voters Shapiro
and party magnitude in comparative perspective.
the success Comp.
of
Polk.
from the 1960s to the 1990s. Public Opin. Q. 50(1):42-61

2000. Women's
R, Mahajan
1986. Gender
differences
Siaroff A.
Int. Polk. Sei. Rev. 21(2): 197-215

Smith ERAN, Fox RL. 2001. The
representation
in
legislatures fortunes
and cabinets
in industrial
democracies.
electoral
of women
candidates
for congress.
Polk.
Res.Q. 54(1):205-21 Squires J. 1999. Gender inPoliticalTheory.Cambridge, UK: Polity

and contextual quotas: Squires J. 2004. Gender comparative analyses. Eur. Polk. Sei. 3(3):51-58 1986. Stratification: Staudt K. for women's In Women and Class in implications politics. Africa, I Berger, pp. 197-215. New ed. C Robertson, York: Africana Staudt K. Stetson 1998. Policy, Politics, Mazur eds. and Gender: Women 1995. Comparative AG, more 1998. Are congresswomen Ground. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Gaining State Feminism. Thousand CA: Sage Oaks, to vote for women's issue bills than their
DM,
Swers ML.
male colleagues? Legis. Stud. Q. 23(3):435-48 ML. 2002. The Difference Swers Women Make: The PolicyImpact of Women inCongress. Chicago:
Univ. Chicago Press MM, Heath colleagues? impact Women R. RM. A 2003. critical on New Do women legislators have different test. Women Polit. 24(4):77-101 legislative Oxford policies. Univ. J. Polit. Press for policy priorities Taylor-Robinson Thomas Thomas Tremblay S. S. M,
likely
than their male 1991. The 1994. How Pelletier
case
of women
state York:
53(4):958-76
Legislate. 2001. More of women
women candidates
Tripp AM. 2000. Rethinking difference:comparativeperspectivesfromAfrica.Signs 25(3):649 75

True J,Minstrom mainstreaming. Vega Verba A, Firestone S, Burns L. JM. tive representation N, M. 2001. Transnational Q. 45(1):27?57 effects of gender Legis. Stud. Q. 1997. on congressional and behavior and the substan? networks and policy diffusion: the case of gender Int. Stud.
increasing
the number
constituency in Canada.
a strategy presidents: Polit. 157-90 7(2): Party party
1995. The of women.
20(2):213-22 caring about politics: gender and
Schlozman
KL.
political engagement.J. Polit. 59(4): 1051-72

Wangnerud
Knowing
Riksdag. Scand. Polit. Stud. 23(1):67-91

G. 1994. Women
2000. Testing
the politics
of presence:
women's
representation relations
in the Swedish
Welch
politics.World Polit. 46(3):327-54 Waylen G. 1996. Gender inThirdWorld Politics.Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Anglos. West. Polit. Q. 45(1): 181-99
S, Sigelman L. 1992. A gender gap among districts Hispanics? A comparison with Blacks and
Waylen
and democratization:
conceptualizing
gender
in transition
Welch
S, Studlar DT. SL. 2002.
1990. Multi-member
from Britain and the United States.J. Polk. 52(2):391-412

Weldon
and the representation of representation
of women:
evidence
craticpolicymaking.J. Polk. 64(4): 1153-74
Beyond
bodies:
institutional
sources
for women
in demo?
? Gender inPolitics
283
Weldon
SL.
2006.
The
structure
Gender 2(2):235-48 Williams MS. 1998. Voice,Trust, and Memory:Marginalized Groups and the Failings ofLiberal Yoder JD. 1991. Rethinking tokenism: looking beyond numbers. Gender Soc. 5(2):178-92
Yoon MY. 2001. Democratization and women's Representation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
of intersectionality:
comparative
politics
of gender.
Polit.
Africa.Democratization 8(2): 169-90
legislative
representation
in Sub-Saharan
RELATED RESOURCES
International equality political IDEA: an international organization that (as one groups of its aims) and participation participation Union: of underrepresented such as women. For promotes political data on women's
Inter-Parliamentary ments across
see and gender quotas, http://www.idea.int/gender/ an that collects data on parlia? organization intergovernmental see countries. in For archived data on women's representation parliaments,
Women's
http://www.ipu.org/wrnn-e/world-arc.htm an international & Environment that Organization: Development organization advocates for women's in for and representa? equality global campaigns equal policy see in politics. tion of men and women For information about the 50/50 campaign,
The World's Women

on
http://www.wedo.org/campaigns.aspx?mode=5050main the collection
2005: Progress in Statistics: a report published by the United Nations

To access the report, 000.htm center States. that focuses For on
to women. of statistics and data related focusing see http://unstats.un.org/unsd/Demographic/products/indwm/wwpub2 a Center for American Women and Politics: research university-based political participation representation see http://www.cawp.rutgers.edu/ a research Institute forWomen's Policy Research: organization social policy issues affecting women and families. For homepage, http://www.iwpr.org/ women's and in the United
the center's
focusing the
on
economics homepage,
and see
institute's
284

Annual Reviews

Transféré par

Informations du document

Titre original

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Annual Reviews

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Gender in Politics Author(s): Pamela Paxton, Sheri Kunovich and Melanie M.

Pamela Paxton,1 Sheri Kunovich,2 andMelanie M. Hughes1

Annual Reviews. ? 2007fay Copyright 036O-O572yD7/0811-O263$20.0O

having the right to vote and stand for office

dramatically is inspired acceleration

ipation even within, such women as

divergent and representation countries.

GENDER INEQUALITY IN POLITICAL OUTCOMES

countries, Rwanda, in in other to are lack en?

Sweden, have made

participation countries, the right tirely

and representation. But women continue either to vote (Saudi Arabia) or

a man's domain (Chafetz & Dworkin 1986).

legislators (e.g., St. Kitts, Solomon of national

(for the United see

1975, McCammon in the world, Dworkin went ment on, the

et al. 2001; Morgan

1986, Hannam these national

et al. 2000). women's struggles women's

(IPU 2006, CAWP 2006).

move? for polit? political

ical rights, helping

tudes, and women's this review, we in formal

1986, Ramirez Today, cept men Saudi

running for and holding political office, and

in elections, women took

and socialization ment our activism,

or stand for office.

did not equal men's until the 1980s (Andersen

policy women. Our

in politics could be described as exploding.

likely to vote in Romania and India (Pintor

Paxton ? Kunovich ? Hughes

& Gratschew 2002). And although women

(see color women such

litical rights, including familyresistance and

representation in many countries, remains have

all representation 60% of countries women in their

low. Although at least reached legislature, 10% 30%

have crossed the 20% and 30% barriers. By

preferences, and forms

(e.g., Shapiro & Mahajan

Steffensmeier for a recent and direction

(Jalalzai 2004). Indeed, since 1960, when

across different formsof political significantly

only 30women have become the top political

contributed women 2004). across were In

participation (Burns et al.

more likely to hold cabinet spots in health,

report more than men

and Denmark, men right of in

Spain (Inglehart& Norris 2003, chapter 4).

racies, Iverson& Rosenbluth (2006) conclude

of the world. Table regions historical trends inwomen's regional legislative

representation across inequality persists.

et al. 1985, Karvonen

LatinAmerica Africa Asia Middle East

1.0 5.2 1.2

3.2 5.3 1.2

5.3 2.8 2.9

8.0 5.6 3.5

9.8 8.8 3.9

16.3 15.3 8.1