Search

Abstract: One oft-cited reason for women's political underrepresentation is that women express less political ambition than men. We reframe the puzzle of women's ambition deficit, asking why men have an ambition surplus. Drawing on the concept of symbolic representation, we theorize that political symbols convey to men their capacity for exceptional political leadership. We test our expectations with a US-based survey experiment in which respondents watch one of three ‘two-minute civics lessons’. Men who watched a video featuring the accomplishments of the Founding Fathers reported significantly more political ambition than men assigned to the control group. Additional studies indicate that the effects are specific to the Founding Fathers (as compared to early American statesmen). Men are also more likely than women to identify the Founding Fathers as inspiring figures and to feel pride when considering them. Our findings suggest how history is told contributes to men's persistent political overrepresentation.

Do women perceive corruption differently from men and why? Using elite survey data from over 3000 Latin American legislators nested in 49 country‐years, we explore who perceives corruption as an important national problem. We find that women legislators place more importance on corruption than men. We further examine three potential mechanisms to understand why: support for effective states, power marginalization, and corruption salience. We explore whether these mechanisms work through pathways of moderation or mediation. We find little support for hypotheses that gender interacts with these factors, but we do find that gender mediates who supports effective states and who is marginalized from power. In both the moderation and mediation analyses, we continue to find an underlying, robust effect of being a woman on rating corruption's importance. Thus, while debate over mechanisms remains, gender is foundational to explaining elites' corruption perceptions. Women consistently perceive corruption as more important than men. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many Latin American and other Global South countries adopted gender quotas during democratic transitions. What explains late-adopting cases like Chile? We analyze two instances: the 2015–2016 electoral reforms, which finally introduced a 40-percent gender quota, and the 2020–2023 constitutional process, which introduced gender parity. Using a qualitative analysis that draws on 39 elite interviews, we posit that efforts to redesign national political institutions in order to address democratic deficits create transition-like moments. In turn, these moments create windows of opportunity for quota advocates. We show how quota advocates in the parties, congress, and civil society leveraged growing voter discontent to pressure their resistant colleagues and ultimately secure gender quotas (and later gender parity) as part of larger reform efforts. Our analysis of the Chilean case elevates two factors explaining quota adoption: the long arc of democratization and women's role as protagonists in electoral reforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article assesses 30 years of gender quota adoption and reform in Latin America through the lens of earlier theorizing about the incremental and fast tracks. Focusing on women political actors' ongoing efforts to transform weak quota laws into comprehensive parity requirements, we argue that most fast-track countries follow a steady route. This route builds on Drude Dahlerup and Lenita Freidenvall's landmark conceptualization of the fast track, introducing countries' reliance on iterative quota reforms and demonstrating how innovation in quota design continuously raises the bar for what constitutes a "good" quota or parity law. We demonstrate this route using a case study from Mexico, focusing on the 2014 adoption of gender parity for the federal and state legislatures and the 2019 adoption of "parity in everything," meaning parity for the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A much-circulated image during the Donald Trump administration showed Vice President Mike Pence and members of the Republican House Freedom Caucus discussing the removal of maternity coverage from the Affordable Care Act—with not a single woman or person of color among them. In another image, white men watched approvingly as Trump signed an executive order reinstating the global gag rule, which bans foreign nongovernmental organizations that receive American aid from supporting abortion access. These images contrast with one from early in Joe Biden's presidency. In his first address to Congress, Biden was backed by two women occupying the second- and third-most-powerful positions in the country, Vice President Kamala Harris and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, respectively. After acknowledging "Madame Speaker, Madame Vice President," Biden said, "No president ever said those words and it is about time." [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Previous work suggests that observing women officeholders increases women's political ambition. Yet, jumps in women's representation in the United States' "Years of the Woman"—following the Anita Hill testimonies and the election of Donald Trump—are linked to women's exclusion from political decision-making. Drawing on focus groups with prospective women candidates, we theorize that exclusion when combined with a gendered policy threat increases women's political ambition. Using survey experiments replicated across different samples, we show that women who read about an all-male city council poised to legislate on women's rights report increased ambition compared with their pretreatment ambition levels and to women in other treatment groups. Women's increased sense of political efficacy drives these results. When women's rights are not under discussion, men's overrepresentation does not move (or even depresses) women's ambition. Seeing the policy consequences of their exclusion causes some women to seek a seat at the table. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Proponents of electoral quota laws suggest that equitable representation will deepen democratization and transform policy outcomes. Eleven Latin American countries have gender quotas, but their efficacy varies: women’s parliamentary representation ranges from 35% in Costa Rica to 6% in Honduras. Systematic, cross-national analysis reveals that institutional engineering intersects with gender disadvantages in politics. This interaction creates conditions under which quotas succeed or fail. Long-term effects include whether quotas meaningfully empower female legislators and whether greater gender representation transforms policy outcomes. This paper explores the interaction between institutions and gender, using a case study from Argentina to develop the research agenda.

Politics 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper takes one of the first, direct approaches to understanding which factors shape which attitudes towards gender equality among political elites. We examine support for gender equality among legislators in 13 Latin American countries, using 10 new questions from the 2015–2018 wave of the Latin American elites survey (PELA). We argue that legislators' attitudes about gender equality fall into three distinct dimensions: holding egalitarian views, recognizing that gender inequality is a problem, and supporting state action to hasten gender equality. Overall, women express the more gender-equal orientation on all three dimensions, while factors like religiosity and ideology matter differently for different dimensions. These findings demonstrate the need for more nuance in measuring and analyzing attitudes towards gender equality, in order to better understand the link between descriptive and substantive representation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Research on the political science profession has shown that homophilous research networks—that is, those organized along the lines of gender and race/ethnicity—reproduce hierarchies. Research networks composed of white men experience the most prestige and lead to the most opportunities. This study documents homophilous networks in a setting where they likely are nurtured: academic conferences. Drawing data from the 2019 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, we examine the correspondence between the gender and the racial/ethnic composition of section members, panelists, and audience members for four research sections: Political Methodology; Political Psychology; Race, Ethnicity, and Politics; and Women and Politics. We find that attendees' and panelists' gender and racial/ethnic identity largely mirror the dominant gender and racial/ethnic group in their section. These findings indicate that homophily manifests at academic conferences and that efforts to diversify research networks should consider who listens to whom in these settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]