How Do Electoral Gender Quotas Affect Policy?

Amanda Clayton

doi:10.1146/annurev-polisci-041719-102019

Abstract

Electoral gender quotas now exist in a majority of national legislatures worldwide. In general, quotas are followed by greater legislative attention to the interests and priorities of women as a group. Across cases, effects have been most pronounced on issues related to women's rights, public health, and poverty alleviation. Quotas can influence policy in two general ways: First, quotas may send cues to all officeholders, prompting broad changes in legislator behavior among both men and women. Second, quotas typically bring more women into legislatures, causing a shift in aggregate legislator preferences and increasing women's ability to collectively influence legislative decisions. Yet, the positive effects of quotas are not universal, and some research reveals instances in which quotas have led to limited policy changes or even to more gender-inegalitarian outcomes. I suggest several variables that may moderate the relationship between quota adoption and policy change, including underexplored dimensions of quota design.

Highlights

The adoption and implementation of quotas for women in politics have been among the widestreaching electoral reforms in recent decades, deeply affecting the core of representative democracy
The large majority of work on quota adoption suggests that quotas are followed by the greater substantive representation of women’s interests, priorities, and preferences
While quotas are often followed by new policies that better represent women as a group, feminist theorists are quick to point out that no matter what women do in legislative bodies, their inclusion is a matter of representative justice (Dahlerup 2007)

Summary

INTRODUCTION

The adoption and implementation of quotas for women in politics have been among the widestreaching electoral reforms in recent decades, deeply affecting the core of representative democracy. In a foundational study, Franceschet & Piscopo (2008) use data on bill cosponsorship patterns from the Argentine Congress and find that the number of women’s rights bills increased substantially following the implementation of a gender quota in both the upper and lower parliamentary houses This trend is likely due to the actions of women parliamentarians, as this group is much more likely than their men counterparts to sponsor legislation on issues related to women’s rights, such as bills on reproductive rights and violence against women. Schwindt-Bayer (2006) analyzes cosponsorship patterns in the Argentine and Costa Rican parliaments (both quota adopters) and in the Colombian parliament (a nonadopter at the time) Across parliaments, she finds that women parliamentarians are significantly more likely to sponsor legislation related to women’s rights, as well as issues related to children and the family, than their men counterparts, suggesting that the presence of women has similar effects across quota and non-quota settings. Ample research suggests that all of these mechanisms are at play, some may be more likely than others in certain institutional contexts (a theme I return to below, and one that is ripe for future comparative research)

Null Results and Cases of Backlash

CONCLUSION

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT