In nearly every case of quota law adoption, the support of party elites is critical. But this raises a puzzle: What can motivate predominantly male elites to put these policies in place? This article uses a comparison of two sets of matched pair countries—similar on background characteristics except for quota adoption—to explore the motivations and role of male party elites in quota reform. The cases of Belgium and Austria, and Portugal and Italy highlight two key explanations. First, quota laws are likely to be supported and passed by parties threatened by a new, more progressive competitor on the left, as a way of claiming women voters back from the encroaching party (interparty competition). Second, quotas can be employed as a mechanism for party elites to gain power over candidate selection within their own parties in the face of entrenched local party monopolies (intraparty competition).
AndersonM. J.SwissL. (2014). Peace accords and the adoption of electoral quotas for women in the developing world, 1990-2006. Politics & Gender, 10, 33-61.
2.
AragónF. M. (2014). Why do parties use primaries? Political selection versus candidate incentives. Public Choice, 160, 205-225.
3.
AraújoC.GarcaA. I. (2006). Latin America: The experience and the impact of quotas in Latin America. In DahlerupD. (Ed.), Women, quotas and politics (pp. 83-111). London, England: Routledge.
4.
BaldezL. (2004). Elected bodies: The gender quota law for legislative candidates in Mexico. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 29, 231-258.
5.
BarnesT. D.BurchardS. M. (2013). Engendering politics: The impact of descriptive representation on women’s political engagement in Sub-Saharan Africa. Comparative Political Studies, 46, 767-790.
6.
BauerG.BurnetJ. E. (2013). Gender quotas, democracy, and women’s representation in Africa: Some insights from democratic Botswana and autocratic Rwanda. Women’s Studies International Forum, 41, 103-112.
7.
BaumM.Esprito-SantoA. (2012). Portugal’s quota-parity law: An analysis of its adoption. West European Politics, 35, 319-342.
8.
BilleL. (2001). Democratizing a democratic procedure: Myth or reality? Candidate selection in Western European parties, 1960-1990. Party Politics, 7, 363-380.
9.
BjarnegårdE.ZetterbergP. (2014). Why are representational guarantees adopted for women and minorities? Comparing constituency formation and electoral quota design within countries. Representation, 50, 307-320.
10.
BleichE.PekkanenR. (2013). How to report interview data. In MosleyLayna (Ed.) Interview research in political science (pp. 84-105). Ithaca, New York, NY: Cornell University Press.
11.
BoeriT.MerloA.PratA. (2010). The ruling class: Management and politics in modern Italy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
12.
BordignonF. (2014). Matteo Renzi: A “Leftist Berlusconi” for the Italian democratic party?South European Society and Politics, 19, 1-23.
13.
BruhnK. (2003). Whores and lesbians: Political activism, party strategies, and gender quotas in Mexico. Electoral Studies, 22, 101-119.
14.
BushS. S. (2011). International politics and the spread of quotas for women in legislatures. International Organization, 65, 103-137.
15.
CareyJ.NiemiR.PowellL. (1998). Are women state legislators different? In Women and elective office: Past, present, and future (pp. 87-102). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
16.
CastlesF. G. (1994). On religion and public policy: Does Catholicism make a difference?European Journal of Political Research, 25, 19-40.
17.
CaulM. (2001). Political parties and the adoption of candidate gender quotas: A cross-national analysis. Journal of Politics, 63, 1214-1229.
18.
CelisK. (2007). Substantive representation of women: The representation of women’s interests and the impact of descriptive representation in the Belgian parliament (1900-1979). Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 28, 85-114.
19.
ChattopadhyayR.DufloE. (2004). Women as policy makers: Evidence from a randomized policy experiment in India. Econometrica, 72, 1409-1443.
20.
ClaytonA. B. (2015). Electoral gender quotas, female leadership, and women’s political engagement: Evidence from a randomized policy experiment. Comparative Political Studies, 48, 333-369.
21.
Comissão para a Cidadania e a Igualdade de Género (CIG). (2007). Igualdade de Género em Portugal 2007 [Gender equality in Portugal 2007]. Lisbon, Portugal: Divisão de Documentação e Informação, CIG.
22.
Cowell-MeyersK. (2011). A collarette on a donkey: The Northern Ireland women’s coalition and the limitations of contagion theory. Political Studies, 59, 411-431.
DahlerupD.FreidenvallL. (2011). Electoral gender quota systems and their implementation in Europe. Brussels, Belgium: European Parliament.
25.
Davidson-SchmichL. K. (2006). Implementation of political party gender quotas evidence from the German Länder 1990-2000. Party Politics, 12, 211-232.
26.
De WinterL. (1988). Belgium: Democracy or oligarchy? In Candidate selection in comparative perspective: The secret garden of politics (pp. 20-46). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
27.
DodsonD. (2006). The impact of women in congress. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
28.
DriscollA.KrookM. L. (2012). Feminism and rational choice theory. European Political Science Review, 4, 195-216.
29.
DuvergerM. (1955). The political role of women. Paris, France: UNESCO.
30.
EsaiassonP.HeidarK. (2000). Beyond Westminster and congress: The Nordic experience. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
31.
Esping-AndersenG. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism (Vol. 6). Cambridge, UK: Polity press.
32.
FerraraF. (2004). Frogs, mice and mixed electoral institutions: Party discipline in Italy’s xiv chamber of deputies 1. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 10(4), 10-31.
33.
FréchetteG.ManiquetF.MorelliM. (2008). Incumbents’ interests and gender quotas. American Journal of Political Science, 52, 891-909.
34.
FreireA. (2006). Bringing social identities back in: The social anchors of left-right orientation in Western Europe. International Political Science Review, 27, 359-378.
35.
FreireA. (2008). Party polarization and citizens’ left-right orientations. Party Politics, 14, 189-209.
36.
FreireA.BelchiorA. (2013). Ideological representation in Portugal: MPs’–electors’ linkages in terms of left–right placement and substantive meaning. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 19, 1-21.
37.
FreireA.LoboM. C. (2006). The Portuguese 2005 legislative election: Return to the left. West European Politics, 29, 581-588.
38.
GalassoV.NanniciniT. (2011). Competing on good politicians. American Political Science Review, 105, 79-99.
39.
GenoveseF.WassmannP.SchneiderG. (2016). The Eurotower strikes back: Crises, adjustments and Europe’s austerity protests. Comparative Political Studies, 49, 939-967.
40.
GeorgeA. L.BennettA. (2005). Case studies and theory development in the social sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
41.
GerringJ. (2006a). Case study research: Principles and practices. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
42.
GerringJ. (2006b). Single-outcome studies: A methodological primer. International Sociology, 21, 707-734.
43.
GivensT. E. (2004). The radical right gender gap. Comparative Political Studies, 37, 30-54.
44.
GlynnA. N.IchinoN. (2016). Increasing inferential leverage in the comparative method: Placebo tests in small-n research. Sociological Methods & Research, 45, 598-629. doi:10.1177/0049124114528879
45.
GuadagniniM. (1998). The debate on women’s quotas in Italian electoral legislation. Swiss Political Science Review, 4, 97-102.
46.
GuadagniniM. (2005). Gendering the debate on political representation in Italy: A difficult challenge. In State feminism and political representation (pp. 130-152). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
47.
HazanR. Y.RahatG. (2010). Democracy within parties: Candidate selection methods and their political consequences. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
48.
HinojosaM. (2012). Selecting women, electing women: Political representation and candidate selection in Latin America. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
49.
HoganR. (2008). Sex and the statehouse: The effects of gender on legislative roll-call voting. Social Science Quarterly, 89, 955-968.
50.
Hortala-VallveR.MuellerH. (2015). Primaries: The unifying force. Public Choice, 163, 289-305.
51.
HtunM. (2016). Inclusion without representation in Latin America: Gender quotas and ethnic reservations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
52.
HtunM.JonesM. P. (2002). Engendering the right to participate in decision-making: Electoral quotas and women’s leadership in Latin America. In Gender and the politics of rights and democracy in Latin America (pp. 32-56). New York, NY: Palgrave.
53.
HughesM. M. (2009). Armed conflict, international linkages, and women’s parliamentary representation in developing nations. Social Problems, 56, 174-204.
54.
HughesM. M. (2011). Intersectionality, quotas, and minority women’s political representation worldwide. American Political Science Review, 105, 604-620.
55.
HughesM. M.KrookM. L.PaxtonP. (2015). Transnational women’s activism and the global diffusion of gender quotas. International Studies Quarterly, 59, 357-372.
56.
HughesM. M.PaxtonP.ClaytonA.ZetterbergP. (2017). Quota adoption and reform over time (QAROT), 1947-2015. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [Distributor].
57.
IversenT.SoskiceD. (2007). Two paths to democracy. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Center for European Studies.
58.
JonesM. P. (1996). Increasing women’s representation via gender quotas: The Argentine ley de cupos. Women & Politics, 16(4), 75-98.
59.
JonesM. P. (1998). Gender quotas, electoral laws, and the election of women: Lessons from the Argentine provinces. Comparative Political Studies, 31, 3-21.
60.
JonesM. P. (2004). Quota legislation and the election of women: Learning from the Costa Rican experience. Journal of Politics, 66, 1203-1223.
61.
KeithD. J.VergeT. (2016). Nonmainstream left parties and women’s representation in Western Europe. Party Politics. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1354068816663037
62.
KellermanB.RhodeD. L. (Eds.). (2007). Women and leadership: The state of play and strategies for change., New York, NY: Jossey-Bass.
63.
KemahliogluO.Weitz-ShapiroR.HiranoS. (2009). Why primaries in Latin American presidential elections?The Journal of Politics, 71, 339-352.
64.
KittilsonM. (2006). Challenging parties, changing parliament: Women and elected office in contemporary Western Europe. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
65.
KolinskyE. (1991). Political participation and parliamentary careers: Women’s quotas in West Germany. West European Politics, 14, 56-72.
66.
KöplR. (2005). Gendering political representation: Debates and controversies in Austria. In State feminism and political representation (pp. 20-40). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
67.
KroliczekK. (2012). The feminist way forward: Gender quota policy in Poland (Doctoral thesis). Department of Politics, University of York, UK.
68.
KrookM. L. (2006). Reforming representation: The diffusion of candidate gender quotas worldwide. Politics & Gender, 2, 303-327.
69.
KrookM. L. (2008). Campaigns for candidate gender quotas: A new global women’s movement? In Women’s movements: Flourishing or in abeyance (pp. 105-115). New York, NY: Routledge.
70.
KrookM. L. (2009). Quotas for women in politics: Gender and candidate selection reform worldwide. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
71.
KrookM. L.LovenduskiJ.SquiresJ. (2009). Gender quotas and models of political citizenship. British Journal of Political Science, 39, 781-803.
72.
KunovichS.PaxtonP. (2005). Pathways to power: The role of political parties in women’s national political representation. American Journal of Sociology, 111, 505-552.
73.
Leston-BandeiraC.FreireA. (2003). Internalising the lessons of stable democracy: The Portuguese parliament. The Journal of Legislative Studies, 9, 56-84.
74.
LijphartA. (2012). Patterns of democracy: Government forms and performance in thirty-six countries. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
75.
LisiM. (2010). The renewal of the socialist majority: The 2009 Portuguese legislative elections. West European Politics, 33, 381-388.
76.
LizzeriA.PersicoN. (2004). Why did the elites extend the suffrage? Democracy and the scope of government, with an application to Britain’s “age of reform.”The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119, 707-765.
77.
LoboM. C. (2001). The role of political parties in Portuguese democratic consolidation. Party Politics, 7, 643-653.
MackayF.KennyM.ChappellL. (2010). New institutionalism through a gender lens: Towards a feminist institutionalism?International Political Science Review, 31, 573-588.
80.
MadrigalR.AlpízarF.SchlüterA. (2011). Determinants of performance of community-based drinking water organizations. World Development, 39, 1663-1675.
81.
MatlandR. E. (2006). Electoral quotas: Frequency and effectiveness. In DahlerupD. (Ed.), Women, quotas and politics (pp. 275-292). London, England: Routledge.
82.
MatlandR. E.StudlarD. T. (1996). The contagion of women candidates in single-member district and proportional representation electoral systems: Canada and Norway. The Journal of Politics, 58, 707-733.
83.
McAllisterI.StudlarD. T. (2002). Electoral systems and women’s representation: A long-term perspective. Representation, 39(1), 3-14.
84.
MeierP. (2004). The mutual contagion effect of legal and party quotas: A Belgian perspective. Party Politics, 10, 583-600.
85.
MeierP. (2012). From laggard to leader: Explaining the Belgian gender quotas and parity clause. West European Politics, 35, 362-379.
86.
MorganK. J. (2013). Path shifting of the welfare state: Electoral competition and the expansion of work-family policies in western Europe. World Politics, 65, 73-115.
87.
MosleyL. (2013). Interview research in political science. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
88.
MüllerW. C. (2000). The Austrian election of October 1999: A shift to the right. West European Politics, 23, 191-200.
89.
MurrayR. (2007). How parties evaluate compulsory quotas: A study of the implementation of the parity law in France 1. Parliamentary Affairs, 60, 568-584.
90.
MurrayR. (2012). Parity in France: A “dual track” solution to women’s under-representation. West European Politics, 35, 343-361.
91.
MurrayR.KrookM. L.OpelloK. A. (2012). Why are gender quotas adopted? party pragmatism and parity in France. Political Research Quarterly, 65, 529-543.
92.
NielsenR. A. (2016). Case selection via matching. Sociological Methods & Research, 45, 569-597. doi:10.1177/0049124114547054
93.
O’BrienD. Z.RickneJ. (2016). Gender quotas and women’s political leadership. American Political Science Review, 110, 112-126.
94.
Palici di SuniE. (2012). Gender parity and quotas in Italy: A convoluted reform process. West European Politics, 35, 380-394.
95.
PaxtonP.HughesM. M.PainterM. A. (2010). Growth in women’s political representation: A longitudinal exploration of democracy, electoral system and gender quotas. European Journal of Political Research, 49, 25-52.
96.
PiersonP. (2004). Politics in time: History, institutions, and social analysis. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
97.
ReingoldB. (1992). Concepts of representation among female and male state legislatorsLegislative Studies Quarterly, 17, 509-537.
98.
SchmidtG. D.SaundersK. L. (2004). Effective quotas, relative party magnitude, and the success of female candidates: Peruvian municipal elections in comparative perspective. Comparative Political Studies, 37, 704-734.
99.
Schwindt-BayerL. (2009). Making quotas work: The effect of gender quota laws on the election of women. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 34, 5-28.
100.
SeawrightJ.GerringJ. (2008). Case selection techniques in case study research: A menu of qualitative and quantitative options. Political Research Quarterly, 61, 294-308.
101.
SwersM. (2002). The difference women make: The policy impact of women in congress. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
102.
TanseyO. (2007). Process tracing and elite interviewing: A case for non-probability sampling. PS: Political Science & Politics, 40, 765-772.
103.
TarrowS. (2010). The strategy of paired comparison: Toward a theory of practice. Comparative Political Studies, 43, 230-259.
104.
TeeleD. L. (2018). How the west was won: Competition, mobilization, and women’s enfranchisement in the United States. The Journal of Politics. Advance online publication. doi:10.1086/696621
105.
ThomasS. (1994). How women legislate. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
106.
TrippA. M.KangA. (2008). The global impact of quotas on the fast track to increased female legislative representation. Comparative Political Studies, 41, 338-361.
107.
ValienteC. (2005). The women’s movement, gender equality agencies and central-state debates on political representation in Spain. In State feminism and political representation (pp. 174-194). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
108.
VeigaF. J.VeigaL. G. (2004). The determinants of vote intentions in Portugal. Public Choice, 118, 341-364.
109.
VergeT. (2012). Institutionalising gender equality in Spain: From party quotas to electoral gender quotas. West European Politics, 35, 395-414.
110.
VergeT.Esprito-SantoA. (2016). Interactions between party and legislative quotas: Candidate selection and quota compliance in Portugal and Spain. Government and Opposition, 51, 416-439.
111.
WeeksA. C. (2016). Identity and policymaking: The policy impact of gender quota laws (Doctoral thesis). Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
112.
WeeksA. C.BaldezL. (2015). Quotas and qualifications: The impact of gender quota laws on the qualifications of legislators in the Italian parliament. European Political Science Review, 7, 119-144.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
