This study aims to pinpoint the combinations of national cultural traits that influence the global diffusion of gender mainstreaming. First, it updates national culture indices using factor analysis. Then, the study employs fuzzy-set QCA to identify potential configurations in line with theories of cultural contingency. A sample of 41 countries is examined. I find that current diffusion requires a non-Islamic environment, while a high level of autonomy, weak uncertainty avoidance, and gender quotas are sufficient for gender mainstreaming. This study serves as the starting point for further research on the relationship between national culture and the diffusion of gender mainstreaming policy.
AllenP.CuttsD. (2018). How do gender quotas affect public support for women as political leaders?West European Politics, 41(1), 147–168.
2.
AllredB. B.SwanK. S. (2004). Global versus multidomestic: Culture’s consequences on innovation. In BrockD. M.BirkinshawJ. (Eds.), Management international review (pp. 81–105). Gabler Verlag.
3.
BacchiC.EvelineJ. (2010). Approaches to gender mainstreaming: What’s the problem represented to be. In BacchiC.EvelineJ. N. (Eds.), Mainstreaming politics: Gendering practices and feminist theory (pp. 111–138). University of Adelaide Press.
4.
BaldezL. (2006). The pros and cons of gender quota laws: What happens when you kick men out and let women in?Politics and Gender, 2(1), 102–109.
5.
BasáñezM. (2016). A world of three cultures: Honor, achievement and joy. Oxford University Press.
BergerP. W. (2007). Gender Mainstreaming: What is it and should we continue doing it?. Feminisms in Development. Zed Books.
8.
BerkovitchN. (1999). From motherhood to citizenship: Women’s rights and international organizations. JHU Press.
9.
BerryF. S.BerryW. D. (1990). State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. American Political Science Review, 84(2), 395–415.
10.
Besche-TrutheF.SeitzerH.WindzioM. (2020). Cultural spheres—creating a dyadic dataset of cultural proximity. SFB 1342 Technical Paper Series 5. Bremen.
11.
BeugelsdijkS.KlasingM. J.MilionisP. (2019). Value diversity and regional economic development. Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 121(1), 153–181.
12.
BoyleE. H.PrevesS. E. (2000). National politics as international process: The case of anti-female-genital-cutting laws. Law & Society Review, 34, 703–737.
13.
ButlerD. M.VoldenC.DynesA. M.ShorB. (2017). Ideology, learning, and policy diffusion: Experimental evidence. American Journal of Political Science, 61(1), 37–49.
14.
ÇağlarG. (2013). Gender mainstreaming. Politics and Gender, 9(3), 336–344.
15.
CaulM. (2001). Political parties and the adoption of candidate gender quotas: A cross-national analysis. The Journal of Politics, 63(4), 1214–1229.
16.
ClaytonA. (2014). Electoral gender quotas and attitudes toward traditional leaders: A policy experiment in Lesotho. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 33(4), 1007–1026.
17.
CunninghamC. (1995). Europe not ready for multimedia. Computerworld, 29, 76.
18.
DahlerupD.FreidenvallL. (2005). Quotas as a “fast track” to equal representation for women: Why Scandinavia is no longer the model. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7(1), 26–48.
19.
DalyM. (2005). Gender mainstreaming in theory and practice. Social Politics International Studies in Gender State & Society, 12(3), 433–450.
20.
de MooijM.HofstedeG. (2010). The Hofstede model: Applications to global branding and advertising strategy and research. International Journal of Advertising, 29(1), 85–110.
21.
DesmarchelierB.FangE. S. (2016). National culture and innovation diffusion. Exploratory insights from agent-based modeling. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 105, 121–128.
22.
DuvergerM. (1955). The political role of women. UNESCO.
23.
DwyerS.MesakH.HsuM. (2005). An exploratory examination of the influence of national culture on cross-national product diffusion. Journal of International Marketing, 13(2), 1–27.
24.
EfratK. (2014). The direct and indirect impact of culture on innovation. Technovation, 34(1), 12–20.
25.
EmirbayerM.GoodwinJ. (1994). Network analysis, culture, and the problem of agency. American Journal of Sociology, 99(6), 1411–1454.
26.
ErezM.NouriR. (2010). Creativity: The influence of cultural, social, and work contexts. Management and Organization Review, 6(3), 351–370.
27.
FanY.BlalockE. C.LyuX. (2022). A meta-analysis of the relationship between public service motivation and individual job performance: Cross-validating the effect of culture. International Public Management Journal, 25, 1115–1130.
28.
FissP. C. (2011). Building better causal theories: A fuzzy set approach to typologies in organization research. Academy of Management Journal, 54(2), 393–420.
29.
FranceschetS.PiscopoJ. M. (2013). Equality, democracy, and the broadening and deepening of gender quotas. Politics and Gender, 9(3), 310–316.
30.
GilardiF. (2010). Who learns from what in policy diffusion processes?American Journal of Political Science, 54(3), 650–666.
31.
GilardiF. (2016). Four ways we can improve policy diffusion research. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 16(1), 8–21.
32.
GoodmanS.PressL.RuthS.RutkowskiA. (1994). The global diffusion of the Internet: Patterns and problems. Communications of the ACM, 37(8), 27–31.
33.
GrayV. (1973). Innovation in the states: A diffusion study. American Political Science Review, 67(4), 1174–1185.
34.
GreenhillB. (2010). The company you keep: International socialization and the diffusion of human rights norms. International Studies Quarterly, 54(1), 127–145.
35.
GriffithD. A.YalcinkayaG.RuberaG. (2014). Country-level performance of new experience products in a global rollout: The moderating effects of economic wealth and national culture. Journal of International Marketing, 22(4), 1–20.
36.
Haider-MarkelD. P. (2001). Policy diffusion as a geographical expansion of the scope of political conflict: Same-sex marriage bans in the 1990s. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 1(1), 5–26.
37.
HankivskyO. (2005). Gender vs. Diversity mainstreaming: A preliminary examination of the role and transformative potential of feminist theory. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 38(4), 977–1001.
38.
HeikkinenA.LammelaJ.LietzenL.LättiJ.VirtanenE. (2012). Gender mainstreaming: Inclusion or exclusion. In Challenges and reforms in vocational education. aspects of inclusion and exclusion (pp. 97–118). Peter Lang AG.
39.
HeM.LeeJ. (2020). Social culture and innovation diffusion: A theoretically founded agent-based model. Journal of Evolutionary Economics, 30(4), 1109–1149.
40.
HofstedeG. (1984). Cultural dimensions in management and planning. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 1(2), 81–99.
41.
HofstedeG. (2001). Culture's consequences: Comparing values, behaviors, institutions and organizations across nations. SAGE publications.
42.
HofstedeG. (2011). Dimensionalizing Cultures: The Hofstede Model in Context. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2(1), 2307–0919.
43.
HofstedeG.BondM. H. (1988). The Confucius connection: From cultural roots to economic growth. Organizational Dynamics, 16(4), 5–21.
44.
HofstedeG.HofstedeG. J.MinkovM. (2005). Cultures and organizations: Software of the mind (vol.2). Mcgraw-hill.
45.
HofstedeG.MinkovM. (2010). Long-versus short-term orientation: New perspectives. Asia Pacific Business Review, 16(4), 493–504.
46.
HouseR.JavidanM.HangesP.DorfmanP. (2002). Understanding cultures and implicit leadership theories across the globe: An introduction to project GLOBE. Journal of World Business, 37(1), 3–10.
47.
HouseR. J.HangesP. J.JavidanM.DorfmanP. W.GuptaV. (eds.) (2004). Culture, leadership, and organizations: The GLOBE study of 62 societies. SAGE publications.
48.
HughesM. M.PaxtonP.ClaytonA. B.ZetterbergP. (2019). Global gender quota adoption, implementation, and reform. Comparative Politics, 51(2), 219–238.
49.
JahanR. (1995). The elusive agenda: Mainstreaming women in development. Zed Books.
50.
JonesG. K.DavisH. J. (2000). National culture and innovation: Implications for locating global R& D operations. MIR [World] (Modernization Innovation Research), 11–39.
51.
JonesM. P. (2005). The desirability of gender quotas: Considering context and design. Politics and Gender, 1(4), 645–652.
52.
KaasaA.VadiM. (2010). How does culture contribute to innovation? Evidence from European countries. Economics of Innovation and New Technology, 19(7), 583–604.
53.
KanA. K. S.AdegbiteE.El OmariS.AbdellatifM. (2016). On the use of qualitative comparative analysis in management. Journal of Business Research, 69(4), 1458–1463.
54.
KatzensteinM. F.MuellerC. M. (1987). The women's movements of the United States and Western Europe: Consciousness, political opportunity, and public policy. Temple University Press.
55.
KittilsonM. C.Schwindt-BayerL. A. (2012). The gendered effects of electoral institutions: Political engagement and participation. Oxford University Press.
56.
KrookM. L. (2006). Reforming representation: The diffusion of candidate gender quotas worldwide. Politics and Gender, 2(3), 303–327.
57.
KrookM. L. (2007). Candidate gender quotas: A framework for analysis. European Journal of Political Research, 46(3), 367–394.
58.
LeeC. P.ChangK.BerryF. S. (2011). Testing the development and diffusion of E-Government and E-Democracy: A global perspective. Public Administration Review, 71(3), 444–454.
59.
LegewieN. (2013). An introduction to applied data analysis with qualitative comparative analysis. Forum Qualitative Sozialforschung/Forum: Qualitative Social Research, 14(3), 1–45.
60.
LinosK. (2011). Diffusion through democracy. American Journal of Political Science, 55(3), 678–695.
61.
LiuC.Van WartM.KimS.WangX.McCarthyA.ReadyD. (2020). The effects of national cultures on two technologically advanced countries: The case of e-leadership in South Korea and the United States. Australian Journal of Public Administration, 79(3), 298–329.
62.
LomazziV.CrespiI. (2019). Gender mainstreaming and gender equality in Europe: Policies, culture and public opinion. Policy Press.
63.
LombardoE.MergaertL. (2013). Gender mainstreaming and resistance to gender training: A framework for studying implementation. NORA - Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 21(4), 296–311.
64.
MaggettiM.GilardiF. (2016). Problems (and solutions) in the measurement of policy diffusion mechanisms. Journal of Public Policy, 36(1), 87–107.
65.
MeseguerC. (2004). What role for learning? The diffusion of privatisation in OECD and Latin American countries. Journal of Public Policy, 24(3), 299–325.
66.
MooneyC. Z. (2001). Modeling regional effects on state policy diffusion. Political Research Quarterly, 54(1), 103–124.
67.
MossigI.WindzioM.Besche-TrutheF.SeitzerH. (2022). Networks of global social policy diffusion: The Effects of culture, economy, colonial legacies, and geographic proximity. In Networks and geographies of global social policy diffusion: Culture, economy, and colonial legacies (pp. 1–37).
68.
NasifE. G.Al-DaeajH.EbrahimiB.ThibodeauxM. S. (1991). Methodological problems in cross-cultural research: An updated review. MIR [World] (Modernization Innovation Research), 79–91.
69.
NewmanK. L.NollenS. D. (1996). Culture and congruence: The fit between management practices and national culture. Journal of International Business Studies, 27(4), 753–779.
70.
PaxtonP.KunovichS.HughesM. M. (2007). Gender in politics. Annual Review of Sociology, 33, 263–284.
71.
RaginC. C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond Qualitative and Quantitative Strategies. University of California Press.
72.
RaginC. C. (2008). Redesigning social inquiry: Fuzzy sets and beyond. University of Chicago Press.
73.
RaginC. C.FissP. C. (2017). Intersectional inequality: Race, class, test scores, and Poverty. University of Chicago Press.
74.
RedpathL.NielsenM. O. (1997). A comparison of native culture, Non-native culture and new management ideology. Canadian Journal of Administrative Sciences / Revue Canadienne des Sciences de l'Administration, 14(3), 327–339.
75.
ReesT. (2005). Reflections on the uneven development of gender mainstreaming in Europe. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 7(4), 555–574.
76.
RhyneL. C.TeagardenM. B.Van Den PanhuyzenW. (2002). Technology-based competitive strategies: The relationship of cultural dimensions to new product innovation. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 13(2), 249–277.
77.
RogersE. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations. The Free Press.
78.
RoseD.MacheryE.StichS.AlaiM.AngelucciA.BerniūnasR.BuchtelE. E.ChatterjeeA.CheonH.ChoI. R.CohnitzD.CovaF.DranseikaV.LagosÁ. E.GhadakpourL.GrinbergM.HannikainenI.HashimotoT.HorowitzA.. . . ZhuJ. (2019). Nothing at stake in knowledge. Noûs, 53(1), 224–247.
79.
RossbergerR. J. (2014). National personality profiles and innovation: The role of cultural practices. Creativity and Innovation Management, 23(3), 331–348.
80.
RuiuG.GonanoG. (2020). Religious barriers to the diffusion of same-sex civil unions in Italy. Population Research and Policy Review, 39(6), 1185–1203.
81.
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(6), 704–734.
82.
SchneiderC. Q.WagemannC. (2010). Standards of good practice in qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) and fuzzy-sets. Comparative Sociology, 9(3), 397–418.
83.
SchwartzS. (2006). A theory of cultural value orientations: Explication and applications. Comparative Sociology, 5(2–3), 137–182.
84.
ShaneS. (1993). Cultural influences on national rates of innovation. Journal of Business Venturing, 8(1), 59–73.
85.
SimmonsB. A.ElkinsZ. (2004). The globalization of liberalization: Policy diffusion in the international political economy. American Political Science Review, 98(1), 171–189.
86.
SkaaningS. E. (2011). Assessing the robustness of crisp-set and fuzzy-set QCA results. Sociological Methods & Research, 40(2), 391–408.
87.
SkocpolT.Abend-WeinM.HowardC.LehmannS. G. (1993). Women’s associations and the enactment of mothers’ pensions in the United States. American Political Science Review, 87(3), 686–701.
88.
SquiresJ. (2005). Is mainstreaming transformative? Theorizing mainstreaming in the context of diversity and deliberation. Social Politics International Studies in Gender State & Society, 12(3), 366–388.
89.
SriteM.KarahannaE. (2006). The role of espoused national cultural values in technology acceptance. MIS Quarterly, 30, 679–704.
90.
TrueJ.MintromM. (2001). Transnational networks and policy diffusion: The case of gender mainstreaming. International Studies Quarterly, 45(1), 27–57.
van EverdingenY. M.WaartsE. (2003). The effect of national culture on the adoption of innovations. Marketing Letters, 14(3), 217–232.
94.
VerlooM. (2005). Displacement and empowerment: Reflections on the concept and practice of the Council of Europe approach to gender mainstreaming and gender equality. Social Politics International Studies in Gender State & Society, 12(3), 344–365.
95.
VoldenC. (2006). States as policy laboratories: Emulating success in the children’s health insurance program. American Journal of Political Science, 50(2), 294–312.
96.
WaartsE.Van EverdingenY. (2005). The influence of national culture on the adoption status of innovations: An empirical study of firms across Europe. European Management Journal, 23(6), 601–610.
97.
WalkerJ. L. (1969). The diffusion of innovations among the American states. American Political Science Review, 63(3), 880–899.
98.
WeylandK. (2005). Theories of policy diffusion lessons from Latin American pension reform. World Politics, 57(2), 262–295.
99.
YiH.BerryF. S.ChenW. (2018). Management innovation and policy diffusion through leadership transfer networks: An agent network diffusion model. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 28(4), 457–474.
100.
ZetterbergP. (2009). Do gender quotas foster women’s political engagement? Lessons from Latin America. Political Research Quarterly, 62(4), 715–730.
101.
ZhangJ.LiH.YangK. (2022). A meta-analysis of the government performance—trust link: Taking cultural and methodological factors into account. Public Administration Review, 82(1), 39–58.
102.
ZippelK. S. (2006). Gender equality politics in the changing European Union: The European Union Anti-Discrimination Directive and Sexual Harassment. CES Working paper, no. 134.
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.
