The passage of electoral gender quotas raises questions about why male elites would support policies that seemingly go against their self-interests. Recent work on France suggests that quota adoption is self-interested because male legislators benefit from alleged voter bias against female candidates. This article evaluates this explanation as a means for understanding quota adoption globally. It argues that the key actors are not legislators but political parties. Developing an alternative causal story centered on “party pragmatism,” it finds that decisions to introduce quotas are rational and consistent once a range of incentives—ideological, electoral, and strategic—are taken into account.
AdamsJamesEzrowLawrence. 2009. “Who Do European Parties Represent?” Journal of Politics71: 206-23.
2.
AgacinskiSylviane. 2001. Parity of the Sexes. New York: Columbia University Press.
3.
BaldezLisa. 2004. “Elected Bodies: The Gender Quota Law for Legislative Candidates in Mexico.” Legislative Studies Quarterly24: 231-58.
4.
BaudinoClaudie. 2003. “Parity Reform.” Review of Policy Research20: 385-400.
5.
BereniLaure. 2007. “Du MLF au Mouvement pour la parité.” Politix20 (78): 107-32.
6.
BlackJerome H.EricksonLynda. 2003. “Women Candidates and Voter Bias: Do Women Politicians Need to Be Better?” Electoral Studies22: 81-100.
7.
BriansCraig Leonard. 2005. “Women for Women?” American Politics Research33: 357-75.
8.
BruhnKathleen. 2003. “Whores and Lesbians: Political Activism, Party Strategies, and Gender Quotas in Mexico.” Electoral Studies22: 101-19.
9.
CartonAnn. 2001. “The General Elections in Belgium in June 1999: A Real Breakthrough for Women Politicians?” European Journal of Women’s Studies8: 127-35.
10.
ChagnollaudDominique, ed. 1993. La Vie Politique en France. Paris: Editions du Seuil.
11.
CharlotMonica. 1980. “Women in Politics in France.” In The French National Assembly Elections of 1985, edited by PennimanHoward R., 171-91. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
12.
ChowdhuryNajma. 2002. “The Implementation of Quotas: Bangladesh Experience.” Paper presented at the International IDEA Workshop, Jakarta, Indonesia, September.
13.
ClausenAage. 1973. How Congressmen Decide: A Policy Focus. New York: St. Martin’s.
14.
Davidson-SchmichLouise K. 2006. “Implementation of Political Party Gender Quotas: Evidence from the German Lander 1990-2000.” Party Politics12: 211-32.
15.
FréchetteGuillaumeManiquetFrançoisMorelliMassimo. 2008. “Incumbents’ Interests and Gender Quotas.” American Journal of Political Science52: 891-907.
16.
GallagherMichaelMarshMichael, eds. 1987. Candidate Selection in Comparative Perspective. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
17.
GaspardFrançoise. 1994. “De la parité.” Nouvelles questions féministes15 (4): 29-44.
18.
GaspardFrançoiseServan-SchreiberClaudeLe GallAnne. 1992. Au pouvoir, citoyennes! liberté, égalité, parité. Paris: Éditions du Seuil.
19.
HarmelRobertJandaKenneth. 1994. “An Integrated Theory of Party Goals and Party Change.” Journal of Theoretical Politics6: 259-87.
20.
HarmelRobertTanAlexander C.2003. “Party Actors and Party Change: Does Factional Dominance Matter?” European Journal of Political Research42: 409-24.
21.
Howard-MerriamKathleen. 1990. “Guaranteed Seats for Political Representation of Women: The Egyptian Example.” Women and Politics10: 17-42.
22.
Inter-Parliamentary Union. 2011. “Women in National Parliaments: Situation as of 31 March 2011.” http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm (accessed April 7, 2011).
23.
JensonJaneSineauMariette. 1995. Mitterrand et les françaises. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.
24.
KittilsonMiki. 2006. Challenging Parties, Changing Parliaments. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.
25.
KnappAndrew. 2002. “France.” In Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies, edited by WebbPaulFarrellDavidHollidayIan, 107-51. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
26.
KnappAndrewWrightVincent. 2006. The Government and Politics of France. New York: Routledge.
27.
KrookMona Lena. 2006. “Reforming Representation: The Diffusion of Candidate Gender Quotas Worldwide.”Politics & Gender2: 303-327.
28.
KrookMona Lena. 2009. Quotas for Women in Politics. New York: Oxford University Press.
29.
KrookMona LenaLovenduskiJoniSquiresJudith. 2009. “Gender Quotas and Models of Political Citizenship.” British Journal of Political Science39: 781-803.
30.
LépinardÉléonore. 2007. L’égalité introuvable. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.
31.
LipietzAlain. 1994. “Parité au masculin.” Nouvelles questions féministes15 (4): 45-64.
32.
LovenduskiJoniNorrisPippa, eds. 1993. Gender and Party Politics. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
33.
MazurAmy. 1995. Gender Bias and the State. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
34.
MazurAmy G. 2001. “Drawing Lessons from the French Parity Movement.” Contemporary French Civilization25: 201-20.
35.
McKayJoanna. 2005. “Women in German Politics.” German Politics13: 56-80.
36.
MeierPetra. 2000. “The Evidence of Being Present: Guarantees of Representation and the Belgian Example.” Acta Politica35: 64-85.
37.
MeierPetra. 2004. “The Mutual Contagion Effect of Legal and Party Quotas: A Belgian Perspective.” Party Politics10: 583-600.
38.
Mossuz-LavauJanine. 1998a. Femmes/hommes pour la parité. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.
39.
Mossuz-LavauJanine. 1998b. “La parité à la française.” Swiss Political Science Review4: 137-44.
40.
MurrayRainbow. 2004. “Why Didn’t Parity Work?” French Politics2: 347-62.
41.
MurrayRainbow. 2008. “The Power of Sex and Incumbency.” Party Politics14: 539-54.
42.
MurrayRainbow. 2010. Parties, Gender Quotas and Candidate Selection in France. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave.
43.
NorrisPippa, ed. 1997. Passages to Power. New York: Cambridge University Press.
44.
NorrisPippaVallanceElizabethLovenduskiJoni. 1992. “Do Candidates Make a Difference? Race, Gender, Ideology, and Incumbency.” Parliamentary Affairs45: 496-547.
45.
OpelloKatherine. 2002. Ideas and Elections. PhD diss., New York University.
46.
OpelloKatherine. 2006. Gender Quotas, Parity Reform, and Political Parties in France. New York: Lexington.
47.
PrzeworskiAdamSpragueJohn. 1986. Paper Stones. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
48.
SchofieldNormanSenedItai. 2006. Multiparty Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.
49.
ScottJoan Wallach. 1998. “‘La Querelle des Femmes’ in the Late Twentieth Century.” Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies9 (2): 70-92.
50.
ScottJoan Wallach. 2005. Parité!Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
51.
SineauMariette. 2001. Profession: femme politique. Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.
52.
SineauMariette. 2008. La Force du nombre: Femmes et démocratie présidentielle. Paris: Editions de l’aube.
53.
SpoonJae-Jae. 2011. Political Survival of Small Parties in Europe. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
54.
StromKaare. 1990. “A Behavioral Theory of Competitive Political Parties.” American Journal of Political Science34: 565-98.
55.
VillalbaBrunoVieillard-CoffreSylvie. 2003. “The Greens.” In The French Party System, edited by EvansJocelyn, 56-75. Manchester, UK: Manchester University Press.
56.
WiliartySarah. 2010. CDU and the Politics of Gender in Germany. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
57.
ZimmermannMarie-Jo. 2003. Elections à venir: faire vivre la parité. Paris: Observatoire de la parité.
58.
ZimmermannMarie-Jo. 2005. Effets Directs et Indirects de la Loi du 6 Juin 2000: un Bilan Contrasté. Paris: Observatoire de la parité
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.
