In light of increasing numbers of women in politics, extant research has examined the role of women in the parliamentary party on agenda-setting. This paper complements that literature by exploring the effect of a gendered institution theorized to promote both numbers of women and awareness of women’s interests: gender quota laws. I suggest that after a quota law, parties could have incentives to either reduce (backlash effect) or increase (salience effect) attention to women’s policy concerns. Using matching and regression methods with a panel data set of parties in advanced democracies, I find that parties in countries that implement a quota law devote more attention to social justice issues in their manifestos than similar parties in countries without a quota. Furthermore, the paper shows that this effect is driven entirely by the law itself. Contrary to expectations, quota laws are not associated with increases in women in my (short-term) sample; it is thus no surprise that no evidence of an indirect effect through numbers of women is found. I interpret the findings as evidence of quota contagion, whereby quotas cue party leaders to compete on gender equality issues.
AdamsJamesClarkMichaelEzrowLawrenceGlasgowGarrett. 2004. “Understanding Change and Stability in Party Ideologies: Do Parties Respond to Public Opinion or to past Election Results?” British Journal of Political Science34 (4): 589–610.
2.
AdamsJamesClarkMichaelEzrowLawrenceGlasgowGarrett. 2006. “Are Niche Parties Fundamentally Different from Mainstream Parties? The Causes and the Electoral Consequences of Western European Parties’ Policy Shifts, 1976-1998.” American Journal of Political Science50 (3): 513–29.
3.
AdamsJamesHauptAndrea B.StollHeather. 2009. “What Moves Parties? The Role of Public Opinion and Global Economic Conditions in Western Europe.” Comparative Political Studies42 (5): 611–39.
4.
AllanJames P.ScruggsLyle. 2004. “Political Partisanship and Welfare State Reform In Advanced Industrial Societies.” American Journal of Political Science48 (3): 496–512.
5.
BaldezLisa. 2007. “Primaries vs. Quotas: Gender and Candidate Nominations in Mexico, 2003.” Latin American Politics and Society49 (3): 69–96.
6.
BarnesTiffany D.CasseseErin C.2017. “American Party Women: A Look at the Gender Gap within Parties.” Political Research Quarterly70 (1): 127–41.
7.
BaronReuben M.KennyDavid A.1986. “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology51 (6): 1173–82.
8.
BartoliniStefanoMairPeter. 2007. Identity, Competition and Electoral Availability: The Stabilisation of European Electorates 1885-1985. Colchester, UK: ECPR.
9.
BeamanLoriChattopadhyayRaghabendraDufloEstherPandeRohiniTopalovaPetia. 2008. “Powerful Women: Does Exposure Reduce Bias?” Technical report. National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge.
10.
BenoitKennethLaverMichael. 2006. Party Policy in Modern Democracies. New York, NY: Routledge.
11.
BlalockHubert M.1967. Toward a Theory of Minority-Group Relations. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
12.
BlumenauJack. 2017. “Legislative Role Models: Female Ministers, Participation, and Influence in the UK House of Commons.” London School of Economics.
13.
BudgeIanKlingemannHans-DieterVolkensAndreaBaraJudithTanenbaumEric. 2001. Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments, 1945-1998. Vol. 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14.
BudgeIanRobertsonDavidHearlDerek. 1987. Ideology, Strategy and Party Change: Spatial Analyses of Post-war Election Programmes in 19 Democracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
BurgoonBrian. 2012. “Partisan Embedding of Liberalism: How Trade, Investment, and Immigration Affect Party Support for the Welfare State.” Comparative Political Studies45 (5): 606–35.
16.
BurnetJennie E.2011. “Women Have Found Respect: Gender Quotas, Symbolic Representation, and Female Empowerment in Rwanda.” Politics & Gender7 (3): 303–34.
17.
CaulMiki. 1999. “Women’s Representation in Parliament: The Role of Political Parties.” Party Politics5 (1): 79–98.
18.
ChildsSarahKrookMona Lena. 2012. “Labels and Mandates in the United Kingdom.” In The Impact of Gender Quotas. Susan Franceschet, Mona Lena Krook, Jennifer M. Piscopo, eds. New York, NY: Oxford University Press: 89–102.
19.
ClaytonAmandaJosefssonCeciliaWangVibeke. 2014. “Present without Presence? Gender, Quotas and Debate Recognition in the Ugandan Parliament.” Representation50 (3): 379–92.
20.
ClaytonAmandaZetterbergPär. 2018. “Quota Shocks: Electoral Gender Quotas and Government Spending Priorities Worldwide.” The Journal of Politics80 (3): 916–32.
21.
DownsAnthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.
22.
EdlundLenaPandeRohini. 2002. “Why Have Women Become Left-Wing? The Political Gender Gap and the Decline in Marriage.” Quarterly Journal of Economics117 (3): 917–61.
23.
EzrowLawrence. 2007. “The Variance Matters: How Party Systems Represent the Preferences of Voters.” The Journal of Politics69 (1): 182–92.
24.
FranceschetSusanKrookMona LenaPiscopoJennifer M.2012. The Impact of Gender Quotas. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25.
FranceschetSusanPiscopoJennifer M.2008. “Gender Quotas and Women’s Substantive Representation: Lessons from Argentina.” Politics & Gender4 (3): 393–425.
26.
FréchetteGuillaume R.ManiquetFrancoisMorelliMassimo. 2008. “Incumbents’ Interests and Gender Quotas.” American Journal of Political Science52 (4): 891–909.
27.
GalliganYvonneClaveroSaraCalloniMarina. 2007. Gender Politics and Democracy in Post-socialist Europe. Opladen, Germany: Barbara Budrich.
28.
GemenisKostas. 2013. “What to Do (and Not to Do) with the Comparative Manifestos Project Data.” Political Studies61 (1_suppl): 3–23.
29.
GreeneZacharyO’BrienDiana Z.2016. “Diverse Parties, Diverse Agendas? Female Politicians and the Parliamentary Party’s Role in Platform Formation.” European Journal of Political Research55, 435–53.
30.
HauptAndrea B.2010. “Parties’ Responses to Economic Globalization: What Is Left for the Left and Right for the Right?” Party Politics16 (1): 5–27.
31.
HawkesworthMary. 2003. “Congressional Enactments of Race–Gender: Toward a Theory of Raced–Gendered Institutions.” American Political Science Review97 (4): 529–50.
32.
HeathRoseanna MichelleSchwindt-BayerLeslie A.Taylor-RobinsonMichelle M.2005. “Women on the Sidelines: Women’s Representation on Committees in Latin American Legislatures.” American Journal of Political Science49 (2): 420–36.
33.
HoDaniel E.ImaiKosukeKingGaryStuartElizabeth. 2007. “Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference.” Political Analysis15 (3): 199–236.
34.
HoDaniel E.ImaiKosukeKingGaryStuartElizabeth. 2011. “MatchIt: Nonparametric Preprocessing for Parametric Causal Inference.” Journal of Statistical Software42:1–28.
35.
HollyerJames R.RosendorffB. Peter. 2012. “Leadership Survival, Regime Type, Policy Uncertainty and PTA Accession.” International Studies Quarterly56 (4): 748–64.
36.
HuberEvelyneStephensJohn D.2000. “Partisan Governance, Women’s Employment, and the Social Democratic Service State.” American Sociological Review65:323–42.
37.
HughesMelanie M.PaxtonPamelaKrookMona Lena. 2017. “Gender Quotas for Legislatures and Corporate Boards.” Annual Review of Sociology43:331–52.
38.
ImaiKosukeKeeleLukeTingleyDustin. 2010. “A General Approach to Causal Mediation Analysis.” Psychological Methods15 (4): 309–34.
39.
ImaiKosukeKingGaryStuartElizabeth A.2008. “Misunderstandings between Experimentalists and Observationalists about Causal Inference.” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society)171 (2): 481–502.
40.
InglehartRonaldNorrisPippa. 2000. “The Developmental Theory of the Gender Gap: Women’s and Men’s Voting Behavior in Global Perspective.” International Political Science Review21 (4): 441–63.
41.
IversenTorbenRosenbluthFrances McCall. 2006. “The Political Economy of Gender: Explaining Cross-National Variation in the Gender Division of Labor and the Gender Voting Gap.” American Journal of Political Science50 (1): 1–19.
42.
IversenTorbenRosenbluthFrances McCall. 2010. Women, Work, and Politics: The Political Economy of Gender Inequality. New Haven: Yale University Press.
43.
IversenTorbenSoskiceDavid. 2001. “An Asset Theory of Social Policy Preferences.” American Political Science Review95 (4): 875–94.
JuddCharles M.KennyDavid A.2010. “Data Analysis in Social Psychology: Recent and Recurring Issues.” In Handbook of Social Psychology. FiskeSusan T.GilbertDaniel T.LindzeyGardner, eds. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons: 115–139.
46.
KanterRosabeth Moss. 1977. Men and Women of the Corporation. Vol. 5049. New York, NY: Basic Books.
47.
KeithDaniel JamesVergeTània. 2018. “Nonmainstream Left Parties and Women’s Representation in Western Europe.” Party Politics24:397–409. doi:10.1177/1354068816663037.
48.
KingGaryNielsenRichard. 2016. “Why Propensity Scores Should Not be Used for Matching.” Working paper. http://j.mp/2ovYGsW.
49.
KittilsonMiki Caul. 2006. Challenging Parties, Changing Parliaments: Women and Elected Office in Contemporary Western Europe. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.
50.
KittilsonMiki Caul. 2010. “Comparing Gender, Institutions and Political Behavior: Toward an Integrated Theoretical Framework.” Perspectives on Politics8 (1): 217–22.
51.
KittilsonMiki Caul. 2011. “Women, Parties and Platforms in Post-industrial Democracies.” Party Politics17 (1): 66–92.
52.
KlingemannHans-DieterRichard I. Hofferbert, and Ian Budge. 1994. Parties, Policies, and Democracy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
53.
KlingemannHans-DieterVolkensAndreaBaraJudithBudgeIanMcDonaldMichael D.2006. Mapping Policy Preferences II: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments in Eastern Europe, European Union, and OECD 1990-2003. Vol. 2. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
54.
KolinskyEva. 1991. “Political Participation and Parliamentary Careers: Women’s Quotas in West Germany.” West European Politics14 (1): 56–72.
55.
KrookMona Lena. 2015. “Empowerment versus Backlash: Gender Quotas and Critical Mass Theory.” Politics, Groups, and Identities3 (1): 184–88.
56.
LipsetSeymour MartinRokkan.Stein1967. Party Systems and Voter Alignments. Toronto: The Free Press.
57.
LottJohn R.KennyLawrence W.1999. “Did Women’s Suffrage Change the Size and Scope of Government?” Journal of Political Economy107 (6): 1163–98.
58.
LoweWillBenoitKennethMikhaylovSlavaLaverMichael. 2011. “Scaling Policy Preferences from Coded Political Texts.” Legislative Studies Quarterly36 (1): 123–55.
59.
ManserghLucyThomsonRobert. 2007. “Election Pledges, Party Competition and Policymaking.” Comparative Politics39:311–29.
60.
MatlandRichard E.StudlarDonley T.1996. “The Contagion of Women Candidates in Single-Member District and Proportional Representation Electoral Systems: Canada and Norway.” The Journal of Politics58 (3): 707–33.
61.
MayhewDavid R.1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven: Yale University Press.
62.
McDonaldMichael D.BudgeIan. 2005. Elections, Parties, Democracy: Conferring the Median Mandate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
63.
MeierPetra. 2008. “A Gender Gap Not Closed by Quotas: The Renegotiation of the Public Sphere.” International Feminist Journal of Politics10 (3): 329–47.
64.
MeierPetra. 2013. “Quotas, Quotas Everywhere: From Party Regulations to Gender Quotas for Corporate Management Boards. Another Case of Contagion.” Representation49 (4): 453–66.
65.
MendelbergTaliKarpowitzChristopher F.GoedertNicholas. 2014. “Does Descriptive Representation Facilitate Women’s Distinctive Voice? How Gender Composition and Decision Rules Affect Deliberation.” American Journal of Political Science58:291–306.
66.
MurrayRainbowKrookMona LenaOpelloKatherine A. R.2012. “Why Are Gender Quotas Adopted? Party Pragmatism and Parity in France.” Political Research Quarterly65 (3): 529–43.
67.
NaurinElin. 2011. Election Promises, Party Behaviour and Voter Perceptions. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
68.
NaurinElin. 2014. “Is a Promise a Promise? Election Pledge Fulfilment in Comparative Perspective Using Sweden as an Example.” West European Politics37 (5): 1046–64.
69.
NorrisPippa. 1985. “Women’s Legislative Participation in Western Europe.” West European Politics8 (4): 90–101.
70.
O’BrienDiana Z.2012. “When Women Matter: The Relationship between Women’s Presence and Policy Representation in Western European States.” PhD thesis. Washington University, St. Louis, MO.
71.
O’BrienDiana Z.RickneJohanna. 2016. “Gender Quotas and Women’s Political Leadership.” American Political Science Review110 (1): 112–26.
SacchetTeresa. 2008. “Beyond Numbers: The Impact of Gender Quotas in Latin America.” International Feminist Journal of Politics10 (3): 369–86.
76.
SartoriGiovanni. 2005. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Essex: ECPR.
77.
Schwindt-BayerLeslie A.2009. “Making Quotas Work: The Effect of Gender Quota Laws on the Election of Women.” Legislative Studies Quarterly34 (1): 5–28.
78.
Sénac-SlawinskiRéjane. 2008. “Justifying Parity in France after the Passage of the So-Called Parity Laws and the Electoral Application of Them: The Ideological Tinkering of Political Party Officials (UMP and PS) and Women’s NGOs.” French Politics6 (3): 234–56.
79.
SimmonsBeth A.HopkinsDaniel J.2005. “The Constraining Power of International Treaties: Theory and Methods.” American Political Science Review99 (4): 623–31.
80.
Somer-TopcuZeynep. 2009. “Timely Decisions: The Effects of past National Elections on Party Policy Change.” The Journal of Politics71 (1): 238–48.
81.
StuartElizabeth A.2010. “Matching Methods for Causal Inference: A Review and a Look Forward.” Statistical Science: A Review Journal of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics25 (1): 1–21.
82.
SvallforsS.1997. “Worlds of Welfare and Attitudes to Redistribution: A Comparison of Eight Western Nations.” European Sociological Review13 (3): 283–304.
83.
ThomsonRobertRoyedTerryNaurinElinArtésJoaquinFergusonMark J.KostadinovaPetiaMouryCatherine. 2012. “The Program-to-Policy Linkage: A Comparative Study of Election Pledges and Government Policies in Ten Countries.” In APSA 2012 Annual Meeting Paper. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2106482
84.
TingleyDustinYamamotoTeppeiHiroseKentaroKeeleLukeImaiKosuke. 2014. “Mediation: R Package for Causal Mediation Analysis.” Journal of Statistical Software Vol. 59, Issue 5 (September).
85.
VergeTàniade la FuenteMaría. 2014. “Playing with Different Cards: Party Politics, Gender Quotas and Women’s Empowerment.” International Political Science Review35 (1): 67–79.
86.
VolkensAndreaLehmannPolaMatthießTheresMerzNicolasRegelSvenWernerAnnika. 2016. “The Manifesto Project Dataset-Codebook.” Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Version 2016a. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.
87.
WalgraveStefaanVaroneFrédéricDumontPatrick. 2006. “Policy with or without Parties? A Comparative Analysis of Policy Priorities and Policy Change in Belgium, 1991 to 2000.” Journal of European Public Policy13 (7): 1021–38.
88.
WeeksAna Catalano. 2016. “Identity and Policymaking: The Policy Impact of Gender Quota Laws.” PhD thesis. Harvard University, Cambridge.
89.
WeeksAna CatalanoBaldezLisa. 2015. “Quotas and Qualifications: The Impact of Gender Quota Laws on the Qualifications of Legislators in the Italian Parliament.” European Political Science Review7 (1): 119–44.
90.
WilliamsRick L.2000. “A Note on Robust Variance Estimation for Cluster-Correlated Data.” Biometrics56 (2): 645–46.
91.
XydiasChristina. 2014. “Women’s Rights in Germany: Generations and Gender Quotas.” Politics & Gender10 (1): 4–32.
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.
