Democratic institutions provide incentives for voters and candidates. When reformers tinker with multiple institutions, the likely effect of each individual change may be well understood, but their potential interaction may go unanticipated. Prior to elections in 2002, the French legislature adopted a gender parity candidate quota for parties participating in parliamentary elections. In addition, voters ratified a constitutional referendum making the president’s term match that of parliament, and presidential elections were set to be held immediately prior to parliamentary ones. We show that the unanticipated consequence of these separate institutional reforms was to make the fate of female candidates for parliament very much a function of presidential coattails. When the party of the president failed to fulfill the candidate quota, the number of women in parliament showed little change. Conversely, in years when the party of the president took the candidate quota seriously, the number of women in parliament increased.
AbadieA.DiamondA.HainmuellerJ.2010. “Synthetic Control Methods for Comparative Case Studies: Estimating the Effect of California’s Tobacco Control Program.” Journal of the American Statistical Association105 (490): 493–505.
2.
AbadieA.DiamondA.HainmuellerJ.2015. “Comparative Politics and the Synthetic Control Method.” American Journal of Political Science59 (2): 495–510.
3.
AhrensP.ChmilewskiK.LangS.SauerB.2020. Gender Equality in Politics: Implementing Party Quotas in Germany and Austria. (1st ed.). New York: Springer.
4.
BaiJ.2009. “Panel Data Models with Interactive Fixed Effects.” Econometrica77 (4): 1229–79.
5.
BaldezL.2007. “Primaries vs. Quotas: Gender and Candidate Nominations in Mexico, 2003.” Latin American Politics and Society49 (3): 69–96.
6.
BjarnegårdE.ZetterbergP.2016. “Political Parties and Gender Quota Implementation: The Role of Bureaucratized Candidate Selection Procedures.” Comparative Politics48 (3): 393–417.
7.
BoelaertJ.MichonS.OllionÉ.2018. “Le temps des élites—Ouverture politique et fermeture sociale à l’Assemblée Nationale en 2017” [“The Age of the Elites – Political Openness and Social Closure in the National Assembly in 2017”]. Revue Francaise de Science PolitiqueVol 68 (5): 777–802.
8.
BruhnK.2003. “Whores and Lesbians: Political Activism, Party Strategies, and Gender Quotas in Mexico.” Electoral Studies22 (1): 101–19.
9.
CaulM.1999. “Women’s Representation in Parliament: The Role of Political Parties.” Party Politics5 (1): 79–98.
10.
ChristensenS.BardallG.2016. “Gender Quotas in Single-Member District Electoral Systems.” Politics, Groups, and Identities4 (2): 246–67.
11.
de LucaM.JonesM. P.TulaM. I.2002. “Back Rooms or Ballot Boxes? Candidate Nomination in Argentina.” Comparative Political Studies35 (4): 413–36.
12.
DurovicA.2019. “The French Elections of 2017: Shaking the Disease?” West European Politics42 (7): 1487–1503.
13.
EvansJ.IvaldiG.2017. “An Atypical ’Honeymoon’ Election? Contextual and Strategic Opportunities in the 2017 French Legislative Elections.” French Politics15 (3): 322–39.
14.
GoodinR. E.1996. “Institutions and their Design. In The Theory of Institutional Design, edited by GoodinR. E., pp. 1–53. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
GougouF.PersicoS.2017. “A New Party System in the Making? The 2017 French Presidential Election.” French Politics15 (3): 303–21.
16.
HallP. A.TaylorR. C.1996. “Political Science and Three New Institutionalisms.” Political Studies44 (5): 495–510.
JonesM. P.2009. “Gender Quotas, Electoral Laws, and the Election of Women: Evidence from the Latin American Vanguard.” Comparative Political Studies42 (1): 56–81.
20.
KeithD. J.VergeT.2018. “Nonmainstream Left Parties and Women’s Representation in Western Europe.” Party Politics24 (4): 397–409.
21.
KrookM. L.2010. “Beyond Supply and Demand: A Feminist-Institutionalist Theory of Candidate Selection.” Political Research Quarterly63 (4): 707–20.
22.
KrookM. L.2018. “Electoral Systems and Women’s Representation.” In The Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, edited by HerronE. S.PekkanenR. J.ShugartM. S., 175–192. Oxford University Press.
LowndesV.RobertsM.2013. Why Institutions Matter: The New Institutionalism in Political Science. London: Palgrave MacMillan.
25.
MackayF.2014. “Nested Newness, Institutional Innovation, and the Gendered Limits of Change.” Politics & Gender10 (4): 549–71.
26.
MackayF.KennyM.ChappellL.2011. “New Institutionalism through a Gender Lens: Towards a Feminist Institutionalism?”International Political Science Review31 (5): 573–88.
27.
Magni-BertonR.RobertM.-V. . 2017. “Maximizing Presidential Coattails: The Impact of the Electoral Calendar on the Composition of the National Assembly.” French Politics15 (4): 488–504.
28.
MarchJ. G.OlsenJ. P.1989. Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. The Free Press.
29.
MatlandR. E.1993. “Institutional Variables Affecting Female Representation in National Legislatures: The Case of Norway.” The Journal of Politics55 (3): 737–55.
30.
MurrayR.2008. “The Power of Sex and Incumbency: A Longitudinal Study of Electoral Performance in France.” Party Politics14 (5): 539–54.
31.
NavarroJ.2016. “Le cumul des mandats en europe: L’exception francaise al’épreuve de la Comparaison’” [“Multiple tenure in Europe: The French exception to the Comparison test”. Le Renforcement de la Limitation du Cumul Des Mandats et des Fonctions [The Strengthening of the Limitation on Cumulation of Mandates and Offices], 105–120. Arras, France: Artois Presses Université.
32.
NorthD. C.1990. Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
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 Research49 (1): 25–52.
SchellingT. C.1978. Micromotives and Macrobehavior. New York: W.W. Norton.
37.
SchmidtG. D.SaundersK. L.2004. “Effective Quotas, Relative Party Magnitude, and the Success of Female Candidates: Peruvian Municipal Elections in Comparative Perspective.” Comparative Political Studies37 (6): 704–34.
38.
Schwindt-BayerL. A.2009. “Making Quotas Work: The Effect of Gender Quota Laws on the Election of Women.” Legislative Studies Quarterly34 (1): 5–28.
39.
ShugartM. S.1995. “The electoral cycle and institutional sources of divided presidential government.” American Political Science Review89 (2): 327–43.
40.
VergeT.TroupelA.2011. “Unequals among Equals: Party Strategic Discrimination and Quota Laws.” French Politics9 (3): 260–81.
41.
XuY.2017. “Generalized Synthetic Control Method: Causal Inference with Interactive Fixed Effects Models.” Political Analysis25 (1): 57–76.
42.
ZappiS.2011. Législatives: La “diversité” progresse peu au PS [Legislative: “Diversity” progresses little in the PS]. Le Monde.fr. 26.
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.
