Political parties sometimes set up formal criteria to define the pool of potential candidates. This article represents the first large-scale comparative analysis of potential unintended gendered consequences of these formal selection criteria for parliamentary representation. Using unique data on 101 political parties in 32 African, Asian, and postcommunist European countries, we find that there is indeed a relationship between formal selection criteria and men’s and women’s political representation. Criteria that concern ethnic or geographic background and intraparty experiences are harmful to women. On the other hand, gendered consequences are not as pronounced as a result of criteria concerning qualifications or requirements in relation to electability. Taken together, the analysis points to the need to pay increased attention to formal selection criteria and how this under-researched aspect of candidate selection shapes the parliamentary representation of underrepresented groups.
ArriolaLRJohnsonMC (2014) Ethnic politics and women’s empowerment in Africa: ministerial appointments to executive cabinets. American Journal of Political Science58(2): 495–510.
2.
BeckTClarkeGGroffAKeeferPWalshP (2001) New Tools in Comparative Political Economy: The Database of Political Institutions. World Bank Economic Review, 15(1): 165–176.
3.
BeerCCCampRA (2016) Democracy, gender quotas, and political recruitment in Mexico. Politics, Groups, and Identities4(2): 179–195.
4.
BjarnegårdE (2013) Gender, Informal Institutions and Political Recruitment: Explaining Male Dominance in Parliamentary Representation. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
5.
BjarnegårdEKennyM (2015) Revealing the ‘secret garden’: the informal dimensions of political recruitment. Politics and Gender11(4): 748–753.
6.
BjarnegårdEKennyM (2016) Comparing gender, institutions and candidate selection in Thailand and Scotland. Government and Opposition51(3): 370–392.
7.
BjarnegårdEMelanderE (2011) Disentangling gender, peace and democratization: the negative effects of militarized masculinity. Journal of Gender Studies20(2): 139–154.
8.
BjarnegårdEZetterbergP (2016) Political parties and gender quota implementation. The role of bureaucratized candidate selection procedures. Comparative Politics48(3): 393–417.
9.
BroockmanDE (2014) Mobilizing candidates: political actors strategically shape the candidate pool with personal appeals. Journal of Experimental Political Science1(2): 104–119.
10.
BruhnK. (2003) Whores and lesbians: political activism, party strategies, and gender quotas in Mexico. Electoral Studies22(1): 101–119.
11.
Caul KittilsonM (2006) Challenging Parties, Changing Parliaments: Women and Elected Office in Contemporary Western Europe. Columbus: The Ohio State University Press.
12.
CelisKErzeelSMüggeL. (2014) Quotas and intersectionality: ethnicity and gender in candidate selection. International Political Science Review35(1): 41–54.
13.
ChengCTavitsM (2011) Informal influences in selecting female political candidates. Political Research Quarterly64(2): 460–471.
14.
CzudnowskiMM (1976) Political recruitment. In: GreensteinFIPolsbyNW (eds), Handbook of Political Science: Micropolitical Theory. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley, pp. 155–242.
15.
DancygierRM (2017) Dilemmas of Inclusion: Muslims in European Politics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
16.
Davidson-SchmichLK (2006) Implementation of political party gender quotas: evidence from the German Länder 1990–2000. Party Politics12(2): 211–232.
17.
EsareyJChirilloG (2013) “Fairer sex” or purity myth? Corruption, gender, and institutional context. Politics & Gender9(4): 361–389.
18.
Escobar-LemmonMTaylor-RobinsonMM (2008) How do candidate recruitment and selection processes affect representation of women? In: SiavelisPMorgensternS (eds), Pathways to Power: Political Recruitment and Candidate Selection in Latin AmericaUniversity Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, pp. 345–368.
19.
FallonKMSwissLViternaJ (2012) Resolving the democracy paradox: democratization and women’s legislative representation in developing nations, 1975 to 2009. American Sociological Review77(3): 380–408.
20.
FranceschetSPiscopoJM (2014) Sustaining gendered practices? Power, parties, and elite political networks in Argentina. Comparative Political Studies47(1): 85–110.
21.
GainsFLowndesV (2014) How is institutional formation gendered, and does it make a difference? A new conceptual framework and a case study of police and crime commissioners in England and Wales. Politics & Gender10(4): 524–548.
22.
GallagherMMarshM (1988) Candidate Selection in Comparative Perspective. The Secret Garden of Politics. London, UK: Sage.
23.
GaujaACrossW (2015) The influence of party candidate selection on candidate diversity. Representation51(3): 287–298.
24.
GuadagniniM (1993) A “partiocrazia” without women: the case of the Italian party system. In: LovenduskiJNorrisP (eds), Gender and Party Politics, London, UK: Sage, pp. 168–204.
25.
HazanRYRahatG (2010) Democracy Within Parties. Candidate Selection Methods and Their Political Consequences. New York: Oxford University Press.
26.
HinojosaM (2012) Selecting Women, Electing Women: Political Representation and Candidate Selection in Latin America. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
27.
HolmstenSSMoserRGSlosarMC (2010) Do ethnic parties exclude women?Comparative Political Studies43(10): 1179–1201.
28.
JonesMP (2009) Gender quotas, electoral laws, and the election of women: evidence from the Latin American Vanguard. Comparative Political Studies42(1): 56–81.
29.
KennyM (2013) Gender and Political Recruitment. Theorizing Institutional Change. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
30.
KennyMVergeT (2016) Opening up the black box: gender and candidate selection in a new era. Government and Opposition51(3): 351–369.
31.
KrookML (2010) Beyond supply and demand: a feminist-institutionalist theory of candidate selection. Political Research Quarterly63(4): 707–720.
32.
LawlessJLFoxRL (2010) It Still Takes A Candidate. Why Women Don’t Run for Office. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
33.
LilliefeldtE (2011) European Party Politics and Gender. Configuring Gender-balanced Parliamentary Presence. Department of Political Science. Stockholm, Sweden: Stockholm University.
34.
LovenduskiJNorrisP (1993) Gender and Party Politics. London, UK: Sage.
35.
MarshallMGJaggersKGurrTR (2011) Polity IV Project: Dataset Users’ Manual. Arlington: Polity IV Project.
36.
McElroyGMarshM (2010) Candidate gender and voter choice: analysis from a multimember preferential voting system. Political Research Quarterly63(4): 822–833.
37.
MurrayR (2010a) Parties, Gender Quotas and Candidate Selection in France. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
38.
MurrayR (2010b) Second among unequals? A study of whether France’s “quota women” are up to the job. Politics & Gender6(1): 93–118.
39.
MurrayR (2014) Quotas for men: reframing gender quotas as a means of improving representation for all. American Political Science Review108(3): 520–532.
40.
NorrisP (1996) Legislative recruitment. In: LeDucLNiemiRGNorrisP (eds), Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 184–215.
41.
NorrisPLovenduskiJ (1993) ‘If only more candidates came forward’: supply-side explanations of candidate selection in Britain. British Journal of Political Science23(3): 373–408.
42.
NorrisPLovenduskiJ (1995) Political Recruitment. Gender, Race and Class in British Parliament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
43.
NorrisPVallanceELovenduskiJ (1992) Do candidates make a difference? Gender, race, ideology, and incumbency. Parliamentary Affairs45(4): 496–517.
44.
O’BrienDZ (2012) Quotas and qualifications in Uganda. In: FranceschetSKrookMLPiscopoJM (eds), The Impact of Quotas, New York: Oxford University Press, pp. 57–71.
45.
OECD (2016) Education at a Glance 2016: OECD Indicators. Paris, France: OECD Publishing.
46.
PaxtonPHughesMMPainterMA (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.
47.
PuwarN (2004) Space Invaders: Race, Gender and Bodies Out of Place. Oxford: Berg.
RahatGHazanRY (2001) Candidate selection methods: an analytical framework. Party Politics7(3): 297–322.
50.
RuleW (1987) Electoral systems, contextual factors and women’s opportunity for election to parliament in 23 democracies. Western Political Quarterly40(3): 477–498.
51.
SiavelisPMorgensternS (2008) Pathways to Power. Political Recruitment and Candidate Selection in Latin America. University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press.
52.
StudlarDTMcAllisterI (2002) Does a critical mass exist? A comparative analysis of women’s legislative representation since 1950. European Journal of Political Research41(2): 233–253.
53.
TeorellJCharronNDahlbergSHolmbergSRothsteinBSundinPSvenssonR (2013) The Quality of Government Dataset, version 20Dec13. University of Gothenburg: The Quality of Government Institute, http://www.qog.pol.gu.se.
TremblayM (2007) Democracy, representation, and women. Democratization14(4): 533–553.
56.
UNDP (2013) Human Development Report 2013. The Rise of the South: Human Progress in a Diverse World.
57.
WelchSStudlarDT (1996) The opportunity structure for women’s candidacies and electability in Britain and the United States. Political Research Quarterly49(4): 861–874.
58.
VergeTClaveriaS (2016) Gendered political resources: the case of party office. Party Politics. Published online DOI: 10.1177/1354068816663040.
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.
