Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T19:39:13.216Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Supply and Demand Model of Candidate Selection: Some Reflections

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 April 2016

Joni Lovenduski
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This contribution takes a look back at the supply and demand model of selection and recruitment, developed by Joni Lovenduski and Pippa Norris in Political Recruitment: Gender, Race and Class in the British Parliament (1995). The core understanding of this model was that candidate selection was an interactive process in which both selectors and aspirants affected outcomes that were organized in several sets of institutions. The model illuminates power in particular institutions – British political parties – and was designed to examine the various effects of the selection process. This contribution reflects on the model and puts forward ideas and arguments about what might be done differently, taking into account the theoretical and methodological innovations of the succeeding generation of scholars who have used the model. It also identifies remaining challenges for research on candidate selection and suggests that the supply and demand model is sufficiently flexible that it can still travel across national, system and party boundaries.

Keywords

supply and demandcandidate selectiongenderBritish politicspolitical partiesfeminist institutionalism
Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 51 , Issue 3: Candidate Selection: Parties and Legislatures in a New Era , July 2016 , pp. 513 - 528
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s). Published by Government and Opposition Limited and Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Joni Lovenduski is Anniversary Professor of Politics at Birkbeck College, University of London. Contact email: [email protected].

References

REFERENCES

Ashe, J. (2014), ‘Westminster Guarded’, PhD thesis, Birkbeck, University of London.Google Scholar
Bjarnegård, E. and Kenny, M. (2016), ‘Comparing Candidate Selection: A Feminist Institutionalist Approach’, Government and Opposition, 51(3): 370–392.Google Scholar
Bjarnegård, E.Kenny, M. and Zetterberg, P. (2016), ‘Gender Equality Reforms on an Uneven Playing Field: Candidate Selection and Quota Implementation in Electoral Authoritarian Tanzania’, Government and Opposition, 51(3): 464–486.Google Scholar
Dahlerup, D. (1988), ‘From a Small to a Large Minority: Women in Scandinavian Politics’, Scandinavian Political Studies, 11(4): 275–298.Google Scholar
Dahlerup, D. (2006), ‘The Story of the Theory of Critical Mass’, Politics and Gender, 2(4): 511–522.Google Scholar
FIIN (2015), ‘Feminism and Institutionalism International Network’, www.femfiin.com.Google Scholar
Gallagher, M. and Marsh, M. (1988) (eds), Candidate Selection in Comparative Perspective: The Secret Garden of Politics (London: Sage).Google Scholar
Hills, J. (1981), ‘Candidates: The Impact of Gender’, Parliamentary Affairs, 34(2): 221–228.Google Scholar
Jensenius, F.R. (2016), ‘Competing Inequalities? On the Intersection of Gender and Ethnicity in Candidate Nominations in Indian Elections’, Government and Opposition, 51(3): 440–463.Google Scholar
Johnson, N. (2016), ‘Keeping Men In, Shutting Women Out: Gender Biases in Candidate Selection Processes in Uruguay’, Government and Opposition, 51(3): 393–415.Google Scholar
Kenny, M. (2013), Gender and Political Recruitment: Theorizing Institutional Change (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).Google Scholar
Kenny, M. and Verge, T. (2016), ‘Opening Up the Black Box: Gender and Candidate Selection in a New Era’, Government and Opposition, 51(3): 351–369.Google Scholar
Krook, M.L. and Mackay, F. (2011) (eds), Gender, Politics and Institutions: Towards a Feminist Institutionalism (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).Google Scholar
Lovenduski, J. (1993), ‘Introduction: The Dynamics of Gender and Party’, in J. Lovenduski and P. Norris (eds), Gender and Party Politics (London: Sage): 1–15.Google Scholar
Lovenduski, J. and Norris, P. (1989), ‘Selecting Women Candidates: Obstacles to the Feminisation of the House of Commons’, European Journal of Political Research, 17(5): 533–562.Google Scholar
Lovenduski, J. and Norris, P. (1993) (eds), Gender and Party Politics (London: Sage).Google Scholar
March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1984), ‘The New Institutionalism: Organizational Factors in Political Life’, American Political Science Review, 78(3): 734–749.Google Scholar
Mackay, F. and Waylen, G. (2009) (eds), ‘Critical Perspectives on Feminist Institutionalism’, Politics and Gender, 5(2): 237–280.Google Scholar
Norris, P. and Lovenduski, J. (1995), Political Recruitment: Gender, Race and Class in the British Parliament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Patterson, P. (1966), The Selectorate (London: Macmillan).Google Scholar
Piscopo, J.M. (2016), ‘When Informality Advantages Women: Quota Networks, Electoral Rules and Candidate Selection in Mexico’, Government and Opposition, 51(3): 487–512.Google Scholar
Randall, V. (1987), Women and Politics (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan).Google Scholar
Ranney, A. (1965), Pathways to Parliament: Candidate Selection in Britain (London: Macmillan).Google Scholar
Rush, M. (1969), The Selection of Parliamentary Candidates (London: Nelson).Google Scholar
Skocpol, T., Evans, P. and Rueschemeyer, D. (1985), Bringing the State Back In (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).Google Scholar
Steinmo, S. (2008), ‘Historical Institutionalism’, in D. Della Porta and M. Keating (eds), Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press): 118–138.Google Scholar
Verge, T. and Espírito-Santo, A. (2016), ‘Interactions between Party and Legislative Quotas: Candidate Selection and Quota Compliance in Portugal and Spain’, Government and Opposition, 51(3): 416–439.Google Scholar