Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T09:31:36.222Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Quotas, Citizens, and Norms of Representation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 August 2013

Rainbow Murray
Rainbow Murray*
Affiliation:
Queen Mary, University of London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Gender quotas transform comparative politics by reimagining the relationship between citizens and representatives. Gender quotas invite citizens to revisit their expectations of what it means to be represented and what makes a “good” politician. As quotas introduce new norms and emphasize different qualities to be valued in a representative, they provide an opportunity to reappraise the attributes and qualifications of all politicians, including men. Although some quota advocates have been keen to ensure that quota claims focus only on increasing women's presence in politics, the wider debates surrounding quotas have ensured that they go beyond the simple feminization of politics. Arguments in favor of quotas based on gender differences also lead to expectations that quotas will effect wider change and renewal. Quotas thus afford scholars of comparative politics an opportunity to test whether the current actors and rules of the game of politics are necessarily the best and only way of doing things.

Type
Critical Perspectives on Gender and Politics
Information
Politics & Gender , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , September 2013 , pp. 304 - 309
Copyright
Copyright © The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2013 

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.)

References

Alexander, Deborah, and Andersen, Kristi. 1993. “Gender as a Factor in the Attribution of Leadership Traits.” Political Research Quarterly 46 (3): 527–45.Google Scholar
Bratton, Kathleen A. 2002. “The Effect of Legislative Diversity on Agenda-Setting.” American Politics Research 30 (2): 115–42.Google Scholar
Carroll, Susan J. 2008. “Committee Assignments: Discrimination or Choice?” In Legislating Women, ed. Reingold, Beth. Boulder: Lynne Rienner, 135–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Childs, Sarah. 2004. New Labour's Women MPs. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar
Crawford, Mary, and Pini, Barbara. 2011. “The Australian Parliament: A Gendered Organisation.” Parliamentary Affairs 64 (1): 82–105.Google Scholar
Dahlerup, Drude. 2007. “Electoral Gender Quotas.” Representation 43 (2): 73–92.Google Scholar
Dahlerup, Drude, and Freidenvall, Lenita. 2010. “Judging Gender Quotas: Predictions and Results.” Policy and Politics 38 (3): 407–25.Google Scholar
Duerst-Lahti, Georgia. 2002. “Knowing Congress as a Gendered Institution: Manliness and the Implications of Women in Congress.” In Women Transforming Congress, ed. Rosenthal, Cindy Simon. Norman: The University of Oklahoma Press, 20–49.Google Scholar
Fox, Richard, and Lawless, Jennifer. 2004. “Entering the Arena? Gender and the Decision to Run for Office.” American Journal of Political Science 48 (2): 264–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franceschet, Susan, and Piscopo, Jennifer M.. 2008. “Gender Quotas and Women's Substantive Representation: Lessons from Argentina.” Politics & Gender 4 (3): 393–426.Google Scholar
Hazan, Reuven Y., and Rahat, Gideon. 2010. Democracy within Parties. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Huddy, Leonie, and Terkildsen., Nayda 1993. “Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male and Female Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 37 (1): 119–47.Google Scholar
Lovenduski, Joni, and Norris, Pippa, eds. 1993. Gender and Party Politics. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Markham, Susan. 2012. “Strengthening Women's Roles in Parliaments.” Parliamentary Affairs 65 (3): 688–98.Google Scholar
Murray, Rainbow. 2011. “Has ‘Parity’ Encouraged the Advocacy of Women's Rights in Parliament?” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Seattle, September 2011.Google Scholar
Murray, Rainbow, and Sénac, Réjane. 2012a. “How Sex and Party Interact.” Presented at the European Consortium of Political Research Joint Sessions, Antwerp, April 2012.Google Scholar
Murray, Rainbow, and Sénac, Réjane. 2012b. “Gender Composition of Parliamentary Committees in France.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Political Studies Association, Belfast, April 2012.Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa, ed. 1997. Passages to Power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa, and Lovenduski, Joni. 1995. Political Recruitment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa, Lovenduski, Joni, and Campbell, Rosie. 2004. Gender and Political Participation. Research report for the Electoral Commission.Google Scholar
Putnam, Robert. 1995. “Bowling Alone.” Journal of Democracy 6 (1): 65–78.Google Scholar
Puwar, Nirmal. 2004. Space Invaders. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
Rai, Shirin. 2010. “Analysing Ceremony and Ritual in Parliament.” Journal of Legislative Studies 6 (3): 284–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawer, Marion, Tremblay, Manon, and Trimble, Linda, eds. 2006. Representing Women in Parliament. Oxon: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sénac, Réjane. 2007. L'Ordre Sexué. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.Google Scholar
Trimble, Linda. 2006. “When do Women Count? Substantive Representation of Women in Canadian Legislatures.” In Representing Women in Parliament, ed. Sawer, Marion, Tremblay, Manon, and Trimble, Linda. Oxon: Routledge.Google Scholar