Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T10:16:32.536Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Gender Quotas and Women's Substantive Representation: Lessons from Argentina

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2008

Susan Franceschet  and
Jennifer M. Piscopo
Susan Franceschet
Affiliation:
University of Calgary
Jennifer M. Piscopo
Affiliation:
University of California at San Diego
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article integrates the comparative literature on gender quotas with the existing body of research on women's substantive representation. Quota laws, which bring greater numbers of women into parliaments, are frequently assumed to improve women's substantive representation. We use the Argentine case, where a law mandating a 30% gender quota was adopted in 1991, to show that quotas can affect substantive representation in contradictory and unintended ways. To do so, we disaggregate women's substantive representation into two distinct concepts: substantive representation as process, where women change the legislative agenda, and substantive representation as outcome, where female legislators succeed in passing women's rights laws in the Argentine Congress. We argue that quota laws complicate both aspects of substantive representation. Quotas generate mandates for female legislators to represent women's interests, while also reinforcing negative stereotypes about women's capacities as politicians. Our case combines data from bill introduction and legislative success from 1989 to 2007 with data from 54 interviews conducted in 2005 and 2006. We use this evidence to demonstrate that representation depends on the institutional environment, which is itself shaped by quotas. Institutions and norms simultaneously facilitate and obstruct women's substantive representation.

Type
Research Article
Information
Politics & Gender , Volume 4 , Issue 3 , September 2008 , pp. 393 - 425
Copyright
Copyright © The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2008

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

REFERENCES

Archenti, Nélida, and Johnson, Niki. 2006. “Engendering the Legislative Agenda With and Without the Quota.” Sociología, Problemas e Práticas 52: 133–53.Google Scholar
Baldez, Lisa. 2004. “Elected Bodies: The Gender Quota Law for Legislative Candidates in Mexico.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 29 (2): 231–58.Google Scholar
Baldez, Lisa. 2006. “The Pros and Cons of Gender Quotas: What Happens When You Kick Men Out and Let Women In?” Politics & Gender 2 (March): 102–9.Google Scholar
Barón, Maria, et al. 2007. “Legislative Analysis: Argentina's National Congress: 1998–2007.” Buenos Aires: Directorio Legislativo. http://www.directoriolegislativo.org (August 2007).Google Scholar
Beckwith, Karen. 2007. “Numbers and Newness: The Descriptive and Substantive Representation of Women.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 40 (1): 27–49.Google Scholar
Bratton, Kathleen A. 2005. “Critical Mass Theory Revisited: The Behavior and Success of Token Women in State Legislatures.” Politics and Gender 1 (March): 97–125.Google Scholar
Bratton, Kathleen A., and Ray, Leonard P.. 2002. “Descriptive Representation, Policy Outcomes, and Municipal Day Care Coverage in Norway.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (2): 428–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, Susan J. 2001. “Representing Women: Women State Legislators as Agents of Policy-Related Change.” In The Impact of Women in Public Office, ed. Carroll, Susan J.. Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 3–21.Google Scholar
Caul Kittilson, Miki. 2005. “In Support of Quotas: Setting New Standards, Bringing Visible Gains.” Politics & Gender 1 (December): 638–45.Google Scholar
Chama, Mónica. 2001. Las Mujeres y el Poder. Buenos Aires: Ciudad Argentina.Google Scholar
Childs, Sarah. 2004. New Labour's Women MPs: Women Representing Women. London and New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Childs, Sarah. 2006. “The Complicated Relationship between Sex, Gender and the Substantive Representation of Women.” European Journal of Women's Studies 13 (1): 7–21.Google Scholar
Childs, Sarah, and Krook, Mona Lena. 2006. “Should Feminists Give Up on Critical Mass? A Contingent Yes.” Politics & Gender 2 (December): 522–30.Google Scholar
Chowdhury, Najma. 2002. “The Implementation of Quotas: Bangladesh Experience—Dependence and Marginality in Politics.” Paper presented at the Regional Workshop, “Implementation of Quotas: Asian Experiences,” Jakarta, Indonesia.Google Scholar
Coppedge, Michael. 1998. “The Dynamic Diversity of Latin American Party Systems.” Party Politics 4 (4): 547–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlerup, Drude. 2006a. Women, Quotas, and Politics. New York and London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Dahlerup, Drude. 2006b. “The Story of the Theory of Critical Mass.” Politics & Gender 2 (December): 511–22.Google Scholar
Dahlerup, Drude, and Freidenvall, Lenita. 2005. “Quotas as a ‘Fast Track’ to Equal Representation for Women: Why Scandinavia Is No Longer the Model.” International Feminist Journal of Politics 7 (1): 26–48.Google Scholar
Dodson, Debra L. 2006. The Impact of Women in Congress. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duerst-Lahti, Georgia. 2005. “Institutional Gendering: Theoretical Insights into the Environment of Women Officeholders.” In Women and Elective Office: Past, Present, and Future, ed. Thomas, Sue and Wilcox, Clyde. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 230–43.Google Scholar
Grey, Sandra. 2006. “The ‘New World’? The Substantive Representation of Women in New Zealand.” In Representing Women in Parliament: A Comparative Study, ed. Sawer, Marian, Tremblay, Manon, and Trimble, Linda. London and New York: Routledge, 134–51.Google Scholar
Htun, Mala. 2004. “Is Gender Like Ethnicity? The Political Representation of Identity Groups.” Perspectives on Politics 2 (3): 439–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Htun, Mala. Forthcoming. Sex, Race, and Representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Htun, Mala, and Timothy, J. Power. 2006. “Gender, Parties, and Support for Equal Rights in the Brazilian Congress.” Latin American Politics and Society 48 (4): 83–104.Google Scholar
Jones, Mark P. 1997. “Legislator Gender and Legislator Policy Priorities in the Argentine Chamber of Deputies and the United States House of Representatives.” Policy Studies Journal 25 (4): 613–29.Google Scholar
Jones, Mark P. 2002. “Explaining the High Level of Party Discipline in the Argentine Congress.” In Legislative Politics in Latin America, ed. Morgenstern, Scott and Nacife, Benito. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 147–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Mark P. 2004. “The Recruitment and Selection of Legislative Candidates in Argentina.” Paper presented at “Pathways to Power: Political Recruitment and Democracy in Latin America,”Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem, NC.Google Scholar
Kathlene, Lyn. 1994. “Power and Influence in State Legislative Policymaking: The Interaction of Gender and Position in Committee Hearing Debates.” American Political Science Review 88 (3): 560–76.Google Scholar
Krook, Mona Lena. 2005. Politicizing Representation: Campaigns for Gender Quotas Worldwide. Ph.D. diss. Colombia University.Google Scholar
Krook, Mona Lena. 2007. “Candidate Gender Quotas: a Framework for Analysis.” European Journal of Political Research 46 (3): 367–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lubertino, María José. 2003. “Pioneering Quotas: The Argentine Experience and Beyond.” Paper presented at the Regional Workshop, “The Implementation of Quotas: The Latin American Experiences,” Lima, Peru.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 1999. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes.’ ” Journal of Politics 61 (3): 628–57.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2005. “Quota Problems: Combating the Dangers of Essentialism.” Politics & Gender 1 (December): 622–38.Google Scholar
Marx, Jutta, Borner, Jutta, and Caminotti, Mariana. 2007. Las Legisladoras: Cupos de Género y Política en Argentina y Brasil. Buenos Aires: Siglo XXI.Google Scholar
Nanivadekar, Medha. 2006. “Are Quotas a Good Idea? The Indian Experience with Reserved Seats for Women.” Politics & Gender 2 (March): 119–28.Google Scholar
Perceval, Maria Cristina. 2001. Avis Rarae: Impacto de la Ley de Cupo en la Argentina (1991–1998). Buenos Aires: PROLEAD-BID.Google Scholar
Phillips, Anne. 1995. The Politics of Presence. Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Piscopo, Jennifer M. 2006. “Engineering Quotas in Latin America.” CILAS Working Paper Series, #23. San Diego: Center for Iberian and Latin American Studies, University of California.Google Scholar
Pitkin, Hanna. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poggione, Sarah. 2004. “Exploring Gender Differences in State Legislators’ Policy Preferences.” Political Research Quarterly 57 (2): 305–14.Google Scholar
Reingold, Beth. 2000. Representing Women: Sex, Gender, and Legislative Behavior in Arizona and California. Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Rodríguez, Victoria E. 2003. Women in Contemporary Mexican Politics. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Sapiro, Virginia. 1981. “When Are Interests Interesting? The Problem of Political Representation of Women.” American Political Science Review 75 (3): 701–16.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Gregory D. 2003. “The Implementation of Gender Quotas in Peru: Legal Reform, Discourses, and Impacts.” Paper presented at the Regional Workshop, “Implementation of Quotas: Latin American Experiences,” Lima, Peru.Google Scholar
Schwindt-Bayer, Leslie A. 2006. “Still Supermadres? Gender and Policy Priorities of Latin American Legislators.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (3): 570–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swers, Michelle. 2005. “Connecting Descriptive and Substantive Representation: An Analysis of Sex Differences in Cosponsorship Activity.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 30 (3): 407–33.Google Scholar
Tamerius, Karin L. 1995. “Sex, Gender, and Leadership in the Representation of Women.” In Gender, Power, Leadership, and Governance, ed. Duerst-Lahti, Georgia and Kelly, Rita Mae. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 93–112.Google Scholar
Taylor-Robinson, Michelle, and Heath, Roseanna Michelle. 2003. “Do Women Legislators Have Different Policy Priorities Than Their Male Colleagues? A Critical Test.” Women & Politics 24 (4): 77–101.Google Scholar
Thomas, Sue. 1994. How Women Legislate. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Towns, Ann. 2003 “Women Governing for Modernity: International Hierarchy and Legislature Sex Quotas.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
Tremblay, Manon, and Pelletier, Rejean. 2000. “More Feminists or More Women? Descriptive and Substantive Representation of Women in the 1997 Canadian Federal Election.” International Political Science Review 21 (4): 381–405.Google Scholar
Trimble, Linda. 2006. “When Do Women Count? Substantive Representation of Women in the Canadian Legislature.” In Representing Women in Parliament: A Comparative Study, ed. Sawer, Marian, Tremblay, Manon, and Trimble, Linda. London and New York: Routledge, 120–33.Google Scholar
Tripp, Aili Mari. 2003. “The Changing Face of Africa's Legislatures: Women and Quotas.” Paper presented at the Regional Workshop, “Implementation of Quotas: African Experiences,” Pretoria, South Africa.Google Scholar
Tripp, Aili Mari. 2006. “Uganda: Agents of Change for Women's Advancement?” In Women in African Parliaments, ed. Bauer, Gretchen and Britton, Hannah E.. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 111–32.Google Scholar
Vega, Arturo, and Firestone, Juanita M.. 1995. “The Effects of Gender on Congressional Behavior and the Substantive Representation of Women.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 20 (2): 213–22.Google Scholar
Vincent, Louise. 2004. “Changing the Way Things Look without Changing the Way Things Are.” Journal of Legislative Studies 10 (1): 71–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wängnerud, Lena. 2005. “Testing the Politics of Presence Empirically: The Case of Women's Representation in the Swedish Riksdag.” Paper presented at the Third European Consortium for Political Research Conference Budapest, Hungary.Google Scholar
Waylen, Georgina. 2000. “Gender and Democratic Politics: A Comparative Analysis of Consolidation in Argentina and Chile.” Journal of Latin American Studies 32 (3): 765–93.Google Scholar
Weldon, S. Laurel. 2002. “Beyond Bodies: Institutional Sources of Representation for Women in Democratic Policymaking.” Journal of Politics 64 (4): 1153–74.Google Scholar
Whip, Rosemary. 1991. “Representing Women: Australian Female Parliamentarians on the Horns of a Dilemma.” Women & Politics 11 (3): 1–22.Google Scholar
Wolbrecht, Christina. 2002. “Female Legislators and the Women's Rights Agenda: From Feminine Mystique to Feminist Era.” In Women Transforming Congress, ed. Rosenthal, Cindy Simon. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 170–97.Google Scholar
Ybarra, Gustvo. 2005. “Todo quedará en familia en el futuro Senado” [All stays within the family in the future Senate.] La Nación, 28 August 1985.Google Scholar
Young, Iris Marion. 2000. Democracy and Inclusion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Zetterberg, Pär. 2008. “The Downside of Gender Quotas? Institutional Constraints on Women in Mexican State Legislatures.” Parliamentary Affairs 61 (3): 442–460.Google Scholar