Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T17:21:18.733Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Making Institutions and Context Count: How Useful Is Feminist Institutionalism in Explaining Male Dominance in Politics?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 June 2018

Melinda Adams  and
Michal Smrek
Melinda Adams
Affiliation:
James Madison University
Michal Smrek
Affiliation:
Uppsala University, Sweden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

While the same formal candidate selection rules are generally in place throughout a state, there is often intracountry variation in male descriptive overrepresentation. To explain this variation, scholars cannot focus exclusively on women (e.g., how do women respond to formal institutional opportunities?) or femininity (e.g., how do norms governing appropriate female behavior affect women's odds of being selected as a candidate?). Rather, scholars must attend to the ways that informal norms regarding masculinity operate across space and time within a country. Drawing on the insights of feminist institutionalism, this essay examines two intracountry sources of variation in candidate selection: the spatial urban-rural divide and temporal differences between first-time recruitment and renomination. While the formal candidate selection rules are uniform, informal institutions vary depending on where and when we look, leading to different levels of male overrepresentation.

Type
Critical Perspectives on Gender and Politics
Information
Politics & Gender , Volume 14 , Issue 2 , June 2018 , pp. 271 - 276
Copyright
Copyright © The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2018 

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

André, Audrey, Depauw, Sam, Shugart, Matthew S., and Chytilek, Roman. 2017. “Party Nomination Strategies in Flexible-List Systems: Do Preference Votes Matter?” Party Politics 23 (5): 589–600.Google Scholar
Bjarnegård, Elin. 2013. Gender, Informal Institutions and Political Recruitment: Explaining Male Dominance in Parliamentary Representation. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Bjarnegård, Elin, and Kenny, Meryl. 2015. “Revealing the ‘Secret Garden’: The Informal Dimensions of Political Recruitment.” Politics & Gender 11 (4): 748–53.Google Scholar
Crisp, Brian F., Olivella, Santiago, Malecki, Michael, and Sher, Mindy. 2013. “Vote-Earning Strategies in Flexible List Systems: Seats at the Price of Unity.” Electoral Studies 32 (4): 658–69.Google Scholar
Lindberg, Staffan I. 2010. “What Accountability Pressures Do MPs in Africa Face and How Do They Respond? Evidence from Ghana.” Journal of Modern African Studies 48 (1): 117–42.Google Scholar
Mackay, Fiona. 2014. “Nested Newness, Institutional Innovation, and the Gendered Limits of Change.” Politics & Gender 10 (4): 549–71.Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa, and Lovenduski, Joni. 1995. Political Recruitment: Gender, Race and Class in the British Parliament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Paller, Jeffrey W. 2014. “Informal Institutions and Personal Rule in Urban Ghana.” African Studies Review 57 (3): 123–42.Google Scholar
Shair-Rosenfield, Sarah, and Hinojosa, Magda. 2014. “Does Female Incumbency Reduce Gender Bias in Elections? Evidence from Chile.” Political Research Quarterly 67 (4): 837–50.Google Scholar
Siavelis, Peter M., and Morgenstern, Scott. 2008. Pathways to Power: Political Recruitment and Candidate Selection in Latin America. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar