1. law, govt and politics
2. politics

Comparing Gender, Institutions and Political Behavior:
Toward an Integrated Theoretical Framework
Miki Caul Kittilson
Department of Political Science
Arizona State University
P.O. Box 873902
Tempe, AZ 85287-3902
[email protected]
Paper prepared for delivery at the conference Toward a Comparative Politics of Gender:
Advancing the Discipline Along Interdisciplinary Boundaries, Case Western Reserve
University, October 25-27, 2007
Despite rising aggregate levels of education and labor force participation among women
in industrialized democracies, gender differences in political engagement persist (Burns,
Schlozman and Verba 2001; Karp and Banducci 2007). Participation gaps are greater in
some countries than others, and are especially pronounced at the highest echelons of
political decision making—parliamentary participation (Inter-Parliamentary Union 2007).
Similarly, shared attitudes towards the roles of men and women in politics vary greatly
across nations (Inglehart and Norris 2003).
How does political context influence gender differences in political engagement?
While forces such as economic development and cultural and religious traditions play a
broad role in shaping the contours of gender differences in the political arena, they are
less helpful in explaining why gender gaps widen or narrow at particular junctures in
time. I argue that a complementary and often overlooked causal mechanism for change is
political institutions, which carry cognitive cues to men and women alike about women’s
role in the political arena.
Examining the “rising tide” of changes in gender roles worldwide, Inglehart and
Norris (2003) emphasize the primacy of cultural change for institutional change, and the
consequent improvements in women’s lives. However, I contend that the causal flow is
not unidirectional: Institutions and culture share reciprocal influence on one another, and
their relationship shapes power distributions among men and women. Institutions
constitute the macro level of analysis. They are sets of rules that shape human interaction
(North 1990; Hall and Taylor 1996). This essay focuses on policies that target gender
equality and/or women such as equal wages, equal employment opportunity, provision of
childcare, paid maternity leave, and international treaties such as CEDAW.
My argument is that not only are institutions themselves gendered, as Kenney
(1996) and others point out, but also that institutions carry important messages that
influence mass attitudes and behaviors. In particular, policy choices diffuse ideas about
gender stereotypes, often based on the traditional division of labor between men and
women. These messages shape our expectations about what women and men should be
doing in the political arena. I propose examining the effects of this policy feedback on a
wide array of political attitudes and activities—from attitudes towards gender roles in
politics to running for elected office.
Although scholars of comparative politics have dedicated a great deal of research
to political institutions, these studies are often conducted separately from those on
political behavior. I propose an integrated theoretical framework, combining the
behavioral and institutional approaches, which will improve our understanding of how
and why political engagement varies cross-nationally, and over time. Focusing on the
ways in which gender is woven into political institutions and behaviors, and the
interaction between the two, will allow us to bridge these two comparative literatures.
Comparing political contexts, both across countries and over time, is especially
important for understanding gender differences because gender is not a given or constant,
but instead is constructed by social relations. A comparative perspective will illuminate
the multiple ways in which gender operates in political processes. Further, a gendered
perspective will also improve our understanding of comparative politics by providing a
common thread to bring together institutional and behavioral perspective, since gender is
woven into both the macro and micro levels of the political process.
Explaining Gender Gaps in Comparative Perspective
Past research on gender differences in political engagement reveals significant gaps in
some dimensions, such as political interest and knowledge, and more minor gaps in
others, such as casting a ballot. Mixed findings emerge in both the United States and
cross-nationally (Verba, Nie and Kim; Jennings and Niemi 1981; Beckwith 1986; Christy
1987). Karp and Banducci’s (2007) recent cross-national investigations finds that gender
differences persist, especially in campaign involvement, attempts to persuade others, and
democratic satisfaction-- even after controlling for socio-economic status and age.
Further, we witness large differences in men and women’s parliamentary participation in
nearly every democracy around the world (IPU 2007).
To illustrate the pervasiveness of gender gaps in political participation Table 1
focuses on the discussion of politics across a set of 50 democracies in the World Values
Survey in 2000. Each entry represents the percentage point difference between men and
women who report that they frequently discuss politics. Strikingly, the positive numbers
in each country reveal that men overwhelmingly discuss politics more often than women.
Further, these differences reach statistical significance in nearly every case, except
Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, New Zealand and Sweden.
--Table 1 here—
Specific to this essay, we are especially interested in the dynamics of gender
differences in political engagement. In order to illustrate some of the longitudinal
variation in gender differences, Table 2 focuses on discussing politics in the United
States, from 1984 to 2002. These data are assembled from the American National
Election Study cumulative file. Although we observe that men discuss politics more often
than women each year, the relationship between gender and discussing politics loses its
statistical significance in 1998. Even in 2002, the relationship is quite close to the cutoff
for statistical significance (.051).
--Table 2 here-Broad scale forces such as socio-economic development and cultural and religious
traditions can shape gender relations in society more generally and gender differences in
political engagement. In their seminal work on the relationships between culture, gender,
and politics, Inglehart and Norris (2003) discuss “perceptions of the appropriate division
of roles in the home and family, paid employment, and political sphere” (8), and argue
they are shaped by the predominance of broader patterns of societal values and priorities,
which in turn, rest on socio-economic development and religious traditions.
Large scale forces can explain some of the broad contours of gender in the
political process. They suggest a glacial process of linear progression over time, and
common patterns among regions in the world that share similar forces for
‘modernization’ and ‘post-modernization’. Yet in addition to uniform and gradual
change, we often observe nation- specific jumps in support for greater gender equality in
politics, or women’s participation in politics, or even a widening in a gender gap in
political support.
Another line of research focuses on more direct mechanisms for social change.
Attitudes and norms surrounding gender relations are transmitted through processes of
socialization. Several agents transmit ideational norms and values, including women’s
movements, both domestic and international, and the media. In addition, institutions such
as domestic policies can work to diffuse norms and values. In this way, policies are not
only an outcome in the political process, but also exert a feedback effect in which they
influence citizens’ interests, value priorities, and perceptions of politics.
Policy Feedback and Mass Attitudes and Behaviors
The importance of policy feedback is rooted in the burgeoning new
institutionalism literature, particularly in studies of ‘historical institutionalism’. The idea
that previous policy choices and policy designs significantly impact future policy
decisions has been examined, for example, in welfare policies in the U.S. and Britain
(Pierson 1994) and social policy in the U.S. (Weir, Orloff and Skocpol 1988). Both
studies argue for the importance of accounting for policy context from a longitudinal
perspective, but differ slightly in their explanations of how policy feedback occurs. The
mechanisms for policy feedback can be categorized within three sets of explanation: 1)
individual-level; 2) group forces; 3) cognitive symbols.
The first mechanism centers on the resources of individual citizens. Policies often
distribute benefits to particular people. For example, wage replacement confers income,
and affirmative action in education confers information and skills. Thus, policies can
increase or decrease any given individual’s resources, and an individual’s resources
significantly influence their ability and willingness to participate in politics, ultimately
shaping the individual’s voice in the policy process (Verba, Schlozman and Brady 1995).
Because policies target groups of people, their effects often draw individuals
together based upon shared experience or benefits. Thus, the second mechanism of
policy feedback occurs through the groups that policies create and/or strengthen. Weir,
Orloff and Skocpol (1988) explain that existing policies shape the types of alliances
formed among political actors, stating “Policy-created advantages may call forth a
constituency to defend those benefits, or they may inspire coalitions to press for the
extension of those benefits to new groups” (p. 427).
Likewise, Pierson (1994) details
the ways policy choices provide incentive for new interest groups, which then often block
retrenchment of these existing policy arrangements.
Third, policies also generate cognitive effects, which affect both political elites
and mass publics. Policies provide both concrete information and more subtle cues that
help people make sense of the social and political landscape. New information may call
new problems to our attention, or alter our perspectives on long-standing problems. Weir,
Orloff and Skocpol (1988) note that existing policies shape debates over further policy
choices. In this way, policies affect the discourse used in addressing social issues. In
addition, policies influence ideas about what issues government should address, and the
priority that ought to be given to them. For Pierson (1993), these are interpretive effects
and they signal groups to their position in the political system. Pierson (2004) states that
policies “signal to actors what has to be done, what cannot be done” (p. 35).
Policies give cues to mass publics, often increasing their awareness of
government activity. Yet differences in policy design can alter the degree of awareness
policies generate. Pierson (1994) notes differential effects, hypothesizing policies that
distribute their benefits to niche groups call greater attention than those that distribute
benefits diffusely and irregularly among the public. Schneider and Ingram (1997)
explore the effects of policy designs on their target groups, arguing that policies construct
shared ideas about the importance of the target group to society in general.
Towards a Theory of Gender, Institutions, and Political Behaviors
The three levels of policy feedback detailed in the previous section can be applied to
feedback by policies that target women and/or gender equality. The gender powerbalance initially shifted due to women’s mass entrance into the paid workforce. Early
policies that target women can exert a feedback effect, directly improving women’s
resources and opportunities individually and as groups. Women have lagged behind men
in term of personal wealth, professional careers, and ties to interest groups. Resources
gained through, for example, equal pay initiatives, improve women’s capacities and time
to follow politics and women’s opportunities to run for office. By improving women’s
economic resources, relative to men’s, it is more likely that potential female candidates
will for example, have the political resources to participate in a campaign or even step
forward to run for office.
At a second level, policy breakthroughs also draw women together as a group
around common goals, such as equal employment opportunity. These shared interests
generate support for women’s movements and organized interest groups, which lobby to
preserve the initial strides, and press for further gains. For example, in the case of the
United States, the adoption of Title VII of the Civil Rights Bill in 1964 and the
subsequent establishment of the Equal Opportunity Commission (EEOC) in 1965, led
activists to form the National Organization for Women (NOW), which quickly became
the largest American women’s organization (Banaszak forthcoming).
At a cognitive level, women’s policies also re-shape collective attitudes towards
women’s roles in the political arena, and change perceptions of the types of issues and
policies that constitute grounds for political debate. Sapiro (1981) notes that “Women’s
issues often fit between what are officially dichotomized as public and private interests,
falling foul of contemporary definitions of appropriate areas for state intervention” (710).
Specifically, when an issue such as childcare provision is considered private,
women’s concerns for these issues are relegated to forums outside of government. In
contrast, when women frame claims for childcare as collective problems, take them to
public debate and the legislature, and achieve policy gains, the policy itself alters
perceptions of women’s roles in politics. Through this process, issues that have long
been seen as women’s individual problems translate into national policy choices. When
one policy that targets women demonstrates that previously “private” issues can achieve
the status of public problems, others may follow. Further, policy responsiveness signals
that the established political channels offer an effective arena in which women activists
can invest their political capital. In short, women’s and gender-related policies can serve
as symbols to encourage women’s participation and more gender egalitarian attitudes
towards the political sphere.
Policies and Gender Messages: Equality and Difference
The focus of this essay is on the third level of policy feedback detailed in the
previous section—the cognitive cues that policies carry to men and women in society.
Existing policies may impact the attitudes individuals hold toward the democratic
process, the gender differences in these attitudes, and ultimately, the gaps in women and
men’s participation in politics and in parliaments. Specifically, the absence of national
policies such as those dedicated to equal opportunity in employment and equal wages,
childcare provision, paid maternity leave, and violence against women carries an equally
important message: issues that advance gender equality and are important to women are
to be addressed privately and do not constitute part of the political domain.
We can categorize policies based upon the types of messages they send to the
electorate. I suggest a distinction among policies that loosely parallels a major debate in
the feminist literature: policies designed to heighten gender equality, and policies based
on ‘difference’—often rooted in women’s traditional roles in society. Policies of equality
intend to help women catch up to men’s already higher levels of for example,
employment or wages. Policies of difference are rooted in the exclusion of
stereotypically women’s concerns from the mainstream political arena.
Equality policies signal mass publics and political elites that the playing field is
not even, and that steps must be taken to achieve equal opportunity and more egalitarian
outcomes. Equality policies also include those that call for women’s rights, often as a
larger process of bolstering human rights.
A wide range equality policies have been adopted in a number of countries that
likely influence political attitudes and participation levels. For example, policies
designed to improve equality in employment and pay call national attention to gender
equality in the public sphere. In addition, to increasing the salience of equality as an
issue, equal employment policies in the economic sphere may also provide a justification
for greater equality in the political sphere. Party officials cannot easily at the same time
argue for equality policies in employment and deny the need for similar policies in
politics (Lovenduski 1993). In the U.S., the 1963 Equal Pay Act called for an end to
discrimination based on sex. Previously, in many states, companies kept separate wage
scales for men and women (O’Regan 1999). Employment policies may be adopted at the
national or federal levels in some systems. In Canada, most jobs are covered by
provincial law, yielding a variety of equal pay laws by region.
In addition to the domestic level, institutions at the supranational level work to
diffuse ideas and norms of equality for women (Gray, Kittilson and Sandholtz 2006).
One prominent example of a policy document that has gained attention worldwide is the
Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women
(CEDAW), adopted by the United Nations in 1979. CEDAW is the main international
legal document on women’s rights (Keck and Sikkink 1998). CEDAW highlights the
pervasiveness of gender inequalities, sending strong messages to political elites and mass
publics about the importance of women’s equality, and the necessity for government
action (UN 1988). The diffusion of ideas of gender equality also manifest themselves in
more egalitarian outcomes for women. In an analysis of 180 countries from 1975 to 2000,
Gray, Kittilson and Sandholtz (2006) find that the adoption of CEDAW is associated with
meaningful improvements in women’s life expectancy, literacy, participation in the
economy and in parliamentary office.
The second sub-set of policies, policies of difference, often target women as a
group or the gendered division of labor in society, within and outside the home. Rather
than equality, these policies emphasize women’s differences from men. When these
issues are introduced into political discussion, and gain policy adoption, they ultimately
expand understandings of what is considered political, transforming the political process.
Policies of difference are often termed ‘women-friendly’. Following Carroll
(1994), I consider women’s issues to be those “where policy consequences are likely to
have a more immediate and direct impact on significantly larger numbers of women than
of men”(15). There is considerable debate over whether these policies empower women
or serve to reify women’s subordinate position. The relevant question for this essay rests
on the differential impact of difference policies for women and men in the electorate.
Policies of difference address issues long considered private and individual—and
thus not appropriate for public policy. For example, childcare provision and maternity
leave have often been neglected areas for public policy. Maternity/parental leave is
granted in connection with the birth of a child. For some nations, this leave is restricted
to mothers, but in most it has recently been extended to both parents. National maternity
leave policies have a long history, and early policies were often minimal, solely
advocating a few weeks of unpaid leave immediately before and after birth (Gauthier
1996). Since then, maternity leave policies have been expanded. A childcare leave
measure is a separate leave for an extended period of time, usually taken after maternity
leave by one or both parents. As with maternity, this leave may be paid or unpaid. For
example, Finland, France, Germany and Spain offer parents up to 156 weeks of leave. In
contrast, Canada offers only 10 weeks of leave, and the US only 12 weeks of unpaid
leave. In some cases longer leave duration is accompanied by a lower wage replacement
level, or none at all. In other cases, generosity in time and pay increase together.
Gender quotas are another prominent example of a policy that targets women as a
group. Not only are gender quotas designed to enrich democratic inclusion, but they also
call attention to women’s status in the political arena, relative to men’s. Candidate
gender quotas are often adopted by political parties to govern their own nomination
procedures, and more recently have been adopted at the national level, compelling all
parties in the system to select a particular proportion of women (Krook 2006). Gender
quota policies impact women’s numbers in elective office, and this relationship has been
documented worldwide (Tripp and Kang 2006). In addition, quota policies may have an
impact on the electorate more generally, altering mass attitudes towards the role of
women in politics. Gender quotas reinforce the idea that women are under-represented in
the political process, and that formal action is necessary to rectify this inequality. In this
way, gender quotas send a signal to men and women that the political arena is a place for
both, and may foster fewer gender differences in political participation.
Andrea Campbell states that the “designs of policies—what they do, to whom
they are targeted, how generous they are, and how they are administered—shape attitudes
toward fellow citizens and the role of government, partisan and ideological orientations,
and patterns of political participation” (1). Thus, in addition to whether policies that
target gender and/or women exist at all, the ways in which these policies are designed and
implemented may affect the kinds of messages that they carry to the electorate, and thus
who they encourage to participate.
As a first step, we can compare countries on the basis of whether they have
policies that for example, address violence against women, childcare, or gender equality
in elected office. In addition, we can also compare the degree of resources allocated to
these programs. The more expansive the policy, the stronger the signal it sends that
women encompass an integral part of the political process.
As a second step, we should also consider the way in which a policy is designed,
and how it affects men and women. For example, candidate gender quota policies may
send positive messages about encouraging women’s participation in parliament, or they
may convey a sense of empty promises. Quota policies can take a variety of forms, and
some are backed up by serious sanctions, while others serve as mere window dressing.
For example, consequent to the adoption of a national candidate gender quota law
in Mexico in 2002, the percentage of women in parliament jumped seven percentage
points to 23% in the 2003 election. In fact, some parties even surpassed the mandated
30% women candidates (Baldez 2004). In contrast, the French quota policy is a nationallevel requirement that all parties nominate equal proportions of men and women
candidates in their election lists. However, the first post-quota national elections of 2002
brought few gains: women still held only 12% of the seats in the French National
Assembly. Due to a loophole, most parties violated either the spirit or the letter of the
new law, nominating women to unwinnable seats, or simply ignoring the new law and
accepting the financial penalty (Russell and O’Cinneade 2003).
Political Attitudes, Behaviors, and Gender Differences
The messages that policies send to the electorate about gender in politics may influence
various forms of political engagement. We can expect that policies’ psychological effects
manifest themselves in attitudes towards politics, affecting motivations for participation,
and ultimately shaping active participation in politics.
Both policies of equality and policies of difference may influence gender
differences in political engagement. By raising the importance of gender equality to the
national agenda, equality policies may translate into more gender egalitarian attitudes
towards women’s roles in the political arena and lead publics to expect a greater role for
women as political activists and candidates for office. In terms of political activity,
equality policies may encourage more women to participate in all forms of participation.
Policies that emphasize women’s differences signal that issues related to women’s
traditional roles are a legitimate part of the political sphere. By bringing in issues that
disproportionately affect women, these policies may increase women’s sense of
connection to the political system. At the attitudinal level, a greater sense of inclusion and
sense of stake may increase women’s knowledge and interest in politics. We can expect
greater discussion of politics among women, and fewer gender differences, when women
perceive political issues as more relevant to their everyday lives. In addition, as more
traditionally feminine issues are emphasized alongside the traditionally masculine issues
of the economy and foreign policy, women may feel more confident about navigating the
political landscape, and gender differences in political efficacy may narrow.
Where policies are restricted to traditionally male arenas, gender is a less relevant
basis for evaluating political inclusion and political representation. Men may even be
perceived to be more competent in politics because politics emphasizes their stereotypical
strengths. However, women’s participation seems significantly more important when
policies address both stereotypically male and female issues. For example, policies that
address violence against women necessitate women’s participation at the decision making
table. Similarly, because childcare issues disproportionately affect women, changes to
childcare policy design call for women’s perspective in addition to the established male
power holders.
The cognitive effects of policies that target women or gender equality are most
likely to have their greatest impact on the forms of participation that require the most
time and energy— particularly, running for office. The impact of the policy cues may
impact women’s candidacies at two levels. First, the effect may be felt on the supply side
by encouraging more qualified women to take the step to run for office. This
encouragement stems from women perceiving greater connected to the political arena,
need for women’s expertise, and efficacy in policymaking. Second, the signals will affect
the demand side of political recruitment by shaping the attitudes of the gatekeepers to
elected office. Political and party elites who may recruit or nominate candidates for office
may be more likely to encourage women as their perceptions of the need for women in
politics and norms of gender equality grow.
Future Research
A rich set of comparative studies ask how gender differences in politics affect public
policy outcomes (see Htun and Weldon 2007). This essay flips this question on its head
to ask how policy outcomes influence gender differences in political engagement. I have
argued that policies can send powerful messages that shape our perceptions of the
appropriate roles for women and men in the political sphere. Shifting attitudes towards
gender in politics may have implications for norms of behavior in political participation.
Certainly the relationship between policy outcomes and women’s participation runs both
ways, and this reciprocity must be taken into account as we investigate further. This essay
represents a first step in developing some theoretical expectations.
Future research that is both cross-national longitudinal in design will provide the
best tests of this theory. For example, we can track forms of political engagement before
and after the introduction of certain policy (or changes to an existing policy). Static
snapshots may be less useful because there are so many potentially confounding
influences on attitudes and participation.
Such a broad theoretical framework calls for both carefully selected in-depth
cases and a large-n statistical analysis. Comparison of a few well selected country case
studies will allow for analysis over a longer period of time, and for a more nuanced
understanding of the messages that particular policies send to the electorate. A large
number of cases may allow for a wide variety of political contexts while also controlling
for a host of potential influences on political engagement. There are existing data sets that
code policies along predetermined dimensions across a large number of countries and
over time, such as those by Gauthier and Bortnik on maternity leave and childcare policy,
and the broader RNGS project In addition, new worldwide data collection efforts, such
as the one by Htun and Weldon, will be instrumental in providing comparative measures
of policies. In addition, time-series cross-national indicators of a range of political
attitudes and behaviors are necessary, and may be assembled from country specific
national election study series, or multi-nation survey projects such as the World Values
Survey or the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES).
In addition to considering which types of policies will impact which forms of
participation and attitudes, future research will also have to consider the differential
effects among women. Introducing differences among women and among men is beyond
the scope of this initial step toward a theoretical framework. The same policy may send
different signals to different types of women. Specifically, younger women seem more
likely to respond to the signals sent by policies because they have less experience with
the political system, and their attitudes are still being formed. Women with greater
education and income are more likely to participate or to run for office in the first place.
Thus, these same women may be more likely to respond to the cues that the political
arena welcomes women.
One of the central ideals of democracy is equality of voice in political
participation and political decision making (Verba, Schlozman and Brady 1995). If
participation is systematically biased in favor of select groups, then those privileged
citizens reinforce their powerful status in society. Past explanations for gender gaps in
political engagement often places the onus for changes among women—rising levels of
education, income, social connections, and declining levels of religiosity. Instead, we
should ask how politics itself can be transformed to encourage greater inclusion in the
democratic process. Specifically, domestic policy choices can encourage or impede civic
engagement among women and men. Unless we take gender into account, we cannot
know the full implications for participatory biases.
In conclusion, examining the effects of policy feedback on political engagement
may illuminate a broader theory for bringing together the insights of the political
institutional and behavioral approaches in political science. By highlighting how gender
is central to both political institutions and political behaviors, we can see how the two
levels interact. Ultimately, a focus on gender taps the most fundamental concerns of
political science—power relations—and how context can foster changes in distributions
of power in the democratic process.
References
Baldez, Lisa. 2007. “Primaries Versus Quotas: Gender and Candidate Nomination in
Mexico, 2003”. Latin American Politics and Society. 49(3): 69-99.
Beckwith, Karen. 1986. American Women and Political Participation. Greenwood Press.
Burns, Nancy and Kay Lehman Schlozman and Sidney Verba. 2001. The Private Roots of
Public Action: Gender, Equality and Political Participation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Campbell, Andrea Louise. “Policy Feedbacks and the Political Mobilization of Mass
Publics”.
Carroll, Susan J. 1994. Women as Candidates in American Politics Indiana University
Press, second edition.
Christy, Carol. 1987. Sex Difference in Political Participation: Processes of Change in
14 Nations. New York: Praeger.
Gray, Mark and Miki Caul Kittilson and Wayne Sandholtz. 2006. “Women and
Globalization: A Study of 180 Countries, 1975-2000”. International Organization. 60:
293-333.
Hall, Peter A. and Rosemary C.R. Taylor. 1996. “Political Science and the Three New
Institutionalisms”. Political Studies.44: 936-957.
Inglehart, Ronald and Pippa Norris. 2003. Rising Tide: Gender Equality and Cultural
Change Around the World. Cambridge University Press.
Jennings, M. Kent and Richard Niemi. 1981. Generations and Politics: A Panel Study of
Young Adults and Their Parents. Princeton University Press.
Karp, Jeffrey and Susan A. Banducci. 2007. “When Politics is Not Just a Man’s Game:
Women’s Representation and Political Engagement”. Paper presented at the 65th Annual
Conference of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL. April 12-15.
Keck, Margaret and Katherine Sikkink. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders: Advocacy
Networks in International Politics. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Kenney, Sally J. 1996. “New Research on Gendered Political Institutions”. Political
Research Quarterly. 49(2): 445-66.
Krook, Mona Lena. 2006. “Reforming Representation: The Diffusion of Candidate
Gender Quotas Worldwide”. Politics & Gender 2(3): 303-27.
Lijphart, Arend. 1999. Patterns of Democracy New Haven: Yale University Press.
Lovenduski, Joni. 1993. Contemporary Feminist Politics. Oxford University Press.
North, Douglas C. 1990. Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance.
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Pierson, Paul, 2004. Politics in Time Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Pierson, Paul. 1994. Dismantling the Welfare State? Cambridge University Press.
Russell, Meg and Colm O’Cinneide. 2003. “Positive Action to Promote Women in
Politics: Some European Comparisons”. ICLQ 52: 587-614.
Sapiro, Virginia. 1981. “When Are Interests Interesting? The Problem of Political
Representation of Women”. American Political Science Review 75(3): 701-716.
Schneider, Anne Larason and Helen Ingram. 1997. Policy Design for Democracy.
Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas.
Tripp, Aili Mari and Alice Kang. 2006. “The Global Impact of Quotas”. Comparative
Political Studies.
Verba, Sidney and Norman Nie and Jae-on Kim. 1978. Participation and Political
Equality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Verba, Sidney and Kay Lehman Schlozman and Henry E. Brady. 1995. Voice and
Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Weir, Margaret and Ann Shola Orloff and Theda Skocpol, eds. 1988. The Politics of
Social Policy in the United States Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Table 1. Gender Differences in Discussing Politics, by Country
Country
Percentage
Country
Percentage Point
Point Difference
Difference
Men - Women
Men - Women
Argentina
3.5*
New Zealand
2.5
Australia
3.0*
Nigeria
13.7**
Austria
10.3**
Norway
7.0*
Belgium
8.0**
Peru
9.9**
Brazil
5.9**
Philippines
4.9**
Canada
8.4**
Poland
10.8**
Chile
4.8**
Portugal
5.9**
Colombia
4.5**
Puerto Rico
13.2**
Czech Republic
9.0**
Romania
12.8**
Denmark
7.0
Russian Federation 6.5**
El Salvador
7.4**
Slovakia
8.9**
Estonia
6.3*
South Africa
10.4**
Finland
1.6
Spain
5.0**
France
5.7**
Sweden
4.4
Georgia
6.9**
Switzerland
7.6**
Germany
8.6**
Turkey
10.0**
Greece
6.9**
Ukraine
3.6*
Hungary
4.6**
UK
5.2**
Iceland
7.6**
US
5.8**
India
15.9**
Uruguay
7.9**
Ireland
3.0**
Venezuela
7.8**
Israel
9.0**
Italy
8.9**
Japan
2.4**
Lithuania
6.7*
Luxembourg
5.2*
Malta
9.7**
Mexico
7.0**
Netherlands
4.0
Source: World Values Survey, 2000
Note: Table entries represent the percentage of men minus the percentage of women who
report that they discuss politics frequently.
*<.05; **<.001
Table 2. Gender Differences in Discussing Politics in the United States, by year
Election Year Percentage Point Difference
Men-Women
1984
4.1*
1986
7.1**
1990
7.7**
1992
7.6**
1994
4.4*
1996
5.5*
1998
5.4
2000
3.6
2002
4.0
Source: American National Election Study, cumulative file
Note: Table entries represent the percentage of men minus the percentage of women who
report that they discuss politics.
*<.05; **<.001