Since 1999, women have democratically won the presidency eight times in Latin America and have named hundreds of ministers. This study argues that under certain conditions, presidentas are more likely than male presidents to improve women's cabinet representation. Two mechanisms, presidenta mandates and gendered networks, appear to drive the relationship. Furthermore, because the pool of ministerial candidates is shallower for women than for men, presidentas are most likely to advance women's representation in cabinets at the beginning of their term and for “feminine” ministries. A case study of Michelle Bachelet's 2006 ministerial appointments reveals initial evidence for the argument. Empirical implications are then tested with an original dataset of 1,908 ministers of all democratically elected Latin American presidents since 1999. Model results are consistent with the theory that presidentas are most likely to “make a difference” when they are least constrained by the supply of female ministerial candidates.

Poniendo el foco en el feminismo, este artículo describe la situación política, social y económica de Chile durante el año 2018. Se argumenta que durante el año en estudio se cuestionó, en diversos espacios de la sociedad chilena, la forma en que se distribuye el poder entre hombres y mujeres. Se revisa también la tercera ola de protestas feminista, caracterizada por el accionar de mujeres universitarias a lo largo de todo el país, cuyas manifestaciones visibilizaron la discriminación y el trato desigual que viven las mujeres y la diversidad sexual, emplazando a los poderes Legislativo y Ejecutivo a tomar medidas para mejorar las condiciones de grupos históricamente marginados. Se concluye que durante el año 2018 se desafió el poder político y social, cuestionando las brechas de género persistentes en la sociedad chilena. Asimismo, se plantea que es fundamental analizar los orígenes y consecuencias del "año del feminismo" en Chile, pues las demandas feministas enriquecen los debates actuales sobre la calidad de la democracia.

The rise of female chief executives appears to signal gender progress, but this may not be unequivocally so. This article advances a contextual theory for the role of gender on leaders’ approval ratings, a key measure of “success” and source of executive power. I argue that because of gendered expectations and discourse, female presidents will receive lower approval ratings in contexts of corruption. The study focuses on Latin America, known for its powerful, masculinist presidential regimes and its democratically elected female leaders. I first trace the gendered construction of President Michelle Bachelet’s image as an honest mother. Upon a presidential scandal, higher standards and gendered discourse resulted in deeply disappointed citizens, significantly undermining her popularity. Models of eighteen Latin American countries next reveal a negative impact of being a female—rather than a male—president on approval ratings. Marginal effects plots show that female presidents score worse than their male counterparts in contexts of at least one presidential scandal and higher executive corruption. This article contributes to the growing literature on gender and corruption. It also challenges some conventional wisdom on the pro-women consequences of female leadership in providing a more nuanced account of the role of gender in the executive branch.

No abstract

Latin America has elected more female presidents than any other region in the world, yet dominant theories on campaigning tend to ignore gender. In addressing this lacuna, this article argues that the widespread belief that women are better at mobilizing women means that female candidates tend to invest more significant effort into cultivating a core constituency of women on the basis of gender identity. In contrast, male candidates tend to delegate women-mobilization tasks to female surrogates. An analysis of approximately 1,000 newspaper articles reveals that the "most different" female candidates in Chile and Brazil consistently met with female voters early in their campaigns, evoked gender identities and promised pro-women change. The "most different" male candidates enlisted their wives and female politicians to target women, defend their pro-women promises, and deflect accusations of sexism. The theory illuminates multiple ways in which viable female candidates' entry into the political arena can improve women's representation.

No abstract

No abstract

We address the origins and consequences of male dominance over—and women’s entrance into—executive politics. The executive branch is gendered masculine, perpetuating men’s overrepresentation as cabinet ministers and heads of government. Scholars have shown that women’s inclusion in these posts is explained by institutional factors, rather than cultural and developmental variables. Studies addressing policy and audience effects, however, are fewer and less conclusive. Building on existing work, future scholarship should clarify how and why women’s presence in executive posts enhances modern democracies. New research should also integrate more insights from executive politics research. Scholars must propose and test conditional hypotheses to account for the mixed impact of women’s inclusion. Finally, researchers should explore how gender affects pathways to power, incentives to govern differently, and public approval. Though much work remains, it is already clear that executive politics cannot be fully understood in the absence of a gendered perspective.