Cabinets, Ministers, and Gender explores why men have been more likely than women to be appointed to cabinet, why gendered patterns of appointment vary cross-nationally, and why, over time, women’s inclusion in cabinets has grown significantly. The book is innovative in conceiving of cabinet formation as a gendered process governed by rules that empower and constrain presidents and prime ministers as selectors of cabinet ministers, and rules that prescribe, prohibit, and permit a range of criteria (experiential, affiliational, and representational) that qualify individuals for inclusion in cabinet. Focusing on seven country cases (Australia, Canada, Chile, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom, and the United States) using three data sets—elite interviews, media data, and autobiographies—the book reveals the complex sets of rules governing cabinet formation in each country and demonstrates their gendered effects. The book shows how different types of rules empower and constrain selectors, and how these rules interact to create different opportunities and obstacles for women’s cabinet inclusion. The findings demonstrate how institutional change emerges from a complex iterative process through which political actors interpret and exploit ambiguity in rules to deviate from past practices of appointing mostly male cabinets. These selectors help to develop new rules about women’s inclusion, which constrain future leaders in assembling their cabinet. The authors coin the term “concrete floor” to capture the process by which minimum levels for women’s cabinet inclusion are established and become locked in over time, explaining how competing rules for cabinet appointments, changing norms, and women’s mobilization in political parties shape outcomes.

The core executive is a central focus for the study of policy change especially in Westminster‐style parliamentary democracies such as the UK. This venue is recognised as the locus of power and where attention should be given for identifying and assessing the process of policy change. It is surprising, then, that studies on women's substantive representation – showing whether and how women can make a difference to politics and policy – have not examined this institution, focusing instead on parliament or women's policy agencies. We plug this gap in scholarship in suggesting that the core executive should be the key venue for examining substantive representation of women. At the same time we present the case that the core executive is a gendered institution in terms of recruitment, resource allocation, relationships and rules. We argue that this gendered disposition shapes the opportunities and constraints available to feminist actors intent on altering the gender emphasis of public policy and illustrate this empirically through a case study of the actions and successes of two feminist ministers – Harriet Harman and Patricia Hewitt. As such this article makes a contribution to mainstream core executive research, gender and politics scholarship as well as the new and feminist institutionalist literatures.

The Lisbon Process, launched in 2000 and relaunched in 2005, revived the debate about the existence of a European social model. This article argues that the Lisbon agenda presents a coherent vision of a social model which can be characterized as a Europe-wide Adult Worker Model (AWM). This is a system which assumes paid employment for all adults in order to secure their economic independence. The article identifies evidence of a development in this direction in the European Employment Strategy guidelines from 1997 through to the 2005 integrated macro-economic and employment guidelines. It concludes that this reorientation of the European social model is a vision of a supported AWM welfare system more akin to Sweden than the United States. However, the soft governance method used for social policy makes it vulnerable to changing political constellations in member states.

No abstract

This article investigates the factors that drive governments to pay attention to gender equality issues and place them upon executive agendas. In line with studies of the dynamics of issue attention, which demonstrate the importance of investigating variability in the attention policy makers give to issue demands across policy domains, this article argues that policy issues related to gender equality are multidimensional and patterns in executive attention vary across the different types of gender issues. Multidimensionality of gender equality issues reflects different dynamics in agenda‐setting as different issues invoke contrasting constellations of political representation, institutional friction and veto points. To investigate this variation, this article proposes a twofold distinction between class‐based and status‐based gender equality issues and assesses the validity of three sets of explanations for when gender issues succeed in reaching executive agendas: women in politics, party ideology and economic performance. Drawing on governmental attention datasets from the Comparative Agendas Project, a systematic comparative quantitative analysis of the determinants of gender equality issue attention in five Western European countries is conducted. The main findings confirm that the mechanisms through which different types of gender equality issues gain executive attention differ according to the kind of the gender equality demand. Costly class‐based gender equality issues are more likely to receive executive attention when the economy is performing well, when there is a strong presence of Social Democrats and when there is a high proportion of female MPs. In contrast, economic performance, party politics and women's parliamentary presence do not seem to exert any impact on status‐based issues. Instead, critical actors in the government seem to be the strongest driver for attention over this second type of gender equality issue. This study contributes a gendered dimension to the policy agendas scholarship, adding theoretical and empirical depth to the understanding of how non‐core issues secure their place on full governmental agendas. By focusing on how to secure governmental attention for gender equality issues, the article makes a major contribution to understanding the initial genesis of gender equality policies.

No abstract

Women's recruitment to ministerial office is improving, but our understanding of what determines women's access to cabinet remains underdeveloped. Comparative studies explain women's ministerial presence through correlations with country-level socio-economic or political factors. This research uses a feminist institutionalist approach to explain gendered access to cabinets. It uses original data from interviews with former ministers and special advisors to map the rules in use of ministerial recruitment. It demonstrates that that women's access to ministerial office is facilitated and constrained by three complexes of predominantly informal rules which structure: who is eligible to be chosen (the eligibility pool); how to qualify (specialist or generalist principles); and who selects ministers (the prime minister or the party). By examining the rules of ministerial recruitment in two Westminster democracies, Australia and the UK, the research demonstrates the differences that exist, even in most similar cases, at system level, at party levels, and over time. By identifying the specific complexes of rules which shape women's access it is possible to identify the rule changes which have been effective in improving women's ministerial opportunities and suggest future reform strategies which would be most effective in the specific context.

Promoting certain kinds of gender equality—such as promoting and supporting female participation in paid work or male engagement with unpaid care work—is costly. Yet, there has been little examination in gender and policy research of the economic determinants of gendered policy change. In this article we investigate, using graphs and descriptive analysis derived from three data sets, whether the agenda‐setting possibilities of feminist policy actors pushing for redistributive gender policy are constrained by economic conditions. Our hypotheses are that it is easier to get costly gender equality policies on the agenda, first, when the economy is growing and, second, when advocates utilise an economic case to frame their arguments. We find that gender equality policy agendas in the UK appear to follow periods of positive economic performance and that economic framing of gender equality policy is essential.