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 Susan Franceschet acknowledges the financial support of the Canadian Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and Jennifer M. Piscopo thanks the Center of Iberian and Latin American Studies at the

What does women's presence in political decision-making bodies signal to citizens? Do these signals differ based on the body's policy decisions? And do women and men respond to women's presence similarly? Though scholars have demonstrated the substantive and symbolic benefits of women's representation, little work has examined how women's presence affects citizens' perceptions of democratic legitimacy. We test the relationship between representation and legitimacy beliefs through survey experiments on a nationally representative sample of U.S. citizens. First, we find that women's equal presence legitimizes decisions that go against women's interests. We show suggestive evidence that this effect is particularly pronounced among men, who tend to hold less certain views on women's rights. Second, across decision outcomes and issue areas, women's equal presence legitimizes decision-making processes and confers institutional trust and acquiescence. These findings add new theoretical insights into how, when, and for whom inclusive representation increases perceptions of democratic legitimacy.experiences, suggests that women's presence can affect how citizens view policy decisions and the institutions and processes that guide them. The backlash against all-male panels thus raises a central question for the study of democratic politics: Does the inclusion of representatives from historically underrepresented groups (typically called descriptive representation) legitimize decisions and decisionmaking procedures in the eyes of the general public? Democratic theorists argue that legislative outcomes, processes, and institutions cannot be legitimate when certain social groups remain systematically excluded from elected office (Dovi 2007;Mansbridge 1999;Phillips 1995). Despite these strong normative expectations, most research on symbolic representation-that is, the link

No abstract

No abstract

This article investigates whether and how gender shapes access to elite political networks, using the case of Argentina, the first country in the world to adopt a national-level quota law in 1991. Quotas have significantly improved women’s access to elected office, without altering either the gendered hierarchies or gendered power networks that govern political advancement. We find that while men and women elected to the national congress have considerable political experience, men are more likely to have held executive office, particularly posts that provide access to resources that sustain clientelism. We further find that female legislators are less likely to be married and have children than male legislators, indicating that women’s domestic responsibilities circumscribe their political careers.

How is political violence gendered? We connect the traditional political violence literature’s emphasis on categorizing attacks to the gender and politics literature’s analysis of the barriers to women’s political participation. Our framework separates gendered political violence into three elements. Gendered motives appear when perpetrators use violence to preserve hegemonic men’s control of politics. Gendered forms emphasize how gender roles and tropes differentially shape men’s and women’s experiences of violence. Gendered impacts capture the subjective meaning-making processes that occur as different audiences react to political violence. This approach offers researchers and policymakers greater analytic precision regarding how political violence is gendered.

This article examines two decades of strengthening, expansion, and diffusion of gender quota laws in Latin America. The analysis departs from studies of quotas’ adoption, numerical effectiveness, or policy impacts, instead focusing on states’ use of coercive power to integrate women into public and private institutions. Viewing these policies in light of feminist theories of the poststructuralist state reveals how state institutions act to restructure government and promote gender equality. In building this argument, the article presents an up‐to‐date empirical survey and conceptual understanding of quota evolution in Latin America, including recent developments in countries such as Chile, Colombia, Bolivia, Ecuador, Mexico, Nicaragua, and Uruguay.

No abstract