O ver the past four decades, violence against women (VAW) has come to be seen as a violation of human rights and an important concern for social policy. Yet government action remains uneven. Some countries have adopted comprehensive policies to combat VAW, whereas others have been slow to address the problem. Using an original dataset of social movements and VAW policies in 70 countries over four decades, we show that feminist mobilization in civil society-not intra-legislative political phenomena such as leftist parties or women in government or economic factors like national wealth-accounts for variation in policy development. In addition, we demonstrate that autonomous movements produce an enduring impact on VAW policy through the institutionalization of feminist ideas in international norms. This study brings national and global civil society into large-n explanations of social policy, arguing that analysis of civil society in general-and of social movements in particular-is critical to understanding progressive social policy change.V iolence against women is a global problem. Research from North America, Europe, Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia has found astonishingly high rates of sexual assault, stalking, trafficking, violence in intimate relationships, and other violations of women's bodies and psyches. These assaults violate human rights, undermine democratic transitions, harm children, and are tremendously costly. 1 Today, violence against women (VAW)
This essay proposes a framework to analyze cross-national variation in women's legal rights. To explore the distinct logics of policy change, we disaggregate sex equality policies on two dimensions: 1) whether they improve the status of women as a group or alleviate gender-based class inequalities, and 2) whether or not they challenge the doctrine of organized religion and the codified tradition of major cultural groups. We show that policies promoting gender equality seek fundamental social change and therefore challenge historical patterns of state-society interaction concerning relations between the state and the market; the respective authority of the state, religion, and cultural groups; and the contours of citizenship. Different issues, however, challenge different aspects of these relations. What's more, the priorities, strategies, and effectiveness of advocates and opponents of change (including women's movements, left parties, international NGOs, and organized religion) are shaped by state capacity, policy legacies, international vulnerability, and the degree of democracy.
Some 50 countries officially allocate access to political power by gender, ethnicity, or both. Yet in the world's electoral democracies, the policies used for women differ systematically from those used for ethnic groups. The former receive candidate quotas in parties; the latter, reserved seats in legislatures. Why? My explanation focuses on the varying ways that gender and ethnic identities intersect with partisan cleavages and on the distinct "work" performed by the different remedies for underrepresentation. Quotas, which make space within existing parties, are appropriate for groups whose boundaries crosscut partisan divisions. Reservations, which create incentives for the formation of group-specific parties and permit them direct representation, suit groups whose boundaries coincide with political cleavages. Since gender is crosscutting while ethnicity tends to be coinciding, women receive candidate quotas while ethnic groups get legislative reservations. Claims for inclusion via quotas pose less of a challenge to liberal institutions than claims to difference through legislative reservations. Case studies of representational politics in France, India, and Peru illustrate the argument. P olitical leaders take our money, lead us to war, and write the laws that govern our lives. Must their ranks include men and women, rich and poor, masters and slaves? For most of world history, the answer was no. Men ruled; women worked at home. Female interests were represented by husbands and fathers. The same was true for members of subordinate ethnic groups: conquerors would care for colonial subjects, the rich for the poor, whites for browns, and so on.As the twentieth century progressed, however, a consensus emerged in international society and within democratic polities that one social segment should not monopolize political power. Special efforts were made to include previously excluded groups-generally defined in terms of gender and ethnicity. Today, some 50 countries officially allocate access to political power along the lines of gender, ethnicity, 1 or both: they have laws on the books reserving a fixed number of electoral candidacies or legislative seats. Narrowing the focus to electoral democracies reveals a fascinating pattern: institutional remedies for the underrepresentation of women and ethnic minorities (or majorities) assume distinct forms. Women tend to receive candidate quotas in political parties, whereas ethnic groups are granted reserved seats in legislatures.How does gender differ from ethnicity? Why do democracies apply distinct policies to different previously excluded groups? What does this imply about the normative status of various claims to representation and the appropriate response of liberal states?This article argues that different remedies for underrepresentation are logically appropriate for different groups. Quotas, which make space within existing parties, suit groups whose boundaries crosscut partisan divisions. Reservations, which create incentives for the formation of group-specifi...
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.