Cabinets, Ministers, and Gender

Abstract

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.

Where Are the Women? Descriptive Representation and COVID-19 in U.K. Daily Press Briefings

“…In this note, the sex of both government ministers and expert advisers who attend the daily briefings is observed. Work on representation began with the legislative arena but has expanded to institutions beyond legislatures, including executives, agencies, parties, and social organizations (Annesley, Gains, and Franceschet 2019; Bergqvist 1999; Breitenbach 1981; McBride and Mazur 2010; Murray 2008). As Saward (2010) argues, representation can occur in multiple sites, beyond legislatures, and even outside of institutions and formal politics.…”

MPs: ‘Players’ and ‘Problems’

“…Leadership is often seen as a behavioural concept (Helms 2014 , p. 195) but institutional rules may compel and constrain performances. Rather than treating leadership as implicit, political science has recently taken a more institutionalist approach to leadership (Leach and Lowndes 2007 ; Helms 2014 ; Annesley 2015 ; Annesley et al 2019 ). Leadership is not a gender-neutral concept and is both sex specific and gender specific (Sjoberg 2014 , p. 73).…”

“…Affiliational relations for Ministerial aspirants are performed in informal spaces (Annesley et al 2019 ). Informal succession plans encouraged hedging behind candidates, and ‘hanging around’ in social settings.…”

How Are Political Institutions Gendered?

“…Participants can discuss such rules with a researcher in an empirical setting; these may be clearly specified in writing (like gender equality policies) or they may need to be teased out using a mix of research methods. For example, Annesley et al's (2019) cross-country analysis of ministerial appointments (combining numerical data with multiple sources of qualitative data) indicated the presence over time of an informal rule to 'choose men'. The apparent rule was then discussed in interviews with key actors in country-specific institutional settings.…”

“…These are not individuals' rules-of-thumb but prescriptions (or proscriptions) that shape the behaviour of all (or most) of those within a given political setting. For example, feminist institutionalists have researched the effects over time, in a wide range of countries, of gender quotas (rules about gender) (Friedenvall and Krook, 2011) but also the operation of informal rules, such as those associated with cabinet selection (rules with gendered effects) (Annesley et al, 2019). (d) Subject to some sort of third-party enforcement.…”