reproduce particular patterns of status and domination. Its second intervention is to reveal the gender effects of rules, including the formal and informal rules around the access to political power and to resources, on political and policy outcomes, and on organisational stasis and change (Chappell & Waylen, 2013;Lowndes, 2019). This article draws greater attention to how privilege operates through formal and informal 'rules in use', and the effects these rules have for the political appointment and the employment lifecycle of men and women across the stages of recruitment, retention and promotion.Our article is organised into five sections. Drawing on feminist institutionalism and gender theory, the article begins by outlining how gender and the rules intersect to produce and maintain masculine privilege. The second section details the problem of male dominance in two work spheres: the Australian construction sector and Australian parliament. Section three provides an overview of the methodology applied in each comparative case. The fourth section is the discussion that compares the operation of masculine privilege across the work spheres before the article's conclusion, the fifth section that draws out key lessons from the study.
Gender, privilege and the rulesIn recent years, the FI literature has been concerned to differentiate between types of gendered rules and their effects. Institutions are often described as 'the rules of the game' that operate within workplaces and are known, followed and enforced (North, 1990, p. 3).They are made up of formal and informal institutions that together form the 'rules in use' (Ostrom, 1986): the 'distinct ensemble' of rules that one learns on the ground (Lowndes et al., 2006, p. 545). Formal institutions are rules and practices that are consciously designed