Why Are Representational Guarantees Adopted for Women and Minorities? Comparing Constituency Formation and Electoral Quota Design Within Countries

Abstract

This article explores the underlying motives for ensuring the political inclusion of marginalized groups. More specifically, it analyzes whether laws guaranteeing representation are designed differently for women and minorities and, if so, whether these differences correspond to normative arguments for group representation. We use a novel research strategy by comparing quota designs in all countries that have adopted quotas for both groups. Theoretically, we reconceptualize the relevant distinction between quota types by focusing on whether a special constituency is created or not. We identify substantial differences in quota design between the two groups. Minorities tend to be guaranteed representation through the creation of special constituencies, whereas gender quotas more commonly imply integration into pre-existing constituencies. The analysis largely supports those who argue that quotas for minorities aim to increase the autonomyof the group in question while gender quotas are adopted with the intention to integrate women into the political system.

Making Space for Women: Explaining Citizen Support for Legislative Gender Quotas in Latin America

“…Latin American countries such as Bolivia, Colombia, Peru, and Venezuela have all adopted ethnic quotas. Quotas for minorities have also been adopted in other socially and ethnically diverse countries across the globe (Bjarnegård and Zetterberg 2014;Krook and O'Brien 2010). Consequently, although political values such as support for government involvement may help explain attitude formation for policies intended to improve the lives of marginalized citizens, support for affirmative action policies in general is likely to be highest in countries with good governance.…”

Why Are Gender Quota Laws Adopted by Men? The Role of Inter- and Intraparty Competition

“…As quotas have spread, a large body of work has explored why quota laws are adopted (Anderson & Swiss, 2014; Araújo & Garca, 2006; Bauer & Burnet, 2013; Baum & Esprito-Santo, 2012; Bjarnegård & Zetterberg, 2014; Bush, 2011; Htun & Jones, 2002; Hughes, Krook, & Paxton, 2015; Kellerman & Rhode, 2007; Krook, 2009; Krook, Lovenduski, & Squires, 2009; Meier, 2012; Murray, 2012; Palici di Suni, 2012; Verge, 2012), and increasingly authors are beginning to study the effects of quotas on women’s political engagement and power (Barnes & Burchard, 2013; Clayton, 2015; O’Brien & Rickne, 2016). Yet, only a few studies focus on the incentives of men to adopt a quota law.…”

Do the Effects of Temporary Ethnic Group Quotas Persist? Evidence from India

“…It does so by examining the effects of past reservations on the electoral prospects of ethnic groups after the quotas are withdrawn. It also contributes to a newer literature that examines differences between gender and ethnic group quotas (Bjarnegård and Zetterberg 2014;Htun 2004;Krook and O'Brien 2010;Phillips 1995). The paper provides a vivid illustration of the difficulty of changing the distribution of political power, and has policy implications.…”