Will rising powers undermine global norms? The case of gender-balanced decision-making

Abstract

Will rising world powers tilt global norms in less progressive directions? While there has been much theoretical speculation on this question, few scholars have explored it empirically. This article uses existing empirical evidence to test the extent to which countries compromise their own values to gain favor with influential countries. We analyze the gender of ambassadors sent to rising powers and established powers and suggest that this analysis generates insight into the likely effects of rising powers on global norms. We find that the probability that a country will send a woman ambassador to a rising power is significantly lower than the probability that it will send a woman ambassador to an established world power. We show that this difference increases when the sending country exhibits high levels of international economic dependence. Our findings imply that the rise of countries like China, Russia, and India may undermine the global gender-balanced decision-making norm and progressive global norms more broadly.

Chasing gender equality norms: the robustness of sexual and reproductive health and rights

“…More significantly, such adoption was supported by the US, China and Russia. Research has considered that both China and Russia wield the power to potentially undermine gender norms, 88 but regarding WPS they decided not to break the existing consensus as they risked being perceived as outsiders. In other words, China and Russia regarding these resolutions cannot be considered major actors holding enough power to strike SRHR down.…”

Madame President, Madame Ambassador? Women Presidents and Gender Parity in Latin America’s Diplomatic Services

“…It was not until the gradual opening of foreign services in the twentieth century that women could become career diplomats (McCarthy and Southern 2017, 22–23; Nash 2019; Sluga and James 2016, 6). Today, not only are women consistently underrepresented at the apex of diplomacy, but research shows that women ambassadors are disproportionally appointed to less prestigious positions and to places that are regarded as “soft,” characterized by lower economic and political power, less violence, and better human rights practices (Calin and Buterbaugh 2019; Jacob et al, 2017; Schiemichen 2019; Towns and Niklasson 2018). Diplomacy remains a deeply gendered institution.…”

“…Demand-side factors shape the incentives for the appointment of women. International norms, such as CEDAW and the Beijing Declaration and Platform for Action, generate pressure on states for compliance (Bush and Zetterberg 2020; Jacob et al, 2017; Towns 2010). Women’s rights groups can invoke these commitments to hold governments accountable, raising the political costs of sidelining women.…”

Ratchets and See-Saws: Divergent Institutional Patterns in Women’s Political Representation

“…Symbolically, states that consistently incorporate women into leading positions clearly communicate their core values. They signal to domestic (Alexander 2012; Beaman et al 2009; Franceschet, Annesley, and Beckwith 2017; Morgan and Buice 2013) and international (Bush 2011; Jacob, Scherpereel, and Adams forthcoming) audiences that they are committed to gender equality, and these signals in turn affect the behaviors and expectations of both local and global actors. Substantively, Celis et al (2008) caution scholars not to focus solely on whether “women represent women[’s interests].” All the same, evidence of women legislators and cabinet ministers “making a difference” continues to mount.…”