Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T01:03:20.505Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Numbers and Newness: The Descriptive and Substantive Representation of Women

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 March 2007

Karen Beckwith
Karen Beckwith
Affiliation:
Case Western Reserve University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Abstract. The concept of “critical mass,” drawn from physics and organizational behaviour literatures, has been employed by women and politics scholars as a potential theoretical underpinning for explaining and predicting women's substantive representation in national legislatures. This article examines two number-based theories of women's substantive representation—critical mass theory and sex-ratio proportional theory—and assesses their theoretical utility. It then proposes the alternative of focusing on the impact of newness, or a substantial increase in the number and proportion of women elected for the first time, on women's substantive representation. The article identifies research design issues and discusses the intersection of “newness” and “numbers” for evaluating women's substantive representation in parliaments. Offering a range of hypotheses for testing, it concludes by identifying an irony for critical mass research and by underscoring the necessarily gendered nature of the newness-numbers intersection.

Résumé. Le concept de “ masse critique ” issu de la physique et de la recherche en comportement organisationnel a été utilisé par les spécialistes du rapport femmes et politique comme modèle théorique possible pour expliquer et prédire la représentation substantive des femmes dans les législatures nationales. Cet article se propose d'examiner deux théories quantitatives de la représentation substantive des femmes et d'évaluer leur utilité théorique : 1. la théorie de la masse critique et 2. la théorie proportionnelle du sex ratio, et propose un autre modèle basé sur l'incidence de la nouveauté, ou une augmentation sensible dans le nombre et les proportions de femmes élues pour la première fois, sur la représentation substantive des femmes. L'article se penche sur les questions de méthodologie de la recherche et analyse l'intérêt du point d'intersection “ nouveauté ” et “ chiffres ” pour l'évaluation de la représentation substantive des femmes dans les parlements. À partir d'un choix d'hypothèses permettant d'évaluer ces modèles, l'article conclut en identifiant une ironie en ce qui concerne la recherche de masse critique et en soulignant le fait que la nature du point d'intersection nouveauté/chiffres est forcément marquée par le genre.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 40 , Issue 1 , March 2007 , pp. 27 - 49
Copyright
© 2007 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Andersen, Kristi and Stuart Thorson. 1984. “Congressional Turnover and the Election of Women.” Western Political Quarterly 37(1): 143–56.Google Scholar
Banaszak, Lee Ann, Karen Beckwith and Dieter Rucht. 2003. “When Power Relocates: Interactive Changes in Women's Movements and States.” In Women's Movements Facing the Reconfigured State, eds. Lee Ann Banaszak, Karen Beckwith and Dieter Rucht. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1–29.
Beckwith, Karen. 1987. “Response to Feminism in the Italian Parliament: Divorce, Abortion, and Sexual Violence Legislation.” In The Women's Movements of the United States and Western Europe, eds. Mary Fainsod Katzenstein and Carol McClurg Mueller. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 153–71.
Beckwith, Karen. 2002. “The Substantive Representation of Women: Newness, Numbers, and Models of Representation.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston, MA, August 29–September 1.
Beckwith, Karen. 2006. “Acting for Women: Newness, Incumbency and Votes on Women's Issues in the US Congress.” Unpublished manuscript.
Beckwith, Karen and Kimberly Cowell-Meyers. 2003. “Sheer Numbers.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA, August 28–31.
Bratton, Kathleen A. 2005. “Critical Mass Theory Revisited: The Behavior and Success of Token Women in State Legislatures.” Politics & Gender 1(1): 97–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bystydzienski, Jill M. 1992. “Influence of Women's Culture on Public Politics in Norway.” In Women Transforming Politics: Worldwide Strategies for Empowerment, ed. Jill M. Bystydzienski. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 11–23.
Center for American Women, and Politics. 2006. “Women in the US House of Representatives 2006.” New Brunswick, NJ: Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University.
Center for American Women, and Politics. 2006. “Women in the US Congress, 1917–2001.” New Brunswick, NJ: Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University.
Center for American Women, and Politics. 2006. “Women in the US Congress 2006.” New Brunswick, NJ: Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University.
Childs, Sarah. 2001. “Women MPs in the House of Commons: A Women's Style of Politics?” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA, August 30–September 2.
Childs, Sarah and Mona Lena Krook. 2005. “The Substantive Representation of Women: Rethinking the ‘Critical Mass’ Debate.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC, September 1–4.
Childs, Sarah and Mona Lena Krook. 2006. “Should Feminists Give Up on Critical Mass? A Contingent Yes.” Politics & Gender 2(4)(December): 522–30.Google Scholar
Childs, Sarah and J. Withey. 2006. “The Substantive Representation of Women: Reducing the VAT on Sanitary Products in the UK.” Parliamentary Affairs 59(1): 10–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cowell-Meyers, Kimberly. 2001. “Women in Peace Building in Northern Ireland: The Effects of Gender in the New Legislative Assembly.” Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA, August 30–September 2.
Cowley, Philip and Sarah Childs. 2001. “Critical but Not Rebellious? New Labour Women in the House of Commons.” Paper presented at the American Political Science Association Special Session on Women and Politics, San Francisco, CA, August 29.
Crowley, Jocelyn. 2004. “When Tokens Matter.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 29(1): 109–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlerup, Drude. 1988. “From a Small to Large Minority: Women in Scandinavian Politics.” Scandinavian Political Studies 11: 275–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dahlerup, Drude. 2006. “The Story of the Theory of ‘Critical Mass.’” Politics & Gender 2(4)(December): 511–22.Google Scholar
Darcy, R. and Karen Beckwith. 1991. “Political Disaster, Political Triumph: The Election of Women to National Parliaments.” Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Political Science Association, Washington, DC.
Darcy, R. and James Choike. 1986. “A Formal Analysis of Legislative Turnover: Women Candidates and Legislative Representation.” American Journal of Political Science 30(1): 237–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Darcy, R., Susan Welch and Janet Clark. 1994. Women, Elections and Representation, 2nd ed. Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska Press.
Dodson, Debra L. 2001. “The Impact of Women in Congress: Rethinking Ideas about Difference.” Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Political Science Association, Women and Politics Research Section Special Session, San Francisco, August 29.
Dodson, Debra L. 2002. “Rethinking Difference.” Unpublished manuscript.
Dodson, Debra L. 2006. The Impact of Women in Congress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Dolan, Kathleen A. 2006. “Women Candidates in American Politics: What We Know, What We Want to Know.” Paper presented at the Political Women and American Democracy Conference, University of Notre Dame, May 25–27.
Duverger, Maurice. 1955. The Political Role of Women. Paris: UNESCO.
Foerstal, Karen. 1999. Biographical Dictionary of Congressional Women. Westport, CT and London: Greenwood Press.
Granovetter, Mark. 1978. “Threshold Models of Collective Behavior.” American Journal of Sociology 83(6)(May): 1420–1443.Google Scholar
Grey, Sandra. 2002. “Does Size Matter? Critical Mass and New Zealand's Women MPs.” Parliamentary Affairs 55(1): 19–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grey, Sandra. 2006. “Numbers and Beyond: The Relevance of Critical Mass in Gender Research.” Politics & Gender 2(4): 492–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. 1977. “Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and Responses to Token Women.” American Journal of Sociology 82(5)(March): 965–990.Google Scholar
Kathlene, Lyn. 1998. “In a Different Voice: Women in the Policy Process.” In Women and Elective Office: Past, Present and Future, eds. Sue Thomas and Clyde Wilcox. New York: Oxford University Press, 188–202.
Katzenstein, Mary Fainsod. 2003. “Re-Dividing Citizens—Divided Feminisms: The Reconfigured US State and Women's Citizenship.” In Women's Movements Facing the Reconfigured State, eds. Lee Ann Banaszak, Karen Beckwith and Dieter Rucht. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 203–218.
Lovenduski, Joni. 2005. Feminizing Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mansbridge, Jane. 2005. “Quota Problems: Combating the Dangers of Essentialism.” Politics & Gender 1(4)(December): 622–638.Google Scholar
Mink, Gwendolyn. 2002. Welfare's End, rev. ed. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Norris, Pippa. 1985. “Women's Legislative Participation in Western Europe.” In Women and Politics in Western Europe, ed. Sylvia Bashevkin. London: Frank Cass, 90–101.
Norris, Pippa and Joni Lovenduski. 1993. “Gender and Party Politics in Britain.” In Gender and Party Politics, eds. Joni Lovenduski and Pippa Norris. London: Sage, 35–59.
Norris, Pippa and Joni Lovenduski. 1995. Political Recruitment: Gender, Race and Class in the British Parliament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Norris, Pippa and Joni Lovenduski. 2001. “‘Blair's Babes': Critical Mass Theory, Gender and Legislative Life.” Paper presented for the Women and Public Policy Program Weekly Seminar, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, September 28.
Nutting, Brian and H. Amy Stern, eds. 2001. Politics in America 2002: The 107th Congress. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
Palmer, Dennis M. and Barbara Simon. 2005. “When Women Run Against Women: the Hidden Influence of Female Incumbents in Elections to the US House of Representatives, 1956–2002.” Politics & Gender 1(1)(March): 39–63.Google Scholar
Reingold, Beth. 2000. Representing Women: Sex, Gender and Legislative Behavior in Arizona and California. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Reingold, Beth. 2006. “Women as Officeholders: Linking Descriptive and Substantive Representation.” Paper presented at the Political Women and American Democracy Conference, University of Notre Dame, May 25–27.
Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2002a. Democrats, Republicans, and the Politics of Women's Place. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2002b. “Political Parties and the Recruitment of Women to State Legislatures.” Journal of Politics 64(3)(August): 791–809.Google Scholar
Studlar, Donley T. and Ian McAllister. 2002. “Does a Critical Mass Exist? A Comparative Analysis of Women's Legislative Representation since 1950.” European Journal of Political Research 41(2)(March): 233–253.Google Scholar
Thomas, Sue and Clyde Wilcox, eds. 1998. Women and Elective Office: Past, Present and Future. New York: Oxford University Press.
Tremblay, Manon. 2006. “The Substantive Representation of Women and PR: Some Reflections on the Role of Surrogate Representation and Critical Mass.” Politics & Gender 2(4): 502–511.Google Scholar
Welch, Susan and Donley Studlar. 1996. “The Opportunity Structure for Women's Candidacies and Electability in Britain and the United States.” Political Research Quarterly 49(4): 861–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
“Women in National Parliaments: World Classification.” 2006. Inter-Parliamentary Union, 31 July. www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htm (August 11, 2006).
“Women Serving in the 107th Congress 2001–03.” 2002. Fact Sheet Summary. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for the American Woman and Politics. http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/∼cawp (August 2006).