Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-01T18:22:28.987Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Women's Legislative Underrepresentation: Enough Come Forward, (Still) Too Few Chosen

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2017

Jeanette Ashe
Jeanette Ashe*
Affiliation:
Douglas College
*
Department of Political Science, Douglas College, New Westminster, British Columbia, V3M5Z5, email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

No established liberal democracy has achieved sex balance in its national legislature. Scholars agree skewed candidate pools put forward by parties during elections cause sex-disproportionate seat distribution, but disagree as to whether disproportionality is caused by too few women aspirant candidates coming forward (supply) or party selectors preferring men (demand). This paper uses a multistage method to explore supply and demand during the British Labour party's candidate selection process. Rare data from three elections and 4622 aspirants allow for an unobstructed look inside the secret garden of politics and reveal the party is not fully feminized insofar that women aspirants are disproportionally filtered out of its selection process and are disproportionally underrepresented in its candidate pool. Testing reveals a lack of selector demand for women aspirants has a greater impact on women's underrepresentation than an undersupply of women aspirants, a finding which supports using sex quotas to level imbalanced candidate slates.

Résumé

Aucune démocratie libérale établie n’a achevé une représentation égale des hommes et des femmes au sein de son assemblée législative nationale. Les chercheurs conviennent que les bassins de candidats inégalitaires présentés par les partis politiques lors des élections entraînent une répartition disproportionnée des sièges, mais sont en désaccord quant à savoir si la disproportion est due au nombre trop faible de candidates qui aspirent à se présenter (offre) ou bien aux sélectionneurs des partis qui donnent une préférence aux candidatures masculines (demande). Cet article utilise une méthode à degrés multiples pour examiner l’offre et la demande durant le processus de sélection des candidatures du Parti travailliste britannique. Les rares données disponibles dans le contexte de trois élections et 4622 candidats offrent une vue pénétrante dans le jardin secret de la politique et révèlent que le parti n’est pas vraiment féminisé tant que les candidatures féminines sont filtrées de façon disproportionnée à l’issue du processus de sélection et sont sous-représentées en conséquence dans son bassin de candidats. Les tests révèlent qu’une demande insuffisante des candidates féminines de la part des sélectionneurs a un impact plus significatif sur la sous-représentation des femmes qu’une offre trop faible de femmes qui se portent candidates : une constatation à l’appui de l’introduction de quotas visant à rétablir l’équilibre sur les listes électorales.

Type
Research Article
Information
Canadian Journal of Political Science/Revue canadienne de science politique , Volume 50 , Special Issue 2: Finding Feminism , June 2017 , pp. 597 - 613
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Political Science Association (l'Association canadienne de science politique) and/et la Société québécoise de science politique 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

I am grateful for feedback on an earlier draft of this paper provided at the 2015 European Conference on Politics and Gender, Uppsala University and the 2015 CPSA Finding Feminisms roundtable, University of Ottawa. I am also grateful for the feedback provided by the CJPS's reviewers, and Joni Lovenduski, Rosie Campbell, and Kennedy Stewart. Lastly, I thank the many Labour party officials and aspirants for their participation in this study.

References

Ashe, Jeanette. 2015. Westminster Guarded: Exploring the British Labour Party's Candidate Selection Process, 2001, 2005, and 2010. Doctoral dissertation, University of London, London UK.Google Scholar
Ashe, Jeanette and Stewart, Kennedy. 2012. “Legislative Recruitment: Using Diagnostic Testing to Explain Underrepresentation.” Party Politics 5: 687–707.Google Scholar
Ashe, Jeanette, Campbell, Rosie, Childs, Sarah and Evans, Liz. 2010. “‘Stand by Your Man’: Women's Political Recruitment at the 2010 UK General Election.” British Politics 4: 455–80.Google Scholar
Bochel, John and Denver, David. 1983. “Candidate Selection in the Labour Party: What the Selectors Seek.” British Journal of Political Science 13: 45–69.Google Scholar
Cheng, Christine and Tavits, Margit. 2010. “Informal Influences in Selecting Female Political Candidates.” Political Research Quarterly X: 1–12.Google Scholar
Childs, Sarah. 2007. “Representation.” In The Impact of Feminism on Concepts and Debates, ed. Bryson, Valerie and Blakeley, Georgina. Manchester: University Press.Google Scholar
Childs, Sarah and Lovenduski, Joni. 2013. “Political Representation.” In The Oxford Handbook of Gender and Politics, ed. Waylen, G.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Evans, Elizabeth. 2011. “Selecting the ‘Right Sort’: Patterns of Political Recruitment in British By-elections.” Parliamentary Affairs 65: 195–213.Google Scholar
Erickson, Lynda. 1997. “Might More Women Make a Difference? Gender, Party, and Ideology among Canada's Parliamentary Candidates.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 4: 663–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fox, Richard and Lawless, Jennifer. 2004. “Entering the Arena? Gender and the Decision to Run for Office.” American Journal of Political Science 48: 264–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gallagher, Michael and Marsh, Michael. 1988. The Secret Garden: Candidate Selection in Comparative Perspective. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Hazan, Rueven and Rahat, Gideon. 2006. “Candidate Selection: Methods and Consequences.” In Handbook of Party Politics, ed. Katz, R. and Crotty, W.. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Holland, Martin. 1987. “British Political Recruitment: Labour in the Euro-Elections of 1979.” British Journal of Political Science 17: 53–70.Google Scholar
Inter-Parliamentary Union. 2017. http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/world.htm (January 5, 2017).Google Scholar
Kenny, Meryl. 2014. “Gender and Political Recruitment.” In Deeds and Words: Gendering Politics after Joni Lovenduski, ed. Campbell, Rosie and Childs, Sarah. Colchester: ECPR Press.Google Scholar
Kenny, Meryl and Verge, Tania. 2016. “Opening up the Black Box: Gender and Candidate Selection in a New Era.” Government and Opposition 51: 351–69.Google Scholar
Lovenduski, Joni. 2005. Feminizing Politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Lovenduski, Joni. 2016. “Feminist Political Science, Institutionalism and the Supply and Demand Model of Political Recruitment: Some Reflections.” Government and Opposition 51: 513–28.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2009. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes.’” Journal of Politics 61: 628–57.Google Scholar
Murray, Rainbow. 2015. Merit vs Equality? The Argument that Gender Quotas Violate Meritocracy is Based on Fallacies. http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/merit-vs-equality-argument/. (January 3, 2017).Google Scholar
Niven, David. 2006. “Throwing Your Hat Out of the Ring: Negative Recruitment and the Gender Imbalance in State Legislative Candidacy.” Politics and Gender 2: 473–89.Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa and Lovenduski, Joni. 1993. “If Only More Candidates Came Forward’: Supply-Side Explanations of Candidate Selection in Britain.” British Journal of Political Science 23: 373–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, Pippa and Lovenduski, Joni. 1995. Political Recruitment: Gender, Race, and Class in British Parliament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Nugent, Mary and Krook, Mona Lena. 2015. “All-Women Shortlists: Myths and Realities.” Parliamentary Affairs 2015: 1–21.Google Scholar
Patzelt, Werner. 1999. “Recruitment and Retention in Western European Parliaments.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 24: 239–79.Google Scholar
Paxton, Pamela and Hughes, Melanie M.. 2016. Women, Politics and Power: A Global Perspective. Washington DC: Sage.Google Scholar
Phillips, Anne. 1998. “Democracy and Representation: Or, Why Should it Matter Who Our Representatives Are?” In Feminism and Politics, ed. Phillips, Anne. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pitkin, Hannah. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ranney, Austin. 1965. Pathways to Parliament: Candidate Selection in Britain. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Redekop, John. 1998. “Group Representation in Parliament Would Be Dysfunctional for Canada.” In Crosscurrents: Contemporary Political Issues, ed. Charlton, Mark and Barker, Paul. Toronto: Nelson.Google Scholar
Russell, Meg. 2005. Building New Labour: The Politics of Party Organisation. New York: Palgrave MacMillan.Google Scholar
Seyd, Patrick. 1999. “New Parties/ New Politics: A Case Study of the British Labour Party.” Party Politics 5: 383–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepherd-Robinson, Laura and Lovenduski, Joni. 2002. Women and Candidate Selection in British Political Parties. London: Fawcett Society.Google Scholar
Tremblay, Manon and Pelletier, Rejean. 2001. “More Women Constituency Presidents: A Strategy for Increasing the Number of Women Candidates in Canada?” Party Politics. 2: 157–90.Google Scholar