Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T11:15:01.073Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ineffective and Counterproductive? The Impact of Gender Quotas in Open-List Proportional Representation Systems

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 December 2017

Michael Jankowski  and
Kamil Marcinkiewicz
Michael Jankowski
Affiliation:
University of Oldenburg
Kamil Marcinkiewicz
Affiliation:
University of Hamburg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research on the impact of gender quotas in open-list proportional representation systems has described quotas as ineffective or even paradoxical. While some authors argue that gender quotas without a placement mandate will be essentially ineffective since most women will be nominated to unpromising positions, others suppose that women will be disadvantaged by gender quotas because the increase in the number of female candidates will decrease the average number of preferential votes cast for women. We reexamine the evidence for these claims by analyzing the case of Poland. We demonstrate that the gender quota introduced there in 2011 increased the number of women placed at promising ballot positions and had very little impact on the number of preferential votes cast for women. Additionally, using simulations, we show that the quota had a positive impact on the number of elected women.

Keywords

Gender QuotasCandidate NominationOpen-List PR SystemsElections
Type
Research Article
Information
Politics & Gender , Volume 15 , Issue 1 , March 2019 , pp. 1 - 33
Copyright
Copyright © The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association 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

We are grateful to the editor of Politics & Gender, Mary Caputi, several anonymous reviewers, Anita Gohdes, and Maciej A. Górecki for their constructive and helpful feedback on ealier versions of this article.

References

REFERENCES

Allik, Mirjam. 2015. “Who Stands in the Way of Women? Open vs. Closed Lists and Candidate Gender in Estonia.” East European Politics 31 (4): 429–51.Google Scholar
Baldez, Lisa. 2004. “Elected Bodies: The Gender Quota Law for Legislative Candidates in Mexico.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 29 (2): 231–58.Google Scholar
Besley, Timothy, Folke, Olle, Persson, Torsten, and Rickne, Johanna. 2017. “Gender Quotas and the Crisis of the Mediocre Man: Theory and Evidence from Sweden.” American Economic Review 107 (8): 2204–42.Google Scholar
Blom-Hansen, Jens, Elklit, Jørgen, Serritzlew, Søren, and Villadsen, Lousie. 2016. “Ballot Position and Election Results: Evidence from a Natural Experiment.” Electoral Studies 44: 172–83.Google Scholar
Campbell, Rosie, and Cowley, Philip. 2014. “What Voters Want: Reactions to Candidate Characteristics in a Survey Experiment.” Political Studies 62 (4): 745–65.Google Scholar
Carnes, Nicholas, and Lupu, Noam. 2016. “Do Voters Dislike Working-Class Candidates? Voter Biases and the Descriptive Underrepresentation of the Working Class.” American Political Science Review 110 (4): 832–44.Google Scholar
Dahlerup, Drude. 2007. “Electoral Gender Quotas: Between Equality of Opportunity and Equality of Result.” Representation 43 (2): 73–92.Google Scholar
Dubrow, Johsua Kjerulf. 2011. “The Importance of Party Ideology: Explaining Parliamentarian Support for Political Party Gender Quotas in Eastern Europe.” Party Politics 17 (5): 561–79.Google Scholar
EAST PaC. 2015. “East European Parliamentarian and Candidate Data 1985–2014.” Funded by Poland's National Science Centre (decision number 2012/05/E/HS6/03556). https://electoralcontrol.org/east-pac-data/ (accessed November 8, 2017).Google Scholar
Erzeel, Silvia, and Celis, Karen. 2016. “Political Parties, Ideology and the Substantive Representation of Women.” Party Politics 22 (5): 576–86.Google Scholar
Faas, Thorsten, and Schoen, Harald. 2006. “The Importance of Being First: Effects of Candidates’ List Positions in the 2003 Bavarian State Election.” Electoral Studies 25 (1): 91–102.Google Scholar
Folke, Olle, and Rickne, Johanna. 2016. “The Glass Ceiling in Politics.” Comparative Political Studies 49 (5): 567–99.Google Scholar
Fortin-Rittberger, Jessica, and Eder, Christina. 2013. “Towards a Gender-Equal Bundestag? The Impact of Electoral Rules on Women's Representation.” West European Politics 36 (5): 969–85.Google Scholar
Fortin-Rittberger, Jessica, and Rittberger, Berthold. 2014. “Do Electoral Rules Matter? Explaining National Differences in Women's Representation in the European Parliament.” European Union Politics 15 (4): 496–520.Google Scholar
Fréchette, Guillaume R., Maniquet, Francois, and Morelli, Massimo. 2008. “Incumbents’ Interests and Gender Quotas.” American Journal of Political Science 52 (4): 891–909.Google Scholar
Giger, Nathalie, Holli, Anne Maria, Lefkofridi, Zoe, and Wass, Hanna. 2014. “The Gender Gap in Same-Gender Voting: The Role of Context.” Electoral Studies 35: 303–14.Google Scholar
Golder, Sona N., Stephenson, Laura B., Van der Straeten, Karine, Blais, André, Bol, Damien, Harfst, Philipp, and Laslier, Jean-François. 2017. “Votes for Women: Electoral Systems and Support for Female Candidates.” Politics & Gender 13 (1): 107–31.Google Scholar
Górecki, Maciej A., and Kukołowicz, Paula. 2014. “Gender Quotas, Candidate Background and the Election of Women: A Paradox of Gender Quotas in Open-List Proportional Representation Systems.” Electoral Studies 36: 65–80.Google Scholar
Gwiazda, Anna. 2015. “Women's Representation and Gender Quotas: The Case of the Polish Parliament.” Democratization 22 (4): 679–97.Google Scholar
Gwiazda, Anna. 2016. Democracy in Poland: Representation, Participation, Competition and Accountability since 1989. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Holli, Anne Maria, and Wass, Hanna. 2010. “Gender-Based Voting in the Parliamentary Elections of 2007 in Finland.” European Journal of Political Research 49 (5): 598–630.Google Scholar
Jankowski, Michael. 2016. “Voting for Locals: Voters’ Information Processing Strategies in Open-List PR Systems.” Electoral Studies 43 (3): 72–84.Google Scholar
Jankowski, Michael, and Marcinkiewicz, Kamil. 2016. “Are Populist Parties Fostering Women's Political Representation in Poland? A Comment on Kostadinova and Mikulska.” Party Politics Published online June 6. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068816650995.Google Scholar
Jones, Mark P. 1998. “Gender Quotas, Electoral Laws, and the Election of Women: Lessons from the Argentine Provinces.” Comparative Political Studies 31 (1): 3–21.Google Scholar
Jones, Mark P. 2009. “Gender Quotas, Electoral Laws, and the Election of Women: Evidence from the Latin American Vanguard.” Comparative Political Studies 42 (1): 56–81.Google Scholar
Kelley, Jonathan, and McAllister, Ian. 1984. “Ballot Paper Cues and the Vote in Australia and Britain: Alphabetic Voting, Sex, and Title.” Public Opinion Quarterly 48 (2): 452–66.Google Scholar
Kostadinova, Tatiana, and Mikulska, Anna. 2015. “The Puzzling Success of Populist Parties in Promoting Women's Political Representation.” Party Politics 23 (4): 400–412.Google Scholar
Krook, Mona Lena. 2009. Quotas for Women in Politics: Gender and Candidate Selection Reform Worldwide. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Krook, Mona Lena, Lovenduski, Joni, and Squires, Judith. 2009. “Gender Quotas and Models of Political Citizenship.” British Journal of Political Science 39 (4): 781–803.Google Scholar
Krook, Mona Lena, and Norris, Pippa. 2014. “Beyond Quotas: Strategies to Promote Gender Equality in Elected Office.” Political Studies 62 (1): 2–20.Google Scholar
Kukołowicz, Paula. 2013. “Do Voters Read Gender? Stereotypes as Voting Cues in Electoral Settings.” Polish Sociological Review 182 (2): 223–38.Google Scholar
Kunovich, Sheri. 2003. “The Representation of Polish and Czech Women in National Politics: Predicting Electoral List Position.” Comparative Politics 35 (3): 273–91.Google Scholar
Kunovich, Sheri. 2012. “Unexpected Winners: The Significance of an Open-List System on Women's Representation in Poland.” Politics & Gender 8 (2): 153–77.Google Scholar
Luhiste, Maarja. 2015. “Party Gatekeepers’ Support for Viable Female Candidacy in PR-List Systems.” Politics & Gender 11 (1): 89–116.Google Scholar
Marcinkiewicz, Kamil. 2014. “Electoral Contexts That Assist Voter Coordination: Ballot Position Effects in Poland.” Electoral Studies 33: 322–34.Google Scholar
Marcinkiewicz, Kamil, and Stegmaier, Mary. 2015. “Ballot Position Effects under Compulsory and Optional Preferential-List PR Electoral Systems.” Political Behavior 37 (2): 465–86.Google Scholar
Marcinkiewicz, Kamil, and Stegmaier, Mary. 2016. “The Parliamentary Election in Poland, October 2015.” Electoral Studies 41: 221–24.Google Scholar
Marien, Sofie, Schouteden, Anke, and Wauters, Bram. 2016. “Voting for Women in Belgium's Flexible List System.” Politics & Gender 13 (2): 305–35.Google Scholar
Matland, Richard E. 1994. “Putting Scandinavian Equality to the Test: An Experimental Evaluation of Gender Stereotyping of Political Candidates in a Sample of Norwegian Voters.” British Journal of Political Science 24 (2): 273–92.Google Scholar
Matland, Richard E. 2004. “The Norwegian Experience of Gender Quotas.” Presented at the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA)/CEE Network for Gender Issues Conference.Google Scholar
McElroy, Gail, and Marsh, Michael. 2010. “Candidate Gender and Voter Choice: Analysis from a Multimember Preferential Voting System.” Political Research Quarterly 63 (4): 822–33.Google Scholar
Millard, Frances. 2014. “Not Much Happened: The Impact of Gender Quotas in Poland.” Communist and Post-Communist Studies 47 (1): 1–11.Google Scholar
Millard, Frances, Popescu, Marina, and Tóka, Gabor. 2013. “The Impact of Preference Voting Systems on Women's Representation and the Legitimation of Quota-Based Nomination Results.” Presented at the Joint Sessions of Workshops of the European Consortium for Political Research in Mainz, Germany, March 11–16.Google Scholar
Milyo, Jeffrey, and Schosberg, Samantha. 2000. “Gender Bias and Selection Bias in House Elections.” Public Choice 105 (1–2): 41–59.Google Scholar
Put, Gert-Jan, and Maddens, Bart. 2013. “The Selection of Candidates for Eligible Positions on PR Lists: The Belgian/Flemish Federal Elections 1999–2010.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties 23 (1): 49–65.Google Scholar
Quota Project. 2016. “Global Database of Quotas for Women.” http://www.quotaproject.org/.Google Scholar
Roberts, Andrew, Seawright, Jason, and Cyr, Jennifer. 2013. “Do Electoral Laws Affect Women's Representation?” Comparative Political Studies 46 (12): 1555–81.Google Scholar
Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2002. “Gender Stereotypes and Vote Choice.” American Journal of Political Science 46 (1): 20–34.Google Scholar
Schmidt, Gregory D. 2009. “The Election of Women in List PR Systems: Testing the Conventional Wisdom.” Electoral Studies 28 (2): 190–203.Google Scholar
Schwindt-Bayer, Leslie A., Malecki, Michael, and Crisp, Brian F.. 2010. “Candidate Gender and Electoral Success in Single Transferable Vote Systems.” British Journal of Political Science 40 (3): 693–709.Google Scholar
Spierings, Niels, and Jacobs, Kristof. 2014. “Getting Personal? The Impact of Social Media on Preferential Voting.” Political Behavior 36 (1): 215–34.Google Scholar
Stegmaier, Mary, Tosun, Jale, and Vlachova, Klara. 2014. “Women's Parliamentary Representation in the Czech Republic: Does Preference Voting Matter.” East European Politics and Societies 28 (1): 187–204.Google Scholar
Thames, Frank C., and Williams, Margaret S.. 2010. “Incentives for Personal Votes and Women's Representation in Legislatures.” Comparative Political Studies 43 (12): 1575–1600.Google Scholar
Thames, Frank C., and Williams, Margaret S.. 2013. Contagious Representation: Women's Political Representation in Democracies Around the World. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Valdini, Melody Ellis. 2012. “A Deterrent to Diversity: The Conditional Effect of Electoral Rules on the Nomination of Women Candidates.” Electoral Studies 31 (4): 740–49.Google Scholar
Van Erkel, Patrick F. A., and Thijssen, Peter. 2016. “The First One Wins: Distilling the Primacy Effect.” Electoral Studies 44: 245–54.Google Scholar
Vengroff, Richard, Nyiria, Zsolt, and Fugiero, Melissa. 2003. “Electoral System and Gender Representation in Sub-National Legislatures: Is There a National-Sub-National Gender Gap?” Political Research Quarterly 56 (2): 163–73.Google Scholar
Verge, Tània. 2015. “The Gender Regime of Political Parties: Feedback Effects between ‘Supply’ and ‘Demand.’” Politics & Gender 11 (4): 754–59.Google Scholar
Wauters, Bram, Maddens, Bart, and Put, Gert-Jan. 2014. “It Takes Time: The Long-Term Effects of Gender Quota.” Representation 50 (2): 143–59.Google Scholar
Wauters, Bram, Weekers, Karolien, and Maddens, Bart. 2010. “Explaining the Number of Preferential Votes for Women in an Open-List PR System: An Investigation of the 2003 Federal Elections in Flanders (Belgium).” Acta Politica 45 (4): 468–90.Google Scholar
Wylie, Kristin, and Santos, Pedro dos. 2016. “A Law on Paper Only: Electoral Rules, Parties, and the Persistent Underrepresentation of Women in Brazilian Legislatures.” Politics & Gender 12 (3): 415–42.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Jankowski and Marcinkiewicz supplementary material 1

Appendix

Download Jankowski and Marcinkiewicz supplementary material 1(File)
File 65.2 KB