9780230 245884 01 pre - mona lena krookmlkrook.org/pdf/krook_mackay_11.pdf · 1 introduction:...

v

Contents

Foreword viiJoni Lovenduski

Acknowledgements xii

Notes on Contributors xiv

1 Introduction: Gender, Politics, and Institutions 1 Mona Lena Krook and Fiona Mackay

2 Gender and Institutions of Political Recruitment: Candidate Selection in Post-Devolution Scotland 21

Meryl Kenny

3 Discursive Strategies for Institutional Reform: Gender Quotas in Sweden and France 42

Lenita Freidenvall and Mona Lena Krook

4 Gendered Institutions and Women’s Substantive Representation: Female Legislators in Argentina and Chile 58

Susan Franceschet

5 Gendering the Institutional Reform of the Welfare State: Germany, the United Kingdom, and Switzerland 79

Michelle Beyeler and Claire Annesley

6 Gender and Institutions of Multi-Level Governance: Child Care and Social Policy Debates in Canada 95

Joan Grace

7 The Institutional Roots of Post-Communist Family Policy: Comparing the Czech and Slovak Republics 112

Hana Hašková and Steven Saxonberg

8 Gendering Federalism: Institutions of Decentralization and Power-Sharing 129

Jill Vickers

9 Gendered Institutionalist Analysis: Understanding Democratic Transitions 147

Georgina Waylen

PROOF

vi Contents

10 Nested Newness and Institutional Innovation: Expanding Gender Justice in the International Criminal Court 163

Louise Chappell

11 Conclusion: Towards a Feminist Institutionalism? 181 Fiona Mackay

References 197

Index 225

PROOF

1Introduction: Gender, Politics, and InstitutionsMona Lena Krook and Fiona Mackay

1

Gender, Politics, and Institutions – and the international network of scholars involved in this collaborative enterprise1 – is animated by the desire to find new tools and analytical frameworks to help us to answer some of the big questions and real-world puzzles about gen-dered power inequalities in public and political life. For example, how are formal structures and informal ‘rules of the game’ gendered? How do political institutions affect the daily lives of women and men, respectively? By what processes and mechanisms are such institutions produced, both reflecting and reproducing social systems, including gendered power relations? How do institutions constrain actors, ideas, and interests? Finally, what is the gendered potential for institutional innovation, reform, and change in pursuit of gender justice, and what are its limits?

The ‘institutional turn’ in feminist and mainstream political science has been well documented. However, despite some common preoccupa-tions, there has been little dialogue between mainstream new institu-tional scholars and institutionally oriented, feminist political scientists. As such, this edited collection breaks new ground by seeking to integrate gender and neo-institutionalist perspectives.2 In initiating this conver-sation, Gender, Politics, and Institutions sets the agenda for a ‘feminist institutionalism’. We begin in this chapter by providing a brief over-view of institutionally focused research in feminist political science (FPS) and new institutionalism (NI), mapping key concepts, theories, and methods within each broad approach. We then identify concerns that are common to both fields and argue that each offers innovative tools for understanding the dynamics of political stability and change, and that there is considerable potential for the two approaches to mutu-ally inform one another to devise innovative tools for understanding

PROOF

2 Mona Lena Krook and Fiona Mackay

dynamics of political stability and change. We conclude with a brief discussion of each of the subsequent chapters in the volume, which taken together cover a number of major topics in feminist and institu-tionalist research, affording an opportunity to explore the contours, and assess the added value of a synthesized approach.

An institutional turn in feminist political science

From its earliest days, an important strand of FPS has been concerned with institutions of state and society, particularly in explaining the chronic minority of women in ‘conventional’ public institutions and political life. This research has evolved over time in response to chang-ing political developments. Academic interest has mirrored and par-alleled growing political activism and advocacy around the political under-representation of women, the promotion and institutionaliza-tion of gender equality as a social and political goal, and the increased presence of women – including feminists – in political and state organi-zations, and as legislative, political, and bureaucratic actors.

Fuelling this interest, the last three decades have seen substantial institutional change with significant consequences for women, for gender relations, and for gender equality. These changes include broad restructuring trends in many advanced, democratic welfare states involving processes such as marketization, regionalization, decentrali-zation, and constitutional reform (see for example, Banaszak et al. 2003). Meanwhile, efforts at institutional redesign have been experienced glo-bally in both peaceful and violent transitions to democracy, sparking new processes of state- and institution-building in successive waves of democratization across Eastern Europe, Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, and South Asia (Waylen 2007). In the course of these develop-ments, demands for gender equality have become part of broader politi-cal discourses of democracy and modernization, as new international norms have diffused through global institutions and networks (Krook 2009; Towns 2010).

Early feminist work on gender and institutions, however, generally overlooked the role of institutional processes and practices in reinforc-ing and reproducing gender inequality (Witz and Savage 1992). More specifically, the causes of gender inequality were understood to exist at the macro-level, rooted in a stratifying system or structure known as ‘patriarchy’. Institutions and organizations, therefore, were not the direct cause of inequality in, and of themselves. Rather, they were inter-esting only insofar as they illustrated or reflected a ‘more general set of

PROOF

Introduction: Gender, Politics, and Institutions 3

patriarchal practices’ (Witz and Savage 1992: 7). Indeed, a line of femi-nist research influenced by Ferguson’s (1984) critique of bureaucracy viewed the institutions of the state and state bureaucracy as inherently and uniformly patriarchal.

Subsequent literature shifted from a focus on universal structures – such as ‘power’ and ‘oppression’ – to the dynamic structuring of gender relations, in which relations of power operating through institutions are seen as a crucial part of the ‘structure’ of gender (Connell 2002: 59; see also Connell 1987; Walby 1990; Watson 1990). As a result, gender scholars increasingly scrutinized the ‘black box’ of the state and its insti-tutions, against a backdrop of growing theoretical and empirical inter-est in variations within and across countries. In particular, real-world feminist engagements in and against the state provoked a theoretical reconsideration of political institutions, challenging preconceptions of ‘the state’ as essentially and monolithically patriarchal.

The experience and study of the ‘femocrat’ phenomenon in Australia, in particular, led the way to the framing of new and more nuanced con-ceptions of states and gendered power relations (Franzway et al. 1989; Sawer 1990, 2003; Watson 1990). Several interrelated insights can be drawn from this and other work. First, state institutions are not mono-lithic but can only be understood when broken down into a number of institutional arenas or spaces (Chappell 2002a; Connell 1987, 2002; Franzway et al. 1989; Watson 1990). Second, while state institutions, variously defined, are historically the products of the ‘mobilization of masculine bias’ (Burton 1991: 14), and both produce and reproduce patriarchal power relations, they are historically variable in their com-position and effects, and are theoretically open to change (Eisenstein 1991; Franzway et al. 1989; Sawer 1990; Watson 1990; see also Abrar et al. 1998; Ferree and Martin 1995; Halford 1992; Kantola 2006).

In parallel to these trends, more complex understandings of ‘gender’ have emerged. This has shifted focus from near-exclusive attention to women at the individual level, ‘documenting sex imbalance and sex-ism’, to increasing interest in institutional-level analysis, analysing the underlying structures which underpin ‘institutionalised advantages and disadvantages’ according to gender (Duerst-Lahti and Kelly 1995: 44). Because ‘gender’ is a social construction, simply attending to the sta-tus of women in politics can only describe gendered patterns of access. It ‘cannot explain the persistence of inequality and permutations of exclusionary practices that operate within political institutions’, nor capture the gender norms and discourses that underpin institutional dynamics (Lovenduski 1998; Mackay 2004: 111).

PROOF


As the centre of gravity of FPS scholarship has gradually moved from a focus on ‘women and politics’ to more relational and institutional-level conceptions of ‘gender and politics’ (Beckwith 2005; Childs and Krook 2006a; Kenny 2007; Lovenduski 1998; Mackay 2004), studies have begun to map the complexities of institutional gender dynam-ics. They highlight, in particular, the multiple ways in which gendered power relations and inequality are constructed, shaped, and main-tained through institutional processes, practices, and rules (Annesley and Gains forthcoming; Chappell 2002a; Hawkesworth 2003; Kathlene 1995; Katzenstein 1998; Mackay 2006). Research in this area is theoreti-cally and empirically eclectic, frequently drawing upon insights from other disciplines, most notably from work on gender and organizations in the field of sociology (see Acker 1990, 1992; Cockburn 1991; Savage and Witz 1992). Yet, while institutionally focused FPS is internally diverse, work in the field shares a number of common preoccupations and insights.

As a body of literature, FPS is characterized – at a minimum – by three key features (Driscoll and Krook 2009): expanding the definition of ‘politics’ to include not just formal processes related to government and elections, but also informal actions embodied in social movements and interpersonal relations (Fraser 1989; Okin 1979; Phillips 1998); incorporating ‘gender’ as a relational concept and an analytic category (Beckwith 2005; Hawkesworth 2005; Kulawik 2009; Lovenduski 1998; Scott 1988); and generating insights that may be used to pursue political change (Hesse-Biber and Leavy 2007; Lovenduski 1998; Waylen 2009). Institutionally focused FPS extends this work by raising fundamental questions regarding the scope and nature of the ‘political’. It not only highlights interconnections between formal and informal institutions (Lovenduski 1998; Phillips 1998; Randall 2002), but also calls attention to the boundary work involved in demarcating the ‘political’ from are-nas, issues, and actors deemed ‘social’ or ‘private’, and therefore ‘non-political’ (Fraser 1987; Kulawik 2009; Weldon 2002).

Nonetheless, research on the gendered effects of formal institutions is by far the most extensive. FPS scholars, for example, have analysed the impact of electoral systems on women’s political representation (Caul 1999; Kenworthy and Malami 1999; Matland 1995; Norris 2004; Reynolds 1999; Rule and Zimmerman 1994). They have explored the role of political parties in promoting and constraining women’s behaviour as legislators and social movement activists (Kittilson 2006; Lovenduski 2005b; Lovenduski and Norris 1993; Norris and Lovenduski 1995; Opello 2006), as well as the complex relationship between state feminism,

PROOF


women’s movements, and female politicians in pursuit of substan-tive policy change (Annesley 2010; Chappell 2002a; Chappell 2002b; Lovenduski 2005a; Mazur 2001, 2002; Outshoorn 2004; Outshoorn and Kantola 2007; Stetson and Mazur 1995; Weldon 2002). In light of their interest in change, institutionally oriented FPS researchers have also paid close attention to the gendered implications of the chang-ing institutional and legal arrangements as a result of devolution and European integration (Brown et al. 2002; Chaney et al. 2007; Mackay 2006; Ostner and Lewis 1995; Vogel-Polsky 2000); the gendered impact of regime change, such as transitions to democracy (Waylen 2007); and the political opportunity structures that inform women’s movement interactions with the state, including territorial divisions of power, and processes of state reconfiguration (Banaszak et al. 2003; Brown 2001a; Chappell 2002a; Dobrowolsky and Hart 2003; Grace 2006, 2008; Haussman et al. 2010; Kantola 2006; Vickers 1994, 2010).

Although they rarely use the language of ‘institutions’ and ‘insti-tutionalism’, FPS scholars have similarly examined the importance of informal institutions, which NI researchers define as the practices, dis-courses, and norms that shape formal institutions, but which may also contradict or undermine formal rules (Helmke and Levitsky 2004). Like mainstream institutionalists, therefore, many studies in FPS confer the same status on the formal and the informal aspects of political life, although they often do so implicitly rather than explicitly. Numerous scholars, for example, analyse the gendered impact of political practices, such as the parliamentary procedures and cultures that act as constraints on the ability of female legislators to represent women (Carroll 1984, 2001; Childs 2004; Dodson 2001, 2006; Franceschet 2005; Rosenthal 1998); informal practices and condoned rule-breaking through which male politicians may reassert masculine political dominance (Kathlene 1995; Liddle and Michielsens 2000; Puwar 1997, 2004a; Shaw 2000); and the de facto rules of political parties that influence candidate selec-tion procedures (Freidenvall 2006; Lovenduski and Norris 1993; Kenny 2009; Krook 2009; Norris and Lovenduski 1995; Perrigo 1996).

Along similar lines, work by institutionally focused FPS researchers explores the constraining power of – but also the political opportunities afforded by – existing political discourses (Bacchi 1996, 1999, 2005). They note, for example, how actors of various kinds articulate their positions for and against gendered political change in relation to widely accepted values like ‘fairness’, ‘democracy’, and ‘equality’ (Freidenvall 2005; Holli et al. 2006; Krook et al. 2009). Finally, a wide range of studies in FPS have assessed the powerful role of norms ‘that prescribe and proscribe

PROOF


“acceptable” masculine and feminine forms of behaviour, rules, and values for men and women within institutions’ (Chappell 2006: 226; see also Duerst-Lahti and Kelly 1995; Kathlene 1995). This includes work on the ‘gender regimes’ and ‘gender contracts’ that underpin vari-ous kinds of welfare state arrangements (Connell 2002, 2006; Hirdman 1990; Jenson 1997; Lewis 1992; Sainsbury 1996), as well as Chappell’s (2006; see also Chappell 2002a; Stivers 1993) analysis of the norm of bureaucratic neutrality demonstrating that it is profoundly gendered, such that the more embedded and enforced the norm of ‘neutrality’ is, the harder it will be for feminists to advance ‘biased’ claims of gender equality.

This feminist scholarship is diverse, presenting a wide variety of ways of understanding and conceptualizing gender, politics, and institu-tions. The key point of agreement across these approaches, however, is that conceiving of political (and social) institutions as ‘gendered’ is crucial to understanding the practices, ideas, goals, and outcomes of politics. Grasping the ways in which institutions reflect, reinforce, and structure unequal gendered power relations in wider society, in turn, offers insights into the dynamics of continuity and change – and the means for interrupting them to promote or undermine feminist goals. For FPS scholars, gender provides a central structuring dynamic of insti-tutions, such that gender relations and gender norms are key legacies with which to contend in feminist analysis and strategies for political change (Mackay 2004: 112–113; see also Annesley and Gains forthcom-ing; Chappell 2002a; Duerst-Lahti 2002; Duerst-Lahti and Kelly 1995; Hawkesworth 2003; Kenney 1996; Kenny 2007; Krook 2009; Lovenduski 1998, 2005b; Mackay and Meier 2003; Mackay 2008).

To say that an institution is gendered means that constructions of masculinity and femininity are intertwined in the daily culture or ‘logic’ of political institutions, rather than ‘existing out in society or fixed within individuals which they then bring whole to the institu-tion’ (Kenney 1996: 456). While constructions of masculinity and femi-ninity are both present in political institutions, the masculine ideal underpins institutional structures, practices, discourses, and norms, shaping ‘ways of valuing things, ways of behaving, and ways of being’ (Duerst-Lahti and Kelly 1995: 20). Yet, gender relations are also plural and cross- cutting, playing out in different ways across various types of institutions, and on distinct institutional levels. These range from the construction of images, symbols, and ideologies that justify, explain, and legitimize institutions, and their gendered patterns of hierarchy and exclusion (Acker 1992: 568) to interpersonal day-to-day interactions,

PROOF


where the continuous performance of gender takes place (Kenney 1996: 458; see also Acker 1990, 1992; Connell 1987, 2002; Lovenduski 1998).

On the one hand, formal and informal institutions shape and con-strain gendered political behaviour, defining the parameters of what action is possible and intelligible. On the other hand, political insti-tutions are themselves constituted by these embodied social practices of ‘doing gender’ on a daily basis (Connell 1987, 2002; see also Kenny 2007). Recognizing these reciprocal relationships, in turn, opens up possibilities for agency and change. For, as Beckwith (2005: 133) notes, if institutions are gendered, the potential exists for them to be ‘re- gendered’, including in ways that might promote gender equality (see also Hawkesworth 2005; Kenny and Mackay 2009). Uncovering possi-bilities to reshape the status quo in this manner is critically important to FPS, which is explicitly concerned with recognizing how institutions reproduce gendered power relations, but perhaps more importantly, with how these institutions can be challenged and reformed (Mackay and Meier 2003).

Theorizing institutions in their multiple forms, as well as recogniz-ing their gendered dimensions, presents considerable challenges for FPS scholars, provoking a reconsideration of appropriate methods, frame-works, and research directions. As Kenny (2007: 7) observes, institution-ally oriented FPS ‘has begun to map the complexities of institutional gender dynamics’ but ‘continue[s] to grapple with the implications of incorporating “slippery” and complex understandings of gender into their frameworks and analyses, and work in this area is eclectic and, often, uneven’ (see also Lovenduski 1998; Mackay 2004). One of the most ambitious projects on gender and political institutions to date is the research, and series of publications associated with the Research Network on Gender Politics and the State (RNGS). Adopting a ‘feminist empiricist’ approach (Harding 1986; cf. Mazur 2002), this work has pro-vided extensive case studies of gendered structures and feminist agency around the state; the origins, impact, and changing role of women’s policy machineries within state structures; and the complex relation-ship between state feminism, women’s movements, and women politi-cal representatives in pursuit of substantive policy change (Mazur 2001; Lovenduski 2005a; Outshoorn 2004; Outshoorn and Kantola 2007; Stetson and Mazur 1995).

However, there is growing recognition among feminist scholars that a more systematic approach is needed in order ‘to bridge the gap’ between complex theories of gender and workable theories for empiri-cal research (Mackay 2004: 114; see also Childs 2004; Childs and Krook

PROOF


2006a; Kenny 2007; Lovenduski 1998), as well as to get beyond the description stage in order to begin to analyse, and understand gendered patterns and effects (Lovenduski in this volume). Innovative concep-tual tools and approaches, in particular, are needed in order to address the considerable challenges posed by the turn to institutions; and, in particular, the turn in focus to gendered institutions. Initiating a new research agenda requires asking – and answering – questions related to interactions between gender and institutional effects, the origins and shape of gendered institutional change, and the reasons for positive outcomes in some contexts, but little or no change in others. A wave of recent studies suggest that there is strong potential for engagement with other institutionally oriented scholars, particularly those working in the broad field of ‘new institutionalism’ (Lovenduski 1998; see also Adams and Orloff 2005; Annesley and Gains forthcoming; Chappell 2006; Driscoll and Krook 2009; Kantola 2006; Kenny 2007; Kenny and Mackay 2009; Kulawik 2009; Lovenduski 2005b; Mackay 2004; Mackay et al. 2009; Mackay and Meier 2003; Waylen 2009; Weldon 2002).

New institutionalisms in mainstream political science

The basic premise of new institutionalism (NI) is that institutions ‘matter’, an ‘argument that the organization of political life makes a difference’ (March and Olsen 1984: 747). Yet, while the term ‘new insti-tutionalism’ is widely used in political science, there is considerable debate over ‘just what [it] is’ (Hall and Taylor 1996: 936). Work that identifies with NI has largely converged around four main approaches: rational choice institutionalism, historical institutionalism, organi-zational or sociological institutionalism, and more recently, discur-sive institutionalism.3 This proliferation of perspectives has served to expand the reach of institutionalist theory into the study of a wide range of political phenomena. At the same time, however, it has led to a compartmentalization and fragmentation of institutionalist research (cf. Crouch 2003), organized according to schools of thought, types of institutions, and patterns of institutional transformation.

The four main schools of NI share a common focus on ‘institutions’, but are characterized by distinct theoretical and methodological com-mitments, leading them to analyse political phenomena using slightly different sets of analytical assumptions. Rational choice institutional-ists work mainly at the micro-level, aiming to understand the origins of institutions, the mechanisms of their survival, and the nature of their effects on macro-level political outcomes (Weingast 2002). Drawing on

PROOF


the insights of game theory, they view institutions as conventions cre-ated by actors in order to overcome collective action problems (Ostrom 1990), either by reducing uncertainty (North 1990), or by restruc-turing incentives so that individuals are more motivated to cooper-ate (Weingast 2002). Some argue, as a consequence, that institutions endure when they provide more benefits to the relevant actors than alternative institutional forms. However, others are careful to stress that these dynamics do not necessarily ensure the most efficient outcomes (North 1990), and that in many cases, institutions are not only struc-tures of coordination, but also structures of power and domination (Knight 1992; Moe 2006).

Historical institutionalists, in contrast, conduct their research prima-rily at the meso- or macro-level, focusing on the long-term ramifications of largely contingent events (Pierson 2003; Pierson and Skocpol 2002). Interested in apparent historical inefficiencies, they approach institu-tions as the various formal and informal procedures, routines, norms, and conventions embedded in the organization of politics, society, and the economy. While concerned with how these institutions per-mit and exacerbate various asymmetries of power (Thelen and Steinmo 1992), most of the theoretical attention in this literature relates to the concept of path dependence and the role of unintended consequences (Mahoney 2000). In the course of grappling with questions of sequenc-ing and possible period effects (Lieberman 2001), however, other schol-ars have sought to nuance the division between institutional creation and institutional consequences. Seeking to call attention to dynamics of institutional development over time (Pierson 2004), they introduce concepts such as institutional conversion and layering to capture what they see as more complicated relationships between continuity and change (Mahoney and Thelen 2010; Schickler 2001; Streeck and Thelen 2005; Thelen 2003, 2004).

Organizational or sociological institutionalists, in turn, present a middle position centred on the links between micro- and macro-level political interactions (DiMaggio and Powell 1991). Adopting a more interpretive lens, they define institutions to include formal rules, pro-cedures, and norms, as well as symbol systems, cognitive scripts, and moral templates that provide the ‘frames of meaning’ guiding human behaviour (March and Olsen 1989). More than the other two schools, they emphasize the interactive and mutually constitutive character of the relationship between institutions and individual actions. As such, they understand change not in relation to cost–benefit analysis or the legacies of past events, but instead in terms of attempts to enhance the

PROOF


social legitimacy of a particular institution (DiMaggio and Powell 1991; Douglas 1986; Meyer and Rowan 1991). These concerns may extend as far as the global arena: as proponents of the ‘world polity’ school note, countries themselves are subject to pressures to conform to the stand-ards of a ‘modern’ state, leading many to adopt similar institutions in order to establish or enhance their legitimacy in the international sphere (Meyer et al. 1997).

Discursive institutionalists, finally, engage with multiple levels of analysis, ranging from – and connecting – the micro- to the macro-level. Although these scholars embrace a relatively broad definition of institutions, compatible with rational choice, historical, and sociologi-cal perspectives, their approach differs from the others in a number of significant ways. First, discursive institutionalists place greater emphasis on the role of ideas and ideas-as-discourses in influencing actor inter-ests, preferences, and behaviour, although their definitions and uses of ideas and discourse vary widely (compare for example Campbell and Pedersen 2001; Hay 2006; Lynggaard 2007; Schmidt 2008). Institutions are built on ideational foundations, and these ideas shape institutional design and development, constraining possibilities for agency (Hay 2006; Schmidt 2008).

Second, discursive institutionalists move beyond power- distributional perspectives, arguing that discourse itself is a medium of power (Freidenvall 2009; Lynggard 2008). In this view, power is not simply defined in terms of positional power within a particular institutional context; rather, ideas and discourses construct and shape the very ‘exercise of power’, including ‘(subjective) perceptions of posi-tion’ (Schmidt 2010: 18). Third, discursive institutionalists outline a theory of institutional change ‘from the inside’, drawing attention to the interactive processes through which ideas and discourses are constructed, legitimated, and communicated within particular insti-tutional contexts (Schmidt 2008, 2010). Yet, most discursive institu-tionalists also distinguish ‘discourses’ from ‘institutions’, referring to the discursive effects of institutions (Fischer 2003) or the institutional contexts ‘in which and through which ideas are communicated via discourse’ (Schmidt 2010: 4). Thus, while they stress the importance of discourse in institutional innovation, dynamism, and transforma-tion, they stop short of treating discourses on a par with institutions themselves (Freidenvall and Krook this volume).

Despite these important differences, there is a growing trend towards rapprochement and synthesis among NI scholars (see for example Bates et al. 1998; Katznelson and Weingast 2005), such that it is possible

PROOF


to draw out continuities across these approaches, even if the authors in this volume engage with one or more specific NI variants in their respective chapters. The common feature uniting all these approaches, for example, is their attention to formal and informal institutions. Indeed, perhaps their most notable feature is their effort to confer the same theoretical, empirical, and methodological status to both kinds of institutions. North, for example, expands on his widely cited definition of institutions as ‘the rules of the game in a society or ... the humanly devised constraints that shape human interaction’ (1990: 3) by describ-ing these more specifically as ‘formal constraints – such as the rules that human beings devise – and informal constraints – such as conventions and codes of behavior’ (1990: 4).

Similarly, in an overview of various types of institutionalist approaches, Peters identifies an institution as a ‘structural feature of the society and/or the polity ... that may be formal (a legislature, an agency in the public bureaucracy, or a legal framework), or may be informal (a network of interacting organizations, or a shared set of norms)’ (1999: 18). These types of statements have led other scholars to characterize the object of inquiry in institutional analysis as a continuum between formal and informal institutions, ‘mov[ing] from the study of such intangible phenomena as ideas, meanings, signifiers, beliefs, identities, attitudes, worldviews, discourses, and values to such tangible entities as states, constitutions, bureaucracies, churches, schools, armies, parties, and groups’ (Ethington and McDonagh 1995: 470).

While recognizing that institutions may take a variety of forms, some researchers do note, however, important differences between for-mal and informal institutions. A great deal of attention, for example, has focused on why formal institutions do not have the effects that their creators intended (Goodin 1996; Pierson 2004), and conversely, how and why informal institutions have the effects that they do. In an attempt to understand why informal institutions exist, some hypoth-esize that informal rules emerge when formal institutions are incom-plete; when actors prefer, but cannot achieve, a formal institutional solution; or when actors are pursuing goals that are not publicly accept-able, either because they are unlikely to stand the test of public scrutiny, or will attract international condemnation (Helmke and Levitsky 2004: 730–731; cf. Leach and Lowndes 2007). This distinction is captured well in North’s observation that ‘formal rules may change overnight as the result of political or judicial decisions, [but] informal constraints embodied in customs, traditions, and codes of conduct are much more impervious to deliberate policies’ (1990: 6).

PROOF


Although both kinds of institutions delineate rules of appropriate behaviour (March and Olsen 1989), they may be subject to distinct processes of creation and alteration, at the same time that they work together to shape political outcomes. Given the focus on institutions as structures and constraints, most research focuses on institutional stabil-ity, seeking to explain how and why institutions lock the expectations and behaviour of individuals into relatively predictable, self-reinforcing patterns, even in the face of major changes in background conditions. As Pierson (2000a) notes, these tendencies are especially characteristic of political institutions: while market mechanisms may potentially dis-rupt dynamics of increasing returns in the economy, various features of politics make increasing returns more likely, namely the central role of collective action, the possibilities for employing political authority to magnify power asymmetries, and the absence or weakness of efficien-cy-enhancing mechanisms of competition and learning.

Nonetheless, institutional change does sometimes occur. To account for this, scholars have developed two broad models that present dif-ferent views regarding the form and content of institutional innova-tion. The first, and by far the most common, draws a sharp analytical distinction between moments of change and mechanisms of reproduc-tion. According to this perspective, new institutions emerge rarely, and often only in the context of crisis or great uncertainty. These ‘critical junctures’, which cannot be predicted from prior events or initial condi-tions, serve as major turning points, in which the – often contingent – decisions of actors establish certain directions of change (Capoccia and Kelemen 2007; Mahoney 2000). ‘Path dependence’ then precludes the emergence of other options over time through increasing returns, sunk costs, durable commitments, personal and social conservatism, and learning curves (North 1990; Pierson 2000a). Crucially, these dynam-ics may reinforce movement along a given trajectory, even when other choices appear better or more efficient (Aminzade 1992; Tilly 2001). This approach resembles a ‘punctuated equilibrium’ model in which long periods characterized by path dependence alternate with brief and dramatic turns of events (cf. Krasner 1984).

While still widely applied, this perspective has come under increasing challenge in recent years from scholars working in all four traditions, who criticize this strict separation between institutional creation and institutional reproduction. Some rational choice theorists, for exam-ple, prefer a model of endogenous ‘institutional refinement’, whereby ‘institutions organically evolve (or are intentionally designed) through changing, introducing, or manipulating institutional elements while

PROOF


supplementing existing elements (or responding to their failure to generate desire behavior)’ (Greif and Laitin 2004: 640). Along similar lines, several historical institutionalists note that ‘when institutions have been in place for a long time most changes will be incremental’ (Pierson 2004: 153). Consequently, they theorize that institutions more typically survive through dynamics of institutional conversion, where existing institutions are directed to new purposes, and institutional lay-ering, where some elements of existing institutions are renegotiated, but other elements remain (Streeck and Thelen 2005; Thelen 2003). These intuitions are echoed by some sociological institutionalists, who observe that ‘ideas about appropriate behavior ordinarily change grad-ually through the development of experience and the elaboration of worldviews’ (March and Olsen 1989: 171). They are also the focus of various discursive institutionalists, who call attention to how elements of one discourse are translated into another through ‘discursive alli-ances or bricolage’ (Campbell and Pedersen 2001: 12). Taken together, these views are closer to a ‘bounded innovation’ model, in which peri-ods of institutional reproduction overlap with moments of institutional creation in partial, and often unanticipated ways (cf. Weir 1992; see also Thelen, 2003, 2004).

A common ground in feminist institutionalism?

On the face of it, there is considerable potential for productive dialogue between NI and institutionally focused FPS. Although each body of liter-ature is internally diverse, they share important theoretical orientations and research goals. For example, both employ broad conceptions of the political and its interconnection with the social. Each is concerned with analysing interactions between actors and institutions; uncovering the interplay between formal rules and informal practices, discourses, and norms; and probing the consequent effects of these dynamics. Another mutual interest, at least among FPS and variants of NI that integrate the cultural,4 is their ‘value-critical’ stance, sharing an understanding that seemingly neutral institutional processes are influenced by practices, discourses, and norms, and thus always operate within wider cultural contexts. Finally, both FPS and NI are centrally concerned with explain-ing patterns of institutional creation, continuity, and change, as well as the scope for agency within institutional constraints.

These common concerns and commitments suggest that it may be possible to forge a shared approach, drawing on elements of both femi-nism and institutionalism to devise a means for better understanding

PROOF


the gendered dynamics of political life. Yet, what might a feminist institutionalism look like – and furthermore, what would it mean in practice? To explore the potential for a feminist institutionalism, con-tributors to this volume take up three sets of questions. First, how might NI approaches contribute to better understanding the puzzles addressed by FPS? What specific concepts or perspectives from institutionalism might be useful to feminist scholars? Second, how might work in FPS inform NI understandings of structure and agency in political life? What elements of feminism might be helpful for these researchers? Third, is there – or can there be – a feminist institutionalism? If so, what does it comprise and how might it be operationalized? What is the ‘added value’ of this approach for both mainstream and feminist political analysis?

The next nine chapters tackle these questions in relation to empiri-cal studies of candidate selection, political representation, welfare state policies, democratic transitions, multi-level governance, and interna-tional law. They are sequenced in the volume according to three lines of research: political recruitment/representation, state–family relations, and state structures and political innovation. Within these categories, individual studies are ordered thematically, as a means to build on and also facilitate comparisons with the preceding and subsequent analyses. As a group, the authors converge on the opinion that NI and FPS would mutually benefit from closer engagement, but draw upon and combine a range of different insights. Some adopt and operationalize frame-works from specific schools of NI, while others take a more eclectic approach by borrowing and adapting tools from different types of NI. Similarly, they employ distinct feminist definitions of ‘gender’, ‘poli-tics’, and ‘power’. Read together, therefore, they provide insight into the FPS and NI concepts, theories, and methods that might be applied and combined to answer a wide range of theoretically, and substantively important questions in political science.

The first three chapters address questions of political recruitment and political representation. In Chapter 2, Meryl Kenny explores gendered dynamics of institutional reform and innovation in the institutions of political recruitment in post-devolution Scotland. Highlighting their gendered and institutional dimensions, she extends the ‘supply and demand’ model – proposing that the number of women elected to polit-ical office depends on the supply of women willing to stand for office and the demands of party ‘gatekeepers’ who select candidates – via an illustrative case study of a Scottish Labour Party constituency seat selec-tion contest. Given the high numbers of women elected since 1999, the

PROOF


Scottish Parliament is often considered to be a ‘success story’ in terms of women’s representation. However, evidence from the case study indi-cates that the reality is far more complex. Overall, the findings suggest that while some innovations have been made in the candidate selec-tion process, the underlying trend is one of erosion, decline, and even reversal following the initial reforms. In particular, they illustrate the difficulties of institutionalizing a ‘new’ gender-balanced politics within a pre-existing institutional and cultural context. The case therefore highlights the complex and gendered dynamics of institutional design, continuity, and change, pointing to the difficulties of reforming recruit-ment in the face of powerful institutional and gendered legacies.

Chapter 3 similarly takes up issues of candidate selection, but analyses these in a comparison of the origins and effects of electoral gender quo-tas in Sweden and France. Introduced in countries around the world, these policies aim to increase the proportion of female candidates, but have diverse effects on the numbers of women elected. Combining ele-ments of feminism and discursive institutionalism, Lenita Freidenvall and Mona Lena Krook argue that quota campaigns should be seen as dis-cursive struggles to define – and then maintain or reformulate – existing gendered institutions, which interact with a range of other institutions in processes of candidate selection. Individual campaigns succeed and fail in these tasks to varying degrees: quota policies may or may not be adopted, and when they are, may or may not have major effects on the numbers of women elected. To unravel these causal processes, Freidenvall and Krook examine and compare two cases where ostensi-bly similar policies produce quite different results: Sweden, where 50 per cent party quotas adopted by most political parties generated the election of 47 per cent women in 2006, and France, where a 50 per cent legislative quota imposed on all political parties led to the election of only 18 per cent women in 2007. The analysis reveals that discourses may enable gendered policy change, but also constrain its form, con-tent, and impact, together with reigning rules, practices, and norms.

Shifting attention to the next stage in the political process, policy-making, Chapter 4 examines the extent to which the tools of histori-cal institutionalism might contribute to a better understanding of an enduring question in FPS: how the presence of women in politics may or may not alter policy outcomes in ways that benefit women as a group. Adequate answers, Susan Franceschet suggests, require, first, analysing the actions of legislators and the outcomes of those actions and, second, theorizing the ways in which formal rules and informal norms in legislative institutions may facilitate or obstruct the successful

PROOF


promotion of women’s rights. Focusing on the cases of Argentina and Chile, she shows how formal and informal legislative institutions in the two countries reinforce unequal power relations between men and women, leading to differences in how female legislators represent wom-en’s interests with varying degrees of success. These gendered institu-tions explain why legislators in Argentina are more active on a range of women’s rights issues than in Chile, at the same time that Chilean legislators are more successful in getting women’s rights laws adopted, even though they introduce fewer initiatives.

Elaborating further on public policy, the next three chapters tackle issues of state–family relations. Chapter 5 observes that, due to femi-nist interventions, the literature on welfare states has long recognized the gendered impact of ‘welfare regimes’, understood as the intersect-ing institutions in the structure of the welfare state. Feminist scholars have been particularly successful in widening the scope of ‘institutions’ that are considered as significant in these regimes, including the gen-dered dynamics of the family and caring relationships, and the way in which gender relations play out in other socio-economic spheres such as the labour market. Yet, as Michelle Beyeler and Claire Annesley note, there has been less attention paid to how the gendered institutional architecture of welfare states may be reformed in ways that promote greater gender equality. A more dynamic account, they argue, must be able to account for variations in the extent of reforms undertaken in previously strong ‘male-breadwinner’ states, as well as the effects of ostensible women-friendly initiatives that, in the end, reproduce exist-ing gender inequalities. Extending what they view as the feminist insti-tutionalist perspective already present in welfare state analysis, Beyeler and Annesley propose that a pluralist approach – combining rational choice, sociological, and historical institutionalism – can be merged with feminist concepts to develop useful tools for the analysis of gen-dered welfare reforms, which they illustrate through a comparison of Germany, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.

Sharing an interest in how institutions shape prospects for changes in gendered public policies, Chapter 6 explores the importance of federal-ism – also known as ‘multi-level governance’ – in either facilitating or blocking women’s policy demands. In the case of Canada, Joan Grace suggests that attention to the division of powers between the provinces and territories, on the one hand, and the federal government, on the other, is vital for understanding women’s socio-economic realities. More specifically, policy areas important to women – like child care, social assistance, job training, and education – are provincial responsibilities,

PROOF


at the same time that the federal government retains the major share of financial resources needed to effectively fund these programme. This division of powers has required a politics of accommodation across the two levels of government that, depending on the period, has been either collaborative or quite fractious. Melding tenets of historical institution-alism with feminist transformative politics, Grace develops a feminist institutionalist approach to theorize how this politics of accommoda-tion – and the resulting permeability of federal governance structures – provides both opportunities and challenges to women’s policy agendas. Her two case studies, debates over child care and social policy, which took place during the Social Security Review in 1994 and the Social Union Framework Agreement in 1999, highlight the significance of attending to institutions in terms of feminist policy analysis, as well as in terms of a critical, gendered understanding of the policy context in institutionalist research.

Chapter 7 also addresses state policies related to the family, but goes further than the previous two chapters in tracing the historical lega-cies shaping the current form taken by family policies in the Czech and Slovak Republics. Observing that the two countries have the most similar policies among post-communist states, Hana Hašková and Steven Saxonberg draw on the concept of ‘critical junctures’ or ‘formative moments’ from historical institutionalism to identify four key points – reaching back to when these countries were part of the Austro–Hungarian Empire and then Czechoslovakia – when government officials made decisions which continue to shape and influence present-day family policy. The authors also incorporate a feminist perspective, however, which emphasizes how ideas about gender inform state policies, at the same time that state policies may alter or reinforce gendered power relations. In the Czech and Slovak Republics, Hašková and Saxonberg note, early family policies aimed to confine women to the home and establish men’s primary roles as breadwinners. A shift in this approach appeared to take place during the communist period, when nearly all women had to work outside the home, but the lack of changes in the private sphere – combined with a series of decisions by the government regarding maternity leave, child care, and schooling – had the effect of encouraging tradi-tional gender roles.

Further developing these themes, the last three chapters explore the potential for institutional arrangements, including new institu-tions, to empower women as a group, focusing on opportunities that have been seized, as well as missed, at moments of political innova-

PROOF


tion. In Chapter 8, Georgina Waylen draws on an eight-country study of transitions to democracy to explain why outcomes for women have been more positive in some countries than in others with the advent of new political arrangements. Tracing developments in each country over a period of 20 to 30 years, she focuses on changes, and lack of change, from the previous non-democratic regime, through the democratic transition, and through at least one decade of post-transition. Countries varied in characteristics at all three points in time, permitting compari-sons of the legacies of decisions made during each particular period. On the basis of her analysis, Waylen argues that feminist research has cast important light on how transitions to democracy are gendered. However, she also suggests that recent theoretical developments in his-torical institutionalism – in particular, such concepts as institutional layering and conversion – can help feminist scholars better understand the complexities of gendered institutional change, including bigger questions about how to promote positive outcomes for women. She thus calls for greater attention to interactions between structure and agency, highlighting the potentially distinctive contribution and advantages of a feminist historical institutionalism.

Chapter 9 adopts a similar comparative approach, developing and testing six hypotheses concerning the presence of a ‘federalism advan-tage’ for advancing feminist projects in seven federal states. The intui-tion is that, in federations, institutions dividing powers across levels of government provide multiple access points to citizens, and thus might be favourable towards feminists seeking avenues of change. Although the unique designs of many democratic federations make comparative analysis difficult, Jill Vickers suggests that gaining a better gendered understanding of federalism requires assessing the validity of two competing views: one which sees federalism as an obstacle to women’s participation, and the other which claims that the multiple points of access to decision- makers in federations constitute an advantage that women can exploit to develop multi-level strategies. Engaging in a two-way comparison of federal versus unitary states and then across differ-ent types of federations, Vickers draws on an eclectic mix of feminist interpretations of institutionalist approaches – historical, post-structur-alist, sociological, and rational choice – to outline the six hypotheses, related to the role of multiple points of access, high levels of federaliza-tion, competition among levels of government, division of powers, and asymmetrical versus symmetrical federal arrangements. She concludes that a federalism advantage is most easily realized in centralized, sym-metrical federations, but that there are also opportunities in asymmet-

PROOF


rical federations under conditions of competition or conflict between levels of government.

Expanding the reach of multi-level governance, Chapter 10 inves-tigates the impact of the International Criminal Court (ICC) for the pursuit of gender justice at the global level. The Rome Statute, provid-ing the legal foundation of the ICC, is groundbreaking in its codifica-tion of international criminal law and the recognition of the crimes committed against women in times of war and conflict. It not only criminalizes acts of rape, sexual slavery, and enforced pregnancy in the most advanced articulation ever of gender-based violence under international law, but it also embeds a gender equality mandate into the structures and processes of the ICC to ensure that women, and their rights are considered by the judicial, prosecutorial, and adminis-trative arms of the Court. In many respects, therefore, it appears that the ICC is a ‘new’ institution offering a clean slate for rewriting wom-en’s experience of gender justice. Yet, as Louise Chappell observes, the Court has produced a number of contradictory outcomes in its first five years. Combining feminist attention to gender with insights from historical institutionalism on institutional origins and develop-ment, she elaborates Fiona Mackay’s concept of ‘nested newness’ to capture the way in which a new institution relates to others, whose legacies and continuities with the past profoundly effect their opera-tion, and can be shaped, modified, and constrained – and conceiv-ably enhanced – through the new institution’s interaction with these other institutions. Despite its newness, the ICC carries gender legacies from the past which may influence its capacity to operate as a reform venue to promote the aims of gender justice. Together with the other contributions in the volume, the chapter reveals the analytical lever-age afforded by a combination of feminism and institutionalism, with potentially crucial implications for strategies to improve women’s sta-tus around the globe.

Seeking to pull these various contributions together, in Chapter 11 Fiona Mackay draws on the preceding empirical chapters to provide a provisional set of answers to the questions around which the book is structured. Mackay argues that the collection provides important con-ceptual and empirical blueprints for a feminist institutionalism – or institutionalisms – in the making. Such an approach, she concludes, has considerable potential for enhancing understanding and analyses of institutional dynamics, gender power, and the patterning of gen-dered inequalities in political and public life. To this end, she sets out an agenda for future theory building and empirical research.

PROOF


Notes

1. This network was launched in 2006 as the Feminism and Institutionalism International Network (FIIN). Details on members and activities can be found at the network website at www.femfiin.com.

2. This chapter is the product of conversations, shared ideas, and common insights, as well as joint writing projects, with our colleagues in FIIN. In par-ticular, we draw upon work with Lenita Freidenvall (Freidenvall and Krook 2007), Meryl Kenny (Kenny and Mackay 2009), and Petra Meier (Mackay and Meier 2003).

3. Until recently, most scholars recognized three broad schools of new insti-tutionalist thinking: rational choice, historical, and sociological (Hall and Taylor 1996; Immergut 1998). However, others have distinguished as many as seven different types of NI, adding normative, empirical, interest representa-tion, and international institutionalism (Peters 1999).

4. There is considerable debate about whether rational choice institutionalism is compatible with value-critical approaches within NI and FPS (Driscoll and Krook 2009).

PROOF

Index

225

abortion, 72, 77n6, 77n20, 78n22, 139, 154, 159–60

accommodation, 100, 101, 110Act on Unified Education, 121actors

articulation of positions by, 5, 42–3behaviour of, 82–3, 99external constraints on, 82HI analysis and, 150–1interaction between institutions

and, 13, 82, 97role of, in institutional change,

155–6African National Congress (ANC),

157, 158agency, 7, 10, 13, 18, 80–1, 91–4,

190–2al-Bashir, Omar, 173appointed offices, 137–8Argentina, 16

formal rules and organization in, 69–71

gendered norms in, 71–3gender quotas in, 68, 73–4, 159informal institutions in, 71–3substantive representation in, 68–75transition to democracy in, 155,

156, 159asymmetrical federations, 138, 140asymmetries, 134, 137Australia

federalism in, 132femocrat networks in, 3, 141leftist alignment strategies in, 138

Austro-Hungarian Empire, 119, 120authoritarian regimes, 154–5

behavioural norms, see normsBemba, Jean-Pierre, 173bounded innovation model, 13, 186Brazil, 155–9bureaucracy, 3, 11, 66, 97, 143, 189bureaucratic neutrality, 6, 66, 99

Canada, 16–17alignment with nationalist

governments in, 140child-care policy, 99, 101–6constitutional and legal strategies

in, 139–40social policy in, 102–11Social Union Framework Agreement

(SUFA), 106–11territorial accommodation in, 101welfare state in, 98, 101–2

Canada Assistance Plan (CAP), 104Canada Health and Social Transfer

(CHST), 104, 106Canadian Advisory Council on the

Status of Women (CACSW), 104, 105

Canadian federalism, 95–7feminist institutionalism and,

98–111historical institutionalism and,

97–8practice of, 100–1principles of, 99–101social policy and, 102–9

Canadian politics, 95–7candidate selection, 14–15

branch and union nominations, 29canvassing and campaigning, 30–1centralization of, 34–5decentralization of, 34–7declaration of interest and

application process, 28–9elections, 32–4final hustings, 31–2gender quotas and, 43–7informalization trend in, 37–9local vs. outsider issues in, 36–7in post-devolution Scotland, 21–41shortlisting, 29–30

care/caring tasks, 93–4care regimes, 86causality, 24, 64, 67–8, 117, 149, 151

PROOF

226 Index

Central Europe, 159change, 49

see also institutional changeconstitutional, 65–6, 134, 138–40

child-care facilities, 89, 90child-care policy, 99, 101, 102–6,

107–8, 111, 112in Canada, 95in Czech and Slovak Republics,

115, 119–27maternity leave, 91–2, 115, 122–5parental leave, 91–2, 112, 113, 116,

124–6two-tier model of, 119–20, 122

children’s health care, 121–2Chile, 16, 155

formal rules and organization in, 69–71

gendered norms in, 71–3informal institutions in, 71–3substantive representation in,

68–75transition to democracy in, 156,

158commodification, 86common-law federations, 144communist regimes, 113–14

family policies in, 120–4gender relations in, 115–16

comparative historical analysis (CHA), 147–9, 152–3

complex causality, 67–8complex systems, 81conflict avoidance, 71–3, 75consensus-seeking, 71–3, 75Constituency Labour Party (CLP),

28–34, 36, 38constitutional change, 65–6, 134,

138–40constitutional decentralization, 130,

145n3constitutional reform, 2, 136contextualized research methods,

67–8contribution-based social protection

systems, 85conversion, 9, 13, 18, 150, 152, 186cooperative federalism, 141–2,

146n17

crimes against humanity, 168, 169critical junctures, 17, 117–18, 119–27,

149, 164–5critical mass strategies, 136, 137–8cultural diversity, 137cultural values, 118Czechoslovakia, 155, 156Czech Republic, 17

critical junctures in, 119–27gender relations in, 115–17post-communist family policy in,

112–28

Darfur, 173day care, 89, 90, 112, 120–1

see also child-care policydecentralization, 2

of candidate selection, 34–7constitutional, 130, 145n3women’s politics and, 134–5,

142–4decision-making, 82–3decommodification, 84defamilializing policies, 112democracy, 2, 5, 18Democratic Republic of Congo

(DRC), gender-based crimes in, 170–4

democratic transitions, 147, 187feminist historical institutionalist

approach to, 152–61gender research on, 148–9HI framework and, 149–53

discourse, 10, 43, 48–9, 105, 111, 191–2

discursive institutionalism (DI), 8, 10, 13, 43, 47–50, 82, 192

discursive strategies, for gender quota reform, 51–6

displacement, 150, 152, 186domestic violence, 67, 160drift, 150, 152, 186

Early Childhood Development Agreement (ECD), 108, 110

Eastern Europe, 159electoral gender quotas, see gender

quotaselectoral system, 46

PROOF

Index 227

El Salvador, 156, 158, 159entrepreneurs, 191equity discourse, 111executive federalism, 100exogenous shocks, 117extended maternity leave, 122–5external constraints, 82

familialism, 85family policies, 16–17, 112–28fathers

care work by, 88, 120parental leave for, 92, 124

Federal Constitutional Court (FCC), 139

federalism, 16–19alignment with leftist

governments in, 138in Canada, 95–111compared with unitary states,

136–45concept of, 95–6cooperative, 141–2, 146n17critical mass/quota strategies and,

137–8federalism/federations

alignment with nationalist governments in, 140

asymmetrical, 138, 140characteristics of, 130common-law, 144constitutional and legal strategies

in, 138–40executive, 100federalism advantage, 129–30,

135–6, 137, 144feminist institutionalist approach

to, 130–3gender and, 129–46historical institutionalism and,

97–8interstate, 100open, 109Roman-law, 144symmetrical, 137, 141–2women’s politics and, 133–45

federalized institutions, 137female candidates, gender quotas

and, 42–57

female employment, 89–90, 112, 115, 116, 120

female representativessee also candidate selection; gender

quotasin federalist systems, 137–8research on, 58–61

femininity, 6Feminism and Institutionalism

International Network (FIIN), 20n1

feminist analysis, HI framework and, 149–53

feminist comparative politics, 147–9, 152–3

feminist discursive institutionalism, 49–50, 51–6

feminist historical institutionalism, 151–61

feminist institutionalism (FI), 1, 13–14, 19, 21, 93, 181–96

Canadian federalism and, 96–111continuity and change and,

185–90federalism and, 130–3gendered institutions and, 183–92new institutionalism and, 81outline of, 80–3pluralism of, 181–3political recruitment and, 24–40post-communist family policy

and, 112–28research agenda for, 192–5welfare regime literature and, 83–7welfare state research and, 87–93

feminist political science (FPS), 1, 21, 76, 95–6

historical institutionalism and, 147–9

institutional turn in, 1, 2–8key features of, 4new institutionalism and, 81,

181–3unitary-state bias in, 130

femocrat networks, 3, 136, 141–2formal institutions, 4, 7, 11–12, 48,

58, 165, 183–5formal rules, 68, 69–71, 81–2framing effects, 66

PROOF

228 Index

France, gender quotas in, 15, 54–6, 192

Fröbel, Friedrich, 119

game theory, 9gender

concept of, 4, 50federalism and, 129–46historical institutionalism and, 61–8institutions and, 6–8, 62, 99,

182–92political recruitment and, 24–40social relationships and, 99understanding of, 3welfare state and, 83–7, 98

gender-based crimes, 170–4gender-based reforms, path

dependency and, 166–7gender contract, 115–16gendered institutionalist (GI)

frameworkcomplex causality and, 67–8gendered power asymmetries and,

65–6ideas and gendered norms, 66–7problematization of preference

formation, 63–5to substantive representation,

62–8, 75–6gendered institutions, 8, 15–16,

58–76, 99, 183–92gendered logic of appropriateness,

83, 165, 193gendered norms, 5–6, 66–7, 71–3, 99,

131, 152, 184–5gendered outcomes, 73, 82, 91, 193gendered power relations, 3, 4, 6–7,

98, 115asymmetries, 1, 65–6institutional policy and, 127

gender equality, 2, 80, 83, 86, 89, 112, 175

gender equity entrepreneurs, 191gender inequality, 2–3, 80–1, 148gender issues, 65–6

democratic transitions and, 156–60

International Criminal Court and, 174–6

gender justice, 19, 163–80gender mainstreaming, 187gender norms, 131, 152, 184–5gender quotas, 15, 42–57, 137–8, 187

in Argentina, 68, 73–4, 159campaigns for, 44–5candidate selection and, 43–7democratic transitions and, 159discursive institutionalism and, 47–50effects of, 56–7, 74–5in France, 54–6, 192implementation of, 45–7institutional change and, 56–7reform of, 51–6in South Africa, 159substantive representation and, 73–5in Sweden, 51–3, 192

gender regimes, 131–2, 144, 189–90gender relations, 2, 3, 6, 16, 24, 40,

49, 73, 79, 82, 91, 112changes in, 188–9in Czech and Slovak Republics,

115–17dynamic structuring of, 3

Germanycooperative federalism, 141–2,

146n17Federal Constitutional Court

(FCC), 139female representation in, 145n11femocrat networks in, 141–2welfare state reform in, 87–9

government, relations between regional and national, 133

health care, 121–2historical institutionalism (HI), 8, 9,

15–16, 21, 82, 95, 97–8, 150, 179critical junctures in, 17, 117–18,

164–5federalism and, 131feminist, 151–61feminist analysis and, 149–53feminist political science and,

147–9gender and, 61–8informal institutions and, 61–2path dependency in, 117–18

Hungary, 156

PROOF

Index 229

ideas, 10, 66–7, 73–5, 191–2identity, construction of, 49Imperial School Act, 120informal institutions, 4–5, 7, 11–12,

48, 58, 61–2, 71–3, 75, 183–5informal rules, 11, 37, 62, 81,

184–5, 193institutional change, 2, 10, 12–13,

49, 131–2discursive institutionalism

approach to, 43feminist institutionalist approach

to, 131–3FI perspectives on, 185–90gender quotas and, 56–7, 74–5HI analysis and, 149–51role of actors in, 155–6through informal structures, 82transitions to democracy and,

154–61institutional configurations, 50institutional continuity, 185–90institutional conversion, 9, 13, 18,

150, 152, 186institutional creation, 13, 49, 65, 186institutional entrepreneurs, 191institutional layering, see layeringinstitutional legacies, 165–6institutional refinement, 12–13institutional reproduction, 12–13, 40,

49, 98, 151, 186, 188, 194institutions

actors and, 82definition of, 11, 61displacement of, 150, 152, 186evolution of, 149–50federalized, 137formal, 4, 7, 11–12, 48, 58, 165,

183–5as gendered, 6–8, 15–16, 58–76, 99,

183–92gendered power relations and, 127gender quota reform and, 51–6historical institutionalist approach

to, 98informal, 4–5, 7, 11–12, 48, 58,

61–2, 183–5new, 164–5, 179, 187, 188new institutionalism and, 81–3

political, 3, 6, 12, 45–7, 74, 82–3, 131–2, 181

role of, in policy making, 117–18insurrectionaries, 150, 152International Criminal Court (ICC),

19, 163–80, 188features of, 167–70gender issues and, 174–6as ‘new’ institution, 174–80organization and operation of, 174–6origins, environment, and

evolution of, 164–7prosecution of gender-based crimes

by, 170–4interstate federalism, 100

Katanga, Germain, 173kindergartens, 119–21, 125Kony, Joseph, 173

Latin America, 63layering, 9, 18, 118, 186leftist alignment strategies, 136, 138legacies, 187legal strategies, 138–40legislative committees, 65legislative institutions, in Argentina

and Chile, 68–75legislative outcomes, 59–60legislative specializations, 65–6logic of appropriateness, 83, 165, 193Lubanga case, 170–4

male-breadwinner ideology, 79–80, 84–7, 113

marketization, 2masculinity, 6maternity leave, 91–2, 115, 122–4, 125men, discrimination against, 45mental maps, 118mothers/motherhood, 86, 88, 90,

92–4, 112–15, 120–4, 127multi-level femocrat strategies, 141–2multi-level governance, 16–17Muñoz, Adriana, 72

National Action Committee on the Status of Women (NAC), 102–3, 105

PROOF

230 Index

National Child Benefit (NCB), 107, 108National Children’s Agenda, 107National Council of Women of

Canada (NCWC), 108nationalist governments/parties,

alignment with, 136, 140National Women’s Service

(SERNAM), 70, 75, 77n13, 77n18neo-liberalism, 105, 110–11nested newness, 19, 166, 188neutrality, 6, 66, 99new institutionalism (NI), 1, 8–13,

21, 47features of, 48feminist political science and, 25,

81, 181–3new institutions, 164–5, 179, 187,

188Ngudjolo, Mathieu, 173normative institutions, 46–7norms, 5–6, 66–7, 71–3, 99, 131, 152,

184–5nurseries, 121–6

Office of the Prosecutor (OTP), 170, 171, 173

old boys networks, 62open federalism, 109organizational institutionalism, 8–10

parental leave, 91–2, 112, 113, 116, 124, 125–6

parité, 54–6parliamentary committees, 63–4, 65paternity leave, 92, 124path dependency, 12, 97, 98, 113–14,

117–18, 125, 126, 138, 143, 149, 151–2, 157–8, 166–7, 187

patriarchy, 2–3Poland, 156, 158, 159policy gate-keepers, 69–70, 75policy issues, hierarchy of, 65policymaking, 15–16political activism, 190political agenda, feminization of, 60political discourse, 191–2political institutions, 3, 6, 12, 181

decision-making process and, 82–3gender regimes, 131–2

quota implementation and, 45–7re-gendering of, 74

political opportunity structure (POS), 131

political practices, 5political recruitment, 14–15, 188

feminist institutionalist model of, 24–40

gender and, 22–4in post-devolution Scotland, 21–41substantive representation, 58–78supply and demand model of, 21–4

political representation, 14–15in communist regimes, 116in France, 54–6gender quotas and, 42–57in Sweden, 51–3

politics, definition of, 4positional power, 10post-communist family policy,

112–28power, 50

asymmetries, 65–6discourse as medium of, 10positional, 10of regional governments, 130

power relationsgendered, 98, 115, 127in institutions, 131–2restructuring of, 144

Prague Spring, 116preference formation,

problematization of, 63–5preventive healthcare, 121proportional representation (PR), 53

Quebec, 99–100quota debates, discourses on, 44–5quota implementation, 45–7quota laws, 73–4

rational choice institutionalism (RCI), 8–9, 20n4, 82, 83, 132–3, 149

regime change, 5regional governments

power of, 130relations between national

government and, 133regionalization, 2

PROOF

Index 231

research, contextualized, 67–8Research Network on Gender Politics

and the State (RNGS), 7Roman Catholic Church, 159Roman-law federations, 144Rome Statute, 19, 163–4, 167–70, 174,

176–8rule-breaking, 5, 37, 184–185rules

complex systems of, 81formal, 68–71, 81–2informal, 11, 37, 62, 81, 184–5, 193

Scotland, candidate selection in post-devolution, 21–41

Scottish Labour Party, 26, 27, 32–3, 34Scottish Liberal Democrats, 26Scottish National Party (SNP), 26Scottish Parliament, 14–15, 25–7, 40,

165–6, 188Security, Opportunities and Fairness

(report), 105–6self-censorship, 72SERNAM (National Women’s Service),

70, 75, 77n13, 77n18sex, vs. gender, 50sexual violence, 168, 170–4Slovak Republic, 17

critical junctures in, 119–27gender relations in, 115–17post-communist family policy in,

112–28socialism, 154social liberalism, 101–2social policy, in Canada, 95, 99,

102–11social relationships, 99Social Security Review (SSR), 96,

102–6, 109–11Social Union Framework Agreement

(SUFA), 96, 106–11sociological institutionalism (SI),

8–10, 83, 118, 132South Africa, 155, 156, 157–8, 159–60spatial minorities, 134, 136, 138,

145n5state-family relations, 16state feminism, 141state institutions, 3

state sovereignty, 169, 173–4Status of Women Canada (SWC),

104, 105status quo bias, 166strategic agency, 191substantive representation, 58–78

in Argentina and Chile, 68–75gendered institutionalist approach

to, 62–8, 75–6measures of, 60as process vs. outcome, 60–1, 76n3quota laws and, 73–5research on, 58–61thick conceptions of, 67

subversives, 150, 152supply and demand model, of

political recruitment, 21, 22–4Sweden, 15, 51–3, 116, 192Switzerland, 89–91symmetrical federations, 137, 141–2systems effects, 133

territorial accommodation, 101territorial saliency, 137Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism

(Esping-Andersen), 84–6

Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC), 171

unitary-state bias, 130unitary states, federations compared

with, 136–45United Kingdom, welfare reform in,

91–3United States, 132–3

varannan damernas, 51–3violence against women, 67, 160,

170–4Volkskindergarten model, 119

war crimes, 168, 169welfare regimes, 16, 79

analysis of, 84–7literature on, 83–7women’s agency and, 190

welfare state, 79–94analysis, 84Canadian, 98, 101–2

PROOF

232 Index

welfare state – continuedfeminist institutionalist approach

to, 80, 87–93gender and, 79–80, 83–7, 98in Germany, 87–9reforms, 87–93research, 87–93role of women in formation of, 91in Switzerland, 89–91in United Kingdom, 91–3women’s agency and, 91–3

womenagency of, 7, 10, 13, 18, 80–1, 91–4,

190–1appointment of, to ICC, 174–6conceptions of, under

international law, 178–9crimes against, 163–4decentralization and, 134–5empowerment of, 17–18legislative representation of, 154

organization of, 156substantive representation of,

58–78under-representation of, 2, 23violence against, 67in work force, 89–90, 112, 115, 116,

120Women’s Caucus for Gender Justice

(WCGJ), 167women’s interests, 76n1women’s issues, 65–6women’s policy agendas (WPAs), 105,

110–11, 143, 148, 154, 158–9, 165, 187

women’s politics, 130decentralization and, 142–4federalism and, 130–1, 132,

133–45women’s rights issues, 70–1women’s suffrage, 132–3world polity school, 10

PROOF

9780230 245884 01 pre - mona lena krookmlkrook.org/pdf/krook_mackay_11.pdf · 1 introduction:...

Documents