Sarah Childs

RETHINKING WOMEN'S SUBSTANTIVE REPRESENTATION

This article seeks to rethink how scholars have traditionally studied womens substantive representation. It outlines a framework that aims to replace questions like ‘Do women represent women?’ with ones like ‘Who claims to act for women?’ and ‘Where, how, and why does the substantive representation of women occur?’ Arguing that representation occurs both inside and outside legislative arenas, the article calls attention to the wide range of actors, sites, goal, and means that inform processes of substantive representation.

Critical Mass Theory and Women's Political Representation

In studies of womens legislative behaviour, the concept of critical mass is widely used and, more recently, criticised as a tool for understanding the relationship between the percentage of female legislators and the passage of legislation beneficial to women as a group. In this research note, we revisit classic contributions by Rosabeth Moss Kanter and Drude Dahlerup and outline and discuss their assumptions regarding anticipated connections between numbers and outcomes. We find that later gender and politics scholars have often misconstrued their work, with crucial implications for subsequent research on relations between the descriptive and substantive representation of women. We argue that clarifying the theoretical origins of the critical mass concept is crucial for forging a more coherent and cumulative research agenda on womens political representation.

Should Feminists Give Up on Critical Mass? A Contingent Yes

Todays historic level of women in national parliaments—while still far short of parity at 16%—owes much to the global spread of gender quotas. This process, in turn, owes much to the concept of “critical mass”: International organizations, transnational networks, party politicians, womens activists, and even ordinary citizens argue that women should constitute 30% of all political bodies, the magic number where female legislators are said to be able to make a difference. As the notion of critical mass has gained wide currency in the real world, however, many scholars have come to question its utility and relevance for analyzing womens legislative behavior. Indeed, as the number of studies grows, it is increasingly obvious that there is neither a single nor a universal relationship between the percentage of women elected to political office and the passage of legislation beneficial to women as a group: In some cases, women are able to work more effectively together as their numbers grow, but in others, women appear to make a difference—in fact, sometimes a greater difference—when they form a small minority of legislators, either because their increased numbers provoke a backlash among male legislators or because their increased numbers allow individual women to pursue other policy goals. These contradictions thus raise the question: Should feminists give up on critical mass? Or are there any compelling reasons—either theoretical or practical—for retaining the concept in debates on womens political representation?

Gender and Politics: the State of the Art

Over the last two decades, but particularly in the last 10 years, research into sex, gender and politics has become an established sub-field of political science. This article opens with some reflections on the position of ‘women and politics’ scholars and research within the British political science community. It then moves on to reflect upon the burgeoning literature on womens political representation. In particular, it questions the way in which the relationship between womens descriptive and substantive representation has been operationalised and investigated in empirical research, namely through the concept of critical mass. Seeking to reframe these debates, the article suggests that future research should focus not on the question of when women make a difference, but on how the substantive representation of women occurs.

The Substantive Representation of Women: What to Do with Conservative Claims?

Recent developments in the gender and politics literature suggest that studying the substantive representation of women is much more complicated than counting the number of women present in a particular political institution and judging the actions of women representatives against a ‘feminist’ shopping list of demands. In brief, the substantive representation of women is no longer considered to be restricted to what happens in our parliaments or only by what women representatives do therein. Furthermore, what constitutes womens issues and interests – that which is to be represented – can also no longer be considered straightforwardly ‘out there’ to simply be acted upon by representatives; they are constructed as part of the representative process. Acknowledgement of the diversity and likely contested nature of claims to act ‘for women’ coincides with an emerging appreciation that the claims for women made by conservative representatives need to be brought more explicitly into our analytic frameworks and empirical studies. Together, these points not only undermine any assumption that the substantive representation of women equals the feminist substantive representation of women; they also raise the possibility of non- and anti-feminist representative claims and actions ‘for’ women. Against this backdrop, we review recent developments within the sub-field of the substantive representation of women literature and offer some reflections and suggestions about how to take conservatism seriously when studying the substantive representation of women both conceptually and empirically.

The Complicated Relationship between Sex, Gender and the Substantive Representation of Women

Simply counting the numbers of women present in politics is an inadequate basis for theorizing the difference they might make. Drawing on research on British MPs (interviews with Labour women MPs first elected in 1997, analysis of Labour MPs’ voting behaviour and signing of early day motions in the 1997 parliament, and MPs’ participation in parliamentary debates accompanying the Sex Discrimination (Election Candidates) Act), this article shows how insights gained from empirical research can inform and improve our theorizing. It suggests that the relationship between women’s descriptive and substantive representation is better conceived as complicated rather than straightforward.

Do Women Need Women Representatives

This article analyses the relationship between the representatives and the represented by comparing elite and mass attitudes to gender equality and women’s representation in Britain. In so doing, the authors take up arguments in the recent theoretical literature on representation that question the value of empirical research of Pitkin’s distinction between substantive and descriptive representation. They argue that if men and women have different attitudes at the mass level, which are reproduced amongst political elites, then the numerical under-representation of women may have negative implications for women’s substantive representation. The analysis is conducted on the British Election Study (BES) and the British Representation Study (BRS) series.

The Politics of Local Presence: Is there a Case for Descriptive Representation?

The case for greater descriptive representation of groups such as women and ethnic minorities has become widely, though not wholly, accepted in much of the academic literature and in the ‘real world’ of politics in most advanced democracies. In the UK the goal of greater descriptive representation of women has often become framed as a zero-sum game against men, especially local men, with consequences for the descriptive representation of women. This article examines whether claims made for the descriptive representation of women and black candidates can and should apply to local candidates, whatever their sex or race. It draws a distinction between the representation of a territory (common to most representative systems) and the representation of a territory by someone from that territory, a similar distinction to the difference common in the gender and politics literature between the representation of women by an elected representative and the representation of women by women representatives. The article also distinguishes between a hard and a soft form of this argument. The latter applies to almost every constituency in the UK, but it is a claim not based on arguments for the presence of the disadvantaged. However, the case for a local candidate to represent a more disadvantaged constituency, the harder form of the argument, can be made on almost all of the criteria applied to other excluded groups identified in the politics of presence literature.

Constituting and Substantively Representing Women: Applying New Approaches to a UK Case Study

With critical mass theory increasingly rejected as an explanatory theory of womens substantive representation, new conceptual approaches and methods are being suggested that look toward the role of multiple actors and multiple sites of representation, and which point to the importance of critical actors. Within them, there is particular concern with what constitutes the substantive representation of women (SRW). At the same time, the constitutive representation of gender (CRG) has been advanced as a complementary facet of representation. This article offers the first case study of both the SRW and the CRG in the parliamentary setting. It does so through an over-time analysis of the British Conservative Party. By examining general election manifestos (1992?2005), it considers how the Conservative Party constitutes womens concerns, the relations between the sexes, and the pledges the party makes ?for women?. The research, furthermore, suggests that in studying the SRW and the CRG, scholars should both look at changes in the representative claims and pledges that are made by individual political actors, such as political parties, and explore the relationship between the two facets of representation.

Constituting Women's Interests through Representative Claims

The promotion of ‘women’s interests’ is a central focus and concern of advocates of women’s political representation. Examining the policy priorities and initiatives of female office-holders, existing research seeks to establish whether there are links between women’s presence and policy outcomes favorable to women as a group. Building on recent work critical of this traditional approach, this paper seeks in three key points to rethink the nature and process of political representation. First, it observes, dynamics of representation are not limited to elected bodies; rather, actors in multiple sites articulate policy demands. Second, in the course of their lobbying efforts, these actors make claims about who ‘women’ are and what ‘women’ want. Third, analyzing the multiple sources of claims-making highlights the need to distinguish between ‘women’s issues’ (a broad policy category) and ‘women’s interests’ (the content given to this category by various actors). The implications of this new approach are illustrated via four case studies, pointing to substantial within- and cross-case variations in the issues and interests identified as relevant to women as a group, as well as the actors claiming to act for women. On this basis, the paper concludes that ‘women’ and ‘women’s interests’ are constructed through, and not simply reflected in, political advocacy on their behalf.