Role Models and Women s Political Representation Fabrizio Gilardi Department of Political Science University of Zurich swissnex Boston April 23, 2015 (Updated April 23, 2015) 1 / 39
Outline The Problem Some Explanations Can Role Models Help? 2 / 39
Women in parliament: the good news Percent 12 14 16 18 20 22 Global average 22.1 2000 2005 2010 2015 4 / 39
Women in parliament: the bad news Percent 0 10 20 30 40 50 Global average 22.1 2000 2005 2010 2015 5 / 39
Women in parliament Percent 0 10 20 30 40 50 Global average USA 22.1 19.1 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 6 / 39
Women in parliament Percent 0 10 20 30 40 50 Switzerland Global average USA 28.5 22.1 19.1 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 7 / 39
Structural factors: electoral system 9 / 39
Structural factors: electoral system Percent of women in parliament (2006) Majoritarian electoral system Proportional electoral system 0 10 20 30 40 50 12.7 20.4 10 / 39
Demand-side factors: political parties Zurich cantonal elections 2015: Percent female candidates vs. rank CVP Average rank difference, men women 2 1 0 1 JUSO SVP Piraten IP Women with better rank on ballot Men with better rank on ballot FDP BDP EDU SP EVP glp AL Grüne 20 30 40 50 Percent female candidates 11 / 39
Demand-side factors: quotas 12 / 39
Demand-side factors: quotas Percent of women in parliament (2006) No gender quota Gender quotas 0 10 20 30 40 50 13.2 19.2 13 / 39
Supply-side factors: ambition gap 14 / 39
Supply-side factors: ambition gap for Office 100 90 80 70 The Gender Gap in Considering a Candidacy, by Sex and Age Men Women Running Considered Percent 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Age (Fox & Lawless 2014) 15 / 39
Supply-side factors: confidence gap (The Atlantic, April 14, 2014.) 16 / 39
17 / 39
Role models can be empowering 19 / 39
Role models can be empowering (http://www.inspiringthefuture.org/inspiring-women/) 20 / 39
Role models can be empowering The view from the Network: Role models The European Network of Women in Decision-making in Politics and the Economy discussed role models as a tool to promote the advancement of women during one of its meetings in 2009. The members recognised the importance of role models in inspiring others but also in their capacity to shape changes in the working and leadership environment for the benefit of other women. From their positions at the top, successful role models can highlight issues, progress action and get responses by seeking interventions such as targets/quotas for the Women role models show that it can be done (in business and in politics) thus allowing more women to push aside the boundaries. This is empowering for both the role models and the women who seek to emulate them. 21 / 39
Women s representation has spillovers 22 / 39
My research: temporary importance of role models Fabrizio Gilardi (2015), The Temporary Importance of Role Models for Women s Political Representation. American Journal of Political Science, forthcoming. Argument Role models help to improve the political representation of women, but only until its (relative) consolidation. (Learning vs. internalization) Findings More women run for office if, in the previous election, more women were elected in nearby units. The relationship decreases over time. Policy implications Interventions should take spillovers into account. Timing is crucial. Possibly relevant for business and administration, other underrepresented groups. 23 / 39
1,500+ elections in Zurich, 1970 2010 1970 (0.5) 1990 (11.6) 2010 (22.4) 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 24 / 39
25 / 39
1,500+ elections in Zurich, 1970 2010 26 / 39
Switzerland is a typical case Actual % of women in parliament (2006) 0 10 20 30 40 50 Based on Tripp & Kang (2008) Rwanda Costa Rica Denmark Finland SpainNetherlands Mozambique Argentina Belgium Austria New Zealand South Africa Germany Tanzania Guyana Burundi Belarus Grenada Vietnam Namibia Mexico Australia Suriname Uganda Switzerland Bulgaria Tunisia Laos Luxembourg Moldova Lithuania Ethiopia Pakistan Latvia Nicaragua Croatia Bahamas Poland Canada Portugal GuineaSenegal Trinidad Equatorial Guinea Estonia Macedonia United Kingdom Tajikistan St Peru Mauritius Venezuela Vincent Bolivia Panama Dominican Italy Czech Republic Bangladesh Cape Philippines Verde Cyprus Slovakia Uzbekistan Ecuador Angola Chile Gambia Guinea Bissau Sierra Israel Leone United Zimbabwe SudanStates Barbados Malawi Korea South Azerbaijan Colombia Congo Burkina Kinshasa France Greece Ireland Syria Zambia Djibouti Ghana Lesotho Maldives Jamaica Liberia Niger Slovenia Indonesia Botswana Faso Thailand Morocco El Salvador Georgia Cambodia Kazakhstan Mali Swaziland Romania Uruguay Paraguay Congo Malta Gabon Malaysia Russia Brazzaville Fiji Japan Hungary Guatemala IndiaIvory Coast Brazil Cameroon Albania Mongolia Togo Madagascar Chad Benin Belize Kenya Algeria JordanNepal Nigeria Ukraine Sao Tome Armenia Iran Lebanon Mauritania Samoa Sri St Lanka Lucia Turkey Egypt Comoros Tonga Kuwait Solomon Papua Bahrain New Islands Guinea Kyrgyzstan Yemen Sweden Norway Iceland 0 10 20 30 40 Predicted % of women in parliament 27 / 39
492 Switzerland is a typical case FIGURE 2 23 DEMOCRACIES CLUSTERED BY LIKE POLITICAL, SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND PERCENT OF WOMEN IN PARLIAMENT (Z SCORES OF COUNTRIES ON FACTORS 1 AND 2) 28 / 39
Zurich is not an outlier Percent women in cantonal parliament 0 10 20 30 Zurich Mean 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 29 / 39
Women s representation in Zurich Percent of women 0 5 10 15 20 25 National parliament Municipalities (Swiss average) Running for office in municipalities in Zurich Elected to office in municipalities in Zurich 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 30 / 39
Election probability of male and female candidates Percent 0 20 40 60 80 Men Women Probability that male and female candidates are elected (Municipal elections, canton Zurich) 1970 1978 1986 1994 2002 2010 31 / 39
Percent of female candidates: Spatial clustering Spatial autocorrelation (Moran's I) 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.04 0.06 1970 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 32 / 39
Number of female candidates: cross-unit spillovers Expected increase in nr of women cand. 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 Effect of an additional woman elected in NEARBY municipalities (t 1) 1974 1978 1982 1986 1990 1994 1998 2002 2006 2010 Baseline 0 0 0 3 5 10 21 26 27 21 33 / 39
Extensions 34 / 39
Policy implications: diffusion multiplier 35 / 39
Policy implications: timing 36 / 39
Policy implications: business & administration 37 / 39
Policy implications: other underrepresented groups 38 / 39
Thank you for your attention! More info: www.fabriziogilardi.org 39 / 39