(Gender) balancing the books: how did Irish political parties respond to the first ‘gender quota’ election in 2016?

IF 0.8 4区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE Irish Political Studies Pub Date : 2020-11-06 DOI:10.1080/07907184.2020.1828365
Mack D. Mariani, Fiona Buckley, Claire McGing, Austin L. Wright
{"title":"(Gender) balancing the books: how did Irish political parties respond to the first ‘gender quota’ election in 2016?","authors":"Mack D. Mariani, Fiona Buckley, Claire McGing, Austin L. Wright","doi":"10.1080/07907184.2020.1828365","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This study examines how Ireland’s political parties responded to the implementation of legislative gender quotas for the first time at the 2016 Dáil election. Using a dataset that includes biographical and electoral information on all candidates for the 2007, 2011 and 2016 general elections, we assess whether the profile of candidates nominated in 2016 differed from previous elections. Although many parties ‘balanced the books’ by nominating fewer inexperienced male candidates, the evidence suggests that some parties engaged in ‘sacrificial lamb’ strategies when it came to the selection of women candidates. In 2016, women non-incumbents nominated by Fine Gael were significantly less experienced and less able to raise funds than in previous elections. In addition, women non-incumbents nominated by both Fine Gael and Labour in 2016 were significantly more likely to run non-competitive races even after controlling for party, experience, funding support and other factors. The paper concludes that political parties are not homogenous and respond differently to gender quotas depending on the available political opportunity structure (POS). In 2016, this POS was shaped by electoral context, party resources, male incumbency and resistance to gender quotas.","PeriodicalId":45746,"journal":{"name":"Irish Political Studies","volume":"36 1","pages":"235 - 262"},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/07907184.2020.1828365","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Irish Political Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/07907184.2020.1828365","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

ABSTRACT This study examines how Ireland’s political parties responded to the implementation of legislative gender quotas for the first time at the 2016 Dáil election. Using a dataset that includes biographical and electoral information on all candidates for the 2007, 2011 and 2016 general elections, we assess whether the profile of candidates nominated in 2016 differed from previous elections. Although many parties ‘balanced the books’ by nominating fewer inexperienced male candidates, the evidence suggests that some parties engaged in ‘sacrificial lamb’ strategies when it came to the selection of women candidates. In 2016, women non-incumbents nominated by Fine Gael were significantly less experienced and less able to raise funds than in previous elections. In addition, women non-incumbents nominated by both Fine Gael and Labour in 2016 were significantly more likely to run non-competitive races even after controlling for party, experience, funding support and other factors. The paper concludes that political parties are not homogenous and respond differently to gender quotas depending on the available political opportunity structure (POS). In 2016, this POS was shaped by electoral context, party resources, male incumbency and resistance to gender quotas.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
(性别)平衡账目:爱尔兰政党对2016年首次“性别配额”选举的反应如何?
摘要:本研究考察了爱尔兰政党在2016年Dáil选举中首次对立法性别配额的实施做出的反应。使用包含2007年、2011年和2016年大选所有候选人的履历和选举信息的数据集,我们评估2016年提名的候选人的概况是否与以前的选举不同。尽管许多政党通过提名较少缺乏经验的男性候选人来“平衡账目”,但有证据表明,一些政党在选择女性候选人时采取了“牺牲羔羊”的策略。2016年,由统一党提名的女性非现任议员的经验明显不足,筹集资金的能力也不如前几次选举。此外,2016年被统一党和工党提名的女性非现任议员更有可能参加非竞争性竞选,即使在控制了政党、经验、资金支持和其他因素之后。本文的结论是,政党不是同质的,并且根据可用的政治机会结构(POS)对性别配额的反应不同。2016年,这一POS受到选举背景、政党资源、男性在职和对性别配额的抵制的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Irish Political Studies
Irish Political Studies POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.20
自引率
28.60%
发文量
34
期刊最新文献
A critical appraisal of the case for progressive unionism in Northern Ireland today Troubling rhetoric: discourse theory and Irish Republican Army narratives (1962–1972) Front and centre? Northern Irish electoral behaviour in the age of Brexit Republic of Ireland 2022 Northern Ireland 2022
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1