Expanding democracy: debating legislative and corporate board quotas In five European states

IF 1.8 3区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Politics Groups and Identities Pub Date : 2021-11-25 DOI:10.1080/21565503.2021.2003827
Kimberly B. Cowell-Meyers, Lori Younissess
{"title":"Expanding democracy: debating legislative and corporate board quotas In five European states","authors":"Kimberly B. Cowell-Meyers, Lori Younissess","doi":"10.1080/21565503.2021.2003827","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT This project examines the puzzle posed by different types of quotas, which both seem to be part of similar gender equality policies and yet differ; legislative and corporate board quotas regulate sectors with different patterns of state intervention and play different roles in the democratic process, have different practical and political dynamics and tend not to occur in the same places. We use parliamentary debates in five European nation-states to analyze how policy-makers use conceptualizations of equality and democracy in these different policies and how these differ across quota types and cases. We determine that the two policies reflect similar conceptualizations of equality and democracy that are shared across the cases, although the understanding in the later CBQ debates is more expansive than in the earlier LQ ones, especially among MPs on the right. It takes women’s equal qualifications to participate in decision-making bodies as a given and expands the agenda for dismantling unequal power structures. These new norms derive their legitimacy from the experience of other comparator nation-states with quotas and concern for the state’s international reputation. Thus, CBQs are extensions of LQs but the mechanism of their relationship arises as much through international diffusion as domestic policy expansion.","PeriodicalId":46590,"journal":{"name":"Politics Groups and Identities","volume":"34 1","pages":"488 - 506"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics Groups and Identities","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2021.2003827","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT This project examines the puzzle posed by different types of quotas, which both seem to be part of similar gender equality policies and yet differ; legislative and corporate board quotas regulate sectors with different patterns of state intervention and play different roles in the democratic process, have different practical and political dynamics and tend not to occur in the same places. We use parliamentary debates in five European nation-states to analyze how policy-makers use conceptualizations of equality and democracy in these different policies and how these differ across quota types and cases. We determine that the two policies reflect similar conceptualizations of equality and democracy that are shared across the cases, although the understanding in the later CBQ debates is more expansive than in the earlier LQ ones, especially among MPs on the right. It takes women’s equal qualifications to participate in decision-making bodies as a given and expands the agenda for dismantling unequal power structures. These new norms derive their legitimacy from the experience of other comparator nation-states with quotas and concern for the state’s international reputation. Thus, CBQs are extensions of LQs but the mechanism of their relationship arises as much through international diffusion as domestic policy expansion.
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
扩大民主:在五个欧洲国家辩论立法和公司董事会配额
本项目探讨了不同类型的配额所带来的难题,这些配额似乎都是类似性别平等政策的一部分,但又有所不同;立法机构和公司董事会配额管理的行业具有不同的国家干预模式,在民主进程中发挥着不同的作用,具有不同的实际和政治动态,而且往往不会在同一个地方发生。我们利用五个欧洲民族国家的议会辩论来分析政策制定者如何在这些不同的政策中使用平等和民主的概念,以及这些概念在配额类型和案例中有何不同。我们确定,这两项政策反映了在案例中共享的类似的平等和民主概念,尽管在后来的CBQ辩论中的理解比在早期的LQ辩论中更为广泛,特别是在右翼议员中。它将妇女参与决策机构的平等资格视为一种既定条件,并扩大了拆除不平等权力结构的议程。这些新规范的合法性来自于其他有配额的比较民族国家的经验,以及对国家国际声誉的关注。因此,cbq是lq的延伸,但它们之间关系的机制既来自国内政策扩张,也来自国际扩散。
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
Politics Groups and Identities
Politics Groups and Identities POLITICAL SCIENCE-
自引率
5.60%
发文量
50
期刊最新文献
Viewers like you: the effect of elite co-identity reinforcement on U.S. immigration attitudes A nation of immigrants? The case for a politically influential and intersectional immigrant identity in the United States White candidate support continues amidst explicit and implicit white identity cues Envisioning a world without prisons: group concept mapping as a collective strategy for justice and dignity Trump’s African Americans? Racial resentment and Black support for Trump in the 2020 elections
×
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