essay assignment of 2 questions, 2 pages each

When Do Governments Promote Women’s Rights? A Framework for the Comparative Analysis of Sex Equality Policy Mala Htun and S. Laurel Weldon

This essay proposes a framework to analyze cross-national variation in women’s legal rights. To explore the distinct logics of policy change, we disaggregate sex equality policies on two dimensions: 1) whether they improve the status of women as a group or alleviate gender-based class inequalities, and 2) whether or not they challenge the doctrine of organized religion and the codified tradition of major cultural groups. We show that policies promoting gender equality seek fundamental social change and therefore challenge historical patterns of state-society interaction concerning relations between the state and the market; the respective authority of the state, religion, and cultural groups; and the contours of citizenship. Different issues, however, challenge different aspects of these relations. What’s more, the priorities, strategies, and effectiveness of advocates and opponents of change (including women’s move- ments, left parties, international NGOs, and organized religion) are shaped by state capacity, policy legacies, international vulner- ability, and the degree of democracy.

I n Pakistan, a woman who reports rape can expect to be charged with adultery; in neighboring India, women- run police stations and new legal devices empower vic-

tims of violence and help state officials prosecute sex crimes. In Catholic Ireland, abortion is a crime while in Italy, seat of the Vatican, access to abortion is not only legally guar- anteed but also provided at state expense. In Canada and the United Kingdom, parents are entitled to paid mater- nity leave but United States law grants parents no paid leave at all.

These gender-related policies shape women’s access to education and employment, their ability to care for their families, and their chances to escape poverty and enjoy

good health. They have broader implications as well: soci- eties with greater equality are more likely to be prosperous and sustain stable democratic institutions. And children have better chances to lead healthy lives in more gender- equal societies.1

How can we explain the global variation in gender- equality policies?2 Theories based primarily on the expe- riences of developed countries and established democracies may mislead us when it comes to the rest of the world. For example, studies of Europe suggest that Left parties and parties with powerful women tend to adopt quota policies for women candidates.3 Yet states outside of the West have introduced candidate quotas and reserved legislative seats for women under right-wing and military governments (in Argentina, Pakistan, Peru) or governments where women have wielded little influence ( Jordan, Morocco).4

What’s more, advanced democracies and wealthy coun- tries are not always the most progressive when it comes to gender equality. Sweden offers generous parental leave and day care but has been slow to combat violence against women. In fact, the governments in the “macho” coun- tries of Latin America did far more to mitigate violence against women than the “women-friendly” Scandinavian welfare states.5

Too little cross-national research has investigated these puzzles.6 Gender and politics scholarship has advanced remarkably over the past two decades, but most of us have shied away from global comparisons. Most work on gender

Mala Htun is Associate Professor of Political Science at the New School for Social Research and Eugene Lang College ([email protected]). She is the author of Sex and the State: Abortion, Divorce, and the Family under Latin American Dictatorships and Democracy, published by Cambridge University Press in 2003. S. Laurel Weldon is Associate Professor of Political Science, Purdue University ([email protected]) and is the author of Protest, Policy and the Problem of Violence against Women (University of Pittsburgh Press, 2002) and When Protest Makes Policy: How Social Movements Represent Disadvantaged Groups (University of Michigan Press forthcoming 2010).

| | �

�

�

Symposium

doi:10.1017/S1537592709992787 March 2010 | Vol. 8/No. 1 207

and politics focuses on established democracies, makes only limited regional comparisons, or concentrates on a single set of issues.7 What is more, it tends to duplicate rather than interrogate the organizing principles and assumptions of the comparative politics field.

The field of comparative politics has not focused on sex equality and women’s rights as a major topic. Instead, the main approaches of comparative politics have developed with an implicit focus on men’s lives and activities while assuming that women’s activities, particularly those under- taken in the private sphere, were not political and not economically productive. We should not presume that the field’s traditional approaches and typologies (based on socio- economic modernization, democratization, cultural change, and regional distinctiveness, among others) offer the best explanations for gender and politics.8 Instead, we should formulate new theories of change in women’s rights. Mov- ing gender from the margin to the center of comparative politics demands that we start from a global perspective and with a fresh intellectual agenda.

Explaining global variation in gender equality policy should be at the center of a comparative politics of gender (CPG). While CPG can encompass other areas of schol- arly endeavor (for example, some may consider gender an independent variable in their analysis of political out- comes), the focus on women’s rights in law and policy reflects a normative commitment to advancing gender equality. It most closely links the field of CPG to feminist praxis. And although it is true that law and policy consti- tute only one element of the broader constellation of gen- der relations and institutions (as we explain below), it is a crucial and understudied one.

We understand gender as the constellation of institu- tions, including policies, laws, and norms, that constitute the roles, relations, and identities of women and men, and the feminine and the masculine, in a given context. Gen- der equality is only one possible form of such a configu- ration though it exists in no contemporary state. Male dominance is the most common form and is manifest to varying degrees in most societies. Gender equality policy aims to dismantle hierarchies of power that privilege men and the masculine, a sexual division of labor that devalues women and the feminine, and the institutionalization of normative heterosexuality.9 Sex equality policy is a nar- rower category than gender policy for it concentrates more on equality between men and women and less on norma- tive heterosexuality.10 Our dependent variable in this essay is sex equality policies, though we ultimately hope to con- sider the fuller range of phenomena encompassed by gender.

We propose a framework to analyze cross-national vari- ation in women’s legal rights.11 Frameworks “help to iden- tify the elements and relationships among these elements that one needs to consider for institutional analysis.”12

They offer lists of factors that could be relevant for gender politics, helping to generate questions and providing a

basis upon which to compare theories. Theories, in turn, help analysts understand which elements of the frame- work are relevant for particular questions. Many theories may be compatible with a single framework. Models oper- ate at an even higher level of specificity. In other work, we offer theory and models for a wide variety of policy issues. This essay focuses on presenting the framework.

The framework is based on two key claims:

1. Gender policy involves not one issue but many and each issue involves different actors and conflicts (issue distinctiveness). We explain why particular actors mat- ter more for some areas than others by showing how the policy in question relates to the institutionalized relations between state, market, and church.

2. Different actors have different powers and effects in different contexts (agent-context interaction). We argue that state capacity, institutional legacies, vulnerabil- ity to international pressure, and degree of democ- racy are powerful contextual influences on sex equality policy. These factors affect the priorities and effectiveness of the advocates of change. They shape the ways policies are framed and their “fit” within a particular context.

Sex Equality Policy Is Not One Issue But Many To explain the origins of sex equality policies, many schol- ars focus on women as political agents in policymaking positions and social movements. Most also explore the ways that political contexts—including the presence of women’s policy agencies, federalism, political parties, and cultural attitudes—shape women’s political behavior.13 Yet few theories confront the fact that gender equality policies have been adopted when women’s presence in govern- ment is low (or nonexistent) and when women’s move- ments in civil society are weak. For example, the governments most active in addressing violence against women are not those with the largest proportion of women.14 Dictatorships from the Middle East to Latin America embraced progressive family law reforms without pressure from women’s groups.15 What’s more, politically- active women have mobilized to oppose sex equality pol- icies such as equal rights amendments in national constitutions, reproductive rights, parental leave, and even gender quotas.

Solving these puzzles requires disaggregating the analy- sis by gender issue. Each category or type of issue involves a distinct set of actors, activates different cleavages and conflicts, and has distinct implications for gender rela- tions. Disaggregating, therefore, reveals the variation in causal processes that are obscured when one considers gen- der policy as a single category. Though some gender and politics scholars note that causal processes vary across gender issues, there are very few accounts of why and how

| | �

�

�

Symposium | A Comparative Politics of Gender

208 Perspectives on Politics

the diverse processes of policy change vary across issues.16

Further, most studies lack systematic, cross-national investigation of the interaction between gender and other axes of group difference in spite of near-universal acknowl- edgement that gender relations are shaped by religion, race, ethnicity and class. Such interactions are undoubt- edly important for policy outcomes.17

Paid parental leave, for example, invokes questions of socioeconomic inequality as well as gender inequality and is shaped by patterns of class politics such as the power of left parties.18 But class politics may be less relevant to issues concerning the status of women as a group, such as violence against women. Left- and right-wing administra- tions may be equally likely to promote good policies.19

Meanwhile, gender policy issues that challenge religious doctrine or codified cultural traditions—such as abortion and family law—invoke ecclesiastical opposition while other policies—such as workplace equality or gender quotas—generally do not.20

These two dimensions—whether a policy empowers all women as a status group or addresses class inequalities, and whether or not the policy challenges religious doc- trine or the codified tradition of a major cultural group— suggest a typology of gender issues. The typology can be used to identify the sets of actors relevant for each type of policy issue. It helps explain the varying importance of these actors across issues and countries.

Gender Status Versus Class-Based Policies Some gender equality policies address harms inflicted on women as women. These injustices affect all women in some way regardless of their other social positions (race, ethnicity, class, sexual orientation, etc.). Owing to insti- tutions and patterns of cultural value that privilege mas- culinity and devalue everything associated with femininity, these harms deny women the recognition and dignity they merit as human beings. Sexist norms cast men as the stan- dard and women as subordinate, “other,” and lacking in value. Their consequences include sexual assault, harass-

ment, violence, stereotyping, public exclusion and mar- ginalization, and the denial of citizenship rights.21 It is worth emphasizing that, though these injustices are inflicted on women as women, they do not necessarily affect all women in the same way or to the same degree. Nor do all women subjectively experience them in similar fashion. Being female (alone or in conjunction with other social conditions) triggers the unjust treatment.

We call policies to remedy such harms “status policies.” They attack those practices and values that constitute women as a subordinate group and prevent them from participating as peers in political and social life. These policies include:

1) family law, which historically cast women as infe- rior to men and gave them few or no rights over marital property, minor children, or the ability to work;

2) violence against women, a problem rooted in patri- archal attitudes;

3) abortion and other reproductive freedoms, which ensure women’s capacity to make choices about their bodies and other intimate matters;

4) gender quotas, which elevate the cultural image of women in society at large by promoting their pres- ence in decision making.

Other policies are more directly targeted at women’s burdens in the sexual division of labor. This division, which structures most contemporary societies, locates women in the private sphere and places responsibility for caring for children, the sick and elderly, and maintaining the house- hold on their shoulders. Though all women are affected by the sexual division of labor, its consequences vary accord- ing to social class. Women with money have options. They may choose to perform care work themselves or they may hire nannies for child care, employ domestic workers to clean their homes, contract hospice care for elderly par- ents, and/or exit the labor market for a time. For their part, poor women, who have no choice but to work for

Table 1 Typology of sex equality policies

Do these policies challenge religious doctrine or codified cultural traditions?

Yes “Doctrinal” policies

No “Non-doctrinal” policies

Do these policies empower women as a status group or address class inequalities?

Gender-status policies Abortion legality Contraception legality Family Law

Gender quotas in politics Violence against women Constitutional equality

Class-based policies Abortion funding Contraception funding

Parental leave Federal funds for child care Workplace equality

| | �

�

�

March 2010 | Vol. 8/No. 1 209

wages, do not have the money to buy childcare and house- hold help on the market. They rely on family members or on the state.

Class-based policies address these inequalities among women. They make it possible for all women—not just rich ones—to get help with their reproductive and domes- tic responsibilities. Such policies include paid maternity or parental leave and government-funded child care. State funding for abortion and for contraceptives are also class policies. Though the legality of abortion and contracep- tives is a status issue affecting all women, funding for these practices is not. Rich women, but not poor ones, can pay market rates for abortion and contraceptive devices. Poor women’s ability to exercise reproductive rights hinges on public funding.

Doctrinal Versus Non-Doctrinal Policies Some gender equality issues touch upon the jurisdic- tional conflict between the state and other organizations over the administration of kinship relations, reproduc- tion, and sexuality. Before the modern state came into being at the Peace of Westphalia, these institutions— including churches, clans, tribes, and traditional authorities—upheld the rules and managed the processes related to the reproduction of life. In Europe and Latin America, for example, the Roman Catholic Church main- tained registries of births and deaths, ran hospitals and cemeteries, and presided over marriages and separations. Sub-Saharan African clans and tribes administered mar- riage, family relations, and the use and inheritance of land. Even today, the state’s seizure of this authority has been incomplete and contested. Much of Asia, Africa, and the Middle East is governed by multiple legal sys- tems or by religious law. Even in the West, the Church exercises a veto in certain policy debates while claiming to be the guardian of moral values.22

Since many religious, traditional, and tribal authorities perceive that their continued power depends on their con- trol over kinship and reproduction, they are central actors in policy debates on those issues. The doctrine and codi- fied tradition of these groups also often endorses male dominance and female submission, particularly in the areas of family law, reproduction, and sexuality.23

Not all gender equality policies provoke such conflicts between the state and other organizations over their respec- tive jurisdictional authority, however. These issues are more distant from religious doctrine and codified tradition. They concern zones of life rarely touched upon by scripture (such as government versus private provision of childcare) or more modern dilemmas that traditional religions and customs failed to anticipate (such as equality in the work- place). To be sure, in some places even these issues may provoke religious opposition. In Saudi Arabia, for exam- ple, sex-appropriate fields of work are designated by reli- gious law.

We call the first set of issues “doctrinal” and the second “non-doctrinal.” In most countries, doctrinal issues include family law, the legality of abortion, reproductive freedom, and funding for abortion and contraceptives. Non-doctrinal issues include violence against women, gender quotas, equality at work, parental leave, child care, and constitu- tional provisions for sex equality. We do not define an issue as doctrinal according to whether it does in fact pro- voke religious opposition. It is defined as doctrinal if the policy contradicts the explicit doctrine, codified tradition, or sacred discourse of the dominant religion or cultural group. As this suggests, an issue can be doctrinal in one country and non-doctrinal in another. Abortion is a doc- trinal issue in Italy and Ireland but not in China or Japan.

This distinction helps us understand why the same coun- try may witness progress on non-doctrinal areas (such as violence against women, gender quotas, and workplace equality) while stalling on others (abortion, divorce, fam- ily law). In the first instance, religious and tribal organi- zations abstain from involvement, while in the second, they spend political capital to preclude reform. Uganda, for example, has pushed women into power with its 30 percent reserved seat policy but has been unable to reform laws to grant women co-ownership rights with men over land. The first policy is agnostic on clan power while the second presents it with a sharp challenge.24

At this point, a skeptic may wonder: don’t political con- flict and cleavages depend on how an issue is framed, and doesn’t this vary from country to country? In other words, couldn’t the same issue—such as abortion or gender quotas—be politicized as doctrinal in one place and non- doctrinal in another according to how the issue has been framed by churches and women’s groups? As noted earlier, whether or not an issue is a doctrinal issue does vary across national context depending on the dominant religion, tra- dition, or culture. Our typology does not characterize issues according to how they are framed by actors but in light of their relationship to religious and political-economic struc- tures in a given national context.

We acknowledge that framing is a strategic tactic, but argue that contestation over frames reflects (rather than determines) the conflicts predicted by our typology. In the United States, for example, religious conservatives opposed both the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) as well as the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), claiming that these measures would strengthen abortion rights (and it is possible they would have, though this was not the primary focus of these documents). Their strategic framing helped mobilize the actors ignited by a doctrinal issue (namely, churches on abortion) to oppose change on a broader issue (constitutional equality). It also distracted the public from the broader, and less controversial, idea of sex equality. The effect of framing, in this case, was not to change the nature of constitutional equality so much as to

| | �

�

�

Symposium | A Comparative Politics of Gender

210 Perspectives on Politics

highlight possible implications for abortion and link it to abortion politics. Actors employ frames that advance their strategic interests, and they are more or less likely to pre- vail depending on their political clout, the extent of oppo- sition, and their “fit” with historic patterns of policy. Framing is epiphenomenal to the institutionalized rela- tionships and political contests suggested by our approach, not constitutive of it.

Interaction Between Agents and Contexts The type of issue determines the actors involved. Political actors, however, do not operate in a vacuum. Features of the national polity shape the power of actors to promote change.25 The context also affects the priorities and strat- egies of advocates as well as the ways that issues may be framed. In Catholic countries, for example, abortion is seen as a doctrinal issue but not always in communist or Buddhist ones. Issue type also determines which aspects of the national context are most relevant. The state’s abil- ity to ameliorate women’s burden in the sexual division of labor, for example, depends on its fiscal resources and capacity. GDP per capita is therefore an important aspect of the national polity when it comes to parental leave and childcare but may be less relevant for the legality of abor- tion or efforts to combat violence against women. Since international pressure is greater on gender status than class issues, vulnerability to international pressure will matter more for those issues.26 Figure 1 illustrates the elements of our analytical framework. We briefly discuss each contex- tual factor below.

State Capacity Sex equality requires an effective state. It must be capable of intervening in society, in the workplace, and in the

family to protect women from violence and discrimina- tion and to promote the value of their work and concerns. State effectiveness may be even more important for gen- der than for other areas of policy since equality measures challenge entrenched social norms and interests and pro- mote fundamental change. In countries with effective insti- tutions, a willing government can enforce the law and overcome societal resistance. But in contexts without effec- tive institutions, even a strong political commitment to gender equality can be easily frustrated. In places where political institutions are so incapacitated they are almost stateless, governments are completely unable to imple- ment, let alone enforce, some types of policies. Women in rural Bangladesh, for example, cannot rely on the state to protect them or to guarantee their access to education and employment.27

Women’s groups are unlikely to push for parental leave or subsidized child care in weak states where implemen- tation seems unlikely. In such contexts, feminists know they will be more effective, and therefore prefer to work for, policies that are less financially costly, present less of an enforcement challenge, or contain a significant sym- bolic dimension, such as quotas or constitutional reform.28

Where the need is great but the state’s ability to meet it so compromised, there may be little official remedy and little pressure for one.

In China, for example, women’s groups have eschewed struggles for parental leave and day care policies because they see the state as incapable of enforcing these measures. Why? A major casualty of China’s economic boom has been workers’ rights. In line with socialist ideals, Chinese law requires that employers grant numerous benefits to workers. Amidst explosive growth of the private sector, however, the state has been unable to enforce legal stan- dards in all factories and workplaces. In this context, elite women’s groups are emphasizing policy changes such as

Figure 1 Agent-context interaction

| | �

�

�

March 2010 | Vol. 8/No. 1 211

non-discrimination in hiring and sexual harassment (through a revision of the Labor Contract Law and Women’s Rights Law) that are easier to enforce and require fewer financial outlays than paid maternity leave.29 The resulting pattern of policy change reflects feminist advo- cates’ judgments about state capacity, not the severity of the actual problems.

State capacity refers to the effectiveness of national political institutions and their ability (not willingness) to enforce the law and to challenge dominant social groups. This dimension of institutional capacity is distinct from the political strength of particular administrations. Some political parties might depend on the support of orga- nized labor, or religious groups, but this changes depend- ing on who is elected. As a structural feature of the state, institutional capacity affects policy no matter who is governing.

Institutional Legacies Policy development is path dependent: institutions both reflect previous political conflicts and shape contempo- rary ones.30 Most societies have historically experienced conflict across multiple axes of social difference (ethnicity, religion, class, and gender, among others).31 The way that these foundational conflicts are resolved affects policy devel- opment in later years. In some countries, these conflicts were resolved through a process of accommodation of reli- gious, racial, and/or ethnic groups (such as Canada, Israel, and India). In return for their support for the state, elites were guaranteed political representation, areas of exclusive jurisdiction (education or family law), or other accommo- dations. Such a response to conflict institutionalized group- based approaches, or approaches that emphasize differences among citizens, to policy development.32 In these tradi- tions, women’s rights advocates draw analogies between their gender status and those of other marginalized groups. In the United States, for example, feminist activists pig- gybacked on the success of the African-American civil rights movement to win affirmative action in federal contracting and anti-discrimination legislation.33 Such countries may be amenable to gender-status policies but lack the solidar- istic political culture required to support class-based policies.

Other countries (such as Norway and France) responded to conflict by taking a universalistic path to nation build- ing that emphasizes the solidarity of all citizens. Such universalistic traditions reject claims by women as a dis- tinct status group but may be amenable to claims about their class-based or their universal interests.34 In France, for example, women’s demands for guarantees of political presence (which produced the 2000 Parity Law) were based on arguments about the universality of sex differ- ence and its relation to the nation, not the representation of women as a particular interest group.35 We would expect these contexts to be biased against gender status

policies and other measures reflecting group differences among citizens.

Vulnerability to International Pressure The last quarter of the twentieth century saw an explo- sion of international advocacy networks and global agree- ments on women’s rights. These networks fund and train local activists, pressure governments, conduct studies and raise awareness, and share ideas and resources across coun- tries.36 With moral leverage from inter-state agreements such as CEDAW and the Beijing Platform for Action, these networks call on countries to reform discrimina- tory laws and adopt gender equality policies. Such pres- sures resonate more and less in differently-situated countries, however. Poor countries seek financial capital and legitimacy; autocracies and emerging democracies want to demonstrate their democratic and human rights credentials. These countries are therefore more vulnera- ble to external pressure than wealthier nations or estab- lished democracies.

In countries that need to please global audiences, inter- national advocacy networks and agreements have more powerful effects. By ceding to the demands of women’s rights and human rights networks, for example, a coun- try can divert focus from its other failings and even seize global leadership on certain aspects of gender equality. In Nigeria, one of the most important (if not the only) feminist successes in reforming family law, the Child Rights Act, was reportedly championed by former President Olu- segun Obasanjo because he felt the need to have a signif- icant accomplishment in the area of human rights.37

Former President Alberto Fujimori of Peru made a simi- lar move, adopting gender equality policies to improve his human rights credentials on the international stage. After the world condemned his closure of Congress and seizure of power in a self-coup, Fujimori became the only head of state to attend the Fourth World Confer- ence on Women in Beijing (in 1995) and ordered his governing majority in congress to support for the gender- quota law advocated by feminists, subsequently adopted in 1997.

Degree of Democracy The more democratic a country is, the more developed its civil society and the more open the government to auton- omous organizing. Women’s groups, especially grassroots or working-class women’s movements, will have greater influence. Yet democracy unleashes complex processes. At the same time that it empowers some women’s groups it may also strengthen religious institutions opposed to change.

Authoritarian regimes have less-developed or non- existent civil societies. Government elites have more con- trol over decision-making, so the ideology and preferences of the party in power directly shape outcomes. On the

| | �

�

�

Symposium | A Comparative Politics of Gender

212 Perspectives on Politics

other hand, elite women and other progressive reformers may have privileged access to power under autrocracies. This can lead to surprising advances in women’s rights under otherwise conservative governments.

Conclusion Scholarship on gender and politics presents many puzzles about the struggle for sex equality. Studies have shown that the power of left parties sometimes affects policy out- comes but that at other times, party ideology is irrelevant. Religious opposition has thwarted certain efforts to advance women’s rights, while other issues have evoked little eccle- siastical protest. Some poor countries have more generous gender equality policies than rich ones; democratization sometimes seems to set back the promotion of women’s rights; and women’s mobilization appears unrelated to the pace of change.

Our approach suggests that many of these seeming con- tradictions can be resolved by disaggregating gender policy issues to reveal the different causal dynamics at work. Each issue, whether gender status or class-based, doctrinal or non- doctrinal (and various combinations of these), confronts dif- ferent axes of state-society relations and involves different casts of characters. The priorities, strategies, and effective- ness of these advocates, allies, and opponents are shaped by aspects of the national context, including state capacity, pol- icy legacies, international vulnerability and the degree of democracy. Showing how these different issues, actors, and contexts combine provides a framework to guide the analy- sis of political struggles over sex equality policy. This frame- work shows the way for future research to describe the dynamics of particular struggles in greater detail. A better understanding of the causes and obstacles to sex equality policy will advance the field of the comparative politics of gender as well as help activists as they struggle for rights and freedom for the world’s women.

Notes 1 Sen 1999; Dreze and Sen 2002; Nussbaum 2001;

Inglehart and Norris 2003. 2 We define gender equality as an ideal condition in

which all men and all women have similar opportu- nities to participate in politics, the economy, and society; their roles are equally valued; neither suffers from gender-based disadvantage; and both are con- sidered free and autonomous beings with dignity and rights. Gender equality policies are those mea- sures through which governments can accelerate progress toward this ideal.

3 Kittilson 2003; Lovenduski and Norris 1993. 4 Dahlerup 2006; Krook 2006; Casimiro et al. 2009. 5 Weldon 2002; Hernes 1987. 6 For an exception, see Schwindt-Bayer and Mishler

2005.

7 For an evaluation of progress, see Beckwith 2005. Most multi-country work on gender and politics compares a small group of countries. Exceptions include Casimiro et al. 2009; Htun 2003a; Dahl- erup 2006; Krook 2006; Matland 2006; Schwindt- Bayer 2003; Weldon 2002. Other studies cover many issues but fewer countries; Mazur 2003.

8 Cf Inglehart and Norris (2003) who argue that beliefs on gender equality largely follow trends to- ward socioeconomic modernization and secularization.

9 Following Iris Young (2005), we consider the sexual division of labor, hierarchies of power, and norma- tive heterosexuality to be the three axes (or pillars) of the gender system.

10 In the paper, we continue to use “gender equality” and “sex equality” interchangeably, since the former category includes the latter.

11 This framework takes the adoption of sex equality policy as the dependent variable, not the implemen- tation or enforcement of these policies.

12 Ostrom 1999, 39. 13 Elman 1996; Bashevkin 1998; Stetson and Mazur

1995; Mazur 2003; Gelb and Palley 1996; Gelb 1989; Hansen 1993; Mansbridge 1986; Lycklama, Vargas, and Wieringa 1998; Swers 2002.

14 Weldon 2002. 15 Charrad 2001; Coleman 2004; Htun 2003a. 16 See Mazur 2003. Exceptions include Gelb and Pal-

ley (1996) who distinguish between policies that promote gender role changes and those that pro- mote role equity. This typology helps us understand the varying conflicts provoked by gender equality, but offers little guidance to differences between issues because distinct policies within the same issue area can promote role changes or role equity. In addition, it does not illuminate why the same poli- cies (e.g., paid maternity leave) can be controversial in one context (such as the U.S.) but not in another (such as Norway). Blofield and Haas (2005) distin- guish between rights- and role-based policies, and those that promote redistribution and threaten class privileges and those that do not, in their study of women’s rights legislation in Chile. In a recent book, Casimiro et al. (2009) note that in Africa, policies promoting women’s equality in the public sphere of state and market have been easier to achieve than those concerning women’s rights in the private sphere of home and family. Both analyses point to some of the factors we mention here, particularly the distinction between class- and non-class issues and between doctrinal and non-doctrinal issues.

17 Williams 1995; Crenshaw 1994; Beckwith 2000; Hawkesworth 2003.

18 Stetson and Mazur 1995.

| | �

�

�

March 2010 | Vol. 8/No. 1 213

19 Brush 2003; Elman 1996; Weldon 2002. 20 Htun 2003a; Htun 2003b. 21 Cf Fraser 2007, 26. 22 Charrad 2001; Glendon 1989; Rheinstein 1972;

Casimiro et al. 2009; Htun 2003a. 23 In some places, religious and cultural doctrine en-

dorses female submission not only in the family but also in work and education.

24 See Casimiro et al. 2009. 25 Skocpol 1992; Skocpol, Ganz and Munson 2000;

Thelen and Steinmo 1992. 26 Some scholars of public policy argue that bigger

problems promote better policies (Kingdon 1984). We do not address this argument here at any length, except to say that extant scholarship suggests that such an approach appears to shed little light on areas such as violence against women (Weldon 2002), child care, family law, or reproductive rights which are problems in every society. In fact, the public awareness, recognition and framing of these prob- lems depends on women’s rights activism and other processes of political contestation at the national and international level. Problems need to be per- ceived as such before there can be a policy response.

27 Shehabuddin 2008. 28 For a similar argument about how state capacity

affects preferences about social policy, see Mares 2005.

29 Interviews by Mala Htun, Beijing, June 4, 2007. 30 Pierson 1994, 2000; March and Olsen 1989; Castles

1993; Richardson, Gustafsson, and Jordan 1982. 31 Marx 1998; Skocpol 1992. 32 Esping Andersen 1990; Milner 1989. 33 Skrentny 2002. 34 Young 1990; McDonagh 2002. 35 Unlike arguments for quotas in other countries

(which focused on the interests that women representatives would bring to the legislature), the case for parity was based on universalistic argu- ments about republican representation. See Scott 2005.

36 Friedman et al. 2005; Clark, 2001; Keck and Sik- kink 1998; Risse-Kappen 1994.

37 Interviews (Abuja, Nigeria and Lafayette, Indiana USA 2008). For more on the Child Rights Act see Nkoyo Toyo, “Revisiting equality as a right: the minimum age of marriage clause in the Nigerian Child Rights Act, 2003.” Third World Quarterly, 27, (7) October 2006: 1299–1312(14).

References Bashevkin, Sylvia. 1998. Women on the Defensive. Chi-

cago: University of Chicago.

Beckwith, Karen. 2000. Beyond Compare? Women’s Movements in Comparative Perspective. European Journal of Political Research 37: 431–68. _. 2005. A Common Language of Gender? Politics

& Gender I (1): 128–37. Blofield, Merike and Liesl Haas. 2005. Defining a De-

mocracy: Reforming the Laws on Women’s Rights in Chile, 1990–2002. Latin American Politics and Society 47 (3): 35–68.

Brush, Lisa D. 2003. Gender and Governance. Walnut Creek, CA : AltaMira Press.

Casimiro, Isabel, Joy Kwesiga, Alice Mungwa, and Aili Tripp. 2009. Women in Movement: Transformations in African Political Landscapes. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Castles, Francis G. 1993. Families of Nations: Patterns of Public Policy in Western Democracies. Aldershot, UK: Dartmouth.

Charrad, Mounira. 2001. States and Women’s Rights: The Making of Postcolonial Tunisia, Algeria, and Morocco. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Clark, Ann Marie. 2001. Diplomacy of Conscience: Am- nesty International and Changing Human Rights Norms. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Coleman, Isobel. 2004. The Payoff from Women’s Rights. Foreign Affairs 48: 3.

Crenshaw, Kimberlé Williams. 1994. Mapping the Margins. In The Public Nature of Private Violence, ed. M. Fineman and R. Mykitiuk. New York: Routledge.

Dahlerup, Drude. 2006. Women, Quotas and Politics. NY: Routledge.

Dreze, Jean, and Amartya Sen. 2002. India: Development and Participation. 2d ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Elman, R. Amy. 1996. Sexual Subordination and State Intervention: Comparing Sweden and the United States. Providence, Oxford: Berghahn Books.

Esping Andersen, Gøsta. 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univer- sity Press.

Fraser, Nancy. 2007. Feminist Politics in the Age of Recognition: A Two-Dimensional Approach to Gen- der Justice. Studies in Social Justice 1 (1): 23–35.

Friedman, Elisabeth, Ann Marie Clark and Kathryn Hochstetler. 2005. Sovereignty, Democracy, and Global Civil Society: State-Society Relations at UN World Conferences. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Gelb, Joyce. 1989. Feminism and Politics: A Comparative Perspective. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Gelb, Joyce and Marian Lief Palley. 1996. Women and Public Policies: Reassessing Gender Politics. Charlottes- ville: University Press of Virginia.

Glendon, Mary Ann. 1989. The Transformation of Fam- ily Law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

| | �

�

�

Symposium | A Comparative Politics of Gender

214 Perspectives on Politics

Hansen, Susan Blackall. 1993. Differences in Public Policies Toward Abortion: Electoral and Policy Context. In Understanding the New Politics of Abor- tion, ed. Malcolm L. Goggin, U.S.A.: Sage.

Hawkesworth, Mary. 2003. Congressional Enactments of Race-Gender: Toward a Theory of Raced-Gendered Institutions. American Political Science Review 97 (4): 529–50.

Hernes, Helga. 1987. Welfare State and Woman Power: Essays in State Formation, Oslo: Norwegian University Press.

Htun, Mala. 2003a. Sex and the State: Abortion, Divorce, and the Family Under Latin American Dictatorships and Democracies. New York: Cambridge University Press. _. 2003b. Women and Democracy. In Constructing

Democratic Governance in Latin America, 2d ed., eds. Jorge I. Domínguez and Michael Shifter. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press. _. 2005. What It Means to Study Gender and the

State. Politics & Gender 1 (1): 157–66. Inglehart, Ronald, and Pippa Norris. 2003. Rising Tide:

Gender Equality and Cultural Change. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Keck, Margaret and K. Sikkink. 1998. Activists Beyond Borders. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

Kingdon, John. W. 1984. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policy. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.

Kittilson, Miki Caul. 2003. Political Parties and the Rhetoric and Realities of Democratization. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Krook, Mona Lena. 2006. Reforming Representation: The Diffusion of Candidate Gender Quotas World- wide. Politics & Gender 2 (3): 303–27.

Lovenduski, Joni, and Pippa Norris, eds. 1993. Gender and Party Politics. London: Sage Publications.

Luker, Kristin. 1984. Abortion and the Politics of Mother- hood. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Lycklama à Nijeholt, Geertje, Virginia Vargas, and Sakia Wieringa, eds. 1998. Women’s Movements and Public Pol- icy in Europe, Latin America and the Caribbean: The Tri- angle of Empowerment. New York: Garland Publishing.

Mansbridge, Jane. 1986. Why We Lost the ERA. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

March, James, and Johan Olsen. 1989. Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: Free Press.

Mares, Isabela. 2005. Social Protection around the World: External Insecurity, State Capacity, and Do- mestic Political Cleavages. Comparative Political Stud- ies 38 (6): 623–51.

Marx, Anthony. 1998. Making Race and Nation. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Matland, Richard E. 2006. Electoral Quotas: Frequency and Effectiveness, In Women, Quotas, and Politics, ed. Drude Dahlerup. New York: Routledge.

Mazur, Amy G. 2003. Theorizing Feminist Policy. Ox- ford: Oxford University Press.

McAdam, Doug, John D. McCarthy, and Mayer N. Zald. 1996. Comparative Perspectives on Social Move- ments: Political Opportunities, Mobilizing Structures, and Cultural Framings. New York: Cambridge Univer- sity Press.

McDonagh, Eileen. 2002. Political Citizenship and Democratization: The Gender Paradox. American Political Science Review 96 (3): 535–52.

Milner, Henry. 1989. Sweden: Social Democracy in Prac- tice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Minkenberg, Michael. 2002. Religion and Public Policy: Institutional, Cultural and Political Impact on the Shap- ing of Abortion Policies in the Industrialized Democ- racies. Comparative Political Studies 35 (2): 221–47.

Nussbaum, Martha. 2001. Women and Human Develop- ment. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Orloff, A.S. 1993. Gender and Social Rights of Citizen- ship: the comparative analysis of gender relations and welfare states. American Sociological Review 58 ( June): 303–28.

Ostrom, Elinor. 1999. Institutional Rational Choice: An Assessment of the Institutional Analysis and Develop- ment Framework. In Theories of the Policy Process, ed. Paul Sabatier. Boulder CO: Westview.

Pierson, Paul. 1994. Dismantling the Welfare State? Re- agan, Thatcher, and the Politics of Retrenchment. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press. _. 2000. Increasing Returns, Path Dependence, and

the Study of Politics. American Political Science Review 94 (2): 251–67.

Rheinstein, Max. 1972. Marriage Stability, Divorce, and the Law. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Richardson, Jeremy, Gunnel Gustafsson, and Grant Jordan. 1982. The Concept of Policy Style. In Policy Styles in Western Europe, ed. Jeremy Richardson Lon- don: George Allen and Unwin.

Risse-Kappen, Thomas. 1994. Ideas Do Not Float Freely: Transnational Coalitions, Domestic Structures, and the End of the Cold War. International Organiza- tion 48 (2): 185–214.

Schwindt-Bayer, Leslie. 2003. “Legislative Representation in Latin America.” Ph.D. diss., University of Arizona.

Schwindt-Bayer, Leslie and William Mishler. 2005. An Integrated Model of Women’s Representation. Journal of Politics 67 (2): 407–28.

Scott, Joan Wallach. 2005. Parité!: Sexual Equality and the Crisis of French Universalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Sen, Amartya. 1999. Development as Freedom. New York: Random House.

Shehabuddin, Elora. 2008. Reshaping the Holy: Democ- racy, Development, and Muslim Women in Bangladesh. New York: Columbia University Press.

| | �

�

�

March 2010 | Vol. 8/No. 1 215

Skocpol, Theda. 1992. Protecting Soldiers and Mothers. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Skocpol, Theda, Marshall Ganz, and Ziad Munson. 2000. A Nation of Organizers: The Institutional Origins of Civic Voluntarism in the United States. American Political Science Review 94 (3): 527–46.

Skrentny, John. 2002. The Minority Rights Revolution. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Stetson, Dorothy McBride, and Amy G. Mazur, eds. 1995. Comparative State Feminism. California: Sage Publications.

Swers, Michele L. 2002. The Difference Women Make: The Policy Impact of Women in Congress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tarrow, Sidney. 1998. Power in Movement: Social Move- ments and Contentious Politics. 2d ed. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Thelen, Kathleen, and Sven Steinmo. 1992. Introduc- tion: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Politics. In Structuring Politics: Historical Institutional-

ism in Comparative Analysis, ed. Kathleen Thelen, Sven Steinmo, and Frank Longstreth. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Tribe, Lawrence. 1992. The Clash of Absolutes. New York: W.W. Norton.

Weldon, S.L. 2002. Protest, Policy and the Problem of Violence against Women: A Cross-National Comparison. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Williams, Fiona. 1995. Race/Ethnicity, Gender and Class in Welfare States: A Framework for Compara- tive Analysis. Social Politics 2 (2): 127–59.

Young, Iris Marion. 1990. Justice and the Politics of Difference. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. _. 2000. Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford Series in

Political Theory. New York: Oxford University Press. _. 2005. Lived Body versus Gender: Reflections on

Social Structure and Subjectivity. In On Female Body Experience: “Throwing Like a Girl” and other essays. New York: Oxford University Press.

| | �

�

�

Symposium | A Comparative Politics of Gender

216 Perspectives on Politics

Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.