Chappell - 2010 - Comparative Gender and Institutions Directions For Research
Chappell - 2010 - Comparative Gender and Institutions Directions For Research
Chappell - 2010 - Comparative Gender and Institutions Directions For Research
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
American Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Perspectives on Politics
A comparative politics of gender offers an opportunity to consider in detail the operation of gender within political institutions. As
such, it contributes to a deeper understanding of the roles and experiences of men and women within political institutions, of the
policies, laws and norms that are the outcomes of these institutions, and of the relationship between these institutions and social
actors. This essay proposes a multi-directional strategy for undertaking comparative gender and institutional research that includes
taking account of similarities and differences within and across states, between states and international institutions, across space as
well as across time. It argues that through this research strategy it is possible to gain a more nuanced understanding of gender
processes and outcomes, which is valuable to those working both inside and outside political institutions to advance a women's
equality agenda.
What is the utility in developing a comparative pol actors. Understanding this particular relationship is espe
itics of gender? A comparative politics of gender cially important for those interested in identifying the
offers an opportunity to develop a deeper under opportunities available to feminist activists pursuing a gen
standing of specific policy areas that shape the lives of der equality agenda through the state.
men and women; of the intersection between gendered But how should such a comparison proceed? In this
identities and those of race, class and sexuality; and of the essay I proffer some ideas about a multi-directional research
differences in women's representation across various polit strategy that encompasses single country, cross country,
ical systems. More generally, it also has the potential to and international studies as well as a time component.
expand the field of comparative politics and bring about Such a strategy is essential for gathering the rich and detailed
new insights into the application of this methodological data necessary to capture the nuanced variations in the
approach. One specific arena that could be advanced operation of gender within political institutions. In turn,
through a comparative research agenda is that of gender understanding these variations is necessary for testing theo
and political institutions. A focus on this particular rela ries and concepts related to women's and men's position
tionship has the potential to expand our understanding of within institutions, institutional outcomes, and feminist
politics and gender in three distinct ways. First, it could friendly political opportunity structures.
provide the basis for a deeper understanding of the roles
and experiences of men and women within political insti Gender and Institutions
tutions. Second, it could contribute to an understanding To understand the intrinsic and extrinsic relationship
of the policies, laws, and norms that are the outcomes of between gender and institutions, we must undertake com
these institutions and that fundamentally shape gender parative analysis. It is only through such analysis that we
relations within society. Finally, it could assist in explain can determine what role gender plays in shaping the inter
ing the relationship between these institutions and social nal dynamics of political institutions and how this influ
ences institutional outcomes and opportunities. In
undertaking any comparison, we confront what Jan van Deth
Louise Chappell is Professor, School of Social Sciences and describes as the "tricky problem" of establishing cross
International Studies at the University of New South Wales, Syd nationally valid and reliable indicators.1 It is essential to clar
ney, Australia (l.chappell@usyd.edu.au) where she holds a ify key concepts and pay attention to finding equivalent
Future Fellowship funded by the Australian Research Coun phenomena to measure across cases. However, this is more
cil. Louises work focuses on gender and institutionalism, easily said than done, especially when employing such con
women's rights and the intersection between international and tested and ambiguous terms as institutions and gender.
national law and politics. Her current research project is a Over the past 15 years or so, institutions have (once again)
study ofthe domestic implementation of the gender articles of become the focus of attention in the social sciences. A "new
the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. institutionalism" has evolved that has sociological, eco
nomic, and historical variants.2 Each of these is distinct from Beckwith notes, "activist feminists . . . can work to instate
the others but all share the view that institutions are impor practices and rules that recast the gendered nature of the
tant for shaping political outcomes. According to B. Guy political."6 This notion of gender as a process is particu
Peters, while these approaches offer competing definitions larly useful as it draws attention to the constantly shifting
of institutions, these definitions share some common nature of gender power relations within institutions.
attributes.3 These include an understanding that institutions: Developing a comparative politics of gender (CPG) and
institutions builds upon, but is different from, the expand
Are a structural feature of the society/polity. This means
ing field of comparative women and institutions that con
they transcend individuals to involve groups in some
siders women in parliaments, courts, and bureaucracies.
sort of patterned interactions that are predictable;
This existing work has provided important (though still
Are stable over time but with some degree of mutability;
incomplete) data on where and which women have expe
Are able to affect individual behavior, usually through
constraints; and rienced the most success in having their interests repre
sented. Collectively, it has revealed the disadvantaged
Provide a sense of shared values and meaning among
the members of the institution. position and status of women within and in relation to
political institutions. Given the ongoing inequalities
What do I mean by institutions? Those pursuing a soci between men's and women's access to political power in
ological or historical approach view institutions as com democratic and non-democratic systems, the need to
plex systems of behavior that are directed by a set of rules, expand this research is critical. A comparative politics of
i.e., as an organized activity.4 Institutions are conceived of gender and institutions does not seek to replace the focus
as organizations made up of a set of norms and that func on women and politics but to extend it in a number of
tion as actors in their own right, such as a parliament, ways. By emphasizing gender, rather than a particular sex
court, or executive. In my work, I use both a sociological category, a CPG seeks to improve our explanations of the
and historical understanding of institutions to see how a nature of the political environment in which institutional
particular set of norms?those related to gender?shape actors?both men and women?operate in order to under
expectations about men's and women's behavior and their stand their choices, opportunities, and constraints. The
position in society, with particular attention to how this challenge for each of us attempting to develop this field is
occurs over time. I also consider how these norms can be to ensure that we avoid eliding the terms "gender" and
challenged and altered through engagement with those "women" (which can so easily occur).7 It is essential that
seeking to change the normative status quo. we do not lose sight of women as a category of analysis,
What do I mean by "gender"? I see gender as a set of because as Jill Vickers reminds us, to do so leaves men in
social norms based on accepted ideas and practices about control of formal political institutions.8 We also need,
femininity and masculinity; norms that can be, but are however, to look beyond the individuals who engage with
not necessarily, aligned with and assigned to women and political institutions to investigate the nature of these insti
men. How men and women situate themselves in relation tutions themselves.
to masculine and feminine institutional norms is a dynamic
political process. For example, female politicians may decide
for reasons of political survival to display typically mascu
Gender in Institutions
line forms of behavior all the time, or in relation to spe In the mainstream sociological neo-institutionalist litera
cific policy debates. Male politicians, on occasions, may ture, norms are given prominence: they are seen to influ
choose to display an "emotional" side, which is deemed a ence institutional processes such that they create what James
feminine trait, in order to appeal to certain supporters or March and Johan Olsen define as an internal "logic of
pursue certain policies. But it is not just individuals who appropriateness."9 However, the literature pays almost no
are the carriers of gender; institutions are also imbued attention to the gendered underpinnings of these norms
with gender norms. As Raewyn Connell argues, "Organi or of this logic.10 By contrast, feminist political scientists
zations themselves institutionalize definitions of feminin have demonstrated that institutional norms prescribe (as
ity and masculinity, arrange gender hierarchies, construct well as proscribe) "acceptable" rules and values and about
the masculine and feminine characteristics which under
gender cultures and define gender-appropriate jobs."5 As
with individuals, these institutional gender norms are nei pin such rules.11 This important body of work points to
ther fixed nor permanent. Gender operates as a process the way that institutional rules and norms privilege cer
within institutions. For Karen Beckwith, this is "mani tain forms of behavior and certain actors over others. It
fested as the differential effects of apparently gender also demonstrates how an expectation about gendered
neutral structures and policies upon women and men, behavior becomes taken for granted within institutional
and upon masculine and/or feminine actors." Moreover, settings.
the process is bi-directional: not only are institutions and Gender is embedded in political institutions through
politics gendered but they can be gendered; that is, as ongoing practices, values and expectations of appropriate
which is especially beneficial for making an assessment about UN, the World Bank, the International Criminal Court,
the political opportunity structures available to feminist the EU, and APEC.29
actors. Another advantage of such an approach is that it can Understanding the gendered logic of appropriateness
assist in identifying of the independent effect that the pat within and across international (and regional institutions)
tern of interaction between various institutions within a given is important for explaining the choice of strategies used by
polity?for example, the interplay between political parties transnational actors. It is also necessary for understanding
and the bureaucracy or a bill of rights and the judiciary? the operation of domestic-level institutions. Diffused from
can have on shaping internal institutional norms, policy out the international level to the nation state, new norms can
comes, and opportunities for political engagement. challenge and replace existing ones within domestic insti
Undertaking vertical and horizontal research within a tutions, including gender-related norms.30 Often the car
given polity raises questions about particularization. How riers of these norms are national and transnational social
far do conclusions about the operation of gender within a movements. Thus it is important that any future compar
particular entity or set of institutions in one country reflect ative research strategy also examine the role of such move
experiences in other countries? To find out it is necessary ments as they engage across countries and regions and with
to undertake cross-national vertical and horizontal research. international institutions to challenge the gender status quo.
In a recent example of vertical cross-national research, A final point concerning the direction for future com
Katherine Teghtsoonian and I compared the demise of parative research of gender and institutions relates to the
women's policy machinery in the New South Wales, Aus need to take account of the temporal dimension. Time is
tralia with British Columbia, Canada, and demonstrated important to these studies in two senses: historically
that there were many (negative) similarities in policy out grounding studies of gender and institutions as well as
comes in both jurisdictions, regardless of the presence or identifying the importance of the age or "newness" of the
absence of governments of the left.24 These findings chal institution to gender outcomes. History matters because,
lenge the conventional wisdom in other research25 that as Paul Pierson reminds us, "placing politics in time can
new-leftist governments are more supportive of gender greatly enrich both the explanations we offer for social
equity concerns?a conclusion that would not have been outcomes of interest, and the very outcomes that we iden
as apparent in a single-country case analysis. Cross tify as worth explaining."31 Concentrating on the here
national horizontal studies are also important for reveal and now does not capture the complexity of gender pro
ing interesting similarities and differences within analogous cesses or the reasons why gender relations have evolved to
institutions (and between actors engaged with these insti their current state. In Nancy Burns' view, "gender is easier
tutions) in different polities.26 to see over space and time, after the researcher does the
The application of a comparative politics of gender work of adding up the many often-small wrongs through
and institutions need not be confined to the level of the which gender inequalities are manifest."32
nation state. International institutions also have their own It is only through retrospective analyses that we are able
logic of appropriateness that is shaped by and shapes to identify how the gender foundations of an institution
gender norms. Research that compares different inter can be reinscribed and what forces need to be in align
national arenas has begun to reveal this logic. For exam ment to provide a structure of political opportunity. Such
ple, efforts to implement gender mainstreaming in the forces may include the presence of a responsive govern
UN treaty bodies have been met with misunderstanding ment, a "liberal" court, and a reform-focused public
and a lack of support, at best, and at worst with outright service?but as activists know only too well, such align
hostility27 As a result, transnational women's rights activ ments are not only rare, but rarely permanent. The elec
ists have found it difficult to engage with or to influence tion of a different government, the appointment of new
these agencies. On the other hand, these activists have members of the judiciary or changes in personnel in the
found other UN arenas, especially the series of inter public sector can lead to a retreat back to an earlier gender
national world conferences on women, including the 1995 logic of appropriateness or the creation of a new but equally
Beijing Conference, much more dynamic and open to restrictive one. Comparing developments historically pre
their demands.28 It is no surprise, then, that the locus of vents the development of overly pessimistic or optimistic
transnational women's rights lobbying in the past 20 years conclusions in regard to the outcomes of gender processes
has been these conferences rather than the Committee within institutions by reminding us that the dynamic rela
overseeing the Convention on the Elimination of All tionship moves back and forward over time.
Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) or The concept of "newness" is starting to gain more atten
other UN treaty bodies. A new collection on gender and tion in feminist political science. Beckwith has recently high
global governance makes an important contribution to lighted the significance of newness in relation to the election
this international literature, providing a horizontal com of women to legislatures for the first time and the signifi
parison of gender processes across a variety of inter cance of this variable for the substantive representation of
national and regional institutional arenas including the women.33 However, it is not just the newness of the actors
References
Friedman, Elisabeth Jay. 2003. Gendering the Agenda:
Acker, Joan. 1992. From Sex Roles to Gendered Institu The Impact of the Transnational Women s Rights
tions. Contemporary Sociology 21 (5): 565?69. Movement at the UN Conferences of the 1990s.
Adcock, Robert, Mark Bevir, and Shannon C. Stimson. Womens Studies International Forum 26 (4): 313-31.
2007. Historicizing the New Institutionalism(s). In Gelb, Joyce. 2003. Gender Policies in Japan and the
Modern Political Science, ed. Robert Adcock, Mark Bevir, United States: Comparing Womens Movements, Rights
and Shannon C. Stimson. Princeton NJ: Princeton Uni and Politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
versity Press. Htun, Mala, and S. Laurel Weldon. 2007. "When and
Banaszak, Lee Ann. 2005. Inside and Outside the State: Why Do Governments Promote Women's Rights?
Movement Insider Status, Tactics and Public Policy Toward a Comparative Politics of States and Sex
Achievements. In Routing the Opposition: Social Move Equality." Presented at the annual meeting of the
ments, Public Policy, and Democracy, ed. David American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL,
Meyer, Valerie Jenness, and Helen Ingram. Minneap Aug 30.
olis: University of Minnesota Press. Kantola, Johanna. 2006. Feminists Theorize the State.
Banaszak, Lee Ann, Karen Beckwith, and Dieter Rucht, Houndsmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
ed. 2003. Women's Movements Facing the Reconfigured Katzenstein, Mary Fainsod. 1998. Faithful and Fearless:
State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Moving Feminist Protest inside the Church and Mili
Bashevkin, Sylvia. 1998. Women on the Defensive: Living tary. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Through Conservative Times. Toronto: University of Keck, Margaret, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists
Toronto Press. Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International
Beckwith, Karen. 2005. A Common Language of Gen Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
der? Politics & Gender 1 (1): 128-37. Kingdon, John. 2003. Agendas, Alternatives and Public
-. 2007. Numbers and Newness: The Descriptive Policies, 3d ed. New York: Longman.
and Substantive Representation of Women. Canadian Kittilson, Miki Caul. 2007. "Comparing Gender, Insti
Journal of Political Science AO (1): 27-49. tutions and Political Behavior: Toward an Integrated
Burns, Nancy. 2005. Finding Gender. Politics & Gender Theoretical Framework Conference Paper." Toward a
1 (1): 137-41 Comparative Politics of Gender: Advancing the Disci
Campbell, John L. 2005. Where Do We Stand? Com pline along Interdisciplinary Boundaries, Case West
mon Mechanisms in Organizations and Social Move ern Reserve, October 25-27.
ment Research. In Social Movements and Organization Lane, Jan-Erik, and Svante Ersson. 2000. The New
Theory, ed. Doug McAdam, Gerald F. Davis, W. Rich Institutional Politics: Performance and Outcomes. Lon
ard Scott, and Mayer Zald. Cambridge: Cambridge don: Routledge.
University Press. Lovenduski, Joni. 1998. Gendering Research in Politi
Chappell, Louise. 2002. Gendering Government: cal Science. Annual Review of Political Science 1:
Feminist Engagement with the State in Australia and 333-56.
Canada. Vancouver: University of British Columbia Mackay, Fiona. 2009. "Institutionalising new politics' in
Press. post devolution Scotland: 'Nested newness' and the
-. 2006a. Comparing Political Institutions: Reveal gendered limits of change." Presented to the Euro
ing the Gendered Logic of Appropriateness. Politics & pean Consortium of Political Research Gender Con
Gender! (2): 223-34. ference, Queens University, Belfast, January 21.
-. 2006b. 'Women's Interests' as 'Women's Rights': March, James G., and Johan P. Olsen. 1989. Rediscover
Developments at the UN Criminal Tribunals and the ing Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics.
International Criminal Court. In 77?^ Politics of New York: The Free Press.
Women's Interests: New Comparative Perspectives, ed. Lou Mazur, Amy G. 2001. Introduction. In State Feminism,
ise Chappell and Lisa Hill. London: Routledge. Womens Movements, and fob Training: Making Democ
Charlesworth, Hilary. 2005. Not Waving but Drowning: racies Work in the Global Economy, ed. Amy G. Mazur.
Gender Mainstreaming and Human Rights in the New York and London: Routledge.
United Nations. Harvard Human Rights Journal 18 Peters, B. Guy. 1999. Institutional Theory in Political
(1): 1-18. Science: The New Institutionalism. London: Pinter.
Connell, Raewyn. 2005. Advancing Gender Reform in Pierson, Paul. 2004. Politics in Time. Princeton: Prince
Large-scale Organizations: A New Approach for ton University Press.
Practitioners and Researchers. Policy and Society 24 Rahmani, Ladan. 2005. "International Human Rights
(4): 5-24. Law: Gender Mainstreaming in the United Nations
Eisenstein, Hester. 1996. Inside Agitators: Australian Human Rights Treaty Bodies." Ph.D. diss., Econom
Femocrats and the State. Sydney: Allen and Unwin. ics, University of Sydney.