Political Gender Quotas: U.S. Exceptionalism From a Feminist Institutionalist Perspective by Women in Cities International

Uppsala University Department of Government Gender, Power, and Institutions Autumn 2017

Political Gender Quotas: U.S. Exceptionalism From a Feminist Institutionalist Perspective Why aren’t prominent American women’s political advocacy groups pursuing gender quotas as a strategy to increase women’s representation in Congress? By Amanda Demers

CONTENT

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………………..2 Contextualization………………………………………………………………………………….2 Theoretical Framework……………………………………………………………………………4 Rational Choice Institutionalism Analysis………………………………………………………...5 Sociological Institutionalism Analysis……………………………………………………………7 Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………………...9 References………………………………………………………………………………………..11

INTRODUCTION Congress is the national legislature of the United States. Congress is a gendered institution, exemplified by its social differentiation of men and women. This is reflected in the historical disproportionate representation of each gender. Formed in 1789, Congress was composed of only men. Congress has perpetuated this gender power imbalance, as its composition is now 80.6% men as of 2017.1 Prominent American women’s political advocacy organizations, such as EMILY’s List, She Should Run, FairVote, Feminist Majority, and Running Start have formed with the shared agenda of encouraging more women to run for candidacy, in attempts to decrease this political gender power imbalance and establish a more representative democracy. Gender quotas, the mandate that women must constitute a certain number or percentage of the members of a body, have never been pursued by these organizations to adjust this Congressional gender power imbalance. The aim of this paper is to explore why American women’s political advocacy groups have not pursued the policy of gender quotas, through a feminist institutional perspective, as quotas may be the most rational approach to realize their interests of increased political representation of women within the national legislature.

CONTEXTUALIZATION The current 115th U.S. Congress is composed of the most women members in U.S. history. 104 (19.4%) of the elected members are women and 431 (80.6%) are men.2 However, as of January 2017, the U.S. ranks in 104th place globally in the proportion of women representatives in national legislatures.3 Out of the nations who rank higher than the U.S., approximately sixty-eight of them have some form of a gender quota.4 Some nations ranking higher than the U.S. include: Ethiopia, Iraq, Pakistan, and Cambodia, which are generally considered as “less democratic” nations than the U.S., for the U.S. prides itself in upholding

1 Inter-Parliamentary Union (2017) 2 Rutgers Center for American Women and Politics (2017) 3 Inter-Parliamentary Union (2017) 4 Somani, Anisa A. (2013), pg. 1466

democratic values.5 However, women compose only 19.4% of its representative legislature, meanwhile the total percentage of women in the population is 50.8%.6 “Many scholars agree that women must at least comprise a “critical minority” of 30 to 40 percent of the decision-making body to have an influential voice and to make substantive contributions to the legislative process,”7. Thus, the U.S. is not currently reflecting the real demographics of its populace in its legislature, nor letting women have a substantial influential voice within it. A democratic deficit therefore exists upon being a truly “representative” democracy, founded on the concept of “rule by the people”. The U.S. will need to elect more women into the national legislature to reconcile this deficit. However, current strategies to increase women’s political representation in the U.S. Congress seem to be ineffective, as women did not gain any more representation in the 115th Congress, compared to the previous one, and the numbers have been relatively stagnant in the past decade.8 All five of the organizations analyzed here have similar strategies to attaining their goals of increasing women’s political leadership and representation. FairVote, Running Start, and She Should Run are, “…trying to create a critical mass of women ready to run for office in each new election cycle,”9. According to Jess McIntosh, communications director of EMILY’s List, “[EMILY’s List] almost has the most obligation …to encourage the young women, and to train them to do whatever it takes to create the candidates who are going to be getting elected to the state and federal level in 15 or 20 years,”10. However, according to Heidi Hartmann, an economist who runs the Institute for Women’s Policy Research, “it would take about 100 years to get an equal share of women in Congress,” at the current rate of electing women candidates.11 The U.S. currently has no formal institutions in place that prohibits or reserves seats for women in the national legislature. The increase of women’s representation over time is a process that is allowed to happen “naturally” in the U.S. (without intervention by the government through the 5 Somani, Anisa A. (2013), pg. 1461 6 United States Census Bureau (2016) 7 Somani, Anisa A. (2013), pg. 1453 8 http://fortune.com/2016/11/10/election-results-women-in-congress/ 9 https://www.pri.org/stories/2015-09-10/women-politics-how-us-compares-world-video 10 https://www.thenation.com/article/why-does-us-still-have-so-few-women-office/ 11 https://www.vox.com/a/women-in-congress

implementation of formal institutions). So then why are these pro-women political organizations not pursuing the gender quota policy to speed up the balancing of gender power within Congress?

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK In this paper, I choose to define “gender”, “as a constitutive element of social relationships based on perceived differences between the sexes,”12. Thus, gender is not biologically pre-determined, but rather constructed by individual and societal processes of differentiation. These processes define the concept of gender and perpetuate it through culturally available symbols, normative concepts, social organizations & institutions, and subjective identities in our society.13 Gender therefore serves to attempt to construct social meaning for the difference between the biological sexes. Gender further serves as, “…a primary field within which or by means of which power is articulated,”14. The social differentiation between the sexes serves to legitimize a difference in relational power between men and women. Thus, “gender power, a set of asymmetrical relations between men and women that permeates international regimes, state systems, financial and economic processes, development policies, institutional structures, symbol systems, and interpersonal relations, generates and sustains practices of inequality that advantage men and disadvantage women,”15. Women are relationally constructed and held in an inferior position to men in society. Institutions, “…the formal or informal procedures, routines, norms and conventions embedded in the organizational structure of the polity or political economy,”16 provide the structure for gender power to be produced and perpetuated. Formal institutions are codified, and formal sanctions are imposed to maintain a regulatory function. Informal institutions are norms 12 Scott, Joan W. (1986), pg. 1067 13 Scott, Joan W. (1986) 14 Scott, Joan W. (1986), pg. 1069 15 Hawkesworth, Mary (2005), pg. 146 16 Hall, Peter A., and Rosemary C.R. Taylor (1996), pg. 6

that are socially sanctioned to maintain a regulatory function. Both formal and informal institutions exist in the political arena and can shape actors’ preferences and decisions. These three analytical tools of gender, power, and institutions will help to analyze my topic from a feminist institutionalist perspective. Feminist institutionalism attempts to reconcile the new institutionalist schools of thought with a gendered perspective. I will be analyzing my particular political phenomena from a gendered rational choice and sociological new institutionalist perspective.

RATIONAL CHOICE INSTITUTIONALISM ANALYSIS Rational choice institutionalism (RCI) follows these assumptions: 1) actors have a fixed preference and behave in a fashion based on maximizing these preferences 2) politics is a series of collective action problems…individuals acting to maximize the attainment of their own preferences are likely to produce an outcome that is collectively suboptimal 3) institutions help facilitate these collective action problems; actors’ behaviors are driven by a calculus that will be deeply affected by the actor’s expectations about how others are likely to behave 4) institutional creation revolves around voluntary agreement by the actors in order to realize mutual gains from cooperation.17 Institutions are defined as conventions here. Ultimately, RCI contends that actors make decisions based on a strategic calculation to maximize their preferences, therefore allowing an actor’s behavior to be predicted. I will primarily be focusing on the first assumption of RCI. The actors in this scenario are the American women’s political rights advocacy groups. I will be focusing on the most known organizations and their respective missions, as they have the most influence in the political arena. EMILY’s List’s stated goal is to elect more pro-choice, democratic women to office.18 Feminist Majority’s mission is to focus on advancing the legal, social, and political equality of women with men.19 FairVote’s goal as an organization is to give voters greater choice, a stronger voice, 17 Hall, Peter A., and Rosemary C.R. Taylor (1996), pg. 12 18 http://www.emilyslist.org/pages/entry/our-mission 19 http://www.feminist.org/welcome/index.html

and a representative democracy that works for all Americans.20 Running Start’s mission is to see women achieve greater political power.21 Lastly, She Should Run’s goal is to expand women’s leadership in political office.22 All of these actors (organizations) have a similar overall preference (mission/goal): to make the U.S. a more representative democracy by having more women elected to political leadership roles. These organizations should be expected to support gender quotas to maximize their preferences of increased women representation. Quotas are proven to be both the most effective and most common strategy to achieve this goal, for, “quotas are designed to “jumpstart” women's political representation—to move from incremental gains to substantial growth in women's political presence…Research increasingly demonstrates that quotas are accomplishing this goal, at least in recent years,”23. As of 2017, 46 lower houses in national legislatures across the globe have reached the critical minority of at least 30% women, all of which have applied some form of gender quota.24 More generally, 68 out of the 103 nations ahead of the U.S. in the proportion of women in their national legislature have applied gender quotas.25 Only two countries have a true majority of women in their overall national legislatures: Rwanda (61.3%) and Bolivia (53.1%).26 But both of these nations were one of the many to also employ some form of gender quota for their legislatures. These statistics show that applying gender quotas are both effective and common. Under the RCI perspective and considering that these organizations face no particular conventional constraints in pursuing their interests as advocacy groups, these groups should be expected to pursue gender quotas within their individual organizational agendas and collectively within the political lobbying arena. However, these most prominent American women’s political advocacy organizations do not support the idea of gender quotas as per their own individual 20 http://www.fairvote.org/about 21 https://runningstartonline.org/about-us 22 http://www.sheshouldrun.org/mission 23 Paxton, Pamela (2015), pg. 331 24 UN Women (2017) 25 Somani, Anisa A. (2013), pg. 1466 26 UN Women (2017)

agendas, nor have they collectively mobilized to pursue this formal institutional change.27 Therefore, RCI fails to accurately predict the behavior of these organizations. In attempts to explain their deviational behavior, I will examine this political phenomena under a sociological institutionalist approach.

SOCIOLOGICAL INSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS Sociological institutionalism (SI) assumes that: 1) institutions…provide the ‘frames of meaning’ guiding human action 2) individuals who have been socialized into particular institutional roles internalize the norms associated with these roles [which can] affect behavior… but also their most basic preferences and very identity 3) Organizations often adopt a new institutional practice…because it enhances the social legitimacy of the organization or its participant.28 Institutions are defined in broader terms here, including ideas and norms. Actors behave according to the “logic of appropriateness”: in a way that they perceive to be socially appropriate. Ultimately, actors can be driven to behave differently from their expected calculated strategies for preference maximization, if norms conflict and override an actors’ desire to act in their personal “best interest”. Therefore, societal and context-specific factors can influence an actors’ decision-making process, rendering predictability of actions less clear than under RCI. Under an SI approach, the actors face a particular constraint to acting in accordance with their preference maximization. The constraint in this political phenomena is the institution of the American identity, which gives meaning to human action in a U.S. context. Jess McIntosh, communications director at EMILY’s List, dismisses the idea of adding gender quotas to their agenda,

“The feminist movement has been fighting this battle for equal representation for over 40 years… But you’re talking about changing the very rules that keep incumbents secure in their seats. We

27 Maillé, Chantal (2015), pg.13 28 Hall, Peter A., and Rosemary C.R. Taylor (1996), pg.15

need more Democratic and Republican leaders to step up and help solve this problem… EMILY’s List was founded to work within the electoral system we have…” 29.

Thus, these political advocacy groups largely do not see advocating for structural change as a part of their responsibility, but in fact the right and responsibility of the elected officials to induce change. McIntosh emphasizes that EMILY’s List’s methods of advocating for gender equality have been formulated to abide by the pre-existing rules and structural framework of the American democracy. So not only would the advocacy of gender quotas be viewed as undemocratic, but also, “…during a conference I attended recently in Brussels with women's political activists…the American delegation dismissed out of hand the idea of quotas as unAmerican,”30. American women’s political activists do not simply consider decisions that would maximize their preferences as a woman, as they also have an identity as an American to maintain if they wish to behave according to the “logic of appropriateness” in a U.S. context. In this scenario, the identity of being a woman and making a decision that would further its corresponding interests directly conflicts with the identity of being an American and acting appropriately within this identity. These organizations would face social sanctions by the populace if they advocated for the gender quota implementation as,” ‘quota’ is a dirty word. In U.S. law and society, we are ‘quota-phobic,’ vehemently resisting an idea alleged to be based on political correctness in place of merit,”31 for, “the very word ‘quota’ implies the negation of merit, individual worth, and fair competition, as well as the intervention of the state in individual freedom,”32 so, “the minute the subject comes up people assume that it represents unfair advantage. It’s very difficult to see how you might implement it in the United States…”33.Thus, quotas would largely go against American values of individual freedom and merit, as reflected in already established practices and formal structure of the U.S. government, and American organizations who endorse quotas will likely face backlash from the populace for not embracing these core, founding national values. 29 https://www.thenation.com/article/why-does-us-still-have-so-few-women-office 30 https://www.usnews.com/opinion/civil-wars/articles/2017-02-21/the-us-should-consider-gender-quotas-toincrease-women-in-politics 31 Thomas, Tracy A. (2017), pg. 1 32 Mansbridge, Jane (2005), pg. 629 33 http://bit.ly/1A6dgY6

Additionally, the value of individual freedom has increased importance currently, due to mainstream political debates. This phenomena is reflected in,

“the movements toward bisexuality, transgendered identities, multiraciality, and multiple nationality…In this more flexible world, quotas work on the side of rigidity. Therefore, quotas are working against the political ideological trend of free choice that is gaining traction in the United States, thus they are unlikely to be backed by popular support,” 34.

Therefore, it would be very risky politically to support any policy in opposition to this rising trend, such as quotas. The acknowledgement and fear of backlash from the “quota-phobic” U.S. electorate is one potential reason that American women’s political activist groups act against their perceived interests by not supporting gender quotas. Thus, these groups pursue a lesseffective strategy of promoting their end goals to avoid social sanctions and maintain some sense of legitimacy within the context of the American political arena.

CONCLUSION The existence of these women’s political advocacy groups in the U.S. testifies to the social differentiation between the sexes not only existing in today’s society, but one that is articulated in power differences between men and women within Congress. As exemplified in the nature of these organization’s mission statements, this power discrepancy is inherently problematic to having a truly representative democracy and giving American women a substantial voice within the political arena. Instead of opting for a structural change, in the form of national legislative gender quotas, that would both immediately and effectively increase the representativeness of the American democracy and give women a political voice, these organizations are choosing to focus their efforts on empowering and supporting women candidates. This strategy to diminishing the gender power imbalance in American politics is creating change at a sluggish at best, but a nearly stagnant rate. However, the American identity of valuing individual freedom, merit, and limited government intervention serves as a norm that 34 Mansbridge, Jane (2005), pg. 630

guides these organizations’ actions more than their desires to maximize their preferences. American women political rights activists, having to prioritize one conflicting identity over another in this scenario, are placing their “American” identity over their best interests as women in this public, political sphere in order to avoid being socially sanctioned by the American populace. Therefore, some factors as to why American women’s political advocacy groups have not pursued the policy of gender quotas in the national legislature can be more adequately explained by analyzing this political phenomena under a sociological institutionalist perspective, as opposed to a rational institutionalist perspective, as maintaining norms and societal expectations is valued more by these groups than maximizing their preferences in this particular context.

REFERENCES

Rutgers Center for American Women and Politics. “Women in the U.S. Congress 2017.” Rutgers Eagleton Institute of Politics, 2017, www.cawp.rutgers.edu/women-us-congress-2017 Cohn, Laura. “The U.S. Made Zero Progress in Adding Women to Congress.” Fortune, 10 Nov. 2016, www.fortune.com/2016/11/10/election-results-women-in-congress/ EMILY's List. “Mission & Vision.” 2017, www.emilyslist.org/pages/entry/our-mission FairVote. “About FairVote.” 2017, http://www.fairvote.org/about Feminist Majority Foundation. “Mission and Principles.” 2017, http://www.feminist.org/welcome/mandp.asp Gilson, Chris and Sean Kippin. “Five Minutes with Susan J. Carroll,” London School of Economics and Political Science, 30 January 2015, http://bit.ly/1A6dgY6 Hall, Peter A., and Rosemary C.R. Taylor. 1996 "Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms*." Political Studies, pp. 936-57. Hawkesworth, Mary. 2005 “Engendering Political Science: An Immodest Proposal”, Politics & Gender 1 (1), pp. 141 -156. Hill, Steven. “Why Does the US Still Have So Few Women in Office?” The Nation, 29 June 2015, www.thenation.com/article/why-does-us-still-have-so-few-women-office/. Inter-Parliamentary Union. “Women in National Parliaments”, 1 Jan. 2017, www.archive.ipu.org/wmne/arc/classif010117.htm Kliff, Sarah, and Soo Oh. “Why Aren't There More Women in Congress?” Vox, 16 Aug. 2016, www.vox.com/a/women-in-congress Maillé, Chantal. 2015 “Feminist Interventions in Political Representation in the United States” European Journal of American Studies, pp. 1-20. Manning, Jennifer E. “Membership of the 115th Congress: A Profile.” United States Congressional Research Service, 2017, pp. 1–9. Mansbridge, Jane. 2005 "Quota Problems: Combating the Dangers of Essentialism." Politics & Gender 1.4: pp. 622-38. Paxton, Pamela. 2015 “The Increasing Effectiveness of National Gender Quotas, 1990–2010.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 40:3, pp. 331-362. Running Start. “About Us.” https://runningstartonline.org/about-us/historymission Scott, Joan W. 1986 “Gender: A Useful Category of Historical Analysis” The American Historical Review, Vol. 91 No. 5, pp. 1053-1075. She Should Run. “Mission.” 2017, http://www.sheshouldrun.org/mission

Somani, Anisa A. 2013 “The Use of Gender Quotas in America: Are Voluntary Party Quotas the Way to Go?” Wm. & Mary L. Rev., pp. 1451-1488. Starrs, Jenny. “Women in Politics: How the US Compares with the World.” Public Radio International, 10 Sept. 2015, www.pri.org/stories/2015-09-10/women-politics-how-us-compares-world-video. Thomas, Tracy A. 2017 “Reconsidering the Remedy of Gender Quotas.” Harvard Journal of Law & Gender, pp. 1-27. United States Census Bureau. “UNITED STATES.” U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts, 1 July 2016, www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045216. UN Women. “Facts and Figures: Leadership and Political Participation.” July 2017, http://www.unwomen.org/en/what-we-do/leadership-and-political-participation/facts-and-figures#notes Wellford, Susannah. “A Quota Worth Making.” U.S. News & World Report, 21 Feb. 2017, www.usnews.com/opinion/civil-wars/articles/2017-02-21/the-us-should-consider-gender-quotas-toincrease-women-in-politics