The Historic Roots of Quality of Government: The Role of Gender Equality

  • Amy C. Alexander
Chapter
Part of the Political Corruption and Governance book series (PCG)

Abstract

Numerous studies confirm that ceteris paribus when a country performs well in gender equality, it performs well in quality of government and vice versa. This chapter adds to this literature a theory that considers gender equality within households fundamental to understanding the historical roots of the quality of government. The chapter argues that greater gender egalitarianism in early household formation patterns creates a core basis of “bottom-up” support for higher quality of government and related civic norms, namely, generalized social trust. From this perspective, the chapter works with fertility data for gauging the long-term effects of household gender equality on generalized trust and quality of government from 1800 to today.

References

  1. Acker, J. (1989). The problem with patriarchy. Sociology, 23(2), 235–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexander, A. C. (2012). Change in women’s descriptive representation and the belief in women’s ability to govern: A virtuous cycle. Politics & Gender, 8(4), 437–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Alexander, A. C., & Welzel, C. (2010). Empowering women: The role of emancipative beliefs. European Sociological Review, 27(3), 364–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alexander, A. C., & Welzel, C. (2011). Measuring effective democracy: The human empowerment approach. Comparative Politics, 43(3), 271–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alexander, A. C., & Welzel, C. (2015). Eroding patriarchy: The co-evolution of women’s rights and emancipative values. International Review of Sociology, 25(1), 144–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Alexander, A. C., Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2016). Emancipating sexuality: Breakthroughs into a bulwark of tradition. Social Indicators Research, 129(2), 909–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Blackden, M., Canagarajah, S., Klasen, S., & Lawson, D. (2007). Gender and growth in Africa. In G. Mavrotas & A. Shorrocks (Eds.), Advancing development: Core themes in global economics (pp. 349–370). London: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Branisa, B., Ziegler, M., & Klasen, S. (2010). The institutional basis of gender inequality. Proceedings of the German Development Economics Conference, Hannover.Google Scholar
  9. Coleman, I. (2004). The payoff from women’s rights. Foreign Affairs, 83, 85–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dollar, D., Fisman, R., & Gatti, R. (2001). Are women really the “fairer” sex? Corruption and women in government. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 46(4), 423–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Duflo, E. (2012). Women’s empowerment and economic development. Journal of Economic Literature, 50(4), 1051–1079.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fish, S. (2002). Islam and authoritarianism. World Politics, 55, 4–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Goetz, A. M. (2007). Political cleaners? Women as the new corruption force. Development and Change, 38(1), 87–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Goldberg, S. (2008). Why patriarchy? Group, 32(1), 13–21.Google Scholar
  15. Hajnal, J. (1965). European marriage patterns in perspective. In D. V. Glass & D. E. C. Eversley (Eds.), Population in history: Essays in historical demography (pp. 101–143). London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  16. Hajnal, J. (1982). Two kinds of pre-industrial household formation systems. In R. Wall, J. Robin, & P. Laslett (Eds.), Family forms in historic Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Hartman, M. (2004). The household and the making of history. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holmberg, S., & Rothstein, B. (2017). Trusting other people. Journal of Public Affairs, 17, 1–8.Google Scholar
  19. Hudson, V., Ballif-Spanvill, B., Caprioli, M., & Emmett, C. (2012). Sex and world peace. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Inglehart, R., & Norris, P. (2003). Rising tide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change and democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kabeer, N., & Natali, L. (2013). Gender equality and economic growth? IDS working paper no. 417. Brighton: Institute of Development Studies.Google Scholar
  23. Klasen, S. (2002). Low schooling for girls, slower growth for all? World Bank Economic Review, 16, 345–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kok, J. (2017). Women’s agency in historical family systems. In J. Luiten van Zanden, A. Rijpma, & J. Kok (Eds.), Agency, gender and economic development in the world economy 1850–2000: Testing the Sen hypothesis (pp. 10–50). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Luiten van Zanden, J., Rijpma, A., & Kok, J. (2017). Agency, gender and economic development in the world economy 1850–2000: Testing the Sen hypothesis. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  26. Miles, J., & Shevlin, M. (2001). Applying regression and correlation: A guide for students and researchers. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  27. Mitterauer, M. (2010). Why Europe? The medieval origins of its special path. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  28. Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2003). The true clash of civilizations. Foreign Policy, 135, 62–70.Google Scholar
  29. Patil, V. (2013). From patriarchy to intersectionality: A transnational feminist assessment of how far we’ve really come. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 38(4), 847–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Powelson, J. P. (1997). Centuries of economic endeavor. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  31. Rothstein, B., & Teorell, J. (2008). Impartiality as a basic norm for the quality of government: A reply to Francisco Longo and Graham Wilson. Governance, 21(2), 201–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rothstein, B., & Uslaner, E. (2005). All for all. World Politics, 58, 41–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Seguino, S. (2000). Gender inequality and growth. World Development, 28(7), 1211–1230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Swamy, A., Knack, S., Lee, Y., & Azfar, O. (2001). Gender and corruption. Journal of Development Economics, 64(1), 25–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2009). Using multivariate statistics. Needham Heights: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  36. Todd, E. (1985). The explanation of ideology: Family structures and social systems. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  37. Uslaner, E. M., & Rothstein, B. (2016). The historical roots of corruption: State building, economic inequality, and mass education. Comparative Politics, 48(2), 227–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Walby, S. (1990). Theorizing patriarchy (Vol. 20). Cambridge/Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
  39. Warner, R., Lee, G. R., & Lee, J. (1986). Social organization, spousal resources, and marital power: A cross-cultural study. Journal of Marriage and Family, 48, 121–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Welzel, C. (2002). Effective democracy, mass culture, and the quality of elites: The human development perspective. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 43(3–5), 317–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Welzel, C. (2013). Freedom rising. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Welzel, C., & Delhey, J. (2015). Generalizing trust: The benign force of emancipation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(7), 875–896.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. World Bank. (2011, 2001). World development report 2012, 2000: Gender equality and development. Washington, DC: The World Bank.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Amy C. Alexander
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of GothenburgGothenburgSweden

Personalised recommendations