Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Costs and Benefits of Descriptive Representation: Women’s Quotas, Variations in State Feminism and the Fact of Reasonable Pluralism

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Gendered Citizenship and the Politics of Representation

Part of the book series: Citizenship, Gender and Diversity ((FEMCIT))

  • 1167 Accesses

Abstract

The chapter discusses the costs and benefits of descriptive representation under state feminism in the light of institutional variation and the fact of reasonable normative disagreement. Women-centred and intersectional state feminism, state feminism inside and outside a welfare state context, and state feminism more and less democratized are compared, and it is argued that from the cost side, descriptive representation is more recommendable in a democratized, intersectional state feminist regime than in a women-centred technocratic one, whereas the effects of the welfare state variable on descriptive representation costs are more mixed. On the benefit side, intersectionality, welfare state and democratization seem to deliver several of the same goods as descriptive representation, raising the question of whether descriptive representation is at all recommendable, given what we know of its costliness. In the end, there is however a set of remaining pro arguments suggesting that descriptive representation produces some exclusive benefits. The closer assessment of pros and cons will however vary with normative position and more specifically with which conceptions of democracy and equality one subscribes to.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 19.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 29.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    For discussions of gender quotas in corporate boards, see, for example, Engelstad and Teigen (2012).

  2. 2.

    The point of this chapter is neither to define the threshold level of “effective state feminism” nor to argue that state feminism actually delivers “better” than descriptive representation. The question here is what happens to the calculus of descriptive representation under the condition that state feminist machineries are in place and work relatively efficiently.

  3. 3.

    The notions of women-centred/intersectional state feminism, state feminism with/without a welfare state and with/without democratization should be thought of in terms of Weberian ideal types. The actual empirical variation and the detailed characteristics of state feminism around the globe are different matters and not the topic of this chapter.

  4. 4.

    Equal outcomes on an individual level would have implied that each and every individual got the same bundle of goods and burdens in question.

  5. 5.

    The contention is that such similarity in success prospects requires social and economic redistribution and not only anti-discrimination and equal treatment (what Rawls refers to as “formal” equal opportunities).

  6. 6.

    This conclusion is complicated by the fact that some regard equal group level outcomes not as a good in and by itself but as the best available proxy for equal opportunities given available data and conventional statistical techniques (Phillips 2004).

References

  • Bacchi, C. (1999). Women, policy and politics: The construction of policy problems. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barry, B. (2002). Culture and equality: An egalitarian critique of multiculturalism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christiano, T. (2012). Rational deliberation among experts and citizens. In J. Parkinson & J. Mansbridge (Eds.), Deliberative systems: Deliberative democracy at the large scale. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornell, D. (1995). The imaginary domain: Abortion, pornography and sexual harassment. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cornell, D. (1998). At the heart of freedom: Feminism, sex & equality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engelstad, F., & Teigen, M. (2012). Firms, boards and gender quotas: Comparative perspectives. Emerald: Bingley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Oxford: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estlund, D. (2008). Democratic authority: A philosophical framework. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fleurbaey, M. (1995). Equal opportunity and equal social outcome. Economics and Philosophy, 11, 25–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, N. (2003). Social justice in the age of identity politics: Redistribution, recognition, and participation. In N. Fraser & A. Honneth (Eds.), Redistribution or recognition? A political-philosophical exchange. New York: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraser, N. (2013). Fortunes of feminism. From state-managed capitalism to neoliberal crisis. New York: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Galligan, Y. (2014). States of democracy: A gender perspective. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Grofman, B. (1982). Should representatives be typical of their constituents? In B. Grofman et al. (Eds.), Representation and redistricting issues. Lexington: D. C. Heath.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guinier, L. (1994). The tyranny of the majority: Fundamental fairness in representative democracy. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hernes, H. (1987). Welfare state and woman power: Essays in state feminism. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hernes, H., & Skjeie, H. (1997). Mellom fag og feminisme: Kvinneforskning i statsvitenskap. Norsk Statsvitenskaplig Tidsskrift, 13(3).

    Google Scholar 

  • Holst, C. (2010). Feminism, epistemology and morality. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holst, C. (2014). Why democracy? On the relationship between gender democracy and gender equality in the EU. In Y. Galligan (Ed.), States of democracy: Gender and politics in Europe. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krizsan, A., Skjeie, H., & Squires, J. (Eds.). (2012). Institutionalizing intersectionality. The changing nature of European equality regimes. London: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kymlicka, W. (1993). Multicultural citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lafont, C. (2006). Is the ideal of deliberative democracy coherent? In S. Besson & J. S. Martí (Eds.), Deliberative democracy and its discontents. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovenduski, J. (2005a). Feminizing politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lovenduski, J. (2005b). State feminism and political representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mansbridge, J. (1999). Should blacks represent blacks and women represent women? A contingent ‘yes’. The Journal of Politics, 61(3), 628–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansbridge, J. (2001). The descriptive representation of gender: An anti-essentialist argument. In J. Klausen & C. Maier (Eds.), Has liberalism failed women? (pp. 19–38). New York: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mansbridge, J. (2005). Quota problems: Combating the dangers of essentialism. Politics & Gender, 1(4), 622–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martí, J. L. (2006). The epistemic conception of deliberative democracy defended. In S. Besson & J. L. Martí (Eds.), Deliberative democracy and its discontents. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  • Martin, J. R. (1994). Methodological essentialism, false difference, and other dangerous traps. Signs, 19(3), 630–657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minow, M. (1991). From class actions to Miss Saigon. Cleveland State Law Review, 39(3), 269–300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morone, J. A., & Marmor, T. R. (1981). Representing consumer institutions: The case of American health planning. Ethics, 91, 431–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, P., & Franklin, M. (1997). Social representation. European Journal of Political Research, 32, 185–2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nussbaum, M. (1999). Sex and social justice. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olsen, J. P. (2013). The institutional basis of democratic accountability. West European Politics, 36(3), 447–473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pennock, J. R. (1979). Democratic political theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peter, F. (2011). Democratic legitimacy. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, A. (1995). The politics of presence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Phillips, A. (2004). Defending equality of outcome. Journal of Political Philosophy, 12(1), 1–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pitkin, H. F. (1972). The concept of representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Plantenga, J., Remery, C., Figueiredo, H., & Smith, M. (2009). Towards a European union gender equality index. Journal of European Social Policy, 19(1), 19–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. New York: Colombia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reisel, L. (2014). Legal harmonization and intersectionality in Swedish and Norwegian anti-discrimination reform. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State and Society, 21(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Roemer, J. (1998). Equality of opportunity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sawer, M. (2002). The representation of women in Australia: Meaning and make-believe. In K. Ross (Ed.), Women, politics, and change (pp. 5–18). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stetson, D., & Mazur, A. G. (1995). Comparative state feminism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swain, C. M. (1993). Black faces, black interests: The representation of African-Americans in congress. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swift, A. (2004). Would perfect mobility be perfect? European Sociological Review, 20(1), 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tannen, D. (1994). Gender and discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Teigen, M. (2000). The affirmative action controversy. NORA – Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 8(2), 63–77.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vibert, F. (2007). The rise of the unelected. Democracy and the new separation of powers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Voet, R. (1992). Gender representation and quotas. Acta Politica, 4, 389–403.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walby, S. (2011). The future of feminism. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wängnerud, L. (2009). Women in parliaments: Descriptive and substantive representation. Annual Review of Political Science, 12, 51–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weldon, L. S. (2002). Beyond bodies: Institutional sources of representation for women in democratic policy-making. The Journal of Politics, 64(4), 1153–1174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, M. S. (1998). Voice, trust, and memory: Marginalized groups and the failings of liberal representation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Young, I. M. (1994). Gender as seriality: Thinking about women as a social collective. Signs, 19(3), 713–738.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Arena Centre for European Studies, University of Oslo, Sognsveien 68, 0855, Oslo, Norway

    Cathrine Holst

Authors
  1. Cathrine Holst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Uni Research Rokkan Centre, Bergen, Norway

    Hilde Danielsen

  2. Centre for Women’s and Gender Research, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

    Kari Jegerstedt

  3. Department of Comparative Politics, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

    Ragnhild L. Muriaas

  4. Department of Information Science and Media Studies, University of Bergen, Bergen, Norway

    Brita Ytre-Arne

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Holst, C. (2016). The Costs and Benefits of Descriptive Representation: Women’s Quotas, Variations in State Feminism and the Fact of Reasonable Pluralism. In: Danielsen, H., Jegerstedt, K., Muriaas, R., Ytre-Arne, B. (eds) Gendered Citizenship and the Politics of Representation. Citizenship, Gender and Diversity. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51765-4_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-51765-4_5

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London

  • Print ISBN: 978-1-137-51764-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-1-137-51765-4

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation