Advertisement

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

  • Cathrine Holst
Chapter
Part of the Citizenship, Gender and Diversity book series (FEMCIT)

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.

Keywords

Welfare State Sexual Minority Descriptive Representation Deliberative Democracy Welfare Regime 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bacchi, C. (1999). Women, policy and politics: The construction of policy problems. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Barry, B. (2002). Culture and equality: An egalitarian critique of multiculturalism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Cornell, D. (1995). The imaginary domain: Abortion, pornography and sexual harassment. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  5. Cornell, D. (1998). At the heart of freedom: Feminism, sex & equality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Engelstad, F., & Teigen, M. (2012). Firms, boards and gender quotas: Comparative perspectives. Emerald: Bingley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Oxford: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  9. Estlund, D. (2008). Democratic authority: A philosophical framework. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Fleurbaey, M. (1995). Equal opportunity and equal social outcome. Economics and Philosophy, 11, 25–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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
  12. Fraser, N. (2013). Fortunes of feminism. From state-managed capitalism to neoliberal crisis. New York: Verso.Google Scholar
  13. Galligan, Y. (2014). States of democracy: A gender perspective. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  14. 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
  15. Guinier, L. (1994). The tyranny of the majority: Fundamental fairness in representative democracy. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  16. Gutmann, A., & Thompson, D. (1996). Democracy and disagreement. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Habermas, J. (1996). Between facts and norms. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Hernes, H. (1987). Welfare state and woman power: Essays in state feminism. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Hernes, H., & Skjeie, H. (1997). Mellom fag og feminisme: Kvinneforskning i statsvitenskap. Norsk Statsvitenskaplig Tidsskrift, 13(3).Google Scholar
  20. Holst, C. (2010). Feminism, epistemology and morality. Saarbrücken: VDM Verlag Dr. Müller.Google Scholar
  21. 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
  22. Krizsan, A., Skjeie, H., & Squires, J. (Eds.). (2012). Institutionalizing intersectionality. The changing nature of European equality regimes. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  23. Kymlicka, W. (1993). Multicultural citizenship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Lovenduski, J. (2005a). Feminizing politics. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  26. Lovenduski, J. (2005b). State feminism and political representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mansbridge, J. (1999). Should blacks represent blacks and women represent women? A contingent ‘yes’. The Journal of Politics, 61(3), 628–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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
  29. Mansbridge, J. (2005). Quota problems: Combating the dangers of essentialism. Politics & Gender, 1(4), 622–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 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
  31. Martin, J. R. (1994). Methodological essentialism, false difference, and other dangerous traps. Signs, 19(3), 630–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Minow, M. (1991). From class actions to Miss Saigon. Cleveland State Law Review, 39(3), 269–300.Google Scholar
  33. Morone, J. A., & Marmor, T. R. (1981). Representing consumer institutions: The case of American health planning. Ethics, 91, 431–450.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Norris, P., & Franklin, M. (1997). Social representation. European Journal of Political Research, 32, 185–2010.Google Scholar
  35. Nussbaum, M. (1999). Sex and social justice. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. Olsen, J. P. (2013). The institutional basis of democratic accountability. West European Politics, 36(3), 447–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pennock, J. R. (1979). Democratic political theory. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Peter, F. (2011). Democratic legitimacy. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. Phillips, A. (1995). The politics of presence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  40. Phillips, A. (2004). Defending equality of outcome. Journal of Political Philosophy, 12(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pitkin, H. F. (1972). The concept of representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rawls, J. (1993). Political liberalism. New York: Colombia University Press.Google Scholar
  44. Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  45. 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
  46. Roemer, J. (1998). Equality of opportunity. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  47. 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
  48. Stetson, D., & Mazur, A. G. (1995). Comparative state feminism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  49. Swain, C. M. (1993). Black faces, black interests: The representation of African-Americans in congress. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Swift, A. (2004). Would perfect mobility be perfect? European Sociological Review, 20(1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tannen, D. (1994). Gender and discourse. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  52. Teigen, M. (2000). The affirmative action controversy. NORA – Nordic Journal of Feminist and Gender Research, 8(2), 63–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Vibert, F. (2007). The rise of the unelected. Democracy and the new separation of powers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Voet, R. (1992). Gender representation and quotas. Acta Politica, 4, 389–403.Google Scholar
  55. Walby, S. (2011). The future of feminism. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  56. Wängnerud, L. (2009). Women in parliaments: Descriptive and substantive representation. Annual Review of Political Science, 12, 51–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Weldon, L. S. (2002). Beyond bodies: Institutional sources of representation for women in democratic policy-making. The Journal of Politics, 64(4), 1153–1174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Williams, M. S. (1998). Voice, trust, and memory: Marginalized groups and the failings of liberal representation. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  59. Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Young, I. M. (1994). Gender as seriality: Thinking about women as a social collective. Signs, 19(3), 713–738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cathrine Holst
    • 1
  1. 1.Arena Centre for European StudiesUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations