Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorFallon, Kathleen
dc.contributor.authorSwiss, Liam
dc.contributor.authorViterna, Jocelyn
dc.date.accessioned2017-07-12T20:48:59Z
dc.date.issued2012
dc.identifierQuick submit: 2014-08-08T09:43:55-04:00
dc.identifier.citationFallon, Kathleen M., Liam Swiss, and Jocelyn Viterna. 2012. “Resolving the Democracy Paradox.” American Sociological Review 77 (3) (May 7): 380–408. doi:10.1177/0003122412443365.en_US
dc.identifier.issn0003-1224en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:33431738
dc.description.abstractIncreasing levels of democratic freedoms should, in theory, improve women’s access to political positions. Yet studies demonstrate that democracy does little to improve women’s legislative representation. To resolve this paradox, we investigate how variations in the democratization process—including pre-transition legacies, historical experiences with elections, the global context of transition, and post-transition democratic freedoms and quotas—affect women’s representation in developing nations. We find that democratization’s effect is curvilinear. Women in non-democratic regimes often have high levels of legislative representation but little real political power. When democratization occurs, women’s representation initially drops, but with increasing democratic freedoms and additional elections, it increases again. The historical context of transition further moderates these effects. Prior to 1995, women’s representation increased most rapidly in countries transitioning from civil strife—but only when accompanied by gender quotas. After 1995 and the Beijing Conference on Women, the effectiveness of quotas becomes more universal, with the exception of post- communist countries. In these nations, quotas continue to do little to improve women’s representation. Our results, based on pooled time series analysis from 1975 to 2009, demonstrate that it is not democracy—as measured by a nation’s level of democratic freedoms at a particular moment in time—but rather the democratization process that matters for women’s legislative representation.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipSociologyen_US
dc.language.isoen_USen_US
dc.publisherSAGE Publicationsen_US
dc.relation.isversionofdoi:10.1177/0003122412443365en_US
dash.licenseMETA_ONLY
dc.subjectdemocracyen_US
dc.subjectdevelopmenten_US
dc.subjectgenderen_US
dc.subjectpoliticsen_US
dc.titleResolving the Democracy Paradox: Democratization and Women’s Legislative Representation in Developing Nations, 1975-2009en_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.date.updated2014-08-08T13:43:55Z
dc.description.versionVersion of Recorden_US
dc.rights.holderFallon, Kathleen M., Liam Swiss, and Jocelyn Viterna
dc.relation.journalAmerican Sociological Reviewen_US
dash.depositing.authorViterna, Jocelyn
dash.embargo.until10000-01-01
dc.identifier.doi10.1177/0003122412443365*
workflow.legacycommentsViterna emailed 2016-05-18 MM Viterna emailed 2017-03-09 MM meta.darken_US
dash.contributor.affiliatedViterna, Jocelyn


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record