Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Contents -- List of Figures and Tables -- Acknowledgments -- 1. Introduction -- 2. Theoretical Framework -- 3. Gender, Ethnicity, and the German Political System -- 4. German Political Parties: Representing the Problem of Underrepresentation -- 5. German Political Parties' Actions to Promote Inclusion -- 6. Rates of Election and Party Leadership -- 7. The Incomplete Citizen in Germany -- 8. Political Parties across the OECD -- 9. Conclusion -- Appendices -- Notes -- References -- Index.

Jane Mansbridge's (1999) "contingent 'yes'" amplified a chorus of voices discussing the substantive and symbolic functions of historically marginalized groups' presence in political office. In her essay, Mansbridge points to contexts of mistrust and uncrystallized interests as domains where presence enhances "adequate communication" and "innovative thinking" for these social groups (628). In this and many other accounts, the linchpin between descriptive and substantive representation for these functions is group members' shared experiences, alternatively framed as the perspectives informed by those experiences. Shared experiences cannot and do not produce identical effects (they are filtered through many lenses), but they are widely understood to inform and indeed often to authenticate political representation.

Next to the Alternative for Germany (AfD)'s nationalism and anti-immigrant attitudes, natalism and support for traditional gender roles are key components of the party's far right categorization. Women are not absent from parties like the AfD, though they support them at lower rates than men and at lower rates than they support other parties. In light of women's lower presence in far-right parties, how do women officeholders in the AfD explain their party affiliation, and how do their explanations differ from men's? An answer is discernible at the nexus between AfD officeholders' publicly available political backgrounds and the accounts that they offer for joining the party, termed "origin stories." Empirically, this article uses an original dataset of political biographical details for all the AfD's state and federal legislators elected between 2013 and late 2019. This dataset shows that AfD women at the state level are less likely than their men counterparts to have been affiliated with a political party, and they are less likely to have been politically active, prior to their participation in the AfD. Regardless of the facts of their backgrounds, however, women more than men explain their support of the AfD as a choice to enter into politics, and men more than women explain their support of the AfD as a choice to leave another party. The article argues that these gendered origin stories can be contextualized within the party's masculinist, natalist, and nationalist values.

This study offers a contextual explanation for discrepancies in women's rates of election between European national legislatures and the European Parliament (EP). Many European Union (EU) member states elect more women to the EP than to their national lower legislative houses. However, the margin of difference between women's presence in the EP and these national legislatures varies widely across member states. Using data for the EU-27, the study corroborates previous research in showing that institutional accounts offer limited leverage in explaining these varying gaps. Instead, it argues that the discrepancy between women's descriptive representation at national and European levels in each case is the result of contextual factors: voters, parties, and upwardly mobile politicians' valuation of the EP and EP service moderates the translation of the national pool of potential female candidates into EP officeholders.

This study maps the language that legislators use to define women's interests in the context of contemporary Germany. Using party groups' manifestos from the 2005 legislative elections and personal interviews with members of the 16th Bundestag (2005-9), the study compares female and male legislators within parties and female legislators across parties, with particular attention to how these interviewees' language cleaved to and from their party scripts (parties' positions on and language regarding women's interests). The map that emerges from this analysis suggests that legislators' language in talking about women's interests is mediated by sex and party affiliation in combination, such that female and male legislators differ within each party and female legislators differ across parties. The study shows that female legislators across parties share an emphasis on the inadequacy of formal equality in yielding women's equality in practice, but they diverge markedly in the policies that they recommend to address this problem. Much previous research on women's representation has focused on the finding that female legislators advocate for women at higher rates than their male colleagues, underplaying both the significant variation among female legislators as well as the contributions of conservative female legislators. Adapted from the source document.

This study maps the language that legislators use to define women's interests in the context of contemporary Germany. Using party groups' manifestos from the 2005 legislative elections and personal interviews with members of the 16th Bundestag (2005–9), the study compares female and male legislators within parties and female legislators across parties, with particular attention to how these interviewees' language cleaved to and from their party scripts (parties' positions on and language regarding women's interests). The map that emerges from this analysis suggests that legislators' language in talking about women's interests is mediated by sex and party affiliation in combination, such that female and male legislators differ within each party and female legislators differ across parties. The study shows that female legislators across parties share an emphasis on the inadequacy of formal equality in yielding women's equality in practice, but they diverge markedly in the policies that they recommend to address this problem. Much previous research on women's representation has focused on the finding that female legislators advocate for women at higher rates than their male colleagues, underplaying both the significant variation among female legislators as well as the contributions of conservative female legislators.

ABSTRACTResearch on the political science profession has shown that homophilous research networks—that is, those organized along the lines of gender and race/ethnicity—reproduce hierarchies. Research networks composed of white men experience the most prestige and lead to the most opportunities. This study documents homophilous networks in a setting where they likely are nurtured: academic conferences. Drawing data from the 2019 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, we examine the correspondence between the gender and the racial/ethnic composition of section members, panelists, and audience members for four research sections: Political Methodology; Political Psychology; Race, Ethnicity, and Politics; and Women and Politics. We find that attendees' and panelists' gender and racial/ethnic identity largely mirror the dominant gender and racial/ethnic group in their section. These findings indicate that homophily manifests at academic conferences and that efforts to diversify research networks should consider who listens to whom in these settings.