Maria C. Escobar-Lemmon - Böcker

Though parity is still rare, presidential cabinets contain more women than ever before. Who are these women and what types of political capital resources do they bring to the administration? Are they new types of political players or very much like the men who have traditionally run the government? And once they gain office, are they treated equally in the cabinet? Do they have the capacity to be as effective as their male counterparts? Drawing on data from five presidential democracies -- Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, and the United States -- Women in Presidential Cabinets examines the backgrounds, connections and credentials of all full-rank cabinet ministers in presidential administrations over the course of two decades to determine if women and men bring similar numbers and diversity of political capital resources to the administration. Maria C. Escobar-Lemmon and Michelle M. Taylor-Robinson find that, with a few notable exceptions, presidents select men and women with similar work and education backgrounds, political experience, and linkages to related interest groups. There are, however, differences across types of posts and countries. They evaluate the treatment and effectiveness of similarly credentialed male and female ministers on four benchmarks. Specifically, they examine whether women with equal qualifications can really obtain all posts or whether glass ceilings persist in some areas. They then turn to the ability of women to hold onto a post, considering the nature and circumstances surrounding their departures from office and how long they remain in office. In doing so, they uncover evidence that female ministers in Latin America stand on an unequal playing field when it comes to the ability to enact policy through legislation. Ultimately, Escobar-Lemmon and Taylor-Robinson show conclusively that while women lack numerical equality, they are no longer tokens, instead appearing positioned to exercise power at the highest levels within the executive branch.

This book examines the factors that facilitate the inclusion of women on high courts, while recognizing that many courts have a long way to go before reaching gender parity. Why did women start appearing on high courts when they did? Where have women made the most significant strides? To address these questions, the authors built the first cross-national and longitudinal dataset on the appointment of women and men to high courts. In addition, they provide five in-depth country case studies us to unpack the selection of justices to high courts in Canada, Colombia, Ireland, South Africa, and the United States. The cross-national lens and combination of quantitative analyses and detailed country studies examines multiple influences across region and time. Focusing on three sets of explanations --pipelines to high courts, domestic institutions, and international influences- analyses reveal that women are more likely to first appear on their country's high court when traditional ideas about who can and should be a judge erode. In some countries, international treaties, regional emulation, and women's international NGOs play a role in disseminating and linking global norms of gender equality in decision-making. Importantly, while informal institutions and reliance on men-dominated networks can limit access, women are making substantial strides in their countries' highest courts where the supply grows, and often where selectors have incentives to select women. Further, sustained pressure from advocacy organizations-at the local, national, and global levels-contributes to some gains.Comparative Politics is a series for researchers, teachers, and students of political science that deals with contemporary government and politics. Global in scope, books in the series are characterized by a stress on comparative analysis and strong methodological rigour. The series is published in association with the European Consortium for Political Research. For more information visitwww.ecprnet.eu The series is edited by Susan Scarrow, John and Rebecca Moores Professor of Political Science at the University of Houston, and Jonathan Slapin, Professor of Political Institutions and European Politics, Department of Political Science, University of Zurich.

While there is a vast literature on women's political interests, there is hardly any consensus about what constitutes "women's interests " or how scholars should approach studying them. Representation can occur in various venues or by various actors, but, due to power imbalances across political groups, it is not always realized in any substantive way. The essays in this book constitute a broad and geographically comparative move toward defining new and unified theoretical orientations to studying representation among women. Representation involves not only getting group members into government, but also articulating group interests and translating those interests into policy. Because competing groups have different policy preferences and act out of self-interest, representation of historically marginalized groups is a contentious, contingent process that is likely to ebb and flow. The book begins with a theoretical positioning of the meaning of women's interests, issues and preferences. It considers the need to add nuance to how we conceive of and study intersectionality and the dangers of stretching the meaning of substantive representation. It then looks at descriptive representation in political parties, high courts, and legislatures, as well as how definitions of "interest " affect who represents women in legislatures and social movements. The book concludes by suggesting testable propositions and avenues for future research to enhance understanding about representation of women and of other historically under-represented groups. Chapters include cases from the United States, Latin America, Western Europe and Africa.