Why quotas

Gender inequality is one of the most primitive and oldest forms of inequality. Sadly, it is still very much a reality in most parts of the world. In many countries women do not have equal access to education, healthcare, safety, work or political decision-making.

In Belgium, the battle against gender inequality is fought using the controversial instrument of quotas, in politics, business and beyond. In the political world, quotas ensure that parliament truly reflects the population it represents. When a parliament consists only or mainly of men, it becomes very hard to gain broad support for political decisions, and to demonstrate that every citizen can be elected.

It is unacceptable that political leadership is still very much a predominantly male privilege. According to Phumzile Mlambo- Ngcuka, executive director of UN Women, it will take another 50 years to achieve gender equality in the political sphere at the current rate of change.

Patiently waiting for that to happen is not an option. Tough measures are needed, and quotas for women in parliamentary meetings is the most important one. Although quotas can more or less automatically increase the share of women, they only address one of the manifestations of gender inequality. Special day for women invested in French municipal elections, They may be victims of sexist behavior, and hit a glass ceiling when seeking the most prestigious positions in their field.

Second, unlike quotas used in other areas employment policies for the disabled in France, for example , gender quota policies currently tend to target positions at the top of political and professional hierarchies.

The case of the civil service is revealing in this regard: the quotas apply to senior management, leaving inequalities at other levels unaddressed underpayment of the most feminised functions such as nurses, for example. The women who benefit from quota policies tend to be from the social elite. It is therefore essential that the analysis of the effects of quotas consider how gender intersects with other systems of inequality perrmeating society class inequality, ethno-racial inequality, etc.

Although these possible unequal effects within equality policies need to be addressed, quotas at the top of the hierarchy raise the essential question of access to power. Like policies fighting harassment and sexual and gender-based violence, quotas highlight the conflict dimension of gender inequalities. They reveal the balance of power between gender classes at play in the major transformations of this system of inequality in recent decades. Quotas are not the solution for ensuring equality, but rather a tool for it.

This tool should not be expected to achieve more than what it automatically enables an increase in the share of women , but should be appreciated for its potentially strong symbolic effects. Brussels, Belgium. Sex Roles 73, — Gangl, K. Confidence in the economy in times of crisis: social representations of experts and laypeople. Socio Econ. Golden, H. Reactions to affirmative action: substance and semantics. Greenacre, M. Multiple Correspondence Analysis and Related Methods.

He, J. The Debate About Quotas. Heilman, M. Issues 52, — Type of affirmative action policy: a determinant of reactions to sex-based preferential selection? Presumed incompetent? Stigmatization and affirmative action efforts.

Why are women penalized for success at male tasks? The implied communality deficit. Intentionally favored, unintentionally harmed? Impact of sex-based preferential selection on self-perceptions and self-evaluations. Penalties for success: reactions to women who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Disadvantaged by diversity? The effects of diversity goals on competence perceptions. Hofstede, G.

Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind. The effect of gender quotas in the first decade of the twenty-first century: a global comparison. Hollingshead, A. Four factor index of social status. Yale J. Hothorn, T. R News. International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assitance Gender Quotas Around the World. Joffe, H. Free association in psychology and the grid elaboration method. Jones, M. Gender quotas, electoral laws, and the election of women.

Jost, J. The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness. A decade of system justification theory: accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. The psychology of system justification and the palliative function of ideology. Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies. Exposure to benevolent sexism and complementary gender stereotypes: consequences for specific and diffuse forms of system justification.

Bobocel, A. Kay, M. Zanna, and J. Kruglanski, and E. Kawachi, I. Kehn, A. Perceptions of gender discrimination across six decades: the moderating roles of gender and age. Sex Roles 69, — Kelley, H. The processes of causal attribution.

Konrad, A. Gender differences in attitudes toward affirmative action programs in Australia: effects of beliefs, interests, and attitudes toward women. Sex Roles 45, — Kravitz, D. Attitudes and beliefs about affirmative action: effects of target and of respondent sex and ethnicity.

Kutter, K. Hamburg: taz. FactoMineR: an R package for multivariate analysis. Leiner, D. SoSci Survey Version 2. Leslie, L. The stigma of affirmative action: a stereotyping-based theory and meta-analytic test of the consequences for performance. Mandatory quotas for women on boards of directors in the European Union: harmful to or good for company performance? Law Rev. Lewis, G. Diversity, pay equity, and pay in social work and other professions.

Affilia 33, — Lindsay, S. Gendering work: the masculinization of nurse anesthesia. Lindstad, S. Male Gender Quotas Denied. Madison, G. Presumption and prejudice: quotas may solve some problems, but create many more.

Mankind Q. Maio, G. The social consequences of affirmative action: deleterious effects on perceptions of groups. Matsa, D. A female style in corporate leadership? Evidence from quotas. McCoy, S. Is the belief in meritocracy palliative for members of low status groups? Evidence for a benefit for self-esteem and physical health via perceived control.

McIntyre, R. Effects of role model deservingness on overcoming performance deficits induced by stereotype threat. Meier, P. The mutual contagion effect of legal and party quotas.

Party Politics 10, — Morgenroth, T. Quotas and affirmative action: understanding group-based outcomes and attitudes. Compass e Nater, C. Nelson, D. What is free association and what does it measure? Niederle, M. How costly is diversity? Affirmative action in light of gender differences in competitiveness. Nosek, B. National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Ortiz, J. Paxton, P. Phelan, J. System justification beliefs, affirmative action, and resistance to equal opportunity organizations.

Resendez, M. The stigmatizing effects of affirmative action: an examination of moderating variables. Rozin, P. Rudman, L. Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. Issues 57, — Status incongruity and backlash effects: defending the gender hierarchy motivates prejudice against female leaders.

Ruthig, J. Sex Roles 76, 17— Sabatier, M. Schmidt-Vierthaler, R. Schwindt-Bayer, L. Making quotas work: the effect of gender quota laws on the election of women. Seierstad, C.

Beyond the business case: the need for both utility and justice rationales for increasing the share of women on boards. Shaughnessy, B. Diverse and just? The role of quota-based selection policies on organizational outcomes. Simpson, R. Masculinity at work: the experiences of men in female dominated occupations. Work Employ. Sipe, S.

Smyth, F. On the gender—science stereotypes held by scientists: explicit accord with gender-ratios, implicit accord with scientific identity.

Stark, O. Socially gainful gender quotas. Storvik, A. Included, but still not equal? Gender segregation at quota regulated boards. Board Role Duties Compost. Women on Board: The Norwegian Experience. Berlin: Friedrich- Ebert-Stiftung. Terjesen, S. Board gender quotas: exploring ethical tensions from a multi-theoretical perspective. Ethics Q. Tripp, A. The global impact of quotas. UN Women Facts and Figures: Leadership and Political Participation. Women in Science: Factsheet. Unzueta, M.

Van den Brink, M. The support paradox: overcoming dilemmas in gender equality programs. Wallon, G. Exploring Quotas in Academia.

Wang, M. The gender quota and female leadership: effects of the Norwegian gender quota on board chairs and CEOs. Ethics , — Williams, C. The glass escalator, revisited. Windscheid, L. The paradox of diversity initiatives: when organizational needs differ from employee preferences. Ethics , 33— Winkler-Hermaden, R. Vienna: Der Standard. Witte, F. Yeung, A.

Anti-feminist backlash: the role of system justification in the rejection of feminism. Group Process. Intergroup Relat. Zillman, C. New York, NY: Fortune.