It is rare that scholarship makes compelling empirical and theoretical contributions to as many different disciplinary audiences as S. Laurel Weldon's does. Weldon's analysis breaks new ground in the study of social movements, representation, democracy, intersectionality, and gender-equity policy. Analyzing cross-national and 50-state data on policy adoption in several domains, survey data from women's organizations in Chicago, and evidence from case studies, the author shows that social movements enhance democratic representation for marginalized groups, including women, workers, women workers, and women of color.
Weldon theorizes that social movements foster representation and inclusion, allowing disadvantaged groups to define themselves and voice their perspectives in order to attain substantive representation. Social movements are sometimes overlooked in the study of representation or dismissed as divisive, but she argues that social movements are the most effective means of achieving representation for disadvantaged social groups, particularly in debates over policy changes promoting social transformation. In their representative and civic roles, she argues, social movements deepen, rather than divide, the public. Weldon has high expectations for social movements when it comes to enhancing representation for marginalized groups. Not only does she expect that social movements significantly shape government policies affecting women, but she also asserts that this influence is more important than is women's descriptive representation in legislatures and other institutional influences.
The author's first analysis is of government responses to violence against women in 36 stable democracies. Her findings confirm her expectations. The presence of a strong, autonomous women's movement is more important than is the proportion of female legislators in increasing system responsiveness. Further, she finds that women's policy agencies do not affect policy to combat violence against women unless a strong women's movement has access to them. Her detailed analysis of the process leading to the adoption of measures to combat violence against women in Canada underscores the importance of decades of activism and lobbying by women's organizations to genuine policy responsiveness.
Weldon's nuanced analysis of family policy reveals that women's movements are both important to, and limited in, affecting such policy. She analyzes 34 stable democracies to determine how women's movements, labor mobilization, women in government, and women's policy machineries affect three family policy dimensions: the adoption of publicly paid leaves, the generosity of leave policy, and the extent to which the policy challenges gender roles. Again, she finds that women's movements are more important than are the numbers of women in government, labor unions, or left parties in predicting family policies that seek to change gender roles with respect to paid work and child care (e.g., parental leave and antidiscrimination laws for female workers). Class politics, however, matters most to the generosity of leave. Here, a strong labor movement, rather than a strong women's movement, is key, and in this case the number of women in government also matters. Detailed analysis of the adoption of antidiscrimination and maternity leave policies in Norway and the United States highlights the importance of women's movements in the creation of other policies that advance the status of women and of labor movements in the expansion of the role of the state.
In her analysis of policies affecting low-income workers in 50 states, Weldon highlights the importance of women's movement organizations in promulgating policies that specifically help women workers. Her comparison of the roles of labor organizations, women's organizations, and political parties shows that women's organizations fill a gap created by the inattention of traditional labor supporters to workers' rights specifically affecting women, such as unemployment insurance for pregnant workers or workers who lose their jobs in the wake of domestic violence. Labor movements are not alone in overlooking the interests of an intersectionally marginalized subgroup. In states where women of color organize separately, women's movements are stronger and the government is more responsive to violence against women of color, and against women in general, than in states where they do not. Weldon makes clear that rather than weakening social movements, as critics have claimed, separate organizing strengthens movements and provides critical representation to marginalized groups.
The first four chapters present compelling statistical results of social movement representation of marginalized groups across a range of policy outcomes cross-nationally and in the 50 states, and the consistency of the results shows that they are generalizable. Yet questions remain about the mechanisms at work in the success of women's organizations in affecting these policy outcomes. How do they do it? And in their efforts, do they specifically focus on their intersectionally disadvantaged subgroups? Chapter 5 focuses on the activities of a set of women's organizations that represent women as a collectivity. In a survey of women's organizations active in Chicago from 2003 to 2005, Weldon shows that the majority actively sought media attention and generally succeeded, particularly conservative women's groups. Fifty percent of them organized protests; it would have been illuminating to learn more about these protests as a mechanism of influence.
When it comes to representation, women's organizations did represent privileged women better than disadvantaged women, especially given that a plurality of the groups were women's occupational or trade associations, but they nonetheless still represented marginalized groups of women in two key ways. First, women's organizations ranked economic equality as the most important issue on their agenda, and poverty was also considered very important. Second, there was considerably more descriptive representation of women of color in women's organizations than in elected bodies in cities, states, and the nation as a whole. These results are consistent with Weldon's argument that even if social movements represent the advantaged better than they do the disadvantaged, social movements are still the best avenue of representation for disadvantaged groups.
On the basis of her findings, Weldon concludes by making a case for an advocacy state to improve democracy for systematically disadvantaged groups defined by gender, race, ethnicity, and sexuality. She recommends that democratic states should adopt programs targeted to disadvantaged groups. Not only would such programs fill a gap in representation, but they would also enhance civil society. She looks to the Court Challenges Program in Canada and the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Program in the U.S. Department of Transportation as examples of programs that succeed in providing targeted benefits to disadvantaged groups without harm.
Weldon's research raises new questions for future research. While her survey data on women's organizations in Chicago provide important insight, more research is needed on the strategies outside and inside the policymaking community used by social movements representing marginalized groups in order to achieve success in the policy arena. Additionally, scholars who have demonstrated links between women's descriptive and substantive representation may find it surprising that electing more women to the legislature is less important than social movement strength in predicting governmental policy. Weldon's findings call for more research on the relationships between women in office and women's organizations. Are female legislative policy entrepreneurs more likely than men to work with women's organizations on their agenda? As women slowly move up the ranks in party leadership, it is also important to reevaluate the role of parties, party leaders, and intraparty conflict around issues affecting marginalized groups.
