Gender and Institutions

To understand the intrinsic and extrinsic relationship between gender and institutions, we must undertake comparative analysis. It is only through such analysis that we can determine what role gender plays in shaping the internal dynamics of political institutions and how this influences institutional outcomes and opportunities. In undertaking any comparison, we confront what Jan van Deth describes as the “tricky problem” of establishing cross-nationally valid and reliable indicators.Footnote ¹ It is essential to clarify key concepts and pay attention to finding equivalent phenomena to measure across cases. However, this is more easily said than done, especially when employing such contested and ambiguous terms as institutions and gender.

Over the past 15 years or so, institutions have (once again) become the focus of attention in the social sciences. A “new institutionalism” has evolved that has sociological, economic, and historical variants.Footnote ² Each of these is distinct from the others but all share the view that institutions are important for shaping political outcomes. According to B. Guy Peters, while these approaches offer competing definitions of institutions, these definitions share some common attributes.Footnote ³ These include an understanding that institutions:

• • Are a structural feature of the society/polity. This means they transcend individuals to involve groups in some sort of patterned interactions that are predictable;

• • Are stable over time but with some degree of mutability;

• • Are able to affect individual behavior, usually through constraints; and

• • Provide a sense of shared values and meaning among the members of the institution.

What do I mean by institutions? Those pursuing a sociological or historical approach view institutions as complex systems of behavior that are directed by a set of rules, i.e., as an organized activity.Footnote ⁴ Institutions are conceived of as organizations made up of a set of norms and that function as actors in their own right, such as a parliament, court, or executive. In my work, I use both a sociological and historical understanding of institutions to see how a particular set of norms—those related to gender—shape expectations about men's and women's behavior and their position in society, with particular attention to how this occurs over time. I also consider how these norms can be challenged and altered through engagement with those seeking to change the normative status quo.

What do I mean by “gender”? I see gender as a set of social norms based on accepted ideas and practices about femininity and masculinity; norms that can be, but are not necessarily, aligned with and assigned to women and men. How men and women situate themselves in relation to masculine and feminine institutional norms is a dynamic political process. For example, female politicians may decide for reasons of political survival to display typically masculine forms of behavior all the time, or in relation to specific policy debates. Male politicians, on occasions, may choose to display an “emotional” side, which is deemed a feminine trait, in order to appeal to certain supporters or pursue certain policies. But it is not just individuals who are the carriers of gender; institutions are also imbued with gender norms. As Raewyn Connell argues, “Organizations themselves institutionalize definitions of femininity and masculinity, arrange gender hierarchies, construct gender cultures and define gender-appropriate jobs.”Footnote ⁵ As with individuals, these institutional gender norms are neither fixed nor permanent. Gender operates as a process within institutions. For Karen Beckwith, this is “manifested as the differential effects of apparently gender-neutral structures and policies upon women and men, and upon masculine and/or feminine actors.” Moreover, the process is bi-directional: not only are institutions and politics gendered but they can be gendered; that is, as Beckwith notes, “activist feminists … can work to instate practices and rules that recast the gendered nature of the political.”Footnote ⁶ This notion of gender as a process is particularly useful as it draws attention to the constantly shifting nature of gender power relations within institutions.

Developing a comparative politics of gender (CPG) and institutions builds upon, but is different from, the expanding field of comparative women and institutions that considers women in parliaments, courts, and bureaucracies. This existing work has provided important (though still incomplete) data on where and which women have experienced the most success in having their interests represented. Collectively, it has revealed the disadvantaged position and status of women within and in relation to political institutions. Given the ongoing inequalities between men's and women's access to political power in democratic and non-democratic systems, the need to expand this research is critical. A comparative politics of gender and institutions does not seek to replace the focus on women and politics but to extend it in a number of ways. By emphasizing gender, rather than a particular sex category, a CPG seeks to improve our explanations of the nature of the political environment in which institutional actors—both men and women—operate in order to understand their choices, opportunities, and constraints. The challenge for each of us attempting to develop this field is to ensure that we avoid eliding the terms “gender” and “women” (which can so easily occur).Footnote ⁷ It is essential that we do not lose sight of women as a category of analysis, because as Jill Vickers reminds us, to do so leaves men in control of formal political institutions.Footnote ⁸ We also need, however, to look beyond the individuals who engage with political institutions to investigate the nature of these institutions themselves.

Gender in Institutions

In the mainstream sociological neo-institutionalist literature, norms are given prominence: they are seen to influence institutional processes such that they create what James March and Johan Olsen define as an internal “logic of appropriateness.”Footnote ⁹ However, the literature pays almost no attention to the gendered underpinnings of these norms or of this logic.Footnote ¹⁰ By contrast, feminist political scientists have demonstrated that institutional norms prescribe (as well as proscribe) “acceptable” rules and values and about the masculine and feminine characteristics which underpin such rules.Footnote ¹¹ This important body of work points to the way that institutional rules and norms privilege certain forms of behavior and certain actors over others. It also demonstrates how an expectation about gendered behavior becomes taken for granted within institutional settings.

Gender is embedded in political institutions through ongoing practices, values and expectations of appropriate behavior. The products of institutions—laws, policies, and rules—are imbued with these internal values and come to shape societal norms and expectations that are then reflected back on to institutions; in this sense gender and institutional outcomes can be seen as mutually reinforcing. Further, as Joni Lovenduski suggests, the institutional processes of producing and reproducing gender differ between institutional sites. In her view, “the successful application of the concept of gender to the investigation of political institutions must acknowledge not only the complexity of gender but also the nature of the particular institution and the kinds of masculinities and femininities that are performed.”Footnote ¹² The argument that gender plays out differently in different institutions is a crucial one, because such variations shape behavior inside institutions and institutional outcomes, as well as opportunities for institutional engagement.

If institutions are gendered in ways that privilege masculine norms, then what is the point of encouraging social actors, especially feminists who aim to challenge the gender status quo, to engage with them? The answer lies in another aspect of institutions identified by historical neo-institutionalists: institutional dynamism. This notion relates to the proposition that although institutions tend toward stability and “path dependency,” they are not fixed, permanent, or completely stable entities.Footnote ¹³ This does not contradict the point about the existence of a logic of appropriateness within political institutions, but qualifies it to suggest that what is considered appropriate can alter over time.Footnote ¹⁴ Crises or shocks such as a natural disaster, terrorist attack, or an economic recession can induce an acceptance of different or new norms. More commonly, institutional change comes about through an incremental or evolutionary process.Footnote ¹⁵ As John Kingdon, among others, has argued, such a process is often driven by “policy entrepreneurs” or innovators working from within or outside institutions to change the rules.Footnote ¹⁶

A comparative politics of gender and institutions can contribute to a better understanding of how changes occur within institutions and provide examples of successful strategies for advancing such change. One area that has already been advanced concerns the role of feminist policy entrepreneurs or change agents in reshaping gender norms within political institutions. Mary Fainsod Katzenstein's excellent comparison of feminists working for greater equality within the Catholic Church and the military in the United States is a case in point.Footnote ¹⁷ Other similar work includes that on Australian femocratsFootnote ¹⁸ and on women activists in the US bureaucracyFootnote ¹⁹ that highlights the ability of internal gender equality activists to disrupt existing normative codes. Equally, comparisons of external activists including the women's movements in the US and JapanFootnote ²⁰ and in Western Europe and North AmericaFootnote ²¹ demonstrate how feminist actors working from “outside” institutions have, under certain conditions, also enjoyed a degree of agency, enabling them to unsettle expectations about the role of men and women within institutions and to bring about shifts in policy, legislative, and legal outcomes.

These studies of “insider” and “outsider” activism demonstrate that the interaction between activists and institutions not only operates in a top-down direction (although this can occur) but also as a two-way street: that the relationship can be constitutive. However, as many studies have shown, the dynamic nature of gender and of institutions means that there is no guarantee that shifts within institutions are ever permanent.Footnote ²² The task then for those undertaking a comparative politics of gender and institutions is to identify the conditions under which gender norms can be disrupted and when, where, and which institutions are most likely to be open to feminist demands.

Directions for Comparative Research

In order to comprehend the ways in which gender processes operate within institutions and the outcomes of these processes, I suggest that it is necessary to carve out a comparative research agenda that is multi-directional; one that moves vertically and horizontally within particular polities, cross-nationally and internationally as well as temporally.

A vertical research path takes as the unit of analysis a similar institution at the national and sub-national level of government in a single polity. The advantage of a vertical analysis is that it provides a thick, contextualized account of the operation of gender norms within a specific institutional setting and can challenge existing assumptions about the way certain institutions operate. Furthermore, it highlights the fact that different levels of the state are, or may be, gendered in different ways.

An Australian example is where feminists have been able to make inroads into public service agencies at the national and sub-national levels of government because of an overall weak enforcement of particular gendered bureaucratic norms, especially neutrality. However, the success of the strategy of “bureaucratic entrism” (at least until recently) has also relied on the presence a left-leaning Labor Party Government,Footnote ²³ a variable that would not have been so obvious in a case study focusing on one level of government.

A horizontal research agenda can build upon a vertical one. Accepting that gender processes and outcomes may vary within similar institutions in a particular context, a horizontal approach broadens the field of analysis to consider what differences exist across the array of political institutions within a single polity. In relation to advanced democracies, it involves the simultaneous examination of gender within legislatures and electoral systems, the bureaucracy, and constitutional and judicial institutions. As with vertical studies, those that address the horizontal institutional axis also provide a thick and contextualized analysis. In addition, they provide a deeper understanding about how gender operates across the political institutional spectrum, which is especially beneficial for making an assessment about the political opportunity structures available to feminist actors. Another advantage of such an approach is that it can assist in identifying of the independent effect that the pattern of interaction between various institutions within a given polity—for example, the interplay between political parties and the bureaucracy or a bill of rights and the judiciary—can have on shaping internal institutional norms, policy outcomes, and opportunities for political engagement.

Undertaking vertical and horizontal research within a given polity raises questions about particularization. How far do conclusions about the operation of gender within a particular entity or set of institutions in one country reflect experiences in other countries? To find out it is necessary to undertake cross-national vertical and horizontal research. In a recent example of vertical cross-national research, Katherine Teghtsoonian and I compared the demise of women's policy machinery in the New South Wales, Australia with British Columbia, Canada, and demonstrated that there were many (negative) similarities in policy outcomes in both jurisdictions, regardless of the presence or absence of governments of the left.Footnote ²⁴ These findings challenge the conventional wisdom in other researchFootnote ²⁵ that new-leftist governments are more supportive of gender equity concerns—a conclusion that would not have been as apparent in a single-country case analysis. Cross-national horizontal studies are also important for revealing interesting similarities and differences within analogous institutions (and between actors engaged with these institutions) in different polities.Footnote ²⁶

The application of a comparative politics of gender and institutions need not be confined to the level of the nation state. International institutions also have their own logic of appropriateness that is shaped by and shapes gender norms. Research that compares different international arenas has begun to reveal this logic. For example, efforts to implement gender mainstreaming in the UN treaty bodies have been met with misunderstanding and a lack of support, at best, and at worst with outright hostility.Footnote ²⁷ As a result, transnational women's rights activists have found it difficult to engage with or to influence these agencies. On the other hand, these activists have found other UN arenas, especially the series of international world conferences on women, including the 1995 Beijing Conference, much more dynamic and open to their demands.Footnote ²⁸ It is no surprise, then, that the locus of transnational women's rights lobbying in the past 20 years has been these conferences rather than the Committee overseeing the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) or other UN treaty bodies. A new collection on gender and global governance makes an important contribution to this international literature, providing a horizontal comparison of gender processes across a variety of international and regional institutional arenas including the UN, the World Bank, the International Criminal Court, the EU, and APEC.Footnote ²⁹

Understanding the gendered logic of appropriateness within and across international (and regional institutions) is important for explaining the choice of strategies used by transnational actors. It is also necessary for understanding the operation of domestic-level institutions. Diffused from the international level to the nation state, new norms can challenge and replace existing ones within domestic institutions, including gender-related norms.Footnote ³⁰ Often the carriers of these norms are national and transnational social movements. Thus it is important that any future comparative research strategy also examine the role of such movements as they engage across countries and regions and with international institutions to challenge the gender status quo.

A final point concerning the direction for future comparative research of gender and institutions relates to the need to take account of the temporal dimension. Time is important to these studies in two senses: historically grounding studies of gender and institutions as well as identifying the importance of the age or “newness” of the institution to gender outcomes. History matters because, as Paul Pierson reminds us, “placing politics in time can greatly enrich both the explanations we offer for social outcomes of interest, and the very outcomes that we identify as worth explaining.”Footnote ³¹ Concentrating on the here and now does not capture the complexity of gender processes or the reasons why gender relations have evolved to their current state. In Nancy Burns' view, “gender is easier to see over space and time, after the researcher does the work of adding up the many often-small wrongs through which gender inequalities are manifest.”Footnote ³²

It is only through retrospective analyses that we are able to identify how the gender foundations of an institution can be reinscribed and what forces need to be in alignment to provide a structure of political opportunity. Such forces may include the presence of a responsive government, a “liberal” court, and a reform-focused public service—but as activists know only too well, such alignments are not only rare, but rarely permanent. The election of a different government, the appointment of new members of the judiciary or changes in personnel in the public sector can lead to a retreat back to an earlier gender logic of appropriateness or the creation of a new but equally restrictive one. Comparing developments historically prevents the development of overly pessimistic or optimistic conclusions in regard to the outcomes of gender processes within institutions by reminding us that the dynamic relationship moves back and forward over time.

The concept of “newness” is starting to gain more attention in feminist political science. Beckwith has recently highlighted the significance of newness in relation to the election of women to legislatures for the first time and the significance of this variable for the substantive representation of women.Footnote ³³ However, it is not just the newness of the actors involved in institutions that is important to advancing gender equality, but the newness of the institutions themselves.Footnote ³⁴ In an analysis of the International Criminal Court,Footnote ³⁵ I suggest that the creation of the Court gave gender advocates an arena in which to state their claims that was free from the biases and vested interests, or the “congealment” of norms, which can be found in existing institutions. Georgina Waylen has also considered this point, arguing that “the creation of new institutions can offer opportunities for gender concerns to be incorporated more easily and fundamentally at the outset of an institution's life than it is to ‘add them in’ at a later stage.”Footnote ³⁶ Fiona Mackay's work on the operation of gender norms within the new Scottish parliament also bears out this argument, though she also alerts us to the need for equality activists to maintain vigilance to maintain areas of progress so that new norms are not forgotten.Footnote ³⁷ She gives as examples new constitutions, such as those in South Africa, and in the devolved institutions in Scotland and WalesFootnote ³⁸ on this point. As Waylen argues, newness on its own is not enough to secure gender equality but, alongside other variables including supportive advocates and a favorable framing of gender issues, it seems it can make a real difference.