Explaining Public Support for Gender Quotas: Sexism, Representational Quality, and State Intervention in Japan

IF 3.1 2区社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE

Politics & Gender Pub Date : 2022-12-20 DOI:10.1017/S1743923X22000617

M. Miura, K. McElwain, Tomoki Kaneko

{"title":"Explaining Public Support for Gender Quotas: Sexism, Representational Quality, and State Intervention in Japan","authors":"M. Miura, K. McElwain, Tomoki Kaneko","doi":"10.1017/S1743923X22000617","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Electoral gender quotas remain contentious among many publics. One hurdle is the “principle-policy puzzle”: those who espouse gender egalitarianism may nevertheless oppose affirmative action measures because of disagreements about their necessity and worries about government overreach. Based on an original survey in Japan, where women’s underrepresentation is particularly pronounced, we identify two dimensions that drive attitudes toward quotas. First, modern sexism matters: those who attribute underrepresentation to women’s disinterest or who think that quotas will increase the number of unqualified women candidates are less likely to support quotas. Second, appropriateness matters: those who oppose government intervention in gender affairs are less likely to support quotas. Crucially, these differences hold even among those who desire more women in parliament. Our results suggest that public acceptance of quotas depends more on correcting misperceptions about structural gender barriers and the benign consequences of quotas (“policy”), rather than encouraging people to prefer more women in parliament (“principle”).","PeriodicalId":47464,"journal":{"name":"Politics & Gender","volume":"19 1","pages":"781 - 805"},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Politics & Gender","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X22000617","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract Electoral gender quotas remain contentious among many publics. One hurdle is the “principle-policy puzzle”: those who espouse gender egalitarianism may nevertheless oppose affirmative action measures because of disagreements about their necessity and worries about government overreach. Based on an original survey in Japan, where women’s underrepresentation is particularly pronounced, we identify two dimensions that drive attitudes toward quotas. First, modern sexism matters: those who attribute underrepresentation to women’s disinterest or who think that quotas will increase the number of unqualified women candidates are less likely to support quotas. Second, appropriateness matters: those who oppose government intervention in gender affairs are less likely to support quotas. Crucially, these differences hold even among those who desire more women in parliament. Our results suggest that public acceptance of quotas depends more on correcting misperceptions about structural gender barriers and the benign consequences of quotas (“policy”), rather than encouraging people to prefer more women in parliament (“principle”).

查看原文本刊更多论文

解释公众对性别配额的支持:日本的性别歧视、代表性质量和国家干预

摘要选举中的性别配额在许多公众中仍然存在争议。一个障碍是“原则政策难题”：尽管如此，那些支持性别平等主义的人可能会反对平权行动措施，因为他们对这些措施的必要性存在分歧，并担心政府的过度扩张。根据在日本进行的一项原始调查，我们确定了推动对配额态度的两个方面，在日本，女性代表性不足尤为明显。首先，现代性别歧视很重要：那些将代表性不足归因于女性不感兴趣，或者认为配额会增加不合格女性候选人的数量的人，不太可能支持配额。其次，适当性很重要：那些反对政府干预性别事务的人不太可能支持配额。至关重要的是，这些差异甚至在那些希望更多女性进入议会的人中也存在。我们的研究结果表明，公众对配额的接受更多地取决于纠正对结构性性别障碍和配额的良性后果的误解（“政策”），而不是鼓励人们在议会中更喜欢女性（“原则”）。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Politics & Gender Multiple-

CiteScore

6.00

自引率

5.90%

发文量

期刊介绍： Politics & Gender is an agenda-setting journal that publishes the highest quality scholarship on gender and politics and on women and politics. It aims to represent the full range of questions, issues, and approaches on gender and women across the major subfields of political science, including comparative politics, international relations, political theory, and U.S. politics. The Editor welcomes studies that address fundamental questions in politics and political science from the perspective of gender difference, as well as those that interrogate and challenge standard analytical categories and conventional methodologies.Members of the Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association receive the journal as a benefit of membership.