Comparative Gender and Institutions: Directions for Research

Author(s): Louise Chappell

Source: Perspectives on Politics , March 2010, Vol. 8, No. 1 (March 2010), pp. 183-189
Published by: American Political Science Association

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25698524

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

American Political Science Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and
extend access to Perspectives on Politics

This content downloaded from

203.255.161.68 on Tue, 03 Aug 2021 15:23:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Symposium

Comparative Gender and Institutions:

Directions for Research
Louise Chappell

A comparative politics of gender offers an opportunity to consider in detail the operation of gender within political institutions. As
such, it contributes to a deeper understanding of the roles and experiences of men and women within political institutions, of the
policies, laws and norms that are the outcomes of these institutions, and of the relationship between these institutions and social
actors. This essay proposes a multi-directional strategy for undertaking comparative gender and institutional research that includes
taking account of similarities and differences within and across states, between states and international institutions, across space as
well as across time. It argues that through this research strategy it is possible to gain a more nuanced understanding of gender
processes and outcomes, which is valuable to those working both inside and outside political institutions to advance a women's
equality agenda.

What is the utility in developing a comparative pol
itics of gender? A comparative politics of gender
offers an opportunity to develop a deeper under
standing of specific policy areas that shape the lives of
men and women; of the intersection between gendered
identities and those of race, class and sexuality; and of the
differences in women's representation across various polit
ical systems. More generally, it also has the potential to
expand the field of comparative politics and bring about
new insights into the application of this methodological
approach. One specific arena that could be advanced
through a comparative research agenda is that of gender
and political institutions. A focus on this particular rela
tionship has the potential to expand our understanding of
politics and gender in three distinct ways. First, it could
provide the basis for a deeper understanding of the roles
and experiences of men and women within political insti
tutions. Second, it could contribute to an understanding
of the policies, laws, and norms that are the outcomes of
these institutions and that fundamentally shape gender
relations within society. Finally, it could assist in explain
ing the relationship between these institutions and social
Louise Chappell is Professor, School of Social Sciences and
International Studies at the University of New South Wales, Syd
ney, Australia (l.chappell@usyd.edu.au) where she holds a
Future Fellowship funded by the Australian Research Coun
cil. Louises work focuses on gender and institutionalism,
women's rights and the intersection between international and
national law and politics. Her current research project is a
study ofthe domestic implementation of the gender articles of
the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.
actors. Understanding this particular relationship is espe
cially important for those interested in identifying the
opportunities available to feminist activists pursuing a gen
der equality agenda through the state.
But how should such a comparison proceed? In this
essay I proffer some ideas about a multi-directional research
strategy that encompasses single country, cross country,
and international studies as well as a time component.
Such a strategy is essential for gathering the rich and detailed
data necessary to capture the nuanced variations in the
operation of gender within political institutions. In turn,
understanding these variations is necessary for testing theo
ries and concepts related to women's and men's position
within institutions, institutional outcomes, and feminist
friendly political opportunity structures.
Gender and Institutions
To understand the intrinsic and extrinsic relationship
between gender and institutions, we must undertake com
parative analysis. It is only through such analysis that we
can determine what role gender plays in shaping the inter
nal dynamics of political institutions and how this influ
ences 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.1 It is essential to clar
ify 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 con
tested 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, eco

doi: 10.1017/S1537592709992751 March 2010 | Vol 8/No, 1 183

This content downloaded from
203.255.161.68 on Tue, 03 Aug 2021 15:23:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Symposium j Comparative Gender and Institutions
nomic, and historical variants.2 Each of these is distinct from
the others but all share the view that institutions are impor
tant for shaping political outcomes. According to B. Guy
Peters, while these approaches offer competing definitions
of institutions, these definitions share some common
attributes.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 soci
ological or historical approach view institutions as com
plex systems of behavior that are directed by a set of rules,
i.e., as an organized activity.4 Institutions are conceived of
as organizations made up of a set of norms and that func
tion 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 mascu
line forms of behavior all the time, or in relation to spe
cific 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, "Organi
zations themselves institutionalize definitions of feminin
ity and masculinity, arrange gender hierarchies, construct
gender cultures and define gender-appropriate jobs."5 As
with individuals, these institutional gender norms are nei
ther fixed nor permanent. Gender operates as a process
within institutions. For Karen Beckwith, this is "mani
fested 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
184 Perspectives on Politics
This content downloaded from
203.255.161.68 on Tue, 03 Aug 2021 15:23:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Beckwith notes, "activist feminists . . . can work to instate
practices and rules that recast the gendered nature of the
political."6 This notion of gender as a process is particu
larly 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 expand
ing field of comparative women and institutions that con
siders women in parliaments, courts, and bureaucracies.
This existing work has provided important (though still
incomplete) data on where and which women have expe
rienced the most success in having their interests repre
sented. 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 under
stand 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).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.8 We also need,
however, to look beyond the individuals who engage with
political institutions to investigate the nature of these insti
tutions themselves.
Gender in Institutions
In the mainstream sociological neo-institutionalist litera
ture, norms are given prominence: they are seen to influ
ence institutional processes such that they create what James
March and Johan Olsen define as an internal "logic of
appropriateness."9 However, the literature pays almost no
attention to the gendered underpinnings of these norms
or of this logic.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 under
pin such rules.11 This important body of work points to
the way that institutional rules and norms privilege cer
tain 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 bring about shifts in policy, legislative, and legal outcomes.
back on to institutions; in this sense gender and institu
tional outcomes can be seen as mutually reinforcing. Fur
ther, as Joni Lovenduski suggests, the institutional processes
of producing and reproducing gender differ between insti
tutional sites. In her view, "the successful application of
the concept of gender to the investigation of political insti
tutions must acknowledge not only the complexity of gen
der but also the nature of the particular institution and
the kinds of masculinities and femininities that are per
formed."12 The argument that gender plays out differ
ently in different institutions is a crucial one, because such
variations shape behavior inside institutions and institu
tional outcomes, as well as opportunities for institutional
engagement.
If institutions are gendered in ways that privilege mas
culine norms, then what is the point of encouraging social
actors, especially feminists who aim to challenge the gen
der 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, perma
nent, or completely stable entities.13 This does not contra
dict 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.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.15
As John Kingdon, among others, has argued, such a pro
cess is often driven by "policy entrepreneurs" or innovators
working from within or outside institutions to change the
rules.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 strat
egies for advancing such change. One area that has already
been advanced concerns the role of feminist policy entre
preneurs or change agents in reshaping gender norms
within political institutions. Mary Fainsod Katzenstein's
excellent comparison of feminists working for greater equal
ity within the Catholic Church and the military in the
United States is a case in point.17 Other similar work
includes that on Australian femocrats18 and on women
activists in the US bureaucracy19 that highlights the abil
ity of internal gender equality activists to disrupt existing
normative codes. Equally, comparisons of external activ
ists including the women's movements in the US and
Japan20 and in Western Europe and North America21 dem
onstrate how feminist actors working from "outside" insti
tutions have, under certain conditions, also enjoyed a degree
This content downloaded from
203.255.161.68 on Tue, 03 Aug 2021 15:23:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
of agency, enabling them to unsettle expectations about
the role of men and women within institutions and to
These studies of "insider" and "outsider" activism dem
onstrate that the interaction between activists and institu
tions not only operates in a top-down direction (although
this can occur) but also as a two-way street: that the rela
tionship can be constitutive. However, as many studies
have shown, the dynamic nature of gender and of institu
tions means that there is no guarantee that shifts within
institutions are ever permanent.22 The task then for those
undertaking a comparative politics of gender and institu
tions is to identify the conditions under which gender
norms can be disrupted and when, where, and which insti
tutions are most likely to be open to feminist demands.
Directions for Comparative Research
In order to comprehend the ways in which gender pro
cesses 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 pol
ities, cross-nationally and internationally as well as temporally.
A vertical research path takes as the unit of analysis a sim
ilar institution at the national and sub-national level of gov
ernment in a single polity. The advantage of a vertical analysis
is that it provides a thick, contextualized account of the oper
ation of gender norms within a specific institutional setting
and can challenge existing assumptions about the way cer
tain 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 bureau
cratic 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,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 hor
izontal approach broadens the field of analysis to consider
what differences exist across the array of political institu
tions within a single polity. In relation to advanced democ
racies, it involves the simultaneous examination of gender
within legislatures and electoral systems, the bureaucracy,
and constitutional and judicial institutions. As with verti
cal studies, those that address the horizontal institutional
axis also provide a thick and contextualized analysis. In addi
tion, they provide a deeper understanding about how
gender operates across the political institutional spectrum,
Symposium | Comparative Gender and Institutions
which is especially beneficial for making an assessment about UN, the World Bank, the International Criminal Court,
the political opportunity structures available to feminist the EU, and APEC.29
actors. Another advantage of such an approach is that it can
assist in identifying of the independent effect that the pat
tern 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 out
comes, 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, Aus
tralia with British Columbia, Canada, and demonstrated
that there were many (negative) similarities in policy out
comes in both jurisdictions, regardless of the presence or
absence of governments of the left.24 These findings chal
lenge the conventional wisdom in other research25 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 reveal
ing interesting similarities and differences within analogous
institutions (and between actors engaged with these insti
tutions) in different polities.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 inter
national arenas has begun to reveal this logic. For exam
ple, 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
hostility27 As a result, transnational women's rights activ
ists 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 inter
national world conferences on women, including the 1995
Beijing Conference, much more dynamic and open to
their demands.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 com
parison of gender processes across a variety of inter
national and regional institutional arenas including the
18? Perspectives on Politics
This content downloaded from
203.255.161.68 on Tue, 03 Aug 2021 15:23:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
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 insti
tutions, including gender-related norms.30 Often the car
riers of these norms are national and transnational social
movements. Thus it is important that any future compar
ative research strategy also examine the role of such move
ments 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 com
parative 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 iden
tify as worth explaining."31 Concentrating on the here
and now does not capture the complexity of gender pro
cesses 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."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 align
ment to provide a structure of political opportunity. Such
forces may include the presence of a responsive govern
ment, a "liberal" court, and a reform-focused public
service?but as activists know only too well, such align
ments are not only rare, but rarely permanent. The elec
tion 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 pre
vents the development of overly pessimistic or optimistic
conclusions in regard to the outcomes of gender processes
within institutions by reminding us that the dynamic rela
tionship moves back and forward over time.
The concept of "newness" is starting to gain more atten
tion in feminist political science. Beckwith has recently high
lighted the significance of newness in relation to the election
of women to legislatures for the first time and the signifi
cance of this variable for the substantive representation of
women.33 However, it is not just the newness of the actors
 involved in institutions that is important to advancing gen ity. A future comparative politics and gender research
der equality, but the newness of the institutions them agenda can build on this knowledge through further cross
selves.34 In an analysis of the International Criminal Court,35 time and cross-national studies and by linking our knowl
I suggest that the creation of the Court gave gender advo edge of domestic institutions to those in the international
cates an arena in which to state their claims that was free arena. In doing so, we offer to the study of institutions a
from the biases and vested interests, or the "congealment" more comprehensive and complete understanding of their
of norms, which can be found in existing institutions. Geor normative foundations and dynamic nature while provid
gina Waylen has also considered this point, arguing that "the ing a new dimension to comparative research.
creation of new institutions can offer opportunities for gen
der concerns to be incorporated more easily and fundamen
tally at the outset of an institution's life than it is to add
Notes
them in' at a later stage." 36 Fiona Mackay's work on the oper 1 van Deth 1998, 2.
ation of gender norms within the new Scottish parliament 2 See Adcock, Bevir, and Stimson 2007.
also bears out this argument, though she also alerts us to 3 Peters 1999, 18.
the need for equality activists to maintain vigilance to main 4 Lane and Ersson 2000, 23.
tain areas of progress so that new norms are not forgot 5 Connell 2005, 5.
ten.37 She gives as examples new constitutions, such as those 6 Beckwith 2005, 132-33.
in South Africa, and in the devolved institutions in Scot 7 See Vickers 2006.
land and Wales38 on this point. As Waylen argues, newness 8 Ibid., 14.
on its own is not enough to secure gender equality but, along 9 March and Olsen 1989, 161.
side other variables including supportive advocates and a 10 See Chappell 2006a.
favorable framing of gender issues, it seems it can make a 11 Lovenduski 1998; Acker 1992; Stivers 1993; Wel
real difference. don 2006.
12 Lovenduski 1998, 348.
13 SeeThelen and Steinmo 1992, 16-17; Pierson
Conclusion 2004.
It would be naive to suggest that developing a politics of 14 Katzenstein 1998, 35.
gender and institutions is without challenges. One of the 15 Campbell 2005, 58.
most obvious relates to undertaking research within and 16 Kingdon2003.
between very different political contexts that involves com 17 Katzenstein 1998.
plex methodological, conceptual, and resource issues. As 18 Eisenstein 1996; Sawer 1990.
Aili Tripp has noted, there are too few studies of this 19 Banaszak 2005.
type.39 Most gender and politics research is focused on 20 Gelb2003.
those parts of the world where the data is the strongest? 21 Banaszak, Beckwith, and Rucht 2003.
that is, advanced industrialized nations, especially Europe 22 See for example Teghtsoonian and Chappell 2008.
and North America. But it is only through an understand 23 Chappell 2002.
ing of how gender operates within institutions in less 24 Teghtsoonian and Chappell 2008. See also Htun
advanced democracies and in non-democratic systems that and Weldon 2007.
we can fully understand its effects both in terms of policy 25 See Chappell 2002; Bashevkin 1998; Mazur 2001.
outcomes and opportunities for feminist actors. 26 See for example Chappell 2002; Waylen 2007.
A second issue, which has long been discussed in the 27 Charlesworth 2005; Rahmani 2005.
literature, is how to address the intersection between gen 28 Friedman 2003.
der and other identities within an institutional context.40 29 Rai and Waylen 2008.
Working out how to isolate, measure, and encapsulate the 30 Keck and Sikkink 1998.
complexities of identity across the various institutional 31 Pierson 2004, 2.
levels, sites, and time frames will be a task requiring care 32 Burns 2005, 140.
ful thought, planning, and patience.41 33 Beckwith 2007.
These are big challenges but they are not insurmount 34 See Mackay 2009; also see Kantola 2006, ch. 6.
able. With careful research design, and drawing on (but 35 Chappell 2006b.
gendering) sociological and historical neo-institutionalist 36 Waylen 2008, 273.
theory, we can extend our knowledge of gender and insti 37 Mackay 2009.
tutions. We already know that the gender processes are 38 Ibid.
complex. They play out differently at different levels of 39 Tripp 2006, 261.
the state, and can vary in similar institutions in different 40 See Weldon 2006.
polities and in different institutions within the same pol 41 Tripp 2007; Kittilson 2007.

March 2010 J Vol. 8/No, 1 187

This content downloaded from

203.255.161.68 on Tue, 03 Aug 2021 15:23:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Symposium j Comparative Gender and institutions
References
Acker, Joan. 1992. From Sex Roles to Gendered Institu
tions. Contemporary Sociology 21 (5): 565?69.
Adcock, Robert, Mark Bevir, and Shannon C. Stimson.
2007. Historicizing the New Institutionalism(s). In
Modern Political Science, ed. Robert Adcock, Mark Bevir,
and Shannon C. Stimson. Princeton NJ: Princeton Uni
versity Press.
Banaszak, Lee Ann. 2005. Inside and Outside the State:
Movement Insider Status, Tactics and Public Policy
Achievements. In Routing the Opposition: Social Move
ments, Public Policy, and Democracy, ed. David
Meyer, Valerie Jenness, and Helen Ingram. Minneap
olis: University of Minnesota Press.
Banaszak, Lee Ann, Karen Beckwith, and Dieter Rucht,
ed. 2003. Women's Movements Facing the Reconfigured
State. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bashevkin, Sylvia. 1998. Women on the Defensive: Living
Through Conservative Times. Toronto: University of
Toronto Press.
Beckwith, Karen. 2005. A Common Language of Gen
der? Politics & Gender 1 (1): 128-37.
-. 2007. Numbers and Newness: The Descriptive
and Substantive Representation of Women. Canadian
Journal of Political Science AO (1): 27-49.
Burns, Nancy. 2005. Finding Gender. Politics & Gender
1 (1): 137-41
Campbell, John L. 2005. Where Do We Stand? Com
mon Mechanisms in Organizations and Social Move
ment Research. In Social Movements and Organization
Theory, ed. Doug McAdam, Gerald F. Davis, W. Rich
ard Scott, and Mayer Zald. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Chappell, Louise. 2002. Gendering Government:
Feminist Engagement with the State in Australia and
Canada. Vancouver: University of British Columbia
Press.
-. 2006a. Comparing Political Institutions: Reveal
ing the Gendered Logic of Appropriateness. Politics &
Gender! (2): 223-34.
-. 2006b. 'Women's Interests' as 'Women's Rights':
Developments at the UN Criminal Tribunals and the
International Criminal Court. In 77?^ Politics of
Women's Interests: New Comparative Perspectives, ed. Lou
ise Chappell and Lisa Hill. London: Routledge.
Charlesworth, Hilary. 2005. Not Waving but Drowning:
Gender Mainstreaming and Human Rights in the
United Nations. Harvard Human Rights Journal 18
(1): 1-18.
Connell, Raewyn. 2005. Advancing Gender Reform in
Large-scale Organizations: A New Approach for
Practitioners and Researchers. Policy and Society 24
(4): 5-24.
Eisenstein, Hester. 1996. Inside Agitators: Australian
Femocrats and the State. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
188 Perspectives on Politics
This content downloaded from
203.255.161.68 on Tue, 03 Aug 2021 15:23:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
Friedman, Elisabeth Jay. 2003. Gendering the Agenda:
The Impact of the Transnational Women s Rights
Movement at the UN Conferences of the 1990s.
Womens Studies International Forum 26 (4): 313-31.
Gelb, Joyce. 2003. Gender Policies in Japan and the
United States: Comparing Womens Movements, Rights
and Politics. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Htun, Mala, and S. Laurel Weldon. 2007. "When and
Why Do Governments Promote Women's Rights?
Toward a Comparative Politics of States and Sex
Equality." Presented at the annual meeting of the
American Political Science Association, Chicago, IL,
Aug 30.
Kantola, Johanna. 2006. Feminists Theorize the State.
Houndsmills, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
Katzenstein, Mary Fainsod. 1998. Faithful and Fearless:
Moving Feminist Protest inside the Church and Mili
tary. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Keck, Margaret, and Kathryn Sikkink. 1998. Activists
Beyond Borders: Advocacy Networks in International
Politics. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Kingdon, John. 2003. Agendas, Alternatives and Public
Policies, 3d ed. New York: Longman.
Kittilson, Miki Caul. 2007. "Comparing Gender, Insti
tutions and Political Behavior: Toward an Integrated
Theoretical Framework Conference Paper." Toward a
Comparative Politics of Gender: Advancing the Disci
pline along Interdisciplinary Boundaries, Case West
ern Reserve, October 25-27.
Lane, Jan-Erik, and Svante Ersson. 2000. The New
Institutional Politics: Performance and Outcomes. Lon
don: Routledge.
Lovenduski, Joni. 1998. Gendering Research in Politi
cal Science. Annual Review of Political Science 1:
333-56.
Mackay, Fiona. 2009. "Institutionalising new politics' in
post devolution Scotland: 'Nested newness' and the
gendered limits of change." Presented to the Euro
pean Consortium of Political Research Gender Con
ference, Queens University, Belfast, January 21.
March, James G., and Johan P. Olsen. 1989. Rediscover
ing Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics.
New York: The Free Press.
Mazur, Amy G. 2001. Introduction. In State Feminism,
Womens Movements, and fob Training: Making Democ
racies Work in the Global Economy, ed. Amy G. Mazur.
New York and London: Routledge.
Peters, B. Guy. 1999. Institutional Theory in Political
Science: The New Institutionalism. London: Pinter.
Pierson, Paul. 2004. Politics in Time. Princeton: Prince
ton University Press.
Rahmani, Ladan. 2005. "International Human Rights
Law: Gender Mainstreaming in the United Nations
Human Rights Treaty Bodies." Ph.D. diss., Econom
ics, University of Sydney.
Rai, Shirin, and Georgina Waylen, eds. 2008. Global
Governance: Feminist Perspectives. London: Palgrave.
Sawer. 1990. Sisters in Suits: Women and Public Policy in
Australia. Sydney: Allen and Unwin.
Steinmo, Sven, Kathleen Thelen, and Frank Longstreth,
eds. 1992. Structuring Politics: Historical Institutional
ism in Comparative Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Stivers, Camilla. 1993. Gender Images in Public Adminis
tration: Legitimacy and the Administrative State. New
bury Park, California: Sage.
Teghtsoonian, Katherine and Louise Chappell. 2008.
The Rise and Decline of Women's Policy Machinery
in British Columbia and New South Wales: A Cau
tionary Tale. International Political Science Review 29
(1) : 29-51. -. 2008. Feminist Perspectives on Transforming
Thelen, Kathleen, and Sven Steinmo. 1992. Institution Global Governance: Challenges and Opportunities.
alism in Comparative Politics. In Structuring Politics: His
torical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis, ed.
Sven Steinmo, Kathleen Thelen, and Frank Long
streth. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tripp, Aili Mari. 2006. Why So Slow? The Challenges of
Gendering Comparative Politics. Politics & Gender 2
(2) : 249-64.
-. 2007. "Doing Comparative Politics of Gender
Research as If Women Mattered." Conference Paper.
Toward a Comparative Politics of Gender: Advancing
the Discipline along Interdisciplinary Boundaries,
Case Western Reserve, October 25-27.
van Deth, Jan. 1998. Equivalence in comparative politi
cal research. In Comparative Politics: The problem of
equivalence, ed. Jan van Deth. London: Routledge.
Vickers, Jill. 2006. The Problem with Interests: Making
Political Claims for 'Women.' In The Politics of
Womens Interests: New Comparative Perspectives, ed.
Louise Chappell and Lisa Hill. London: Routledge.
Waylen, Georgina. 2007. Engendering Transitions: Womens
Mobilization, Institutions and Gender Outcomes. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
In Global Governance: Feminist Perspectives, ed. Shirin
Rai and Georgina Waylen. London: Palgrave.
Weldon, S. Laurel. 2006. The Structure of Intersection
ality: A Comparative Politics of Gender. Politics &
Gender! (2): 235-48.

March 2010 | Vol 8/No. 1 189

This content downloaded from

203.255.161.68 on Tue, 03 Aug 2021 15:23:43 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms