Download Appendix

INTERSECTIONALITY, QUOTAS AND MINORITY WOMEN’S

POLITICAL REPRESENTATION WORLDWIDE

MELANIE M. HUGHES

University of Pittsburgh

SUPPLEMENTAL ONLINE APPENDICES A–C

and

DETAILED PROCEDURES FOR GROUP SELECTION AND CODING

APPENDIX A. COUNTRIES, GROUPS, AND ON YEARS1

Afghanistan (2005) Canada 2006, cont'd Pashtun Aimaq Ismaili Greeks Other European Tajiks Arabs Kuchis Indians Pakistanis Turkmen Baloch Non-Hazara Shi'a Indigenous Poles Uzbeks Hazara Shi'a Nuristani Ismaili Portuguese Hazara Sunni Pashai Italians Québécois Japanese Sikhs Albania (2005) Jews Ukrainians Albanians Greeks Macedonians Latin Americans West Asians Vlach Roma Cape Verde (2006) Argentina (2005) Creoles/ Europeans West African Whites Indigenous Africans Immigrants Armenia (2003) Chile (2005) Armenians Yazidis Whites / White-Amerindians Indigenous Australia (2004) Colombia (2006) Whites Asians Indigenous Whites / Mestizos / Mulattos/ Blacks Austria (2002) Black-Amerindians Amerindians Austrians Former Turks Comoros (2004) Yugoslavs Sunni Muslims Christians Bahrain (2002) Costa Rica (2006) Sunnis Shi'as Non-Muslims Whites / Black (Garifuna/ Bangladesh (2005) Mestizo Antillean Black) Muslims Chittagong Christians Croatia (2003) Hill Tribes Hindus Croats Czechs / Non-Serb Former Belgium (2003) Slovaks Yugoslavs Flemings Algerians Italians Hungarians Other National Walloons Moroccans Italians Minorities Serbs Benin (2003) Fon Bariba Somba / Dendi / Cyprus (2006) Goun / Nago / Other Small Greek Other Christians Turkish Muslims Yoruba Groups Orthodox Bosnia-Herzegovina (2003) Czech Republic (2002) Bosniaks Roma Czechs Moravians Slovaks Croats Roma Serbs Denmark (2005) Botswana (2004) Danish Inuits Pakistani Tswana Non-Tswana Basarwa Other Faroese Other Muslims Western Former Slavs Turks Brazil (2006) Whites/ Afro-Brazilians Ecuador (2006) Mulattos Mestizos / Blacks Lowland Whites Highland Indigenous Bulgaria (2005) Indigenous Bulgarians Armenians Pomaks Roma El Salvador (2006) Turks Mestizos/ Indigenous Whites Burundi (2005) Hutus Tutsis Twas Estonia (2003) Estonians Russians Ukrainians Canada (2006) Belarussians Majority Arabs Former Canadians Blacks Yugoslavs Chinese Germans

(cont‟d on next page)

Ethiopia (2003) Jamaica (2002) Amhara Afars Other Small Majority Rastafarians Tigreans Oromo Groups Jamaicans Somalis Japan (2005) Fiji (2006) Japanese Burakmin Ryukyuan Indigenous Chinese / Indo-Fijian Jordan (2003) Melanesians Europeans Rotuma Jordanian Bedouins Circassians Finland (2003) Muslims Christians Palestinians Finnish Jewish Moroccan Kuwait (2003) Karelian Swedish Sunnis Shi'as France (2002) Kyrgyz Republic (2005) French Jews Muslims Kyrgyz Non-Kyrgyz Non- Roma Metropolitan Latvia (2006) Ethnic Minorities Latvians Jews Belarussians Poles Lithuanians FYR, Macedonia (2006) Russians Macedonians Albanians Turks Bosniaks Serbs Lebanon (2005) Roma Vlach Sunnis Alawites Other Christian Maronite Armenian Protestants Georgia (2004) Christians Druze Shi'as Georgians Armenians Abkhazians Greek Catholics Azeris Adzhars Greek Orthodox Palestinians Germany (2005) Lithuania (2004) Germans Former Other Lithuanians Belarusians Russians Yugoslavs Europeans Jews Indians Persians Poles Ukrainians Jews Turks / Kurds Malaysia (2004) Greece (2004) Malays Chinese Indigenous Greeks Muslims Roma East Indians Guatemala (2003) Mauritius (2005) Mestizos / Europeans Indigenous Indo-Mauritian Creoles Franco- Honduras (2005) Sino-Mauritians Mauritian Mestizos Garifuna / Indigenous Mongolia (2004) / Whites Black Caribs Mongols Kazakhs Tuva India (2004) Montenegro (2006) Hindus Anglo-Indians Other Muslims Montenegrins Albanians Muslims / Assamese Scheduled Castes / Serbs Croats Bosniaks Kashmiri Scheduled Tribes Muslims Sikhs Netherlands Ireland (2002) Dutch Antillen Indonesians Celtic/English Moroccans Other Muslims Surinamese Other Western Israel (2003) Turks Israeli Jews Arab Muslims Non-Muslim Druze Palestinians New Zealand Caucasians Asians Pacific Islander Italy (2006) Maori Italians South Jews Tyrolians Sardinians Nicaragua Immigrants Valdostani Whites / Amerindian Blacks Mestizo

(cont‟d on next page)

Norway Slovakia (2006) Norwegians Muslims Other Slovaks Hungarians Roma Immigrants Ukrainians Panama Slovenia (2004) Mestizos / Indigenous Chinese Slovenians Hungarians Bosniaks Whites West Indians Italians Croats Serbs Paraguay Mestizos / Asians West Indians / Solomon Islands (2001) Whites Indigenous Blacks Melanesians Non-Melanesians Peru Sri Lanka (2004) Mestizos / Afro-Peruvians Indigenous Sinhalese Sri Lankan Moors Whites Indigenous Lowland Tamils Highland Sweden (2006) Philippines (2004) Swedes Assyrians Ghanaians Christians Muslims Bosnians Greeks Chileans Jews Poland (2005) Estonians Palestinians Poles Belarussians Germans Finns Romanians Portugal (2005) Germans Turks Portuguese Brazilians Switzerland (2003) Republic of Korea (2004) Swiss-German- Italian-Speakers Former Koreans Speakers Jurassians Yugoslavs Other French- Turks Romania (2004) Speakers Romanians Hunarians Other Small Roma Minorities Turkey (2007) Turks Kurds/Zaza Arabs Russian Federation (1999) Caucasians Russians Armenians Khakha Avars Komi United Kingdom (2005) Balkarets Koreans English Whites Blacks / Afro- Irish Catholics Bashkirs Kumyks Caribbeans Pakistani Belarusians Kurds European / Bangladeshi Buryat Lakets Immigrants Scots Chechens Latvians Indians Welsh Chuvash Lezgins United States (2004) Circassians Mordvinians Non-Hispanic Asians Hispanics Darginets Ossetians Whites Blacks Georgians Tatars Germans Tats Uruguay (2004) Ingush Tuvinians Whites Blacks Japanese Ukrainians / Mestizos Jews Yakuts Venezuela (2005) Karelians Mestizos / Arabs Blacks Serbia Europeans Indigenous Serbs Bosniaks Romany Yemen (2003) Albanians Hungarians Arab Muslims Akhdam Croats Yugoslavs Singapore (2001) Chinese Indians Malays Eurasians

1Groups in the first column for each country are majority groups; all others are minority groups. Those appearing in italics display a selection of significantly-sized minority groups (at least 1% of the population) that are not represented in parliament (and thus not included in the analyses).

APPENDIX B. CODING MAJORITY AND MINORITY GROUPS

This appendix lists global, regional, and supplemental country-specific sources used to identify majority and minority groups (Part I) and details the specific procedures used to code majority and minority groups

(Part II).

I. DATA SOURCES

Global Central Intelligence Agency. 2005-2007. The World Factbook. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/. Gall, Timothy L., and Jeneen M. Hobby, Editors. 2007. Worldmark Encyclopedia of Nations, 12th Edition. [occasional source] Minorities at Risk Project. 2009. “Minorities at Risk Dataset.” College Park, MD: Center for International Development and Conflict Management. http://www.cidcm.umd.edu/mar/. Minority Rights Group International 2008. World Directory of Minorities and Indigenous Peoples. http://www.minorityrights.org/directory. U.S. Department of State. 2001 2008. Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/. U.S. Department of State. 2001-2008. Report on International Religious Freedom. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/irf/. U.S. Library of Congress. Country Studies. Federal Research Division. Library of Congress. [occasional source] Regional Kumaraswamy, P.R. 2003. Problems of Studying Minorities in the Middle East. Alternatives: Turkish Journal of International Relations 2 (2): 244–64. Open Society Institute. 2009. Muslims in Europe: A Report on 11 EU Cities. Open Society Institute EU Monitoring and Advocacy Program. Afghanistan Afghan Network. 2007. “Ethnic Groups of Afghanistan.” http://www.afghan- network.net/Ethnic-Groups/. Asia Foundation. 2006. Afghanistan in 2006: A Survey of the Afghan People. http://www.asiafoundation.org/pdf/AG-survey06.pdf. Newell, Richard S. 1989. “Post-Soviet Afghanistan: The Position of the Minorities.” Asian Survey 29 (11): 1090–1108. Albania Albanian Helsinki Committee. 1999. “Albanian Helsinki Committee: Report on Minority Question in Albania in Relation to the European Convention.” Albanian Institute of Statistics (Instaat). 2003. “Quarterly Statistics Bulletin, No. 3.” Lastarria-Cornhiel, Susana and Rachel Wheeler. 1998. “Gender, Ethnicity, and Landed Property in Albania.” Working Paper No. 18. Land Tenure Center. University of Wisconsin-Madison. Belgium Open Society Institute. 2007. Muslims in the EU Cities Report: Belgium. Open Society Institute EU Monitoring and Advocacy Program. Benin Judex, M..and Thamm, H.-P, Editors. 2008. IMPETUS Atlas Benin. Research Results 2000-2007, 3rd Edition. Department of Geography, University of Bonn, Germany. Wantchekon, Leonard. 2003. Clientelism and Voting Behavior: Evidence from a Field Experiment in Benin. World Politics 55 (3): 399–422.

Botswana Bangura, Yusuf. 2004. “Ethnicity, Inequality and the Public Sector: A Comparative Study.” UN Research Institute for Social Development (UNRISD). IRIN. 2006. “Minority Ethnic Groups Feel New Bill Still Discriminates.” IRIN News. August 8, 2006. Solway, Jacqueline S. 2002. “Navigating the „Neutral‟ State: „Minority‟ Rights in Botswana.” Journal of Southern African Studies 28 (4): 711–29. United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. 2002. “Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Botswana.” CERD/C/61/CO/2. Brazil Augusto dos Santos, Sales. 2006. “Who is Black in Brazil? A Timely or a False Question in Brazilian Race Relations in the Era of Affirmative Action?” Latin American Perspectives 33 (4): 30–48. Lesser, Jeffrey. 1999. Negotiating National Identity: Immigrants, Minorities, and the Struggle for Ethnicity in Brazil. Duke University Press. Bulgaria Spirova, Maria. 2004. “Electoral Rules and the Political Representation of Ethnic Minorities: Evidence from Bulgaria and Romania. Paper Prepared for Presentation at the 2004 Annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Nationalities, Columbia University, New York. Cape Verde United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. 2003. “Concluding Observations of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination: Cape Verde.” CERD/C/63/CO/3. Colombia Rappaport, Joanne. 2005. Intercultural Utopias: Public Intellectuals, Cultural Experimentation, and Ethnic Dialogue in Colombia. Durham, NC.: Duke University Press. Ecuador Pacari, Nina. 2002. “The Political Participation of Indigenous Women in the Ecuadorian Congress: Unfinished Business.” Women in Parliament. Stockholm: International IDEA. Estonia Tammaru, Tiit and Hill Kulu. 2003. The Ethnic Minorities of Estonia: Changing Size, Location, and Composition.” Eurasian Geography and Economics 44 (2): 105–20. Viikberg, Jüri. 1998. “Ethnic Minorities in Estonia: Past and Present.” Paper prepared for presentation at the conference Multicultural Estonia, Helsinki, December 26. Fiji Norton, Robert. 2000. “Reconciling Ethnicity and Nation: Contending Discourses in Fiji's Constitutional Reform.” The Contemporary Pacific 12 (1): 83–122. Premdas, Ralph. 2004. “The Dynamics of Ethnic Minority Domination in Fiji. In Rethinking Ethnicity: Majority Groups and Dominant Minorities, eds. Eric Kaufmann. London: Routledge, 221–41. Germany Federal Republic of Germany. 1999. “First Report.” Report submitted by Germany pursuant to Article 25, Paragraph 1 of the Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities. ACFC/SR (99) 17. Georgia Matveeva, Anna. 2002. “The South Caucasus: Nationalism, Conflict and Minorities.” Minority Rights Group International. http://www.minorityrights.org/ Italy Minority Dailies Association. 2005. “Minorities in Italy.” http://www.midas-press.org Japan Mcneill, David. “The Diene Report on Discrimination and Racism in Japan.” ZMag. Sunday, April 09, 2006

Kyrgyzstan Freedom House. 2003. “Country Report: Kyrgyzstan.” Nations in Transit. http://freedomhouse.org/ International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights. 2005. Human Rights in the OSCE Region: Europe, Central Asia and North America. Malaysia Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. 2007. “Malaysia Country Brief.” http://www.dfat.gov.au/

Mauritius Mathur, Raj. 1997. “Parliamentary Representation of Minority Communities: The Mauritian Experience.” Africa Today 44 (1): 61–82. Montenegro Associated Press. 2006. “Montenegro Accuses 18 Ethnic Albanians, Including 5 U.S. Citizens.” December 7, 2006. Norway World of Information Country Report. 2002. “Norway: Politics.” Quest Economics Database. Comment and Analysis: 10. April 24, 2002. LexisNexis (accessed January 2, 2006). Poland Advocates for Human Rights. 2006. “National and Ethnic Minorities.” Stop Violence Against Women. http://www.stopvaw.org/Ethnic_Minorities9.html. Romania Spirova, Maria. 2004. “Electoral Rules and the Political Representation of Ethnic Minorities: Evidence from Bulgaria and Romania. Paper Prepared for Presentation at the 2004 Annual meeting of the Association for the Study of Nationalities, Columbia University, New York. Russia Advocates for Human Rights. 2005. “Ethnic Minorities.” Stop Violence Against Women. http://www.stopvaw.org/Ethnic_Minorities11.html. Glinski, Dmitri. 2002. “Russia and Its Muslims: The Politics of Identity at the International-Domestic Frontier.” East European Constitutional Review Winter/Spring: 71–83. Miller, Justin. 2002. “Ethnic and Religious Minorities and Their Search for Justice: The Case of Chechnya.” In Civil Society and the Search for Justice in Russia, eds. Christopher Marsh and Nikolas K. Gvosdev. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 139– 56. Sri Lanka International Centre for Ethnic Studies. “Principal Ethnic Groups: Sri Lanka.” http://www.ices.lk/sl_database/ethnic_groups.shtml Uruguay Cabella, Wanda and Rafael Porzecanski. 2007. “The Growth of Ethnic Minorities in Uruguay: Ethnic Renewal or Measurement Problems?” Quebec Inter-University Centre for Social Statistics. Venezuela Sreeharsha, Vinod. 2006. “Is there a „Black Vote‟ in Venezuela?” Slate Magazine. December 1, 2006. Yemen UN Human Rights Commission. 2006. “Issues Concluding Observations on Reports of Estonia, Yemen, South Africa, Oman, Mongolia, Denmark, Norway and Ukraine.” Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

II. DETAILED PROCEDURES FOR GROUP SELECTION AND CODING

I attempted to collect data on all majority and minority groups in 122 independent democratic and semi-democratic countries with at least a half a million population in 2005. Across countries, I created majority and minority categories along boundaries of race, ethnicity, place of birth, indigenous identity, religion, and/or language. I used the sources listed above to identify which divisions are most salient in each country and coded mutually exclusive categories associated with these divisions. In cases with substantial overlap between ethnic and religious minority identities, e.g., Turkish and Muslims, only a single category was chosen, informed by background sources and data availability. In some countries, deciding the appropriate level of group aggregation was quite difficult, especially in cases where research exposes significant within-group differences. In the United States, for example, I could analyze Hispanic legislators as a single group or analyze Puerto Rican-, Cuban-, Mexican-, and Portuguese-Americans as separate groups. I again drew on country-specific sources (see above) to assist in making these decisions. In the U.S. case, most sources focus on Hispanics or Latinos/as as a single group, so I analyze all Hispanics together. Notably, because data sources often rely on census data or other government statistics, differences in group aggregation may reflect country-specific differences in boundary-making and/or data collection techniques. However, I drew heavily on human rights reports and country-specific research to ensure that groups not formally recognized by governments as minorities are still included in the analyses. I also performed auxiliary analyses aggregating groups in different ways. None of the quota findings are sensitive to changes in group aggregation. Generally, groups that are numerically the largest racial, ethnic, religious, or linguistic group are coded as the majority, and numerically smaller groups are coded as minorities. In some cases, however, groups in the numerical majority are socially, economically, or politically disadvantaged and are thus coded as minority groups (e.g., Shi‟a Muslims in Lebanon). Conversely, groups numerically in the minority may be socially, economically, or politically dominant and are coded as majority groups (e.g., Maronite Christians in Lebanon). For particularly heterogeneous societies with no numerically dominant groups (e.g., Afghanistan), country-specific sources and outside expertise (see fn 8 in the text) were especially useful in helping determine which groups were dominant and thus coded as majorities; all others were coded as minorities. One set of groups often difficult to classify as majority or minority are European (or Western) immigrants. Because of colonial relations, sizeable groups of Europeans now reside in many former

8 colonies. Historically, Europeans may have been dominant or advantaged. Yet, in many countries decolonization has brought indigenous populations to power. European immigrants also make up a sizeable part of the population of many Western countries. While small, these groups are often not marginalized or disadvantaged in ways traditionally associated with minority status. Still, I followed coding procedures for European immigrants similar to other groups. If sources identified non-native Europeans as a recognized group (e.g., Swedish-speakers in Finland, Europeans in Cape-Verde), they are coded as minorities unless sources indicate they are socially, economically, or politically dominant. Auxiliary analyses including a control variable identifying European minority groups does not substantively alter results. Once groups were initially selected, I collected data on group representation in national legislatures by sex between December 2005 and December 2007, although legislators analyzed were elected as early as 1999 (see fn 7 in the text). I focused only on single or lower houses of national legislatures. For seats representing overseas constituencies, members without full voting rights are excluded (for example, in the United States, delegates representing Guam, Puerto Rico, etc.), but those with full voting rights appear in the data (for example, Inuit and Faroese legislators in Denmark, and representatives of overseas departments and collectives in France). Whenever possible, I collected legislator data at the individual level so that I could aggregate data to represent the majority and minority groups crafted through the above steps. For three countries (Botswana, Kyrgyzstan, Solomon Islands), however, I was only able to obtain data in the aggregate (i.e., Tswana vs. all non-Tswana, Kyrgyz vs. non-Kyrgyz, and Melanesian vs. non-Melanesian, respectively). Because I was still able to code legislator sex for these groups, I include them in the analyses presented here. Auxiliary analyses show that results are robust to the exclusion of these three countries. To reconcile selected majority and minority groups with population and legislator data, I created “other” or “remainder” categories. These categories typically aggregate groups that: 1) were particularly small in size, making up less than 1% of the population; 2) were not identified as significant minorities in the country in any data sources; and 3) were not politically mobilized at the national level. Individuals that cross minority racial or religious categories (e.g., biracial or multi-racial persons) are also included in the remainder. “Remainder” groups are generally excluded from the analyses. The advantage of carefully selecting groups across countries is that analyzing the political representation of these groups speaks to majority/minority dynamics. Including muddled categories undermines this effort. Once remainder categories are removed, 431 groups remain. Excluding remainder categories ultimately affects 4 countries

9 where individuals from remainder categories were elected: Belgium, Canada, Ethiopia, and the United States. In the United States, for example, two congressmen are coded into the remainder category: one Dutch immigrant and one half-Lebanese Protestant. In Canada, one MP was born in the United Kingdom and has a Jewish Syrian-born mother and a Greek Cypriot father. Auxiliary analyses including remainder categories in the analysis (when individuals in remainder categories gained representation) do not affect substantive conclusions. Although remainder groups were excluded, no groups were excluded solely due to size (see fn 6 in the text). That is, small groups that are politically mobilized or for other reasons are identified in country sources are included. However, many small groups are not ultimately analyzed because I exclude groups that fail to win seats in the legislature, and many such groups are small. From a methodological perspective, including these cases would result in dependent variables that would be highly skewed. Yet, as discussed in the text, analyzing only the 328 groups represented in the legislature is also theoretically advantageous because it focuses the analyses on factors that help or hinder minority women in places where minorities can feasibly gain representation. In sum:  I attempted to collect data for 122 independent democratic and semi-democratic countries with at least a half a million population in 2005.  I ultimately collected data across 512 categories (including majority, minority, and “remainder” groups) across 81 countries.  431 of those groups were identified as majority or minority groups (not “remainder” groups).  328 groups of the 431 are represented in a national legislature between 1999 and 2007. These groups are analyzed in the models presented in Table 3.  Of the 328 represented groups, 241 in 68 countries are minorities. The models presented in Table 4 are limited to only these groups. Finally, despite my best efforts to carefully code majority and minority groups, it is possible (and perhaps likely) that another researcher may have come to different conclusions regarding which groups should be included, and which groups are the majorities and minorities. Acknowledging potential disagreements like these, I performed a wide range of auxiliary analyses that include and exclude various groups and aggregate data in various ways. Yet, future research should also revisit the research questions analyzed here.

APPENDIX C. GENDER AND MINORITY QUOTAS BY COUNTRY

Gender Quotas Minority Quotas Country Type % Seats Effective Benefitting Groups Type(s) % Seats Tandem Quotas Afghanistan Seats 26% Y Kuchis Seats 4% Bosnia & Herz. Candidates 30% Y Serbs; Bosniaks; Croats Seats 100% Burundi Candidates 30% Y Twa; Tutsis Seats & Special Rules 42% Jordan Seats 6% N Christians; Circassians; Bedouins Seats 20% Romania Candidates 0%1 N 18 Ethnic Minority Groups Seats 6% Mixed Quotas Hungarians; Italians; Serbs; Crotia Party 40% 9% Seats 5% Chech/Slovaks; Yugoslavian; Other Cyprus Party 30% 2% Christians; Turks Seats 5% / 33%2 Ethiopia Party 30% 16%3 23 Small Nationality Groups Seats 4% Fiji Party 20% 6% Indians; Rotuma; Other Minorities Seats 32% Anglo-Indians; Scheduled Castes; India Party 15% 4% Seats 22% Scheduled Tribes Slovenia Party 28%-40%4 7% Hungarians; Italians Seats 2% Minority Quotas Colombia5 n/a n/a n/a Afro-Colombians; Indigenous Seats 2% Lebanon n/a n/a n/a 8 Minority Religious Groups Seats 48% Mauritius n/a n/a n/a Chinese; Creole; Muslim Special Rules 11% Montenegro n/a n/a n/a Albanians Seats 6% New Zealand n/a n/a n/a Maori Seats 6% Singapore n/a n/a n/a Malay; Indian or Other Candidates 18%6 Venezuela5 n/a n/a n/a Indigenous Seats 2% National Gender Quotas Argentina Candidates 30% Y n/a n/a n/a Armenia Candidates 5% N n/a n/a n/a Bangladesh Seats 13% Y n/a n/a n/a Belgium Candidates 33% Y n/a n/a n/a Brazil Candidates 25% Y n/a n/a n/a Costa Rica Candidates 40% Y n/a n/a n/a Ecuador Candidates 30% Y n/a n/a n/a France Candidates 50% Y n/a n/a n/a FYR Macedonia Candidates 30% Y n/a n/a n/a Honduras Candidates 30% N n/a n/a n/a Panama Candidates 30% N n/a n/a n/a Paraguay Candidates 20% Y n/a n/a n/a Peru Candidates 25% Y n/a n/a n/a Philippines Candidates 0%1 N n/a n/a n/a Republic of Korea Candidates 34% N n/a n/a n/a Serbia Candidates 30% Y n/a7 n/a n/a

(cont‟d on next page)

Gender Quotas Gender Quotas

Country Type % Seats Effective Country Type % Seats Effective Party Gender Quotas Party Gender Quotas Albania Party 30% 2% Italy Party 34-50% 4-19%8 Australia Party 40% 15% Lithuania Party 33% 5% Austria Party 33-50% 27% Netherlands Party 50% 11-13%9 Botswana Party 30% 7% Nicaragua Party 30% 14% Canada Party 25-50% 13% Norway Party 40% 26% Chile Party 20-40% 15% Poland Party 30% 12% Czech Republic Party 25% 9% Portugal Party 33% 17% El Salvador Party 35% 14% Slovakia Party 50% 8% Germany Party 33-50% 28% Sweden Party 40-50% 35% Greece Party 40% 16% Switzerland Party 40% 10% Ireland Party 25-40% 6% United Kingdom Party 5-40% 7% Israel Party 3-30% 7% Uruguay 10 Party . .

Coding Notes : For Quota Types, "Seats"=seats reserved in the legislature; "Candidates"=restrictions are placed on the share of female or minority candidates fielded by political parties;"Party"=voluntarily policies adopted by political parties to regulate candidate gender; and "Special Rules"=special electoral rules to ensure minority representation. Special rules include co-opting of additional seats to ensure balance (Burundi), and selecting "best losers" to enhance minority representation (Mauritius). For national quotas, "Effective"=national gender policies with a threshold of 10% or more and, for candidate quotas, include list- order requirements and/or sanctions for non-compliance. For party quotas, "Effective"=the actual share of seats affected by the quota, calculated as the product of each party's quota threshold and the seats won by that party. Under Minority Quotas, "% Seats"=percentage of seats in the legislature regulated by the quota. 1Romania and the Philippines require political parties to include women, but no specific threshold is identified. 2In Cyprus, 24 seats are set aside for the Turkish Cypriot community that remain unfilled. The first estimates of "Seats Affected" includes only 3 reserved seats for religious minorities; the second estimate includes the 24 unfilled seats. 3In Ethiopia, various opposition parties are known to have adopted quotas but the specific parties are unknown. The effective quota percentage only reflects the quota of the ruling Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Front (EPRDF). 4The 40% quota used by Slovenia's Social Democratic Party in 2004 is a "target," rather than a hard quota. 5Colombia and Venezuela adopted national gender quotas that were overturned. Two Venezuelan political parties adopted gender quotas prior to the 2005 elections, but neither won any seats in the national legislature. 6The minority quota in Singapore operates through multimember districts called GMCs. In each GMC parties must put forward a slate of candidates including at least one minority member. In one GMC, two Malays minorities were elected--one man and one woman. Because I am unable determine which of the two individuals were placed on the list to satisfy the quota, I offer both possible figures for women's share of quota seats. 7Poland and Serbia both relax 5% electoral thresholds for political parties representing national minorities. However, minorities are not guaranteed seats. In Poland, the number of Germans winning seats in parliament through this method has steadily declined from 4 representatives in the early 1990s to only 1 representative in 2007. Similarly, in Denmark, the German Minority Party can participate in general elections without presenting signatures, but has not done so since 1971. 8Two Italian parties with gender quotas won seats as part of alliances with other parties not known to use gender quotas. The range of percentages for the effective quota reflects the difference between the quota being applied to none or all of alliance seats. 9The Green Party in the Netherlands is known to use a gender quota but the percentage is unknown. Without accounting for this quota, the effective % is 11%. Assuming a 50% quota, the effective quota is 13%. 10The Socialist Party of Uruguay uses a gender quota but the threshold is dependent upon the percentage of women members of the Party in each jurisdiction. Targets used for the 2004 election, if any, are unknown.