How is Institutional Formation Gendered, and Does it Make a Difference? A New Conceptual Framework and a Case Study of Police and Crime Commissioners in England and Wales

Abstract

H ow is institutional formation gendered, and does it make a difference? Inspired by new institutionalism's generic claim that "the organisation of political life makes a difference" (March and Olsen 1984), we ask, how does the gendered organization of political life make a difference? The purpose of this article is to build a conceptual framework for understanding the gendered character (and effects) of institutional formation. We test the framework through a case study of Police and Crime Commissioners in England and Wales (which were introduced in 2012) and consider its potential for further development The authors would like to thank Rosalynd Southern for research assistance and the 'Understanding Institutional Change' programme (funded by the European Research Council) for financial assistance.

Gender, actors, and institutions at the local level: Explaining variation in policies to address violence against women and girls

“…Our future research will complement the quantitative work presented in this article through qualitative work with a sample of PCC areas (building on Gains & Lowndes, ), which will allow us to investigate how the factors we have highlighted here play out in specific localities. This will build a better understanding of how VAWG policy is influenced by PCCs' own gender and their interpretation of the institutional rules that govern equalities duties.…”

“…The analysis is restricted to a consideration of formal rules, which can be identified and assessed using quantitative measures. (For an initial analysis of the role of informal rules in this case study, using qualitative research, see Gains and Lowndes, , and for a wider consideration of the role informal institutions play in gendering political behavior and outcome, see Waylen's, , collection of essays. )…”

“…Research on politics and gender has examined the determinants of policy change to achieve gender equality (Gains & Lowndes, ; Lovenduski, ; Mazur & Pollack, ). The focus has been on the role of women's movements in provoking change (Abrar, ; Htun & Weldon, ; Montaya, ; Weldon, ), alongside female representatives, executive actors, and “femocrats” (Annesley, Engeli, & Gains, ; Banaszak, ; Holli, ).…”

Fish Fingers and Measles? Assessing Complex Gender Equality in the Scenarios for the Future of Europe

“…Hence, we stretch feminist institutionalism by focusing on potential gendered outcomes. To show how gender is implicated in the scenarios, we relied on the four dimensions identified by Gains and Lowndes (, p. 527): (1) rules about gender (equality), (2) rules that are not specifically about gender but have gendered consequences, (3) gendered rule makers and (4) gendered policy outcomes. However, we had to adapt our feminist institutionalism analysis in several ways.…”

“…The rule makers, their gendered identities, and the shifting balance of influence between feminist and other actors shape gender equality institutions and policies. Gains and Lowndes (, p. 529) rightly warn against an essentialist focus on the sex of actors, because ‘[f]emale actors may adopt masculine styles and/or pursue non‐ or antifeminist goals (the “Thatcher counterfactual”)' while ‘male “critical actors” can act for women'. Hence, assessing the plurality of interests represented in the rulemaking process and the access it offers to a plurality of voices is more relevant than identifying the sex of the rule makers.…”