Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-55597f9d44-vkn6t Total loading time: 0.382 Render date: 2022-08-14T10:35:27.213Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "useNewApi": true } hasContentIssue true
  • English
European Political Science Review European Political Science Review

Article contents

Feminism and rational choice theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2011

Amanda Driscoll  and
Mona Lena Krook
Amanda Driscoll
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA
Mona Lena Krook*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Washington University in St. Louis, St. Louis, MO, USA
*
* E-mail: mlkrook@wustl.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Feminism and rational choice theory have both been hailed as approaches with the potential to revolutionize political science. Apart from a few exceptions, however, work utilizing these two perspectives rarely overlaps. This article reviews their main contributions and explores the potential for a combined approach. It argues that a synthesis of feminism and rational choice theory would involve attending to questions of gender, strategy, institutions, power, and change. The contours and benefits of this approach are illustrated with reference to one particular area of research: the adoption of electoral gender quotas. Despite a current lack of engagement across approaches, this example illustrates that the tools of feminist and rational choice analysis may be brought together in productive ways to ask and answer theoretically and substantively important questions in political science.

Keywords

feminismrational choice theorygender quotasArgentina
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , 23 May 2012 , pp. 195 - 216
Copyright
Copyright © European Consortium for Political Research 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acker, J. (1990), ‘Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: a theory of gendered organization’, Gender and Society 4(2): 139–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Akerlof, G.A.Kranton, R.E. (2000), ‘Economics and identity’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 115(3): 715–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, E. (2001), ‘Should feminists reject rational choice theory?’, in L.M. Antony and C. Witt (eds), A Mind of One's Own, Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 369–397.Google Scholar
Bates, R.H., et al. (1998a), Analytic Narratives, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Bates, R.H., de Figueiredo, R.J.P. Jr.Weingast, B.R. (1998b), ‘The politics of interpretation: rationality, culture, and transition’, Politics & Society 26(4): 603–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckwith, K. (2007), ‘Mapping strategic engagements: women's movements and the state’, International Feminist Journal of Politics 9(3): 312–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonder, G.Nari, M. (1995), ‘The 30 percent quota law’, in A. Brill (ed.), A Rising Public Voice, New York: City University of New York Press, pp. 183–193.Google Scholar
Bordo, S. (1987), The Flight to Objectivity, Albany, GA: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
Bruhn, K. (2003), ‘Whores and lesbians: political activism, party strategies, and gender quotas in Mexico’, Electoral Studies 22(1): 101–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, J. (1990), Gender Trouble, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Calvert, R. (2002), ‘Identity, expression, and rational-choice theory’, in I. Katznelson and H.V. Milner (eds), Political Science, New York: W. W. Norton, pp. 568–596.Google Scholar
Carling, A.H. (1991), Social Division, New York: Verso.Google Scholar
Chama, M. (2001), Las mujeres y el poder, Buenos Aires: Ciudad Argentina.Google Scholar
Chappell, L. (2006), ‘Comparing political institutions’, Politics & Gender 2(2): 223–235.Google Scholar
Cherry, R. (2003), ‘Rational choice and the price of marriage’, in K.S. Moe (ed.), Women, Family, and Work, New York: Blackwell, pp. 27–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Childs, S.Krook, M.L. (2006), ‘Gender, politics, and political science’, Politics 26(3): 203–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chodorow, N. (1978), The Reproduction of Mothering, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Coleman, J. (1989), ‘Introduction’, Rationality and Society 1(1): 5–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Connell, R.W. (1987), Gender and Power, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Cudd, A.E. (2001), ‘Rational choice theory and the lessons of feminism’, in L.M. Antony and C. Witt (eds), A Mind of One's Own, Boulder: Westview Press, pp. 398–417.Google Scholar
Davidson-Schmich, L.K. (2006), ‘Implementation of political party gender quotas’, Party Politics 12(2): 211–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Descartes, R. (1999), Discourse on Method and Meditations on First Philosophy, 4th edn (translated by D.A. Cress), Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
Diputados (1991). ‘Diario de Sessiones’. Camera Diputados de la Nación, November 6–7.Google Scholar
Doepke, M.Tertilt, M. (2009), ‘Women's liberation: what's in it for men?’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 124(4): 1541–1591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driscoll, A.Krook, M.L. (2009), ‘Can there be a feminist rational choice institutionalism?’, Politics & Gender 5(2): 238–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dovi, S. (2007), ‘Theorizing women's representation in the United States’, Politics & Gender 3(3): 297–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downs, A. (1957), An Economic Theory of Democracy, New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
Duerst-Lahti, G.Kelly, R.M. (eds) (1995), Gender Power, Leadership, and Governance, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Durrieu, M. (1999), Se dice de nosotras, Buenos Aires: Catálogos Editora.Google Scholar
Elster, J. (1984), Sour Grapes, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
England, P. (1989), ‘A feminist critique of rational-choice theories’, The American Sociologist 20: 14–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eriksson, L. (2011), Rational Choice Theory: Potential and Limits, New York: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferber, M.A.Nelson, J.A. (eds) (1993), Beyond Economic Man, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferejohn, J. (2002), ‘Rational choice theory and social explanation’, Economics and Philosophy 18(2): 211–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferejohn, J.Satz, D. (1995), ‘Unification, universalism, and rational choice theory’, Critical Review 9(1–2): 71–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franceschet, S., Piscopo, J.M. (2009), ‘Gender and Political Backgrounds in Argentina’. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
Fréchette, G., Maniquet, F.Morelli, M. (2008), ‘ “Incumbents” interests and gender quotas’, American Journal of Political Science 52(4): 891–907.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, D.Diem, C. (1993), ‘Feminism and the pro- (rational-) choice movement’, in P. England (ed.), Theory on Gender/Feminism on Theory, New York: Aldine de Gruyter, pp. 91–114.Google Scholar
Gatens, M. (1998), ‘Institutions, embodiment and sexual difference’, in M. Gatens and A. Mackinnon (eds), Gender and Institutions, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar
Gilligan, C. (1982), A Different Voice, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Goertz, G.Mazur, A.G. (eds) (2008), Politics, Gender, and Concepts, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, D.P.Shapiro, I. (1994), Pathologies of Rational Choice Theory, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Hammersley, M.Gomm, R. (1997), ‘Bias in social research’, Sociological Research Online 2(1): 1–17.Google Scholar
Harding, S. (1986), The Science Question in Feminism, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Hartsock, N.C.M. (1983), ‘The feminist standpoint’, in M.B. Hintikka and S. Harding (eds), Discovering Reality, Dordrecht: Reidel/Kluwer, pp. 283–310.Google Scholar
Harvey, A.L. (1998), Votes Without Leverage, New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hawkesworth, M. (2006), Feminist Inquiry, New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Hesse-Biber, N.S.Leavy, P.L. (2007), Feminist Research Practice, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hindmoor, A. (2011), ‘ “Major combat operations have ended”? arguing about rational choice’, British Journal of Political Science 41(1): 191–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inter-Parliamentary Union (1995), Women in Parliaments, 1945–1995, Geneva: Inter-Parliamentary Union.Google Scholar
Inter-Parliamentary Union (2011), ‘Women in national parliaments’. Retrieved 5 March 2011 from http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/classif.htmGoogle Scholar
Jaggar, A.M. (1989), ‘Love and knowledge’, in A.M. Jaggar and S.R. Bordo (eds), Gender/Body/Knowledge, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, M.P. (1996), ‘Increasing women's representation via gender quotas: the Argentine Ley de Cupos’, Women and Politics 16(4): 75–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, M.P. (2002), ‘Explaining the high level of party discipline in the Argentine Congress’, in S. Morgenstern and B. Nacif (eds), Legislative Politics in Latin America, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 147–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kant, I. (1991), Political Writings, 2nd edn (translated by H.S. Reiss), New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kanthak, K.Krause, G.A. (2010), ‘Valuing diversity in political organizations’, American Journal of Political Science 54(4): 839–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Katznelson, I.Weingast, B.R. (eds) (2005), Preferences and Situations, New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Kenny, M. (2007), ‘Gender, institutions, and power’, Politics 27(2): 91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, J. (1992), Institutions and Social Conflict, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, J.Johnson, J. (2007), ‘The priority of democracy’, American Political Science Review 101(1): 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krook, M.L. (2006), ‘Reforming representation’, Politics & Gender 2(3): 303–327.Google Scholar
Krook, M.L. (2009), Quotas for Women in Politics, New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krook, M.L.Mackay, F. (eds) (2011), Gender, Politics, and Institutions, Basingstoke: Palgrave.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krook, M.L.Squires, J. (2006), ‘Gender quotas in British politics’, British Politics 1(1): 44–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levi, M. (1997), ‘A model, a method, and a map: rational choice in comparative and historical analysis’, in M.I. Lichbach and A.S. Zuckerman (eds), Comparative Politics, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 19–41.Google Scholar
Lloyd, G. (1984), Man of Reason, Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovenduski, J. (1998), ‘Gendering research in political science’, Annual Review of Political Science 1: 333–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovett, F. (2006), ‘Rational choice theory and explanation’, Rationality and Society 18(2): 237–272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lubertino Beltrán, M.J. (1992), ‘Historia de la “Ley de Cuotas” ’, in Cuotas mínima de participación de mujeres, Buenos Aires: Fundación Friedrich Ebert, pp. 9–43.Google Scholar
Luker, K. (1975), Taking Chances, Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Mackie, G. (1996), ‘Ending footbinding and infibulation’, American Sociological Review 61(6): 999–1017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, J.G.Olsen, J.P. (1989), Rediscovering Institutions, New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Martin, P.Y. (2004), ‘Gender as social institution’, Social Forces 82(4): 1249–1273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meier, P. (2008), ‘A gender gap not closed by quotas’, International Feminist Journal of Politics 10(3): 329–347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moe, T.M. (2005), ‘Power and political institutions’, Perspectives on Politics 3(2): 215–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mossuz-Lavau, J. (1998), Femmes/hommes pour la parité, Paris: Presses de Sciences Po.Google Scholar
Murray, R. (2007), ‘How parties evaluate compulsory quotas’, Parliamentary Affairs 60(4): 568–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, R. (2008), ‘The power of sex and incumbency’, Party Politics 14(5): 539–554.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, R., Krook, M.L.Opello, K.A.R. (Forthcoming), ‘Why are gender quotas adopted?’, Political Research Quarterly.Google Scholar
Mustapic, A.M. (2002), ‘Oscillating relations’, in S. Morgenstern and B. Nacif (eds), Legislative Politics in Latin America, New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 23–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, J.A. (1995), ‘Feminism and economics’, Journal of Economic Perspectives 9(2): 131–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
North, D. (1990), Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Okin, S.M. (1979), Women in Western Political Thought, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Olsen, M. (1965), The Logic of Collective Action, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Peter, F. (2003), ‘Gender and the foundations of social choice’, Feminist Economics 9(2–3): 13–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, D.N. (2004), ‘The political salience of cultural difference’, American Political Science Review 98(4): 529–545.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prokhovnik, R. (2002), Rational Woman, Manchester: University of Manchester Press.Google Scholar
Ramazanoglu, C.Holland, J. (2002), Feminist Methodology: Challenges and Choices, Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rankin, K. (2002), ‘Social capital, microfinance, and the politics of development’, Feminist Economics 8(1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Riker, W.H.Ordeshook, P.C. (1973), An Introduction to Positive Political Theory, Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Ritter, G.Mellow, N. (2000), ‘The state of gender studies in political science’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 571: 121–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rousseau, J.-J. (1987), The Basic Political Writings (translated by D.A. Cress), Indianapolis, IN: Hackett.Google Scholar
Schmidt, G.D.Saunders, K.L. (2004), ‘Effective quotas, relative party magnitude, and the success of female candidates’, Comparative Political Studies 37(6): 704–734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schuessler, A.A. (2000), Logic of Expressive Choice, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Schwartz-Shea, P. (2002), ‘Theorizing gender for experimental game theory’, Sex Roles 47(7–8): 301–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, J.W. (1988), Gender and the Politics of History, New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Seiz, J.A. (1995), ‘Bargaining models, feminism, and institutionalism’, Journal of Economic Issues 29(2): 609–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sen, A. (1992), Inequality Reexamined, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sen, A. (1993), ‘Positional objectivity’, Philosophy and Public Affairs 22(2): 126–145.Google Scholar
Simon, H. (1957), Models of Man, New York: Wiley Press.Google Scholar
Strassmann, D. (1993), ‘Not a free market’, in M.A. Ferber and J.A. Nelson (eds), Beyond Economic Man, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, pp. 54–68.Google Scholar
Thalos, M. (2005), ‘What is a feminist to do with rational choice?’, in A. Nelson (ed.), A Companion to Rationalism, New York: Blackwell, pp. 450–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weingast, B.R. (2002), ‘Rational-choice institutionalism’, in I. Katznelson and H.V. Milner (eds), Political Science, New York: W. W. Norton, pp. 660–692.Google Scholar
13
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Feminism and rational choice theory
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Feminism and rational choice theory
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Feminism and rational choice theory
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *