Feminist institutionalisms

In 2009, the journal Politics & Gender published a collection of five articles under the heading of ‘Feminist Institutionalism’. A more appropriate title would have been ‘Feminist Institutionalisms’ (plural) as four of the five contributions explore the possibility of feminist versions of established variants of new institutionalism.Footnote ¹

Can there be a feminist rational choice institutionalism, ask Driscoll and Krook (Reference Driscoll and Krook2009). Their answer is yes, provided it focuses on gender, power, and allows for the potential of political transformation. They develop these points and provide an empirical illustration in Driscoll and Krook (Reference Driscoll and Krook2012), where they explain why it was rational for the mostly male members of the ruling party in Argentina to vote for the introduction of gender quotas. However, ‘to date, there has been very little appetite among feminist scholars to expand on what a feminist RCI [Rational Choice Institutionalist] approach would look like’ (Clavero and Galligan, Reference Clavero and Galligan2020, 659).

Mackay's (Reference Mackay2014) concept of ‘nested newness’ (see, also Chappell Reference Chappell2016) is probably the most important insight in feminist institutionalism explicitly grounded in sociological institutionalism. Otherwise, ‘although feminist scholars have explored similar terrain to SI [Sociological Institutionalism], with few exceptions, they have not engaged explicitly with SI or "borrowed" SI tools and concepts’ (Mackay et al., Reference Mackay, Monro and Waylen2009, 75).Footnote ² The reason may be that, like rational choice institutionalism, sociological institutionalism has relatively little to say about power and change and unlike the former, also lacks a focus on strategic action (p. 260). This impedes the mission ‘to clarify the conditions under which gender norms can be disrupted and to enable equality seekers to target when and where there are institutions that are most likely to be open to their demands’ (Chappell, Reference Chappell2006, 231).

Kulawik (Reference Kulawik2009) was the first to praise the potential of feminist discursive institutionalism. Freidenvall and Krook (Reference Freidenvall, Krook, Krook and Mackay2011) provide the first empirical application, analyzing the discourse over gender quotas in Sweden and France. They are attracted to discursive institutionalism because of its emphasis on discourse and ‘its attempts to offer a theory of institutional change’ (47), which makes it particularly relevant for feminist political scientists.Footnote ³

By far the most popular variant of feminist institutionalisms (plural) is feminist historical institutionalism. There are two reasons for this (Waylen, Reference Waylen2009). First, it helps to identify the mechanisms that sustain gender inequality, especially through the concept of path dependence. Second, recent scholarship on incremental change allows for better insights into the often incomplete and contradictory processes and outcomes of change in what are called gender regimes. Waylen (Reference Waylen2017), for example, discusses the four types of incremental change found in Mahoney and Thelen (Reference Mahoney and Thelen2010) – displacement, layering, drift, and conversion – in terms of their contribution to gender equal institutions.

In sum, feminist institutionalists have made uneven use of the existing variants of new institutionalism. Early interest in rational choice and sociological institutionalism has waned while discursive and especially historical institutionalism have enjoyed widespread interest, often in combination. This preference is in line with the activist agenda of feminist political science. Feminists ‘are not trying primarily to change our academic field; we are trying to change the world’ (Ferguson, Reference Ferguson2017, 283; see also Childs and Dahlerup, Reference Childs and Dahlerup2018; Weldon, Reference Weldon2019).

Feminist institutionalism

‘ Is there – or can there be – a feminist institutionalism?, ask Krook and Mackay (Reference Krook, Mackay, Krook and Mackay2011b: 14). The answer is not clear. Under the heading of ‘gendering new institutionalism’, Mackay et al. (Reference Mackay, Kenny and Chappell2010) identify four themes: (1) formal and informal institutions; (2) institutional change and continuity; (3) structure and agency; (4) gender and institutional power. Attention to these issues is what constitutes ‘an emergent feminist institutionalism’ (584), though the title of the article still has a question mark. That question mark does not return in the edited volume entitled Towards a Feminist Institutionalism (Krook and Mackay, Reference Krook and Mackay2011a). In the introduction, the editors see a ‘considerable potential for productive dialogue’ between new institutionalism and feminist political science (Krook and Mackay, Reference Krook, Mackay, Krook and Mackay2011b, 13).

Kenny and Mackay (Reference Kenny and Mackay2009, 278), on the other hand, suggest that ‘feminism may have more to offer the new institutionalism than the other way around’. This conclusion rests on two points. First, looking back, independent and separate from new institutionalism, feminist political science already generated important insights about institutions, especially concerning gender, power, and change. Second, looking forward, if feminist institutionalism, in the singular, is to have any real promise, it would need to display the ambition for ‘changing and transforming’ the new institutionalism (ibid.).

A decade ago, Mackay (Reference Mackay, Krook and Mackay2011) identified three approaches to feminist institutionalism. One is to develop a feminist variant of a particular new institutional school. The second approach is to combine elements from at least two schools, most frequently historical institutionalism plus sociological or discursive institutionalism. The third approach, which Mackay calls ‘pluralist’, is to borrow from all variants of new institutionalism. All three approaches constitute what is called here feminist institutionalisms (plural). Interestingly, Mackay (Reference Mackay, Krook and Mackay2011) then recommends yet another, ‘synthesized’ approach, which for her means the development of a feminist institutionalist perspective on the four themes identified in Mackay et al. (Reference Mackay, Kenny and Chappell2010): formal and informal institutions, change and continuity, structure and agency, and gender and power. This is what is called here feminist institutionalism (singular). Ten years on, which direction has the literature taken?

Eight new books

To obtain an overview of recent research in feminist institutionalism and to see how the literature has developed, eight books are selected. The research monographs by Staab (Reference Staab2017), Chiva (Reference Chiva2018), Thomson (Reference Thomson2019), and Miller (Reference Miller2021) in Palgrave Macmillan's ‘Gender and Politics’ series all deal explicitly with the relationship between gender and institutions. The first four books in Rowman and Littlefield's new series on ‘Feminist Institutional Perspectives’ are research monographs by Erikson (Reference Erikson2017) and Freidenvall (Reference Freidenvall2021) and edited volumes by MacRae and Weiner (Reference MacRae, Weiner, MacRae and Weiner2017) and Waylen (Reference Waylen2017).

Staab's (Reference Staab2017) study of social policy reform in Chile draws explicitly on two bodies of literature: historical institutionalism and feminist political science. Ruling out the possibility of fundamental policy change in Chile, Staab uses recent work on incremental change (Streeck and Thelen, Reference Streeck and Thelen2005; Mahoney and Thelen, Reference Mahoney and Thelen2010) to examine four types of social policy reform (health care, pensions, childcare, and maternity leave).Footnote ⁴ She engages in ‘inductive exploration’ (40), examining how institutions, actors, and ideas interact to produce continuity and change. Staab takes an instrumental approach, ‘drawing on’ historical institutionalism and ‘applying existing concepts and theories of gradual institutional change’ (206). In the conclusion, she nonetheless claims to have found a ‘new angle’ for feminist institutionalist research by ‘documenting the analytical importance of policy legacies’ (207). This, of course, is hardly novel. More relevant is Staab's conclusion that even when ‘genuine re-gendering’ (208) may be out of reach, the achievement of limited short-term goals does not preclude further future gains, perhaps even of a more radical kind.

Erikson's (Reference Erikson2017, see also 2019) book on reform of Sweden's prostitution policy focuses on discourse and ideational change. Different from what one might expect, the study does not employ discursive institutionalism, preferring instead to do frame analysis. Using the language of historical institutionalism, Erikson writes about ‘the path dependency of ideas’ (2), arguing that the pioneering policy of criminalizing clients was possible only after agreement on the problem definition ruled out the main alternative to the sociopolitical approach that had been dominant, though not very effective, for so long.Footnote ⁵ Although the book stresses the crucial role of (women) actors and highlights successful framing strategies, the frequent references to path dependence sometimes give the impression that these actors are merely helping history move along a predestined path. Thus, when Erikson identifies a critical juncture in a jurisdictional struggle between parliamentary committees, this is critical because of its impact, not because a situation of unusual fluidity allowed for multiple outcomes to happen (Capoccia and Kelemen, Reference Capoccia and Kelemen2007). For Erikson (Reference Erikson2017, 7), the ‘novelty of this study is its focus on how individual ideas can become institutionalized and thus acquire the regulative function of an institution’.

Building explicitly on Erikson (Reference Erikson2017), Freidenvall (Reference Freidenvall2021, 189, emphasis in original) examines ‘the ways in which individual ideas can become informal institutions as well’. Her study on women's representation in the Swedish parliament shows how since the 1970s a shared understanding of gender balance developed across parties, from left to right. This is amply documented in the two empirical chapters that use party documents to trace how the seven main parties addressed the descriptive representation of women over time.

Although Freidenvall (Reference Freidenvall2021) aims to make a contribution to feminist discursive institutionalism, other variants of new institutionalism are never far away. Historical institutionalism is frequently mentioned, with the incremental process of ideational and institutional change described as ‘path-dependent, leading to a “politics of no return’’' (183, emphasis in original). Sociological institutionalism is present implicitly in the chapter with case studies of how local parties selected their candidates and how the parties' formal rules were implemented on the ground. She finds that ‘gender balance in list composition was perceived as a matter of course’ (185), i.e. that gender balance in political recruitment had become a norm.Footnote ⁶

Freidenvall's (Reference Freidenvall2021) puzzle is how a country can become a frontrunner and global leader in descriptive representation of women without adopting legislative gender quotas. Although she recognizes the need for comparison and acknowledges the limits to generalization, the book itself makes no attempt at either, leaving it unclear what lessons Sweden holds for other places. There is reason to believe that the development of a norm of gender balance itself is insufficient to bring about gender equality. In a separate study, Freidenvall (Reference Freidenvall, Lépinard and Rubio-Marín2018) contrasts gender equality progress in the public sector with its lack in the private sector in Sweden.Footnote ⁷

Miller's (Reference Miller2021, 2) study of the UK House of Commons as a gendered workplace aims to ‘flesh out’ feminist discursive institutionalism.Footnote ⁸ She does so by drawing on Judith Butler's work rather than Vivien Schmidt's. The three empirical chapters on Members of Parliament, the House Service, and researchers, are all divided in three parts, following the three discursive institutions that Miller identifies in the UK parliament: career cycle, citizenship (of the organization), and public service. Each discursive institution is then discussed following Lowndes' (Reference Lowndes2019) distinction between gendered rules, rules with gendered effects and gendered actors working with the rules. In this way, Miller is able to impose a structure on her rich collection of observations from her field research. In a footnote, Miller (Reference Miller2021, 116) claims ‘these categorisations emerged within the fieldsite and were widely accepted in discussions with participants’, but the book provides no evidence of this and leaves open how and in what way career cycle, citizenship, and public service constitute discursive institutions. In fact, discourse only plays a role in the discussion of the ill-fated attempt to appoint Australian Carol Mills as House Clerk (see also Miller, Reference Miller2022) and the discussion of sexual harassment. Despite section headings like ‘What Does a Feminist Discursive Institutionalist Approach to Parliaments Look Like?’ (309), the book provides no straightforward answers. A separate publication (Miller, Reference Miller2021) suggests that the main methodological contribution might lie in combining feminist institutionalism and ethnography.

Chiva (Reference Chiva2018) seeks to explain male dominance in post-communist Central and Eastern Europe focusing on ‘processes of reproduction’ (4) and drawing on historical institutionalism, especially its notion of path dependence.Footnote ⁹ By focusing on the causal mechanisms that sustain gender inequality, Chiva claims to fill a gap in the feminist institutionalist literature (17). The empirical analysis breaks down into three parts. First, chapters on incumbency and electoral system design highlight how parliament and parliamentary elections contribute to reproducing male dominance. Next, Chiva introduces a different explanation centered on ‘asymmetric institutionalization’, which is actually less about institutionalisation and more about the alleged priorities of consolidating democracies. Finally, in a chapter entitled ‘breaking male dominance’, Chiva discusses five mechanisms of change (gender quotas, contagion effects, party system change, international norm diffusion, and women's activism) and illustrates their impact empirically, without, however, linking the stories of reproduction and change. The conclusion that ‘in the broadest terms, this study has shown that the choices made by political elites matter’ (162) reflects a pervading ambivalence about the exact relationship between legacies, institutions, and agency.

Thomson's (Reference Thomson2019) book examines abortion law in Northern Ireland and seeks to answer the question why change of its rigid laws has been so difficult. The analysis operates at two levels: the national (who decides about abortion policy: London or Belfast) and the regional (policy making in the context of power sharing). Thomson's theoretical contribution to feminist institutionalism, more clearly developed in Thomson (Reference Thomson2018), is to turn the notion of ‘critical actors’, usually seen as agents of change, on its head. Thomson suggests that when critical actors are conservative they effectively block change. However, it is not just Northern Irish politics that is conservative, society is too, and the only road to progressive reform, effectively closed off as Thomson (Reference Thomson2019) shows, would have been through London. Therefore, it is difficult to argue any actor in Northern Ireland has been critical.

The contributions to MacRae and Weiner's (Reference MacRae, Weiner, MacRae and Weiner2017) book look at the success and failure of bringing about gender equality in the European Union and its member states. The book ‘enthusiastically partakes in the feminist institutionalist project’ and the editors take a clear position in the question about feminist institutionalism(s) (Weiner and MacRae, Reference Weiner, MacRae, MacRae and Weiner2017, xv). They fear that ‘setting out a separate strand of NI’ would separate gender from the mainstream (MacRae and Weiner, Reference MacRae, Weiner, MacRae and Weiner2017, 209) and prefer an understanding of feminist institutionalism as ‘decidedly pluralistic’. When contributors are explicit about their institutionalist preferences, these turn out to be mostly discursive institutionalism and references to the logic of appropriateness, though without a link to sociological institutionalism. The chapter by Debusscher and Van der Vleuten (Reference Debuscher, van der Vleuten, MacRae and Weiner2017) is the only one to explicitly work with a feminist historical institutionalist lens, using the language of critical junctures (they count four since the early 1970s) and path dependency to analyze the development of equality policies in the EU. Mergaert and Lombardo's (Reference Mergaert, Lombardo, MacRae and Weiner2017) chapter on resistance to implementing gender mainstreaming provides an empirical as well as conceptual contribution, introducing a typology of resistance.

The ten chapters in Waylen's (Reference Waylen2017) edited volume on ‘Gender and Informal Institutions’ provide a mix of theoretical, conceptual, methodological, and empirical contributions. One recurring finding is that informal institutions can strengthen or weaken gender (in)equality, depending on the context. Echoing a previous publication (Waylen Reference Waylen2014), the editor encourages feminist institutionalist scholars to explore the full range of interactions between formal and informal institutions (Waylen, Reference Waylen2017, 11). The theoretical chapters by Chappell and Mackay (Reference Chappell, Mackay and Waylen2017, building on Chappell and Waylen Reference Chappell and Waylen2013) and Bjarnegård and Kenny (Reference Bjarnegård, Kenny and Waylen2017) provide conceptual clarification, discuss methods, and develop a research agenda. While focused on gender, these contributions should be read by any scholar interested in the empirical study of informal institutions. The same goes for Chappell and Galea's (Reference Chappell, Galea and Waylen2017) chapter on ‘rapid ethnography’ as a method to uncover informal institutions.

The eight books reviewed in this essay have several features in common. First, they all go beyond descriptive representation and political recruitment to look at policies and substantive representation. Second, they all adopt an explicit and self-conscious institutionalist approach. Third, almost all seek to make a theoretical contribution. Fourth, historical and discursive institutionalism are favorite, often in combination. Fifth, sociological institutionalism is absent, despite the acknowledged importance of norms. In sum, this review of eight recent books in the two most relevant book series on the subject reveals a strong preference for feminist institutionalisms (in the plural).