While there is a vast literature on women's political interests, there is hardly any consensus about what constitutes "women's interests " or how scholars should approach studying them. Representation can occur in various venues or by various actors, but, due to power imbalances across political groups, it is not always realized in any substantive way. The essays in this book constitute a broad and geographically comparative move toward defining new and unified theoretical orientations to studying representation among women. Representation involves not only getting group members into government, but also articulating group interests and translating those interests into policy. Because competing groups have different policy preferences and act out of self-interest, representation of historically marginalized groups is a contentious, contingent process that is likely to ebb and flow. The book begins with a theoretical positioning of the meaning of women's interests, issues and preferences. It considers the need to add nuance to how we conceive of and study intersectionality and the dangers of stretching the meaning of substantive representation. It then looks at descriptive representation in political parties, high courts, and legislatures, as well as how definitions of "interest " affect who represents women in legislatures and social movements. The book concludes by suggesting testable propositions and avenues for future research to enhance understanding about representation of women and of other historically under-represented groups. Chapters include cases from the United States, Latin America, Western Europe and Africa.

Though parity is still rare, presidential cabinets contain more women than ever before. Who are these women and what types of political capital resources do they bring to the administration? Are they new types of political players or very much like the men who have traditionally run the government? And once they gain office, are they treated equally in the cabinet? Do they have the capacity to be as effective as their male counterparts? Drawing on data from five presidential democracies - Argentina, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, and the United States - Women in Presidential Cabinets examines the backgrounds, connections and credentials of all full-rank cabinet ministers in presidential administrations over the course of two decades to determine if women and men bring similar numbers and diversity of political capital resources to the administration. Maria C. Escobar-Lemmon and Michelle M. Taylor-Robinson find that, with a few notable exceptions, presidents select men and women with similar work and education backgrounds, political experience, and linkages to related interest groups. There are, however, differences across types of posts and countries. They evaluate the treatment and effectiveness of similarly credentialed male and female ministers on four benchmarks. Specifically, they examine whether women with equal qualifications can really obtain all posts or whether glass ceilings persist in some areas. They then turn to the ability of women to hold onto a post, considering the nature and circumstances surrounding their departures from office and how long they remain in office. In doing so, they uncover evidence that female ministers in Latin America stand on an unequal playing field when it comes to the ability to enact policy through legislation. Ultimately, Escobar-Lemmon and Taylor-Robinson show conclusively that while women lack numerical equality, they are no longer tokens, instead appearing positioned to exercise power at the highest levels within the executive branch.

There are many theories as to why women remain severely underrepresented in democratic governments. Perhaps voters do not consider women to be capable leaders, or maybe party elites obstruct women's paths to office because they don't believe that they are electable. But if these attitudes are hurdles standing in the way of women being elected to office, where did they develop? In The Image of Gender and Political Leadership, Michelle M. Taylor-Robinson and Nehemia Geva bring together parallel experiments conducted in countries around the world to compare the ways in which young adults view gender and leadership. Together, the chapters in this book present findings from on-site experiments conducted with over 6,000 young adult students of highly diverse socio-economic backgrounds in eight countries that have varying levels of experience with women in government: Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, England, Israel, Sweden, the United States, and Uruguay. Overall, the book finds little evidence of traditional gender stereotypes that would limit young people's support for women as political leaders. Women candidates are accepted as leaders by the participants, indicating young adults' approval of women's ability to hold diverse posts, win votes, and manage stereotypically masculine policy areas. The book also finds that young adults are very responsive to political party—regardless of gender, they tend to favor candidates from their preferred parties. With an in-depth, cross-national perspective, Taylor-Robinson and Geva provide empirical evidence to dispel myths about what contributes to the low election rates of women, and importantly, investigate logical steps to achieve gender parity.

Latin America's flirtation with neoliberal economic restructuring in the 1980s and 1990s (the so-called Washington Consensus strategy) had the effect of increasing income inequality throughout the region. The aim of this economic policy was in part to create the conditions for stable democracy by ensuring efficient economic use of resources, both human and capital, but the widening gap between rich and poor threatened to undermine political stability. At the heart of the dilemma faced by these new democracies is the question of accountability: Are all citizens equally capable of holding the government accountable if it does not represent their interests? In this book, Michelle Taylor-Robinson investigates both the formal institutions of democracy (such as electoral rules and the design of the legislative and executive branches) and informal institutions (such as the nomination procedures of political parties and patron-client relationships) to see what incentives legislators have to pay attention to the needs of poor people and thereby adequately represent their interests.

While there is a vast literature on women's political interests, there is hardly any consensus about what constitutes "women's interests " or how scholars should approach studying them. Representation can occur in various venues or by various actors, but, due to power imbalances across political groups, it is not always realized in any substantive way. The essays in this book constitute a broad and geographically comparative move toward defining new and unified theoretical orientations to studying representation among women. Representation involves not only getting group members into government, but also articulating group interests and translating those interests into policy. Because competing groups have different policy preferences and act out of self-interest, representation of historically marginalized groups is a contentious, contingent process that is likely to ebb and flow. The book begins with a theoretical positioning of the meaning of women's interests, issues and preferences. It considers the need to add nuance to how we conceive of and study intersectionality and the dangers of stretching the meaning of substantive representation. It then looks at descriptive representation in political parties, high courts, and legislatures, as well as how definitions of "interest " affect who represents women in legislatures and social movements. The book concludes by suggesting testable propositions and avenues for future research to enhance understanding about representation of women and of other historically under-represented groups. Chapters include cases from the United States, Latin America, Western Europe and Africa.