This book explores the gendered dynamics of institutional innovation, continuity and change in candidate selection and recruitment. Drawing on the insights of feminist institutionalism, it extends the 'supply and demand model' of political recruitment via a micro-level case study of the candidate selection process in post-devolution Scotland.

This book explores the gendered dynamics of institutional innovation, continuity and change in candidate selection and recruitment. Drawing on the insights of feminist institutionalism, it extends the 'supply and demand model' of political recruitment via a micro-level case study of the candidate selection process in post-devolution Scotland.

Asking why some politicians succeed in moving into the highest offices of state while others fail, this text examines the relative lack of women, black and working class Members of Parliament, and whether this evident social bias matters for political representation.

Why don’t more women run for office? Why are certain states more likely to have female candidates and representatives? Would strengthening political parties narrow the national gender gap? Where Women Run addresses these important questions through a rare and incisive look at how candidates are recruited. Drawing on surveys and case studies of party leaders and legislators in six states, political scientist Kira Sanbonmatsu analyzes the links between parties and representation, exposing the mechanism by which parties’ informal recruitment practices shape who runs—or doesn’t run—for political office in America. “Kira Sanbonmatsu has done a masterful job of linking the representation of women in elective office to the activities of party organizations in the states. She combines qualitative and quantitative data to show how women are navigating the campaign process to become elected leaders and the changing role of party organizations in their recruitment and election. It is a significant contribution to the study of representative democracy.” --Barbara Burrell, Northern Illinois University “Sanbonmatsu has produced an excellent study that will invigorate research on the role of political parties and the recruitment of women candidates. Using a variety of methods and data sources, she has crafted a tightly constructed, clearly argued, and exceedingly well-written study. A commendable and convincing job.” --Gary Moncrief, Boise State University “Sanbonmatsu offers important insights in two neglected areas of American politics: the role of political parties in recruiting candidates and the continued under-representation of women in elected office. Connecting the two subjects through careful qualitative and statistical methods, insightful interpretation of the literature and interesting findings, the book is a significant new addition to scholarship on parties, gender, and political recruitment.” --Linda Fowler, Dartmouth College Kira Sanbonmatsu is Associate Professor of Political Science at Rutgers University and Senior Scholar at the Eagleton Institute of Politics’ Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP). She was previously associate professor at Ohio State University. She is the author of Democrats, Republicans, and the Politics of Women’s Place.

Parliaments around the world are still overwhelmingly populated by men, yet studies of male dominance are much rarer than are studies of female under-representation. In this book, men in politics are the subjects of a gendered analysis. How do men manage to hold on to positions of power despite societal trends in the opposite direction? And why do men seek to cooperate mainly with other men? Elin Bjarnegård studies how male networks are maintained and expanded and seeks to improve our understanding of the rationale underlying male dominance in politics. The findings build on results both from statistical analyses of parliamentary composition worldwide and from extensive field work in Thailand. A new concept, homosocial capital, is coined and developed to help us understand the persistence of male political dominance.

To explain women's underrepresentation in American politics, researchers have directed their attention to differences between men and women, especially during the candidate emergence process, which includes recruitment, perception of qualifications, and political ambition. Although these previous analyses have shown that consistent dissimilarities likely explain why men outnumber women in government, they have overlooked a more explicit role for gender (masculinity and femininity) in explanations of candidate emergence variation. Meredith Conroy and Sarah Oliver focus on the candidate emergence process (recruitment, perceived qualifications, and ambition), and investigate the affects of individuals' gender personality on these variables to improve theories of women's underrepresentation in government. They argue that since politics and masculinity are congruent, we should observe more precise variation in the candidate emergence process along gender differences, than along sex differences in isolation. Individuals who are more masculine will be more likely to be recruited, perceive of themselves as qualified, and express political ambition, than less masculine individuals. This differs from studies that look at sex differences, because it accepts that some women defy gender norms and break into politics. By including a measure of gender personality we can more fully grapple with women's progress in American politics, and consider whether this progress rests on masculine behaviors and attributes. Who Runs? The Masculine Advantage in Candidate Emergence explores this possibility and the potential ramifications.