IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v96y2002i03p665-666_78.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Has Liberalism Failed Women?: Assuring Equal Representation in Europe and the United States. Edited by Jytte Klausen and Charles S. Maier. New York: Palgrave, 2001. 243p

Author

Listed:
  • Norton, Noelle H.

Abstract

Over the past decade, while the United States effectively decided that liberalism could not accommodate quotas or affirmative action plans designed to alleviate gender and racial inequality, Europe decided that liberalism could accommodate a form of positive discrimination. As the U.S. Supreme Court systematically rolled back affirmative action plans and the state of California led the initiative to curtail government and educational affirmative action, countries like France, Germany, and Norway were implementing a variety of parity policies at both the constitutional and political levels. The parity movement that gained strength in Europe in the 1990s called for equal representation of both men and women in elected assemblies. Methods for achieving parity ranged from reserving parliamentary seats for female legislators by means of constitutional change to legal gender quotas in party lists and party rules. The editors of this volume point out that the Europeans have implemented these electoral reforms with “little public outcry†and “no manifestations of mass protests.â€

Suggested Citation

  • Norton, Noelle H., 2002. "Has Liberalism Failed Women?: Assuring Equal Representation in Europe and the United States. Edited by Jytte Klausen and Charles S. Maier. New York: Palgrave, 2001. 243p," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 96(3), pages 665-666, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:96:y:2002:i:03:p:665-666_78
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055402780362/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:96:y:2002:i:03:p:665-666_78. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.