IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/ecopol/v38y2026i2p395-405.html

Polygyny, Western Egalitarianism, and the Relative Status of Women in Society

Author

Listed:
  • Satoshi Kanazawa

Abstract

It is commonly believed that women experience lower relative status in polygynous societies, whereas it is mathematically the case that the average woman benefits materially (and the average man suffers reproductively) from the polygynous institution of marriage. In 1999, Kanazawa and Still hypothesized that the apparent negative correlation between polygyny and women's status was spurious and can be explained by “Western egalitarianism,” which simultaneously decreases inequality among men and thereby polygyny (according to the female choice theory of marriage institution) and decreases inequality between the sexes, thereby elevating women's status. However, their hypothesis was never empirically tested. I put Kanazawa and Still's hypothesis to an empirical test. Analyses of three widely varied international measures of gender inequality show that polygyny was not associated with women's relative status in society net of Western egalitarianism. Robustness checks confirm that the results are not unique to a specific measure of Western egalitarianism. The international data leave very little doubt that women experience lower relative status in polygynous societies, not because they are polygynous, but because they are inegalitarian and citizens (both women and men) lack civil liberties.

Suggested Citation

  • Satoshi Kanazawa, 2026. "Polygyny, Western Egalitarianism, and the Relative Status of Women in Society," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(2), pages 395-405, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:bla:ecopol:v:38:y:2026:i:2:p:395-405
    DOI: 10.1111/ecpo.70028
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ecpo.70028
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ecpo.70028?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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:bla:ecopol:v:38:y:2026:i:2:p:395-405. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0954-1985 .

    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.