IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rpsaxx/v30y2014i1p51-66.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Is electoral authoritarianism good for women's representation? Evidence from the 1999–2011 regional legislative elections in Russia

Author

Listed:
  • Grigorii V. Golosov

Abstract

This article employs a comprehensive set of data on 226 regional legislative elections held in Russia in 1999–2011 in order to assess the impact of electoral authoritarianism upon women's representation in sub-national legislative bodies. The analysis of 50,520 cases of candidate nomination and 9553 cases of electoral success, supported by a cross-regional statistical study of the factors of women's nomination and success, empirically confirms an explanatory model that incorporates three working hypotheses derived from the mainstream literature on women's representation. According to this model, the 2002–2003 electoral reform, by introducing proportional representation into regional electoral systems, strongly facilitated women's representation. After the advent of electoral authoritarianism, proportional rules, in combination with the increased ‘party magnitude’ of the pro-government party, continued to exert expectedly positive effects; yet these effects were offset by the decreased competitiveness in majority districts. As a result, political regime transformation did not lead to a significant increase in the number of female deputies.

Suggested Citation

  • Grigorii V. Golosov, 2014. "Is electoral authoritarianism good for women's representation? Evidence from the 1999–2011 regional legislative elections in Russia," Post-Soviet Affairs, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 30(1), pages 51-66, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:rpsaxx:v:30:y:2014:i:1:p:51-66
    DOI: 10.1080/1060586X.2013.831653
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/1060586X.2013.831653
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/1060586X.2013.831653?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:taf:rpsaxx:v:30:y:2014:i:1:p:51-66. 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: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rpsa .

    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.