masculinized or marginalized - illinois wesleyan … · masculinized or marginalized page 2 of 35...

Masculinized or Marginalized of 35

Masculinized or Marginalized: Decentralization and Women’s Status in Regional Polish Institutions

SUMMARY. Research on gendered institutions reveals that women often face a dilemma of being masculinized or marginalized. Female politicians downplay gender differences to fit in or risk sanction for highlighting women’s issues. Sub-national institutions are closer and less prestigious, so decentralization may facilitate women’s participation and gender equality. Examining Poland’s 1998 decentralization, I analyze 40 semi-structured interviews with male and female regional political elites using a mixed-methods approach to test five hypotheses about gender attitudes. Women initially respond “no gender inequalities” but change their answers; many support the notion of more women in politics, but not quotas or women’s policy machinery. KEYWORDS. Decentralization, gendered institutions, post-communist, Poland, state feminism, qualitative methods, quotas


“Even when women win a place in the institutions, they are faced with a catch –22 dilemma: they can perform the masculine better than males and in the process reinforce the masculinist preferences that make it hard for them to succeed, or they can remain outsiders and face enormous challenges to being effective.” – Georgia Duerst-Lahti 2005

More than a decade of feminist scholarship identifies a “theory of gendered institutions,”

mapping “the manifold ways in which gender power and disadvantage are created and

maintained not only through law but also through institutional processes, practices, images,

ideologies and distributional mechanisms” (Hawkesworth 2003). Male politicians often still

view female politicians as outsiders and react to their presence by adopting a more aggressive

style of deliberation (Kathlene 1994) or by dismissing women’s legislative accomplishments

(Kenney 1996). Devaluing women’s contributions can lead to women’s exclusion from visible

positions of authority as well as informal social activities that reinforce the male members’

power and influence (Considine and Deutchman 1996).

To be treated as men’s equals, women need to achieve more than their male counterparts

(Kanter 1977; Thomas 1994) and to prove they are “one of the guys.” Women in many political

institutions1 therefore face a dilemma, one of being masculinized or marginalized.

“Masculinized” women, typically from rightist parties, work as much as possible to blend in with

their male counterparts and avoid challenging the gendered norms of an institution.

“Marginalized” women, often from leftist parties, voice concerns specific to women, but, as a

consequence, are shunned by other politicians or lose institutional prestige.

One widespread reform that has the potential to expand women’s participation and

improve women’s status in political institutions is decentralization. Decentralization is “the

assignment of fiscal, political, and administrative responsibilities to lower levels of government”

(Litvack, Ahmad and Bird 1998), and it has been implemented in countries around the globe2.

By pushing political decision-making to more accessible, lower levels of government,


decentralization should lead to greater participation of women in politics and therefore greater

gender equality within institutions (Banaszak, Beckwith and Rucht 2003; Greenberg 2001).

We expect decentralized or sub-national institutions3 to be more open to women for four

reasons. Sub-national governments are closer to women and their familial responsibilities

(Johnson 2003; Neylan and Tucker 1996; Darcy, Welch and Clark 1994). They are usually

lower status than national-level posts (Luciak 2006; Lovenduski and Norris 1993). The working

environments tend to be less conflictual and more cooperative (Beck 2001). Finally, regional

politicians focus on social welfare issues of direct concern to women (Phillips 1995).

The advent of new sub-national institutions in Poland in 1998 offers a notable

opportunity to test whether decentralization facilitates women’s participation as equals in the

political process or whether women are masculinized or marginalized. This article analyzes

interview data with Polish sub-national elite attitudes to gain an understanding of three specific

questions. First, in recently decentralized Poland, do sub-national political elites4, both male and

female, generally support women’s participation in political life? Second, do they support

institutions that empower women, such as quotas for women and regional equal-status

machinery? Third, do regional elites view sub-national government as responsive to women’s

groups in civil society? Answers to these questions will lend insight into the gendered impacts of

decentralization and women’s status within institutions.

In brief, this research indicates that sub-national governments in Poland are not

accessible. Secondly, this research joins an emerging body of work on non-western democracies

that argues that decentralization does not necessarily lead to more women in office or more

women-friendly governments. Although interviewees initially state that women enjoy equality

in sub-national institutions, their subsequent remarks reveal that regional institutions are male-


dominated. Despite women’s statements of gender-based inequality and support for increasing

the number of women in regional politics, hypothesis tests reveal that women are no more likely

to support regional-level quotas or women’s policy machinery. Male and female elites do not

view decentralization as empowering to women’s groups in civil society. Overall, this analysis

of interviewees’ statements about gender and status within sub-national institutions in Poland

instead suggests that female politicians are masculinized or marginalized.

Though women of right and left parties describe experiences of gender inequalities in the

interview setting, right-leaning females in sub-national political institutions tend to downplay

gender inequalities and tend to reject quotas and regional women’s agencies. Left-leaning

females in regional politics are more likely to point out gender inequalities, but also they tend to

be marginalized from positions of political power.

Decentralization and Women’s Status in Regional Politics

Research on women in regional politics has yielded important insights which have thus

far focused on women within a single pathway of women’s representation. Vengroff, Nyiri and

Fugiero (2003) demonstrate that, on average, more women serve in regional parliaments than in

national-level office. Banaszak, Beckwith and Rucht (2003) argue that sub-national institutions

tend to be more accessible to women’s movements arguing “as states decentralize their power,

feminist organizing, as well as feminist office seeking, is likely to increase at the local level”

(22). However, women’s representation can occur throughout the policymaking process, from

the articulation of interests by groups and social movements to lawmaking and oversight in the

legislature through policy implementation and feedback in bureaucracies. A fuller account of

decentralization’s impacts on women’s representation requires a cross-institutional analysis

(Rincker 2006).


Studies of gender and decentralization also present contradictory expectations for

advanced industrial democracies compared to new and developing democracies. Banaszak,

Beckwith and Rucht (2003) find in Western Europe that decentralization’s effects on women’s

movements are largely positive. Decentralization boosted state grants to women’s groups in

Italy (Della Porta 2003) and helped women’s groups in American states and Canadian provinces,

although it impeded the formation of umbrella women’s groups (Valiente 2003). Among

advanced industrialized countries, Vengroff, Nyiri and Fugiero (2003) show that more women

serve in regional parliaments than at the national level. However, the trend is reversed for many

new democracies in their sample, including Poland. (Insert Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4)5.

Emerging studies of decentralization focused in Africa and Asia show that fewer women

hold office and that women face patriarchal forces at the local level (Beall 2005; Ohene-Konadu

2001; Siahaan 2004). Beall argues that 1994 decentralization in South Africa had negative

implications for women because “the informal institutions in which local [South African]

governments are often embedded are hostile to women” (257). Similarly, Siahaan (2004) posits

that local-level decentralization has been harmful to women’s interests because local

governments are characterized by stronger patriarchy, lower levels of literacy among women,

and higher unemployment. Ohene-Konadu’s (2001) study of Ugandan municipalization shows

that despite a 33% quota for women in district councils, only 7% of seats are held by women.

Surveyed female politicians indicated that the top two reasons for low female participation in

district councils were a shortage of funds for campaigns and gender barriers.

Although studies of decentralization in African and Asia are suggestive; countries of

Central and Eastern Europe have a history of state socialism that sets them apart from other

countries, requiring us to extend studies of decentralization to this region6. From 1945 to 1989,


the countries of Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) were dominated from abroad by the Soviet

Union, controlled by often repressive one-party socialist regimes, and industrialized through

centralized economic planning of Communist party officials. The socialist legacy produced

distinctive patterns of gender relations. The state promoted women’s equality through

constitutional guarantees7, state-provided day care, access to abortion, and quotas that increased

women’s representation across the region. But within the private sphere, women retained the

lion’s share of household duties, and the communist ideals of equality left many gender norms

unchanged (Regulska 1992). In particular, Poland’s strongly Catholic population8 historically

promoted an ideal vision of the traditional Polish mother (matka polka).

Many expected that the 1989 revolutions across CEE and ensuing democratization would

constitute a major opening for women to participate in the political process. In fact, just the

opposite happened. Matland and Montgomery (2003) demonstrate a strong political backlash

against women in Central and Eastern Europe in the decade following 1989 democratization:

Women’s share in national parliaments plummeted from a regional average of around 30 per cent to less than 10 per cent, in several countries below 5 per cent…and [m]ore than a decade after the founding democratic elections in the region, the mean level of female representation, at around 12 per cent, remained well below… the Western European mean (25 per cent). Women also remain virtually absent from party leaderships, cabinet positions, key ministries, and institutions of social bargaining. (p.1) The backlash against women in Poland was typical for what occurred within CEE as a

whole. The percentage of women in the Polish parliament fell sharply (from 20% to 10%), and

women and men returned to traditional gender roles in an era Watson (1996) describes as “the

rise of masculinism in Eastern Europe” (also see Einhorn 1998; Funk and Mueller 1993;

Jacquette and Wolchik 1998; Matland and Montgomery 2003; Rueschemeyer 1998). More

recently, the Polish government elected in November 2005 (led by the Truth and Justice Party)


has been associated with a far-right shift in Polish politics and more conservative views on

abortion and women’s primary role being in the family.

In short, although communist-era policies encouraged high levels of education and

political involvement for Polish women compared to women in other developing countries,

decentralization may not change the gendered attitudes and behavior of women and men at the

regional level. Evidence of informal or overt gender discrimination in interviews with male and

female political elites supports the assertion that gendered institutions theory also applies in

newly decentralized institutions.

Methodology

Poland is an excellent case in which to study women’s access to regional institutions.

Poland decentralized in 1998, creating 16 new Polish regions (województw), each with its own

parliament (sejmik)9. The form of Poland’s 1998 decentralization includes electoral,

administrative, and fiscal dimensions (see Litvack, Ahmad and Bird 1998), which allows me to

study women’s status in different venues of sub-national representation: sub-national

legislatures, sub-national public bureaucracies, and groups in civil society. Elections for new

regional Polish parliaments have been held three times10, in 1998, 2002, and 2006.

To assess gender equality in regional institutions, I conducted 40 semi-structured

interviews with sub-national Polish political elites in four regions (Lubelskie, Malopolskie,

Mazowieckie, and Śląskie)11. Table 5 lists the interview respondents by institution and region.

Insert Table 5 here

During interviews, I asked questions about gender issues as well as decentralization and

decentralized health policy. I use elite attitudes as a key indicator for gender equality because

interview methods are particularly appropriate for examining questions of women’s institutional


status (Kenney 1996). Similarly, Hawkesworth notes, “while quantitative studies can document

the persistence of white male dominance in public and private sectors, only detailed case studies

can identify the mechanisms through which raced-gendered power is maintained and recreated in

changing organizations” (Hawkesworth, p.533).

To analyze the data, I combined qualitative and quantitative methods to enhance the

validity and reliability of the results. Reinharz (1992) argues that interviews allow respondents

to describe situations in “their own words” rather than the researcher’s categories, increasing the

ability to draw valid inferences. Similarly, I draw upon extended interview quotes to unpack

male and female attitudes on gender equality in Poland. In addition, I also code the interviews in

terms of each individual’s responses in five question areas that correspond to five hypotheses

that I derive in the next section. I use a simple binomial test and Fisher’s test, appropriate for

small sample sizes, to confirm or reject the five hypotheses below. Overall, I argue that

interpretation of the interview responses and hypothesis tests is consistent with the notion that

women in decentralized institutions are masculinized or marginalized.

Hypotheses for Sub-National Political Elite Attitudes on Women’s Status

In this section, I derive five related hypotheses concerning sub-national attitudes about

gender equality. Due to Poland’s communist legacy of gender equality measures and a body of

work suggesting decentralization benefits women, we might expect women in new sub-national

institutions to participate as equals. However, given broad evidence of gendered institutions in

Western democratic institutions and findings of studies on decentralization in new Asian and

African democracies, I expect that male and female regional elites will not view women as

equals, and that women will readily express gender inequalities.


H1: Sub-national political elites tend not to view women as equally qualified for

regional politics.

Women are more likely than men to share experiences of social marginalization on the

basis of their gender, and female legislators are more likely that their male counterparts to

represent women substantively (see Phillips 1995). Though challenged by more recent accounts

(Reingold 2000), many scholars contend that female politicians are more likely to be sensitive to

women’s issues than men. For example, women place a higher priority on bills dealing with

women’s health, childcare, and education. Female politicians are more likely than males to

identify themselves as feminist and count on women as an important constituency (Carroll 1994;

Thomas 1994; Swers 1998). Therefore, my second hypothesis is:

H2: Female sub-national political elites are more likely to believe it is important to

have women in regional politics than their male counterparts.

Women should also be more likely than men to support institutional changes that

encourage women to enter politics (Dahlerup 1988), including quotas for women and the

establishment of effective women’s policy machinery (described below). Caul’s (2001) cross-

national study of quota adoption confirms that “the more women who establish themselves

within the highest ranks of the party, the greater are the chances that the party will adopt

quotas…these women may directly pressure the party leadership to adopt [quotas]” (p. 1226). In

Poland, women led the fight for adoption of party-level quotas (30%) in the leftist SLD

(Democratic Left Alliance) and Labor Union, as well as the center-right Freedom Union

(Siemieńska 2003). Therefore, the third hypothesis states:

H3: Female sub-national political elites will support regional-level quotas more than

their male counterparts.


Along similar lines, we would expect female politicians to be more likely to support other

initiatives for women, such as public bureaucracies that seek to improve women’s status.

Women’s policy machinery or a bureaucratic office “established by government with its main

purpose being the betterment of women’s social status” (Stetson and Mazur 1995) originated in

the U.S. and Western Europe and was encouraged in Poland through European Union policy of

‘gender mainstreaming.’ In Western Europe, women’s policy machinery held the particular

support of female parliamentarians, leftist governments, and women’s groups (Eisenstein 1996;

Stetson and Mazur 1995). In Poland, a feminist12 women’s policy machinery emerged in 2001

when the communist successor party (the SLD) created the National Plenipotentiary for the

Equal Status of Women and Men (PESW) led by feminist Izabela Jaruga-Nowacka. As a result

of women’s group organizing, the SLD government in 2003 created an additional 16 regional

branches of the PESW13. My fourth hypothesis is:

H4: Female sub-national political elites will support regional women’s policy

agencies more than their male counterparts.

Thus far, my hypotheses present countervailing trends for women in decentralized sub-

national politics in Poland. According to Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4, I expect female sub-national

political elites to support increasing the number of women, passing quotas, and establishing

women’s agencies. However, the low numbers of women in sub-national political office

suggests that many male regional politicians will not view female politicians as equal partners.

My final hypothesis deals with access of women in civil society to sub-national politics.

In Western democracies, we expect sub-national politics to be relatively accessible to women’s

groups. For example, Della Porta’s (2003) study argues that women’s groups in Italy benefited

greatly from decentralization: Italian women’s groups won new local government contracts to


provide services targeted to women under both right- and left-wing governments. Because non-

Western democracies have shown to contradict the expectations set in Western democracies, my

final hypothesis thus is:

H5: Overall, sub-national political elites will view regional governments as

responsive to women’s groups in civil society.

Table 6 below summarizes male and female respondent attitudes and reports whether Hypotheses

1 through 5 are accepted or rejected. Shortly, I interpret in detail regional elite attitudes for each

of the five hypotheses.

Insert Table 6 Here

The mixed-method analysis of regional elite attitudes supports the proposition that

women are masculinized or marginalized in regional institutions and that decentralization in

Poland has not yet changed people’s gender attitudes or behaviors. Women from the left and the

right acknowledge gender discrimination at some point during their interviews, but they differ in

how quickly they speak about it. Rightist women in general downplay gender inequalities and

emphasize their similarities with male colleagues as a path for success in regional institutions.

Leftist women are more likely to mention gender inequalities right away and give significant

evidence that they are marginalized in regional institutions.

Attitudes on Women as Equals in Sub-National Politics

Hypothesis 1 states that sub-national political elites will not view women as equally

capable to serve in regional governments. At the beginning of each interview, I posed the

following question: “Are there differences between being a man and being a woman on such

issues as style of communicating, methods of leadership, political issues one focuses on, or

opportunities to advance, or not and why?” This question touches upon two issues. First, are


there gender differences between men and women? Second, do these differences imply gender

inequality? I found that there are gender differences and that some of these differences were

linked with gender inequality. Moreover, attitudes on whether gender differences exist changed

substantially between the beginning and end of interviews. Because of the complexity of

attitudes on this hypothesis, the test for this hypothesis is based on four different indicators

(listed in Table 5). I argue that overall, the data supports Hypothesis 1.

Initially 11 of 40 interviewees (28%) mentioned a gender difference in response to my

first interview question, but by the end of the interview, 24 (60%) had mentioned a gender

difference. The difference between responses at the beginning and end of the interviews is

statistically significant (P=0.001, Fisher’s exact test). Changes in interviewees’ responses reflect

that they initially gave the “correct” answer of no discrimination, but as they grew more trusting,

they told me what they really thought. For example, one male legislator said: “No, I don’t really

think there are differences between men and women in Polish life.” He later went on to say:

I would not want to hire a woman that was too beautiful. This would only distract me and my other workers. This is just a natural thing, when you see a beautiful woman, to want to get her attention. And Polish men are very charming… I would not want a woman too busy with children. Women in Poland are responsible for the household and the children. Some men will tell you they do equal work in the home but this is a lie. Maybe something they say on their honeymoons. When children are sick, women will need to be staying home taking care of them and I am a nice man. I cannot tell them no, you cannot do that, so I prefer not to hire them. Maybe you can call this a kind of discrimination.

Another male legislator displays the same sort of interview effect. He initially said, “I

don’t see differences between men and women in the regional parliament. If people are good

and competent, they do well.” Yet later he states:

In Polish life, women support men. There is a saying, ‘the better driver of a tractor is a man; the better politician is a man.’ There are certain facts of life where one sex is better than the other at something. How many philosophers are women? How many


mathematicians? There are certain things men do better than women. Women have advantages in languages. But women should not do specific things. For example, when we have a Russian delegation visiting, it would be better for it to be all men. We would all go out and drink and solve the problems. Even one woman would disturb the balance…One or two women can change the dynamic, how men behave, how they dress.

As a high-ranking member of a regional parliament, this legislator’s statement suggests new

regional institutions are not open to women. Rather, the environment is imbued with

masculinism, “an ideology that begins from, and generally prefers, that which is associated with

masculinity, the masculine and males.” (Duerst-Lahti 2003; 30-31).

The interview effects of respondents’ attitudes on gender prompted me to examine and

categorize all the transcripts in terms of gender differences mentioned, including those which

affect women’s status in regional political bodies. In 40 interviews, respondents made a total of

71 distinct comments regarding gender. Respondents discussed gender in three ways: gender

differences, gender inequalities, and women not supporting each other. What I term gender

differences did not clearly limit women’s status in regional politics, while comments regarding

gender inequalities and women not supporting each other circumscribe women’s participation.

In leftist parties, like the SLD, women and men were more likely to mention gender

inequalities, remarking that parties discriminate against women by putting up few women for

election or by placing them low on electoral lists. Still, no males in leftist parties spoke of

discrimination against women after women are elected, suggesting that they saw little or no

discrimination within the day-to-day operations of the regional institutions. In contrast, females

described discrimination within regional parliaments, even after they were elected. Leftist

women argued that they needed to be “better than men” to succeed. Being “better than men”

meant being prepared and competent, but also not being emotional or overly feminine. In

contrast, men were free to express their emotions:


Women have to be better than the men. They are held to a higher standard… Women more than men have to show a certain high class, be direct in their arguments but elegant. Men can get emotional and call each other names but women need to win over men with the strength of their arguments…When Polish men disagree with each other they are showcasing, seeing who has the loudest voice. But men gradually turn to argumentation to make their point. Women do this style of argumentation from the beginning.

Female members voiced difficulty in being one of few women within the regional

parliament. One female legislator from a rightist party agreed with this sentiment, saying:

There are fewer women in the [regional parliament]. They put one woman on the top of the list and then the rest are scattered toward the bottom of the list… A woman faces difficulties if she finds fault with legislation, for example. Then men will call her spiteful, like a stinging bee or an old battleaxe. And it is more difficult generally for women to succeed into the high ranks of the [regional parliament].

16 of 17 interviewees also stated that women do not to stand up for other women in

regional political institutions. Sometimes partisan differences were simply more salient for these

women than gender differences. But, on other occasions, female elites did not support or mentor

women even in their own parties or closely allied parties. For example, there was a female

legislator from a leftist party who was promised a high spot on the party list from a male party

leader. She reported that the leader informed her she had lost her position to a male friend of the

party leader shortly before the election. She fought the change and eventually won back her

spot, but when asked whether other women in the party or parliament supported her efforts, she

said: “No, not really. There are too few women, and too few in the left wing.” Another woman

remarked, “You don’t get support from women, women are often jealous of each other’s success.

The head of Trade Unions supports me more than other women.” Divisiveness among women in

allied parties was confirmed again when two middle-aged female legislators from the right

lamented that a young female legislator was elected to the regional parliament “just one year out

of college.” They felt no need to mentor this fellow legislator.


Perhaps respondents said what they thought I wanted to hear. If so, females and males

would become more gender sensitive over the course of interviews, when they instead tended to

become more chauvinistic. I instead attribute the change in responses to a developing interview

rapport. This interpretation of the interview effects is consonant with qualitative research

conducted on gender issues. For example, Considine and Deutchman (1996) note that in

interviews, “even the most guarded politician can be given the opportunity to provide frank,

confidential information which would often be withheld in a survey” (p.6).

Attitudes on the Importance of Women in Regional Politics, and Quotas

In contrast with Hypothesis 2, most interviewees (male and female) said it is important to

have women in regional politics. 23 of 33 interviewees stated that it is important to have women

in regional elected office, and there were no significant differences between men and women.

Hypothesis 3 suggests that since women are more likely to represent women substantively,

female regional elites will also be more likely than males to support regional-level quotas. The

data did not support Hypothesis 3. Men and women are equally against quotas, and sex was not

statistically significant.

Elites were nearly unanimous that having women in regional politics is important, and

many stated that there was discrimination against women in political life (27 of 33, 81%). Why,

then, was support for quotas so low? I argue that elites have different ideas about why there are

few women sub-national government, and that these systematic differences lead to their attitudes

about the appropriateness of quotas as a mechanism for increasing women’s representation.

Interviewees’ gender and partisan ideology strongly affected their views on the causes of

women’s under-representation and the degree to which they supported quotas or other measures

to expand women’s access to politics.


Members of leftist parties (particularly female members) said that political parties and

voters discriminate against women. Female and male legislators from rightist parties generally

faulted women that too few participate in regional politics, and therefore they did not support

quotas. As one male legislator described:

Poland is a conservative country. Ten years ago, politics was the domain of men. Women are like beautiful flowers. Men had the majority of power. Lots of women did not want to show themselves outside of voluntary organizations and as the heads of families. But this changes. Women are educated especially after 1989. But this does not mean that all educated women want to be political. Many women simply do not want to be involved. They choose other jobs.

Many rightist male elites said that quotas are not the solution to the low numbers of women in

office. Quotas imply that discrimination may occur within political parties. Males felt that they

did not discriminate against potential female aspirants. They implied that there are simply fewer

well-known women in the local media. For example, one male legislator stated, “It matters most

if your name is popular in your own constituency, it does not matter how you are slotted, if you

are popular and well-known, you win.” He did not believe that parties or the media downplay the

successes of potential female candidates. One male legislator from the rightist party Truth and

Justice stated a similar idea:

It’s not that we do not appreciate women’s abilities, but it is dangerous to establish a quota. Here purdah does not exist, even in the smallest village. A quota keeps qualified, talented people out.

For this legislator, only explicit restrictions on women’s freedom to appear in public constitute

gender inequalities. He was immune to Polish cultural and religious norms that encourage

women to leave politics to men.

Why were women not more supportive than men of quotas? Many rightist women

rejected quotas on the basis of party platform and because quotas were used in the communist

period. For example, the communist successor parties (the SLD and UP) have quotas in place.


Second, many women opposed quotas because they had personally held office and did not see

why other women should get special help. Their stance on quotas was often masculinized. One

women’s group leader put it this way: “Women more than 10 years in politics are men. They act

like guys.” Female legislators against quotas confirmed this notion in their comments. One

stated: “I may look like a woman but I have a male style of communication and dealing with

men. I have no problem fighting for my ideas. None of my female colleagues have problems

articulating, or fighting or being in elections.” As another female legislator said:

Getting elected should be based on the work you have done, your reputation. I have built up my own status because of my reputation. If someone is good they will get through the process. It is better if I can say it was my resources, my support is truly in the society, not artificial.

This quote reflects a strong concern held by many female legislators that quotas would diminish

their value within their party or regional legislature.

Attitudes on Regional Women’s Policy Machinery

Hypothesis 4 states that female sub-national political elites will be more likely to support

regional women’s policy machinery, such as PESWs. 14 out of 20 (70%) interviewees reported

that Regional PESWs were a good development. However, in a binomial test, this hypothesis

failed to meet the .05 level, thus rejecting Hypothesis 4. The small sample size might affect this

result. Many interviewees expressed great enthusiasm for the PESWs. A few of the regional

PESWs were even beginning to coordinate women’s groups and link them with female (and

male) legislators sympathetic to feminist concerns. In one region, the regional PESW organized

a Forum for Women. One female legislator noted:

The style of forum was wonderful, I would say even precious to women. There was no formalized agenda. Women coming to the meeting could express freely whatever issues were of concern to them. We discussed violence in the family, women’s unemployment…Women face more problems than men do and this was a place we could talk openly about it, which we cannot do in the regional parliament and other places.


According to this legislator, it would not be acceptable for females to bring up these gendered

issues, highlighting again that masculine environment of her regional parliament. Unfortunately

for these women, the Truth and Justice government recently dissolved the national and regional

PESWs. While alternate national women’s policy machinery exists, it is institutionally weaker

(under the Department of Labor), and currently just five regional-level women’s status officers

advocate for local needs and issues.

Attitudes on Decentralization and Women’s Group Empowerment

According to Hypothesis 5, sub-national elites will view regional legislatures as more

responsive to women’s groups. A very high percentage supports decentralization to regional

legislatures (17 of 21 interviewees, 80.9%, P=.05, Fisher’s exact test) and views decentralization

in a positive light. However, the interviews show no clear connection between decentralization

and women’s group empowerment. Just 8 of 22 (36.6%) interviewees think women’s groups

have expanded access to government because of new regional legislatures. This failed to reach

statistical significance, thus rejecting Hypothesis 5.

As in Russia and other post-communist countries (Nowacki 2003), women’s groups in

Poland are hesitant to engage in the formal political process. Often, women’s groups in Poland

have weak or nonexistent connections to legislators at any level of politics. One women’s group

activist said: “There is no duty or interest of legislators to contact us; the initiative comes from

women’s groups.” When women’s groups have political connections with officeholders, they

are usually at the national level, not the regional level. Another women’s group leader in

Malopolskie believes the regional legislature hesitated to work with feminist groups:

Contracts with feminist organizations are treated as controversial. When feminists offer good suggestions on how to make police more aware of sexual harassment, for example, the police take over the idea as if it were theirs. Here in [city], a man has won a large


government contract to help women victims of domestic violence. His organization won the contract because they were pro-family and allied with the church. Feminist organizations are assumed to be rich.

Although anecdotal, this comment contrasts with Della Porta’s (2003) finding that

decentralization benefited Italian women’s groups. Other women’s group leaders in Poland

thought decentralization would eventually help women when locals rather than national party

officials really gained influence over elections. As one said:

I think decentralization will be good for women but right now everything is still decided centrally, who will run in elections and who will win. Since we know the right wins in (our region), the decision of who runs on the right is the decision of who will be in power. Voters do not make these decisions at the time of election.

This woman’s organization took part in the 2002 regional elections by mobilizing women to vote

and putting up a slate of feminist candidates. The organization won a higher percentage of the

vote than it expected, but not enough to win a seat. On the whole, women’s group leaders saw

regional legislatures as male-dominated and said that regional offices will only help women’s

groups when there are more women in office. Many women’s groups said the early stages of

Polish decentralization are a façade of responsiveness to their demands.

Conclusions

Newly decentralized institutions should expand women’s participation and status in sub-

national political institutions. In this study, I find just the opposite: regional institutions are

gendered, and women who engage in them are masculinized or marginalized. Some women

choose to take masculine personas in the regional legislature to get along. Other women do not

feel regional legislatures are a place where they can bring up women’s issues; experiences of

women who have done so and have been labeled pejoratively “fighting feminists” reinforce these

perceptions. Similarly, some colleagues in regional government and Polish media sources

ridiculed women who hold the bureaucratic post of regional PESW, claiming inequalities do not


exist and the post is unnecessary. Regional politicians rarely contact women’s groups in civil

society. These findings support the notion of a continued backlash against feminism in the post-

communist era (Einhorn 1998; Funk and Mueller 1993; Matland and Montgomery 2003;

Rueschemeyer 1998; Waylen 1994).

Employing qualitative and quantitative methods to test five hypotheses, I find: women

are not equal actors in regional political life (H1); women are not more supportive than men of

other women in office (H2), quotas (H3), or equal status machinery (H4); and women’s groups

in civil society do not have better access to regional governments (H5). In their initial remarks,

regional elites appeared to support women’s equal status in regional institutions. Over the course

of the interviews, however, almost all elites mentioned examples or made statements implying

that women are not equal players, but rather outsiders who upset the working environment.

The increased proximity of sub-national governments to women does not automatically

lead to greater political accessibility for women. Decentralization in emerging democracies is

associated with fewer women in office (Vengroff, Nyiri and Fugiero 2003) and as this study

suggests, lower status and influence of those women who make it. Thus far, decentralization in

Poland has been more accessible for women in regions where leftist parties are stronger and

women’s equality bureaucracies are more firmly established. In regions dominated by the right,

fewer women serve in office, these women tend to have lower status and one finds fewer

feminist groups and scant gender equality policy (see Rincker and Ortbals 2007). Although the

2005 national elections resulted in right-leaning government and changes to Poland’s women’s

equality bureaucracy, there is hope in the rising numbers of women in regional office. As

regional institutions become more established, women’s participation and status may increase in


civil society and equality bureaucracies. Meanwhile, regional institutions, even leftist ones, are

no less gendered than their national counterparts.

NOTES

1 Many suggest that the presence of a critical mass of women (roughly 15% to 20%) determines

whether an institution is male-dominated. Childs and Krook (forthcoming) argue that “critical

acts” of individuals to support gender equality and inclusion matter, rather than the number of

women (also see Dahlerup 1988). Similarly, I argue that studies of regional institutions where

women do not reach a critical mass should not prima facie be male-dominated and are no less

important to understanding the dynamics of when substantive representation occurs.

2 In 1999, a United Nations report found that political decentralization exists in 76% of states

and fiscal decentralization in 41% of states. For details, see Work, Robertson. 2002. Overview

of Decentralization Worldwide: A Stepping Stone to Improved Governance and Human

Development. http://www.undp.org/governance/docs/DLGUD_Pub_overview-decentralisation-

worldwide-paper.pdf. Late 1990s figures show that sub-national governments collect 19% of

revenues and allocate 25% of all state expenditures (Falleti 2005).

3 Like Vengroff, Nyiri and Fugiero (2003), I draw upon studies of women both in local and state

governments that argue women have greater access to sub-national than national politics.

4 For the remainder of this paper, “sub-national political elites” or “regional political elites”

refers to regional parliamentarians, regional bureaucrats, and women’s group leaders.

5 Although the percentage of women in regional parliaments increased in 2002, and 2006, it

remains lower than at the national level. This is despite the presence of proportional

representation elections for provinces, and quotas in three parties (applying to national elections

in 2001; regional elections in 2002). I argue that in emerging democracies, women do not fare


well in new institutions. Particularly in peripheral regions, conservative gender roles persist.

Just as Poland’s newly democratic 1991 Sejm elections produced only 10% women but 10 years

later grew to 20% women, in Poland’s new 1998 regional parliaments, men tended to be party

leaders, and it has taken time for men to actively recruit women to regional posts, and women to

come forward as regional candidates.

6 The Gender Empowerment Measure, a cross-national index which averages indicators of

women’s access to education, politics, and business, Poland scores a 0.518 (between 0 and 1),

and ranks 32nd of 64 countries. Norris and Inglehart (2005) find mass gender attitudes in Poland

to be typical of many post-communist countries, which (along with Latin America) fall between

the progressive Nordic societies/moderate English-speaking countries and more restrictive

Islamic societies. For details, see http://www.undp.org/hdr2003/indicator/indic_207_1_1.html.

7 Article 78 of the 1952 Polish Constitution states “Women have equal rights with men in all

spheres of state, political, economic, social and cultural life.”

8 Currently, 95% of Poles identify as Roman Catholic: 75% of which are practicing Catholics.

Source: CIA World Factbook. “The World Factbook: Poland.”

http://www.capitals.com/print/pl.html. (March 1, 2005).

9 Since 1989, Solidarity successor parties supported decentralization, arguing that it would

invigorate local political participation, increase regional control over spending, and counter the

centralizing tendencies of the previous communist regime. After winning the 1997 elections,

Jerzy Buzek’s AWS government pushed to created 15 (strong) Polish regions. The post-

communist successor party, the Democratic Left Alliance (SLD) wanted 17 (weaker) regions,

and the two sides compromised in 1998 on 16 regions (Yoder 2003). In the 1998 elections, the

Democratic Left Alliance (SLD) won in half of the regions. In the 2002 elections, SLD was


forced to form coalitions with post-Solidarity parties in almost all regions (Glowacki 2003). In

terms of political decentralization, regional parliaments are “independent legal entities with

independent budgets…though they have no tax levying power. They are primarily responsible

for the development and implementation of regional economic policies… and are dependent on

the ‘targeted grants’ and general subsidies from the central government” (Yoder 2003).

10 The data for this study were collected as part of a larger project on decentralization and

women’s representation in Poland in which I conducted 40 semi-structured in four regions of

Poland between April and May of 2004. Drawing on Leech et al (2002) I used a tape recorder

and simultaneous translator, using a male in two regions and a female translator in two regions (a

male and female translator for each interview was prohibitively expensive). Interviews

averaged 45 minutes in length, and will be transcribed on my web site in Spring 2007.

11 From the 16 Polish regions, I surveyed four: Lubelskie, Małopolskie, Mazowieckie, and

Śląskie. King, Keohane and Verba (1994) suggest choosing cases to gain variance on

independent variables. Reynolds (1999) suggests that cultural, structural, and institutional

variables are key determinants of the number of women in national office. Lubelskie and

Malopolskie are more conservative, strongly Catholic regions. Slaskie and Mazowieckie are

heavily industrialized urban centers with stronger support for the Communist successor party

(SLD). In the four regions, I used Internet Web sites and published lists to establish the sample

for the study. For regional parliaments, I used listings of members from each legislature’s Web

site. Research assistants contacted the following people in all four regions: all female members,

all members of the Health Commission, and all presidents and/or vice presidents of the regional

parliaments (which overlapped at times). Health policy was strongly decentralized in 1998, so

the regional bureaucrats interviewed are health bureaucrats. Research assistants contacted the


Patient’s Rights Advocate, Media Spokesperson, or Director’s office to schedule appointments.

I spoke with people at the upper levels of the organization: those most likely to have contacts

with members of regional parliament or groups in civil society. I used a list of women’s groups

published by OsKa in Warsaw.

12 Feminism is “a comprehensive critical response to the deliberate and systematic subordination

of women as a group by men as a group within a given cultural setting” (Offen 2000).

13 Plenipotentiaries for the Equal Status of Women and Men (PESWs) are Polish government

bureaucrats working on gender equality issues. Between 2002 and 2005 there was one regional

PESW in each of 16 regions under national PESW Minister Jaruga-Nowacka. As Fuszara and

Zielinska (2005) note: “the first provincial plenipotentiary in Poland was appointed in Wrocław

in 2002, while most of the others were appointed in 2004.” All the PESWs appointed were

women, and most did not regularly work with equal status issues, but had experience with

European Union integration issues. In interviews regional PESWs commented on the lack of

separate funds [as] the main problem in their work– as most frequently provincial government

budgets do not provide separate funding for such activity.” Despite the PESWs budgetary

challenges, many women’s organizations wrote letters opposing the new Truth and Justice

government’s abolishment of the PESW in 2005. The new office, located in the Ministry of

Labor is focused on the reconciliation of work and family matters. Women’s groups have mixed

responses to the new Undersecretary Joanna Kluzik-Rostkowska, who is a strong advocate for

women’s equal employment opportunities and access to in vitro fertilization, but opposes

expansion of women’s abortion rights or discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation

(Bulletin Legal Issues in Gender Equality 2006, p. 46).


REFERENCES Banaszak, Lee Ann, Karen Beckwith and Dieter Rucht. “When Power Relocates: Interactive

Changes in Women’s Movements and States.” in Women’s Movements and the Reconfigured

State. eds. Lee Ann Banaszak, Karen Beckwith and Dieter Rucht. Cambridge University Press,

2003.

Beall, Jo. 2005. “Decentralizing Government and Decentering Gender: Lessons from Local

Government Reform in South Africa.” Politics & Society 33, No. 2: 253-276. doi:

10.1177/0032329205275194

Beck, Susan Abrams. “Acting as Women: The Effects and Limitations of Gender in Local

Governance.” in The Impact of Women in Public Office, ed. Susan Carroll. Bloomington:

Indiana University Press, 2001.

European Commission on Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunity. 2006. “Bulletin

on Legal Issues in Gender Equality.”

http://ec.europa.eu/employment_social/gender_equality/docs/2006/bulletin06_1_en.pdf.

Accessed February 19, 2007.

Carroll, Susan J. 2001. The Impact of Women in Public Office. Bloomington: Indiana

University Press.

Caul, Miki. 2001. “Political Parties and the Adoption of Candidate Gender Quotas: A Cross

National Analysis.” Journal of Politics 63, No. 4: 1214-1229. doi: 10.1111/0022-3816.00107


Considine, Mark, and Iva Ellen Deutchman. 1996. “Instituting Gender.” Women & Politics 16,

No. 4: 1-19. doi: 10.1300/J014v16n04_01

Dahlerup, Drude. 1988. “From a Small to a Large Minority: Women in Scandinavian Politics.”

Scandinavian Political Studies, 11 No.4: 275-298.

Darcy, R. Susan Welch and Janet Clark. 1994. Women, Elections, and Representation.

University of Nebraska Press.

Della Porta, Donatella. “The Women’s Movement, the Left, and the State: Continuities and

Changes in the Italian Case.” in Women’s Movements and the Reconfigured State, eds. Lee Ann

Banaszak, Karen Beckwith, and Dieter Rucht. Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Duerst-Lahti, Georgia. “Knowing Congress as a Gendered Institution.” in Women Transforming

Congress, ed. Cindy Simon Rosenthal. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2003.

Duerst-Lahti, Georgia. “Institutional Gendering: Theoretical Insights into the Environment of

Women Officeholders.” in Women and Elective Office: Past, Present and Future. eds. Sue

Thomas and Clyde Wilcox. Oxford University Press, 2005.

Eisenstein, Hester. 1996. Inside Agitators: Australian Femocrats and the State. Temple

University Press.


Einhorn, Barbara. 1998. Cinderella Goes to Market: Citizenship, Gender and Women’s

Movements in East Central Europe. 2nd edition. New York: Verso Publications.

Funk, Nanette and Magda Mueller, eds. 1993. Gender Politics and Post-Communism. New

York: Routledge.

Fuszara, Malgorzata. “New Gender Relations in Poland in the 1990s.” in Reproducing Gender:

Politics, Publics, and Everyday life After Socialism, eds. Susan Gal and Gail Kligman. Princeton:

Princeton University Press, 2000.

Fuszara, Malgorzata and Elzbieta Zielinska. 2005. “Gender Mainstreaming Case Studies:

Poland.” Enlargement, Gender and Governance Project.

www.qub.ac.uk/egg/Summaries/Poland-WP6summ.doc.

Glowacki, Wiktor. 2003. “Regionalization in Poland.”

http://lgi.osi.hu/publications/2002/105/Marcou-Poland.pdf.

Greenberg, Marcia. 2001. “Decentralization Creates Openings for Women in Decision-

Making.” African Voices: A Newsletter on Democracy and Governance in Africa, Summer.

Hawkesworth, Mary. 2003. “Congressional Enactments of Race-Gender: Toward a Theory of

Raced-Gendered Institutions.” American Political Science Review 97, No. 4: 529-550.


Inter-Parliamentary Union. 2005. “Women in National Parliaments: Situation as of 28 February

2005.” http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/world.htm. (March 1, 2005).

Jacquette, Jane and Sharon L. Wolchik. 1998. Women and Democracy: Latin American and

Central and Eastern Europe. John Hopkins University Press.

Johnson, Deb with Hope Kabuchu and Santa Vusiya Kayonga. 2003. “Women in Ugandan local

government: the impact of affirmative action.” Gender and Development 11, No. 3: 8-18.

Kanter, Rosabeth Moss. 1977. “Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios

and Responses to Token Women.” American Journal of Sociology 82, No. 5: 965-990.

Kathlene, Lyn. 1994. “Power and Influence in State Legislative Policymaking: the Interaction

of Gender and Position in Committee Hearing Debates.” American Political Science Review 88,

No. 3: 560-576. doi:10.2307/2944795

Kenney, Sally. 1996. “New Research on Gendered Political Institutions.” Political Research

Quarterly 49, No. 2: 445-466.

King, Gary, Robert O. Keohane, and Sidney Verba. 1994. Designing Social Inquiry: Scientific

Inference in Qualitative Research. Princeton University Press.


Leech, Beth. 2002. “Symposium: Interview Methods in Political Science.” PS: Political

Science and Politics 35, No. 4: 663-688.

Litvack, Jennie, Junaid Ahmad and Richard Bird. 1998. Rethinking Decentralization in

Developing Countries. Washington, DC: World Bank.

Lovenduski, Joni and Pippa Norris, eds. 1993. Gender and Party Politics. London: Sage

Publications, 1993.

Luciak, Ilja. 2005. “Party and State in Cuba: Gender Equality in Political Decision-Making.”

Politics & Gender 1, No. 2: 241-263.

Matland, Richard E. and Kathleen A. Montgomery, eds. Women’s Access to Political Power in

Post-Communist Europe. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Mazur, Amy. 2002. Theorizing Feminist Policy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

McGlen, Nancy E. and Meredith Reid Sarkees. “Foreign Policy Decision Makers: The Impact

of Gender.” in The Impact of Women in Public Office, ed. Susan J. Carroll. Indiana University

Press, 2001.


Neylan, Mark and Doug Tucker. “Women in Local Government.” in Gender, Politics &

Citizenship, eds. Barbara Sullivan and Gillian Whitehouse. Sydney: University of New South

Wales Press, 1996.

Nijeholt a Lycklama, Geertje, Virgina Vargas and Saskia Wieringa. 1998. Women’s Movements

and Public Policy in Europe, Latin American and the Caribbean. New York: Garland

Publishing, Inc.

Nowacki, Dawn. “Women in Russian Regional Assemblies: Losing Ground.” in Women’s

Access to Political Power in Post-Communist Europe, eds. Richard E. Matland and Kathleen A.

Montgomery. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

Offen, Karen. 2000. European Feminisms, 1700-1950: A Political History. Stanford University

Press.

Ohene-Konadu, Gifty. 2001. “Gender Analysis and Interpretation of Barriers to Women’s

Participation in Ghana’s Decentralised Local Government System.”

http://www.gdnet.org/fulltext/ohenekonadu.pdf. (October 9, 2006).

Phillips, Anne. 1995. The Politics of Presence. Oxford University Press.

Polish Federation for Women and Family Planning. “Abortion Law.”

http://www.federa.org.pl/english/english1.htm. (October 9, 2006).


Regulska, Joanna. “Women and Power in Poland.” in Women Transforming Politics, ed. Jill

Bystydzienski. Indiana University Press, 1992.

Regulska, Joanna. “Transition to Local Democracy: Do Polish Women Have a Chance?” in

Women in the Politics of Postcommunist Eastern Europe, ed. Marilyn Rueschmeyer. 2nd edition.

Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 1998.

Reingold, Beth. 2000. Representing Women: Sex, Gender, and Legislative Behavior in Arizona

and California. The University of North Carolina Press.

Reinharz, Shulamit and Lynn Davidman, eds. Feminist Methods in Social Research. Oxford

University Press, 1992.

Reynolds, Andrew. 1999. “Women in the Legislatures and Executives of the World: Knocking

at the Highest Glass Ceiling.” World Politics 51, Vol. 4: 547-572.

Rincker, Meg. 2006. Women’s Access to the Decentralized State: the Representation of

Women’s Interests in Polish Regional Governments. Ph.D. Dissertation.

Rincker, Meg and Candice D. Ortbals. 2007. “Leaders or Followers: Engendering Subnational

Governance through Women’s Policy Agencies in Spain and Poland.” Prepared for the 2007

Meeting of the Southern Political Science Association.


Rueschmeyer, Marilyn, ed. Women in the Politics of Postcommunist Europe. 2nd edition.

Armonk: M.E. Sharpe, Inc., 1998.

Siemieńska, Renata. “Women in the Polish Sejm: Political Culture and Party Politics versus

Electoral Rules.” in Women’s Access to Political Power in Post-Communist Europe, Richard

Matland and Kathleen A. Montgomery, eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003.

doi: 10.1093/0199246866.003.0011 Siahaan Asima Yanty. 2004. “Women and Decentralization in Indonesia: Bringing Local

Government Closer to Women?” http://www.policy.hu/siahaan/Policypaper1.htm. (October 9,

2006).

Stetson, Dorothy McBride and Amy Mazur, eds. Comparative State Feminism. London: Sage

Publications, 1995.

Swers, Michelle. 1998. “Are Women More Likely to Vote for Women’s Issue Bills Than Their

Male Colleagues?” Legislative Studies Quarterly 23, No. 3: 435-448.

Thomas, Sue. 1994. How Women Legislate. New York: Oxford University Press.

Thomas, Sue, and Clyde Wilcox, eds. Women and Elective Office: Past, Present, and Future.

New York: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Vengroff, Richard, Zsolt Nyiri and Melissa Fugiero. 2003. “Electoral System and Gender

Representation in Sub-National Legislatures: Is there a National Sub-National Gender Gap?

Political Research Quarterly 56, No. 2: 163-173. doi: 10.2307/3219895


Watson, Peggy. “The Rise of Masculinism in Eastern Europe,” in Mapping the Women’s

Movement, eds. Monica Threlfall and Sheila Rowbotham. London: Verso, 1996.

Waylen, Georgina. 1994. “Women and Democratization: Conceptualizing Gender Relations in

Transition Politics.” World Politics 46, No. 3: 327-354. doi: 10.2307/2950685

Weldon, S. Laurel. 2004. “Beyond Bodies: Institutional Sources of Representation for Women

in Democratic Policymaking.” Journal of Politics 64, No. 4: 1153-1174. doi: 10.1111/1468-

2508.00167

Yoder, Jennifer. 2003. “Leading the Way to Regionalization in East Central Europe: An

Evaluation of Poland’s Territorial and Administrative Reforms.” Meeting Report 279.

http://wwics.si.edu/topics/pubs/MR279Yoder.doc. (July 13, 2005).

Table 1- Percentage of Women Elected to the Polish National Parliament (Sejm), 1952-2005

Years % Women 1952-1956 1956-1961 1961-1965 1965-1969 1969-1972 1972-1976 1976-1980 1980-1985 1985-1989 1989-1991 1991-1993 1993-1997 1997-2000 2001-2004 2005

17 4 3 12 13 16 20 23 20 13 10 13 13 20 20

Adapted from: Fuszara, Malgorzata. “New Gender Relations in Poland in the 1990s.” in Reproducing Gender: Politics, Publics, and Everyday life After Socialism, eds. Susan Gal and Gail Kligman. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2000. and Siemienksa, Renata. “ Women in the Polish Sejm: Political Culture and Party Politics versus Electoral Rules.” in Women’s Access to the Post-Communist State, eds. Richard E. Matland and Kathleen A. Montgomery. Cambridge University Press, 2003. Interparliamentary Union. www.ipu.org.


Table 2- Women Elected to Polish Regional Parliaments (Sejmik Wojewodztwo), 1998 Region

Women in Regional Parliament

Total Membership of Regional Parliament

% Women in Regional Parliament

Dolnośląskie Kujawsko-Pomorskie Lubelskie Lubuskie Łódzkie Małopolskie Mazowieckie Opolskie Podkarpackie Podlaskie Pomorskie Śląskie Świętokrzyskie Warmińsko-Mazurskie Wielkopolskie Zachodniopomorskie Average

4 8 5 2 8 6 13 6 3 2 10 12 1 3 4 6 5.81

55 50 50 45 55 60 80 45 50 45 50 75 45 45 60 45 53

7.0 16.0 8.0 4.4 14.5 10.0 15.0 13.0 6.0 4.4 16.0 16.0 6.6 6.6 7.0 13.0 10.9

Source: Rocznik Statystyczny Wojewodztw. 1999. Glowny Urzad Statystyczny. p. 21 Table 3-Women Elected to Polish Regional Parliaments Sejmik Wojewodztwo), 2002 Region Women in

Regional Parliament Total Membership of Regional Parliament



6 7 6 2 8 7 9 6 2 3 6 7 1 2 4 5 5.06

36 33 33 30 36 39 51 30 33 30 33 48 30 30 39 30 35.06

16.7 21.2 18.2 6.7 22.2 18.0 17.7 20.0 6.1 10.0 18.2 14.6 3.3 6.7 10.3 16.7 14.4

Source: Kancelaria Sejmu Biuro Studiow I Ekspertyz. “Kobiety w gremiach decyzyjnyc.” And Panstwowa Komisja Wyborcza. http://wybory2002.pkw.gov.pl/sejmik/gw2/index.html. (July 11, 2005). Table 4-Women Elected to Polish Regional Parliaments Sejmik Wojewodztwo), 2006 Region Women in

Regional Parliament Total Membership of Regional Parliament



6 5 7 3 6 11 12 4 4 1 7 5 3 7 11 5 6.06

36 33 33 30 36 39 51 30 33 30 33 48 30 30 39 30 35.06

16.7 15.2 21.2 10.0 16.7 28.2 23.5 13.3 12.1 3.3 21.2 10.4 10.0 23.3 28.2 16.7 17.3

Source: Panstwowa Komisja Wyborcza. http://www.pkw.gov.pl/pkw2/index.jsp?place=Menu01&news_cat_id=1929&layout=1. (Febuary 27, 2007).


Table 5- Interview Sample Characteristics Total Women Men Total Interviews Profession Legislator Bureaucrat Women’s Group Other Region Lubelskie Małopolskie Mazowieckie Śląskie Party ID (Legislators) Democratic Left Alliance (SLD)/Labor Union Self-Government Association Civic Platform/Truth and Justice League of Polish Families Self-Defense Freedom Union

40 18 5 14 3 6 15 8 15 6 2 5 1 3 1

27 (67.5) 10 (55.6) 2 (40.0) 14 (100.0) 1 (33.3) 4 (66.7) 9 (60.0) 7 (87.5) 7 (63.6) 3 (50.0) 1 (50.0) 3 (60.0) 0 (0.0) 3 (100.0) 0 (0.0)

13 (32.5) 8 (44.4) 3 (60.0) 0 (0.0) 2 (66.7) 2 (33.3) 6 (40.0) 1 (12.5) 4 (36.4) 3 (50.0) 1 (50.0) 2 (40.0) 1 (100.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (100.0)

Table 6- Regional Elite Attitudes on Gender Equality and Decentralization

Women Men Hypothesis

Hypothesis Accepted/ Rejected1

Total “Yes”/Total Respondents “Yes” “No” “Yes” “No”

1 Regional elites (women and men) will not view women as equals -Women and men different as politicians (Beginning Interview)3

-Women and men different as politicians (End Interview)***+ Type I- Women play different roles*** Type II- Women discriminated against*** Type III- Women don’t support each other***

Accepted

11/29 24/29

19/21

27/33 16/17

9*

15

13 22**

14

9

3

1 1 1

2

9

6 5 2

9

2

1 5 0

2 Female elites more likely support having women in regional government*** Rejected 27/33 19 4 8 2

3 Female regional elites more likely support regional-level quotas for women.

Rejected 14/22 11 5 3 3

4 Female regional elites more likely support regional women’s policy machinery

Rejected 14/20 13 3 1 3

5 Regional elites (female and male) think decentralization empowers women’s groups Note: Regional elites (female and male) support decentralization***

Rejected Accepted

8/22

17/21

7

10

9 4

1 7

4 0

1.Hypotheses accepted or rejected based on significance at the .05 level. Hypotheses 1 and 5 use a two-tailed Binomial test, whether the proportion of respondents answering yes differs significantly from .5. Results are indicated with asterisks (*=.05 level **=.01 level, ***=.001 level) in the “Hypothesis” column. For Hypotheses 2, 3, and 4, I use Fisher’s exact test for group differences. +Difference between responses at the beginning and end of the interview are significant at .001 level. 2.”Are there differences between being a man and being a woman on such issues as style of communication, methods of leadership, political issues one focuses on, or opportunities to advance, or not, and why?” 3. “Do you support having women serving in regional government or not, and why?” 4. “Do you support quotas for women in regional parliaments or not, and why?” 5. “Do you support regional women’s equality bureaucracies or not, and why?” 6. “Do women’s groups have more opportunities because of decentralization or not, and why?” 7. “Do you support decentralizing reforms of 1998 or not, and why?”

masculinized or marginalized - illinois wesleyan … · masculinized or marginalized page 2 of 35...

Documents