research:
current projects
women's rights AND GENDER EQUALITY
In this line of work, I explore the impact of development endeavors intended to advance women's rights on gender (in)equality. Exploring this phenomenon across several studies and in relation to a variety of outcomes, this research agenda advances our understanding of how and why different gender and development initiatives succeed or fail.
I. Making Women Visible: How Gender Quotas Shape Global Attitudes towards Women in Politics
When Argentina became the first nation to designate a significant percentage of parliamentary seats for women in 1993, it signaled the start of an explosive global trend: the use of gender quotas to increase women's political inclusion. Consequently, quotas have become a popular strategy for promoting gender equality, appearing in more than 130 nations to date. And although a wealth of literature explores the impact of quotas on women's descriptive (i.e., the number of women in legislatures) and substantive (i.e., the types of policies passed) representation, relatively less is known about their influence on women's symbolic representation (i.e., public attitudes towards women in politics). Moreover, the mechanism through which quotas of different types, features and strength shape beliefs within different contexts is not well understood. Consequently, little is known about how or under what circumstances various quotas advance or undermine women's symbolic representation.
Thus, using four waves of data (1994-2014) from the World Values Survey (WVS) in 87 nations, this paper examines how different national quotas influence beliefs. Drawing upon an original theoretical framework classifying quotas as either weak or robust based on their strength and thus, the visibility they engender, I find that only quotas that produce high visibility are persuasive on beliefs. However, the direction of this persuasion depends on quota type. Whereas candidate quotas are linked to greater public approval of woman politicians, reserved quotas are linked to backlash against women in politics. Building upon work exploring quota effects among different social subgroups (e.g., men versus women) and within certain political environments (e.g., democracies), results additionally suggest that quota effects are particularly pronounced within democracies; however, quota effects are not contingent upon gender. In revealing which elements are more or less likely to positively transform public sentiment towards woman politicians, this paper provides critical insights about how quotas can best be harnessed to advance gender equality.
When Argentina became the first nation to designate a significant percentage of parliamentary seats for women in 1993, it signaled the start of an explosive global trend: the use of gender quotas to increase women's political inclusion. Consequently, quotas have become a popular strategy for promoting gender equality, appearing in more than 130 nations to date. And although a wealth of literature explores the impact of quotas on women's descriptive (i.e., the number of women in legislatures) and substantive (i.e., the types of policies passed) representation, relatively less is known about their influence on women's symbolic representation (i.e., public attitudes towards women in politics). Moreover, the mechanism through which quotas of different types, features and strength shape beliefs within different contexts is not well understood. Consequently, little is known about how or under what circumstances various quotas advance or undermine women's symbolic representation.
Thus, using four waves of data (1994-2014) from the World Values Survey (WVS) in 87 nations, this paper examines how different national quotas influence beliefs. Drawing upon an original theoretical framework classifying quotas as either weak or robust based on their strength and thus, the visibility they engender, I find that only quotas that produce high visibility are persuasive on beliefs. However, the direction of this persuasion depends on quota type. Whereas candidate quotas are linked to greater public approval of woman politicians, reserved quotas are linked to backlash against women in politics. Building upon work exploring quota effects among different social subgroups (e.g., men versus women) and within certain political environments (e.g., democracies), results additionally suggest that quota effects are particularly pronounced within democracies; however, quota effects are not contingent upon gender. In revealing which elements are more or less likely to positively transform public sentiment towards woman politicians, this paper provides critical insights about how quotas can best be harnessed to advance gender equality.
II. USAID Gender and Development Policies
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)--one of the largest gender-focused aid agencies in the world--had a 2022 budget of over 47 billion dollars. Thus, USAID clearly possesses extensive capacity and resources necessary to implement and maintain gender and development projects intended to advance gender equality and women's empowerment worldwide. Yet as an extension of America's arm within the international realm, USAID policies are largely a product of the domestic priorities and (dis)incentives driving American politics--both liberal and illiberal. For instance, despite America's historic (yet dwindling) role in advancing the liberal agenda and its related development priorities, it has also been criticized for being one of only seven countries worldwide that has not ratified yet CEDAW. It has also historically restricted the use of its international aid for abortion, and advanced Western, colonial, stereotypical notions about women in developing nations. In light of these contradictions, this project seeks to answer the following questions: To what extent do USAID projects advance or undermine broader gender and development norms? And which factors most centrally determine USAID's focus--domestic politics or international norms?
In this current work in progress, my coauthors and I answer these questions across a number of papers. One paper, for instance, quantitatively examines how colonial narratives are upheld and disseminated. Drawing upon 107, 269 scraped USAID project reports published between 1961 and 2020, we reveal the magnitude and trajectory of "colonial bias" within USAID. Using word embeddings, we plot the association between "female" keywords and four categories which, together, construct the "Third World Woman" as categorically victimized, exploited, traditional, and fertile. Preliminary results demonstrate significant and increased colonial bias over time. Analyses currently in progress explore which domestic and international factors explain these trends. In another paper currently in progress, we explore USAID's engagement with CEDAW. Time series plots of CEDAW "mentions" in USAID projects suggest increased engagement over time, but particularly after Beijing '95--a widely recognized landmark in the internationalization of women's rights norms. This is surprising given the US's refusal to sign CEDAW. Using the United States as a case of a "false negative" (i.e, when a nation honors the principles of a treaty in practice, but does not ratify the formal documents that enshrine them), this project explores how and why the US engages with CEDAW and the extent to which it advances CEDAW's aims despite its refusal to ratify. We theorize about the implications of this from a norm diffusion and compliance perspective.
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID)--one of the largest gender-focused aid agencies in the world--had a 2022 budget of over 47 billion dollars. Thus, USAID clearly possesses extensive capacity and resources necessary to implement and maintain gender and development projects intended to advance gender equality and women's empowerment worldwide. Yet as an extension of America's arm within the international realm, USAID policies are largely a product of the domestic priorities and (dis)incentives driving American politics--both liberal and illiberal. For instance, despite America's historic (yet dwindling) role in advancing the liberal agenda and its related development priorities, it has also been criticized for being one of only seven countries worldwide that has not ratified yet CEDAW. It has also historically restricted the use of its international aid for abortion, and advanced Western, colonial, stereotypical notions about women in developing nations. In light of these contradictions, this project seeks to answer the following questions: To what extent do USAID projects advance or undermine broader gender and development norms? And which factors most centrally determine USAID's focus--domestic politics or international norms?
In this current work in progress, my coauthors and I answer these questions across a number of papers. One paper, for instance, quantitatively examines how colonial narratives are upheld and disseminated. Drawing upon 107, 269 scraped USAID project reports published between 1961 and 2020, we reveal the magnitude and trajectory of "colonial bias" within USAID. Using word embeddings, we plot the association between "female" keywords and four categories which, together, construct the "Third World Woman" as categorically victimized, exploited, traditional, and fertile. Preliminary results demonstrate significant and increased colonial bias over time. Analyses currently in progress explore which domestic and international factors explain these trends. In another paper currently in progress, we explore USAID's engagement with CEDAW. Time series plots of CEDAW "mentions" in USAID projects suggest increased engagement over time, but particularly after Beijing '95--a widely recognized landmark in the internationalization of women's rights norms. This is surprising given the US's refusal to sign CEDAW. Using the United States as a case of a "false negative" (i.e, when a nation honors the principles of a treaty in practice, but does not ratify the formal documents that enshrine them), this project explores how and why the US engages with CEDAW and the extent to which it advances CEDAW's aims despite its refusal to ratify. We theorize about the implications of this from a norm diffusion and compliance perspective.