ISBN:
9781108525886
,
9781108423359
,
9781108437462
Language:
English
Pages:
1 Online-Ressource (xvii, 211 Seiten)
,
Illustrationen
Parallel Title:
Erscheint auch als
Parallel Title:
Erscheint auch als Profeta, Paola, 1972 - Gender equality and public policy
DDC:
305.42094
Keywords:
Sex discrimination against women
;
Women Employment
;
Women's rights
;
Sex role
;
Sex discrimination against women ; Europe
;
Women ; Employment ; Europe
;
Women's rights ; Europe
;
Sex role ; Europe
Abstract:
Despite formal UN and European Commission commitments to improve gender imbalances, progress towards gender equality in wealth and pay has progressed at a discouragingly slow pace in recent decades. European countries have been more proactive in their support for corrective policies, such as family leave and gender quotas for corporate boards, yet measuring the effectiveness of these policies has proven difficult. This book offers a close comparative analysis of gender-targeted policies in Europe, providing an in-depth overview of how public policy is shaping gender equality, and how the presence of women in the economy and decision-making positions is itself shaping public policy. Paola Profeta bases her analysis on new data and an innovative interdisciplinary perspective for understanding the relationship between gender, equality and public policy, and their final impact on the European economy and society, with lessons that resonate beyond Europe.
Abstract:
"When the introduction of board gender quotas was first discussed in Italy a decade ago, those in favor of quotas relied on nonacademic results from consultancy companies claiming that a higher share of women would "lead" to substantial better performance. The arguments against gender quotas were dominated by the defense of "meritocracy", arguing that quotas contravene meritocracy because they risk promoting less qualified individuals and thus reducing the quality of board members. I was puzzled. The argument in favor was not convincing, since it was based on a simple correlation, which is different from causality. The one against was misplaced: Why do we talk about the quality of women if the quality of men has never been an issue? Moreover, since highly qualified women are abundant, why should the promotion of women reduce quality? At that time, together with some co-authors, I contributed to the production of new evidence in the political sphere, showing in a causal way (i.e., using a rigorous analysis) that the introduction of gender quotas in candidate lists increased - rather than decreased - the quality of elected politicians. The rationale for gender quotas changed: policy-makers stopped using unreliable correlations between female representation and performance to justify gender quotas and realized that gender quotas do not contravene meritocracy but rather enhance it"--
Note:
Title from publisher's bibliographic system (viewed on 08 Apr 2020)
DOI:
10.1017/9781108525886
URL:
Volltext
(URL des Erstveröffentlichers)
URL:
https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108525886
Permalink