To Quota or Not To Quota

Off the back of International Women’s Day (which should be every day am I right?), I’ve 

been thinking a lot about gender equality and how it can actually be achieved. Gender equality in the workplace is something that’s been talked about for at least 15 years now, but not much progress has been made in the UK or US.

‘Controversial’ quotas for women in senior roles have been debated for as long as I can remember. Everyone knows we need more female representation in the House of Commons, and it’s common knowledge that despite the Equal Pay Act of 1970, women still earn significantly less than men. All of these facts are scandals in and of themselves. But what is worse is that these and other factors are acting as barriers to true gender equality. As a feminist, calls for a 50:50 House of Commons, the use of All Women Shortlists (AWS), and quotas for women in senior business roles are a logical and achievable step towards achieving equality. You might be surprised to know that the country with the highest proportion of women in Parliament is Rwada, yes Rwanda. If they can do it, we have no excuse.

So why is the UK holding back? Let’s get in the know about the pros and cons of some forms of affirmative action.

There are already mild forms of affirmative action in the west which encourage more women into positions of power, and out of our comfort zones to places men usually have no problems going to. In the US, Emily’s List is a cross party initiative which trains and puts forward female candidates in elections where traditionally men have won. They have had lots of success stories, with Massachusetts senator Elizabeth Warren benefitting from their aid. In Canada, Invite Her to Run is an initiative of Trudeau’s Liberal Party which allows you to nominate women in your community who is a great leader but who would never think to put herself forward for political office.

Both of these initiatives speak to the problem us ladies have of believing in ourselves. According to the Liberal Party’s initiative, research shows a woman is 50% less likely than a man to consider herself a potential candidate for elected office. Men have no problem in saying, “I’m awesome, people should vote for me”. We have to hear it from somebody else. I think the UK would benefit from a scheme like this. Women need to be told that our skills our transferrable to politics and that it isn’t just about showboating and saying, “I’m awesome!” (Although that helps!). 

But what about more solid forms of affirmative action? Let’s have a look at the evidence

·         Many have claimed that all women shortlists (AWS) reduce the quality of candidates by excluding men, but actually the evidence shows otherwise. Rather than facilitating the entry of unqualified women, much like the American and Canadian initiatives AWS reduce the barriers for well-prepared women. Not only have they proved to produce diligent and active MP’s, they have shown to have positive or neutral effects on party vote shares.

·         Believe it or not, Swedish data even shows some evidence that AWS improve the quality of male candidates too. Recent British examples have seen an improvement in ethnic diversity resulting from AWS.

Nugent and Krook (2015), “All- Women Shortlists: Myths and Realities”, Parliamentary Affairs 1-21

Anyone spotted a downside yet? No, me neither.

·         In the case of quotas, there are mixed findings. Evidence collected from randomised gender quotas in Indian political Institutions showed to increase female leadership, as well as reduce gender discrimination. However gender quotas on corporate boards showed evidence that corporations found ways to circumvent the quotas which ultimately undermined the impact of quotas.

·         More recently, LSE called for gender quotas to be mandatory in professions such as politics, law and communications to bring more women to positions of power. The same study claimed the current state of gender relations “creates dilemmas of work-life balance which are detrimental to women’s quality of life, and to women’s life chances, across social spheres”, and they argue that only radical measures like quotas will spur change.

·         Just last year Catalyst found years of global evidence suggests corporate gender quotas are in fact working where they are used. Countries which introduced quotas came top of the 20 countries with the highest % of female representation in the boardroom. Norway was the first country to introduce mandatory quotas, and it came top of the list, with 35.5% female representation in OMX listed companies.

·         However, here in the quotaless UK, we haven’t even managed to reach our target of 25% female boardroom representation. Instead we lie in 6^th place, with 22.8%. This is more than Germany though, who’s ratio last year was 18.5%, and who this year are introducing a quota for 30%.

Does this index then, suggest that quotas are simply necessary if we have any hope of reaching targets for equal gender representation in corporations? I think quotas are something we have to do if we really are serious about equality. And I would question anyone who thinks such measures aren’t necessary to overcome the inexcusable over representation of men in the most influential positions in society. Ladies, we need to get in the room where it happens!