Eva Bellin | Brandeis University (original) (raw)
Papers by Eva Bellin
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 2004
Lynne Rienner Publishers eBooks, Jul 1, 2005
Middle East Studies Association Bulletin, Dec 1, 1993
Palgrave Macmillan US eBooks, 2013
Perspectives on Politics, Aug 18, 2017
their bills become laws. At the same time, some important differences remain between men and wome... more their bills become laws. At the same time, some important differences remain between men and women. Women remain underrepresented in cabinet(s) overall and are disproportionately allocated positions that conform to gender stereotypes. Women are especially underrepresented in economics posts, and the female ministers occupying these portfolios are less likely to have prior links to business. With respect to their experiences in office, women are also more likely than men to retire from cabinet(s). Importantly, even when accounting for PCRs, women introduce less legislation than their male counterparts. Escobar-Lemmon and Taylor-Robinson’s theoretical framework, empirical strategy, and results each represent a significant contribution, and Women in Presidential Cabinets will no doubt become required reading for scholars of gender and politics, Latin American politics, executive politics, and political ambition. For gender and politics scholars, the book’s central finding—that women are integrated into male norms—is especially important. On the one hand, the fact that female Cabinet ministers are just as qualified and competent as men provides cause for optimism, particularly given that female politicians often face increased scrutiny concerning their capabilities. On the other hand, the results suggest that women’s entrance into office is unlikely to alter the (often highly gendered) requirements for accessing the Cabinet. In order to receive a portfolio, women will have to conform to masculine norms and expectations. In addition to their contribution to the gender and politics literature, Escobar-Lemmon and TaylorRobinson’s work on PCRs represents a major advance in the study of executive politics more broadly. The authors make many important observations about ministerial backgrounds. Most ministers, for example, do not have personal ties to presidents. Those who do have political connections, moreover, are as likely to have extensive experience related to their posts as ministers without them. The authors’ work on ministers’ treatment in office is also important, particularly their effort to use PCRs to explain subsequent variation in appointees’ experiences. The book provides these overarching analyses while at the same time highlighting country-level differences in the norms concerning qualifications for Cabinet appointments. Just as the theoretical framework and findings represent an important step forward for the literature, EscobarLemmon and Taylor-Robinson’s empirical approach also advances the scholarship on executive politics. The authors provide a novel way to determine the prestige of ministerial portfolios, for example, in their use of survey data to assess the visibility of the post. Likewise, their typology and coding of ministers’ exit from office is especially useful to Cabinet scholars. The book further contributes to the literature by laying the foundation for a new body of scholarship on gender and executive politics. Escobar-Lemmon and TaylorRobinson supplement their quantitative analyses with illustrative examples drawn from across their five cases. Additional research, including interviews with (and/or surveys of) former ministers and their staffs, would further elucidate the ways in which ministers’ backgrounds affect their experiences in office. This includes whether, and in what ways, male and female ministers deploy similar PCRs differently, as well as men’s and women’s beliefs about their treatment within the Cabinet. This additional research could shed further light on the authors’ findings, including their observation that female ministers introduce less legislation than do their male counterparts. Another rich area of research suggested by this work relates to selectors and the government formation process. Escobar-Lemmon and Taylor-Robinson show variation in the types of ministers selected across time and place. Subsequent scholarship could explain this variation, focusing in part on the incentives faced by selectors. In their 2005 article (“Women Ministers in Latin American Governments: When, Where, and Why.” American Journal of Political Science. 49(4): 829-844) EscobarLemmon and Taylor-Robinson show that demand-side factors—including the president’s party and partisan competition—affect women’s presence in office. Their newest work raises the question of the ways in which demand-side factors further affect presidents’ prioritization of different PCRs when assembling their cabinet(s). Finally, the results from this research are likely applicable to other well-established presidential democracies that have comparatively high levels of women in cabinet(s). Future work should consider their generalizability to other systems, particularly parliamentary regimes and countries in which women are not already well represented in cabinet(s). Thankfully, EscobarLemmon and Taylor-Robinson’s book provides a template for conducting this kind of research elsewhere. The significance of…
Political Science Quarterly, 2018
but also distinctive. Indeed, the very process of political incorporation that gives Frymer lever... more but also distinctive. Indeed, the very process of political incorporation that gives Frymer leverage to see how central race was in American expansion also demonstrates American exceptionalism: Jefferson and his inheritors were trying to simultaneously build a republic, a nation, and an empire, albeit only for whites. While Frymer's narrative of weaponized demography can help us make a certain kind of sense of the far-right's chorus of "Blood and Soil!" (illustrating a continuity in racist political thought), the very shock the contemporary reader might feel at the frank racism of Frymer's sources reveals a real (if partial, contested, and never assured) transformation of American national identity. Frymer might argue that midcentury liberals who identified a civic creed of democracy and rights as the core unifying principles of a culturally diverse nation were empirically historically wrong, but they were certainly persuasive. The immigration reforms and civil rights advances of the 1960s have indeed changed America forever. Jefferson's panic about emancipation proved unfounded, and his dream of an all-white nation is dead: there are nonwhite majorities in our two largest states, and there are probably more nonwhite Americans today than there were nineteenth-century Americans in total. The more pressing question today seems to be how well whites can adjust to sharing democratic power in the twenty-first-century American empire.
Political Science Quarterly, 2017
Lynne Rienner Publishers eBooks, Dec 31, 1995
Lynne Rienner Publishers eBooks, Dec 31, 1991
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 2004
Lynne Rienner Publishers eBooks, Jul 1, 2005
Middle East Studies Association Bulletin, Dec 1, 1993
Palgrave Macmillan US eBooks, 2013
Perspectives on Politics, Aug 18, 2017
their bills become laws. At the same time, some important differences remain between men and wome... more their bills become laws. At the same time, some important differences remain between men and women. Women remain underrepresented in cabinet(s) overall and are disproportionately allocated positions that conform to gender stereotypes. Women are especially underrepresented in economics posts, and the female ministers occupying these portfolios are less likely to have prior links to business. With respect to their experiences in office, women are also more likely than men to retire from cabinet(s). Importantly, even when accounting for PCRs, women introduce less legislation than their male counterparts. Escobar-Lemmon and Taylor-Robinson’s theoretical framework, empirical strategy, and results each represent a significant contribution, and Women in Presidential Cabinets will no doubt become required reading for scholars of gender and politics, Latin American politics, executive politics, and political ambition. For gender and politics scholars, the book’s central finding—that women are integrated into male norms—is especially important. On the one hand, the fact that female Cabinet ministers are just as qualified and competent as men provides cause for optimism, particularly given that female politicians often face increased scrutiny concerning their capabilities. On the other hand, the results suggest that women’s entrance into office is unlikely to alter the (often highly gendered) requirements for accessing the Cabinet. In order to receive a portfolio, women will have to conform to masculine norms and expectations. In addition to their contribution to the gender and politics literature, Escobar-Lemmon and TaylorRobinson’s work on PCRs represents a major advance in the study of executive politics more broadly. The authors make many important observations about ministerial backgrounds. Most ministers, for example, do not have personal ties to presidents. Those who do have political connections, moreover, are as likely to have extensive experience related to their posts as ministers without them. The authors’ work on ministers’ treatment in office is also important, particularly their effort to use PCRs to explain subsequent variation in appointees’ experiences. The book provides these overarching analyses while at the same time highlighting country-level differences in the norms concerning qualifications for Cabinet appointments. Just as the theoretical framework and findings represent an important step forward for the literature, EscobarLemmon and Taylor-Robinson’s empirical approach also advances the scholarship on executive politics. The authors provide a novel way to determine the prestige of ministerial portfolios, for example, in their use of survey data to assess the visibility of the post. Likewise, their typology and coding of ministers’ exit from office is especially useful to Cabinet scholars. The book further contributes to the literature by laying the foundation for a new body of scholarship on gender and executive politics. Escobar-Lemmon and TaylorRobinson supplement their quantitative analyses with illustrative examples drawn from across their five cases. Additional research, including interviews with (and/or surveys of) former ministers and their staffs, would further elucidate the ways in which ministers’ backgrounds affect their experiences in office. This includes whether, and in what ways, male and female ministers deploy similar PCRs differently, as well as men’s and women’s beliefs about their treatment within the Cabinet. This additional research could shed further light on the authors’ findings, including their observation that female ministers introduce less legislation than do their male counterparts. Another rich area of research suggested by this work relates to selectors and the government formation process. Escobar-Lemmon and Taylor-Robinson show variation in the types of ministers selected across time and place. Subsequent scholarship could explain this variation, focusing in part on the incentives faced by selectors. In their 2005 article (“Women Ministers in Latin American Governments: When, Where, and Why.” American Journal of Political Science. 49(4): 829-844) EscobarLemmon and Taylor-Robinson show that demand-side factors—including the president’s party and partisan competition—affect women’s presence in office. Their newest work raises the question of the ways in which demand-side factors further affect presidents’ prioritization of different PCRs when assembling their cabinet(s). Finally, the results from this research are likely applicable to other well-established presidential democracies that have comparatively high levels of women in cabinet(s). Future work should consider their generalizability to other systems, particularly parliamentary regimes and countries in which women are not already well represented in cabinet(s). Thankfully, EscobarLemmon and Taylor-Robinson’s book provides a template for conducting this kind of research elsewhere. The significance of…
Political Science Quarterly, 2018
but also distinctive. Indeed, the very process of political incorporation that gives Frymer lever... more but also distinctive. Indeed, the very process of political incorporation that gives Frymer leverage to see how central race was in American expansion also demonstrates American exceptionalism: Jefferson and his inheritors were trying to simultaneously build a republic, a nation, and an empire, albeit only for whites. While Frymer's narrative of weaponized demography can help us make a certain kind of sense of the far-right's chorus of "Blood and Soil!" (illustrating a continuity in racist political thought), the very shock the contemporary reader might feel at the frank racism of Frymer's sources reveals a real (if partial, contested, and never assured) transformation of American national identity. Frymer might argue that midcentury liberals who identified a civic creed of democracy and rights as the core unifying principles of a culturally diverse nation were empirically historically wrong, but they were certainly persuasive. The immigration reforms and civil rights advances of the 1960s have indeed changed America forever. Jefferson's panic about emancipation proved unfounded, and his dream of an all-white nation is dead: there are nonwhite majorities in our two largest states, and there are probably more nonwhite Americans today than there were nineteenth-century Americans in total. The more pressing question today seems to be how well whites can adjust to sharing democratic power in the twenty-first-century American empire.
Political Science Quarterly, 2017
Lynne Rienner Publishers eBooks, Dec 31, 1995
Lynne Rienner Publishers eBooks, Dec 31, 1991