On 28th November OxTalks will move to the new Halo platform and will become 'Oxford Events' (full details are available on the Staff Gateway).
There will be an OxTalks freeze beginning on Friday 14th November. This means you will need to publish any of your known events to OxTalks by then as there will be no facility to publish or edit events in that fortnight. During the freeze, all events will be migrated to the new Oxford Events site. It will still be possible to view events on OxTalks during this time.
If you have any questions, please contact halo@digital.ox.ac.uk
Join Zoom Meeting: zoom.us/j/95465830050?pwd=C9bVWTjW7y8dWqi4qED0MgCvVkCrZG.1 (Meeting ID: 954 6583 0050, Passcode: 867678)
Gender quotas are used to elect most of the world’s legislatures. Still, critics contend that quotas are undemocratic, eroding institutional legitimacy. We examine whether quotas diminish citizens’ faith in political institutions. Conducting survey experiments in twelve democracies with 17,000 respondents, we compare the legitimacy-conferring effects of both quota-elected and non-quota-elected local legislative councils relative to all-male councils. We find that women confer legitimacy to political decisions and decision-making processes, including when elected through quotas. Though we observe a quota penalty, wherein citizens prefer gender balance attained without a quota relative to gender balance attained with one, this penalty is often small (and sometimes non-significant), especially in countries with higher-threshold quotas. Quota debates are thus better framed around the most relevant counterfactual: the comparison is not between women’s descriptive representation with and without quotas, but between men’s political dominance and women’s inclusion.
