From Descriptive to Substantive Representation of Women in Times of Crisis-The Case of Latin American Countries

Introduction

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has presented a challenge to all countries, causing numerous casualties worldwide. However, countries vary in their ability to control the virus and address the socio-economic vulnerabilities caused by social distancing measures. A UN policy brief (2020) showed that women and girls were disproportionately affected by the pandemic, leading to heightened economic and health inequalities, an increase in unpaid care for women, and an increase in violence against women. This highlights the necessity of incorporating a gender perspective into policymaking during times of crisis to address these vulnerabilities.

In recent decades, countries have shown a gradual expansion in the number of women in their national parliaments (World Bank, 2022). In turn, we attempt to determine whether this increase in female representation has resulted in greater gender sensitivity in policymaking or, in other words, an increase in the substantive representation of women. The aim of this study was to reinforce the existing body of research by providing further evidence that descriptive representation can, in fact, contribute to an increase in the representation of the interests of marginalized groups, in this case, women. We do this by conducting a study that examines the gender-sensitive policy responses introduced in 179 countries using the UNDP and UN Women’s COVID-19 Global Gender Response Tracker Policy Measures dataset. This study investigated the relationship between these policies and the proportion of women holding parliamentary positions by conducting regression analysis using ordinary least squares (OLS) and two-stage least squares (2SLS) models.

Based on the findings of our empirical research, we expanded our analysis to Latin America, which has been severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The region’s weak socio-economic situation has worsened, with a drastic 9.1% contraction in GDP in 2020 and rising poverty levels (Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean (ECLAC), 2020). With over 60% of the population engaged in informal work, the region struggled to contain the virus through social distancing measures (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), 2020). Women, who comprise a high proportion of informal workers in Latin America, were categorized as one of the most vulnerable populations during the pandemic, according to the Pan American Health Organization. We further investigated the impact of female parliamentary representation, which is notably high in Latin American countries, on the implementation of gender-sensitive policies in these nations. We contribute to the existing literature by elaborating on the descriptive and substantive representation nexus of women during the COVID-19 pandemic, using a dataset that includes context-specific policy measures for numerous countries. Additionally, our findings on Latin America and the Caribbean provide new grounds for further research on the role of female leaders in promoting gender equality.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. We begin with a literature review of prior research on female political participation and the implementation of gender-specific policies, along with an overview of relevant studies conducted in the Latin American region. Subsequently, we provide details about the dataset and variables employed in our research, followed by an explanation of the analytical framework. We then present the empirical results derived from our regression analyses and discuss the findings both in a general context and with a specific focus on Latin America.

Analytical Framework and Data

This study attempts to understand the relationship between descriptive and substantive representation of women by examining the proportion of females participating in politics and its effects on policy outcomes. In particular, their participation has contributed to gender-sensitive measures in the context of the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic. During the first year since COVID-19 was first introduced, studies have found the negative impacts that this pandemic has had on women, especially in terms of economic impact, health, unpaid work, and violence against women and girls (VAWG) during lockdowns (Azcona et al., 2020). In this regard, we propose the following basic argument. Due to the negative side effects of COVID-19 on women, countries that have more women in parliament––descriptive representation––tend to introduce more gender-sensitive policies-substantive representation.

For this research, we used cross-sectional data retrieved from the UNDP and UN Women’s COVID-19 Global Gender Response Tracker Policy Measures Dataset, updated on November 11, 2021. The analyzed period ranged from January 4, 2020, to October 5, 2021, during the pandemic. The dataset includes policies from 224 countries. However, this study draws upon 179 country observations for its analysis, with 45 countries excluded either because of insufficient data availability or the absence of gender-sensitive policies within those countries.

The dataset compiles COVID-19 response policies in the areas of economic and financial support, the labor market, social protection, and violence against women. Of the 4,968 policies, 1,605 were classified as gender sensitive, meaning that they directly target women’s needs, such as economic security, unpaid care, and protection from physical violence (Table 1).

Table 1

Data Summary

Table 1 summarizes the non-gendered and gender-sensitive policies in the COVID-19 Global Gender Response Tracker Policy Measures Dataset. Of the 4,968 policies, 17% were gender sensitive, with the largest share being violence against women. Notably, 20% of the social protection policies and 14% of the economic support policies were gender sensitive.

Table 2 presents descriptive statistics for the number of policies introduced by each of the 179 countries. Gender-sensitive policies were further categorized into the following subcategories: business and entrepreneurs, labor market, social protection, VAWG, women’s economic security, and policies directly supporting unpaid care. The main dependent variables in this study are the total number of gender-sensitive policies and their subcategories, as the aim is to examine which countries have implemented the most gender-sensitive policies.

Table 2

Descriptive Statistics

On average, these countries have introduced 8.64 gender-sensitive policies (Table 2). However, there is a large variation in the number of gender-sensitive policies among countries, with some countries having only one, whereas another country (Argentina) has 36. The standard deviation was 6.32. For each of the policy categories, business, labor market, social protection, and VAWG––the average number of policies introduced was 0.78, 0.84, 2.37, and 4.65, respectively––with the highest being for policies targeting VAWG. However, there was more variation among countries in terms of policy implementation than in the other three categories.

Our main independent variable was the proportion of seats held by women in national parliament. Data for this variable were obtained from the World Bank database for the latest year available for the countries of interest. According to the World Bank, this variable is the percentage of parliamentary seats held by women within a single chamber or lower. We found large variations in the main independent variables for the countries in our sample. The standard deviation for the proportion of women in national parliaments is 12.26. While there are three countries with no women in their national parliaments––Micronesia, Papua New Guinea, and Vanuatu––on the opposite pole, Rwanda has up to 61.25%.

Figure 1 shows the relationship between the percentage of women in the national parliament and the total number of gender-sensitive policies introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic. We observed a positive correlation between these two variables. For this study, we have added the labels of countries with both high gender-sensitive policies and a high proportion of women participating in politics (Argentina, Costa Rica, South Africa, Belgium, Bolivia, Mexico, and Spain, among others), which are located on the upper right side of the scatter plot. Additionally, we labeled those with a high number of gender-sensitive policies introduced but with low female political participation (Chile and Colombia). In the case of Rwanda and Cuba, we observed a high proportion of seats held by women in parliament, yet these two countries failed to introduce a significant number of gender-sensitive policies during the period analyzed. Interestingly, these findings illustrate the variation that exists within Latin America, either supporting or contradicting our hypotheses. The results of these preliminary findings will be briefly addressed in the following sections to provide the groundwork for further research on the causal relationship between women in parliament and gender sensitivity in policymaking.

Figure 1.

Correlation between proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments (%) and gender-sensitive policies introduced during COVID-19.

Figure 2 shows the relationship between the proportion of women in national parliaments and the number of gender-sensitive policies in the following subcategories: business and entrepreneurs, labor market, social VAWG, and policies dealing with women’s economic security and unpaid care. The countries in our sample vary in the number and type of policies introduced. However, the findings show a positive and significant correlation for all categories, except for policies destined for businesses and entrepreneurs, which show a negative correlation. These preliminary results suggest that countries with a high proportion of women in parliament have, in fact, introduced a high number of policies in the areas of labor market, social protection, VAWG, and unpaid care during the period studied.

Figure 2.

Correlation between the proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments (%) and the subcategories

Empirical Model and Results

To examine the relationship between the proportion of female politicians and the number of gender-sensitive policies implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic, we conducted regression analysis using OLS and 2SLS models. Our sample consists of 179 countries from the UNDP-UN Women’s COVID-19 Global Gender Response Tracker Policy Measures dataset. Eq. (1) illustrates the main model for the OLS estimation as follows:

Where Gender-Sensitive Policies is the number of gender-sensitive policies of each country in our sample, Women in Parliament is the proportion of women in parliament, Female Leader is a dummy variable indicating whether a female leader is in power at the time of the research, and CONTROLS is a set of control variables. The control variables used are log of gross domestic product per capita (GDPPC), Total Policies, Global Freedom Score, and a Latin American dummy variable defined as Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) in our regressions. The female leader dummy had a value of “1” if the country was led by a female president or prime minister and “0” if not. Data on GDPPC were obtained from the World Development Indicators for the latest available years. The total policy variable was calculated by subtracting the gender-sensitive policies of each country from the total number of policies introduced. The Latin American dummy, which included 32 countries⁴ in the region, had a value of “1” if the country was in the Latin American and Caribbean region and “0” otherwise.

The Global Freedom Score, which is presented in the annual report by Freedom House, assesses the political and civil liberties of all individuals, including minority groups such as the LGBT+ community, women, and ethnic minorities. This measure goes beyond the analysis of political aspects and includes specific features of political participation and human rights. It provides a more comprehensive view of individual rights and freedoms than the Global Gender Gap index proposed by the World Economic Forum, which focuses only on economic, political, health, and educational aspects of gender inequality.

To address the issue of possible endogeneity in our cross-sectional regression, we utilized a 2SLS regression model and employed the gender quota as an instrumental variable (IV), shown in Eq. (2), which illustrates the first stage of the 2SLS. Gender quota data were obtained from the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance website’s gender quota database. This instrumental variable examines whether a country has implemented a gender quota in its parliament. If a country has implemented a gender quota, the variable takes the value of “1,” and “0” if it has not. Gender quota is a suitable instrumental variable for our analysis because it satisfies three main properties: first, it is not included in our main regression model; second, women in parliament and the gender quota are positively and significantly correlated; and third, the instrumental variable is not correlated with the error term in our original regression.

Table 3 presents the regression analysis results. In Column 1, we examine the relationship between the number of gender-sensitive policies and the proportion of women in parliament while controlling for the log of GDP per capita and the total number of non-gendered policies. Our findings show that the percentage of women in national parliaments had a positive and statistically significant impact (0.109, p < 0.01) on the number of gender-sensitive policies introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic. This aligns with previous research, which suggests that a higher representation of women in parliament leads to greater consideration of gender issues and the enactment of new laws that better address women’s needs and rights. During the COVID-19 pandemic, women politicians may have brought unique perspectives on gender issues, and their presence has helped raise awareness and increase public discourse on these matters. Consequently, laws that protect women and address gender-based violence, discrimination, and other issues affecting women during the pandemic are likely to be enacted. In Column 3, we also included the Female Leader dummy, expecting female leaders to introduce more gender-sensitive policies. However, our results indicate that female presidents or prime ministers did not significantly influence the introduction of gender-sensitive policies during the pandemic.

Table 3

Determinants of Gender-Sensitive Policies

Additionally, our findings indicate a negative correlation between a country’s GDP per capita and the introduction of gender-sensitive policies during the COVID-19 pandemic. This may suggest that higher-income countries had less need to address the disproportionate impact of the pandemic on women through specific laws and policies or that the negative impact on women was less severe in these countries. The coefficient of Total Policies shows that countries that introduced a higher number of policies during the COVID-19 pandemic also introduced more gender-sensitive policies.

Column (5) shows the Global Freedom Index, which gauges the degree of civil liberties and political rights in each country. These results indicate that countries with higher degrees of freedom have introduced more gender-sensitive policies. This could be due to increased pressure on policymakers to implement such policies from citizens participating in the political process or media. Despite controlling for this variable, the proportion of women in parliament still had a significant impact on the number of gender-sensitive policies introduced.

In Column (7), we added a dummy for the LAC. After conducting separate regressions for all seven regional classifications⁵, we found that only Latin American countries showed significant results. This region introduced 3.56 more gender-sensitive policies, which will be discussed in later sections. All four OLS regressions showed that the total number of non-gender-sensitive policies was significant at the 1% level.

The results of the 2SLS regression models using gender quota as an instrumental variable are reported in Columns (2), (4), (6), and (8). Comparing Columns (1) and (2), we observe that the coefficient of the percentage of women in parliament increases from 0.109 to 0.238 when we use the 2SLS. Despite being less significant than in the OLS regression, the coefficient is larger. This result remained even when other explanatory and control variables were included. Our findings, using the IV-2SLS method, suggest that the percentage of women in parliament has a significant impact on the number of gender-sensitive policies introduced by the country during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, OLS estimation may underestimate the actual effect.

Table 4 presents the results of the regression analyses for the subcategories of gender-sensitive policies introduced during the COVID-19 pandemic. The impact of women in parliament on gender-sensitive policies varies across subcategories. Women in parliament have a positive and significant effect on the introduction of policies in the categories of labor market, social protection, violence against women, and unpaid care, which is expected, as women were disproportionately affected in these areas. However, the impact of women in parliament on economic security was not significant, even though the coefficient had the right sign.

Table 4

Determinants of Policies by Subcategory

In the case of business and entrepreneurial policies, the coefficient was negative and not significant. This may be due to the fact that most business and entrepreneur-related policies were gender-neutral, as COVID-19 had a similar impact on both men and women in business.

The Global Freedom Index had positive and significant effects only in the categories of violence against women and unpaid care. This may be because citizens with greater civil liberties and political rights aim to protect the most vulnerable individuals in society. The coefficient of GDP per capita was negative for all categories. As previously stated, this could be due to the fact that countries with higher GDP per capita had less urgency to address the unequal effects of the pandemic on women through legislation and policies or that the pandemic had a less severe impact on women in these countries.

In Table 5, when we introduce the Latin American dummy variable into the previous regressions, we observe the following results: The Latin American dummy variable was positive and significant in most cases. However, for unpaid care, the coefficient of the Latin American dummy variable was negative. The coefficients of the other variables did not change significantly with the inclusion of this variable. We can conclude that given equal conditions, Latin American countries introduced more gender-sensitive policies in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Table 5

Determinants of Policies by Subcategory with LAC Dummy

The Case of Latin America

The results of the empirical analysis showed that countries with a high proportion of women in parliament introduced more gender-sensitive policies during the pandemic. This finding supports the idea that a higher representation of women in parliament leads to greater consideration of gender issues and the implementation of laws that better address women’s needs and rights. Furthermore, it was observed that Latin American countries introduced a larger number of gender-sensitive policies than other regions, which may be due to a more severe or disproportionate impact of COVID-19 on women in the region or a lack of institutional preparedness.

The regression models for specific policy categories indicate that after controlling for other factors, Latin American countries have adopted more gender-sensitive policies in the areas of the labor market, violence against women, and women’s economic security. However, few policies directly supporting unpaid care have been introduced. This highlights the complexity and variability of gender-sensitive policy responses during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The high number of gender-sensitive policies in the labor market and women’s economic security may be due to the disproportionate loss of jobs and income experienced by women in Latin America during the pandemic. According to a report published by the United Nations ECLAC, the pandemic has had a disproportionate impact on women’s employment in the region, as women are overrepresented in industries such as tourism and hospitality that were severely affected. This has led to greater job losses and income insecurity among women. Furthermore, the increase in unpaid care work within households because of social distancing measures has added to the burden on women and had a negative impact on their participation in the labor force (OECD, 2020).

The large number of policies related to violence against women in this region may be partly attributable to the high number of domestic workers. Domestic workers often have limited access to resources and support networks, particularly during a pandemic. They may also have limited legal protection and may be afraid to report abuse for fear of losing their jobs or facing retaliation (ECLAC, 2020). Power imbalances in employer–employee relationships also make it difficult for domestic workers to assert their rights and escape abusive situations, making them more vulnerable to domestic violence. Therefore, laws and policies have been implemented to protect women from violence.

The low number of policies supporting unpaid care work may be due to the traditional view that care work, such as cooking, cleaning, and caring for children and elderly relatives, is a private and personal responsibility rather than a public issue. This has limited the recognition of the importance of unpaid care and the need for policies to support it. In many Latin American countries, traditional gender norms assign women a primary role in care work, perpetuating the idea that it is not a public issue requiring policy intervention.

As shown in Figure 3, the results of the regression analysis indicate that most Latin American countries fit the model reasonably well; however, there are two deviations: Argentina and Cuba. Although both countries have a high proportion of women in national parliaments (40.9% in Argentina and 53.2% in Cuba), Argentina has introduced a greater number of gender-sensitive policies in comparison to other neighboring countries and the total samples analyzed. However, despite having the highest proportion of women in national parliaments, Cuba has implemented only eight gender-sensitive policies. The following section offers potential, but not definitive, explanations for this deviation from the regression model’s predictions for the two countries.

Figure 3.

Regression results of LAC countries by number of gender-sensitive policies introduced.

Conclusions

Numerous attempts have been made to explain the relationship between descriptive and substantive representation of gender issues (Bhalotra & Clots-Figuieras, 2014; Costa et al., 2013; Davis, 1997; Devlin & Elgie, 2008; Lloren & Rosset, 2017; Wang, 2013). This study attempted to add to the existing body of literature by examining the relationship between the descriptive representation of women and the effect this had on their substantive representation during the COVID-19 pandemic. We used data from the UNDP’s COVID-19 Global Gender Response Tracker Policy Measures Dataset. The findings suggest that a higher representation of women in parliament led to an increase in gender-sensitive policies enacted during the pandemic. This can be attributed to women politicians bringing unique perspectives on gender issues, raising awareness, and sparking public discourse. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the presence of women in parliament helped ensure that laws were enacted to protect women and address gender-based violence, discrimination, and other issues affecting women.

Additionally, the study found that Latin American countries introduced a significantly larger number of gender-sensitive policies, which we further analyzed by breaking down the policies into subcategories. However, we also observe that these results vary significantly among countries within the LAC and among the subcategories within gender-sensitive policies. To explain some of these variations, we looked into the particular cases of Argentina and Cuba.

In the case of Argentina, we argue that among the many existing factors, institutional and legislative support has been influential in not only increasing the absolute number of women in parliament but also in empowering these politicians. This empowerment may be reflected in the number of gender-sensitive policies introduced during the study period. In Cuba, a lack of institutional strength and a discouraging cultural environment that systematically discriminates against women may have been driving forces limiting the implementation of gender-specific policies during this pandemic despite the high proportion of women in parliament. In Latin America, women have been disproportionately affected by COVID-19. This exposes the vulnerabilities that persist in the region despite the gradual increase in women’s political representation (World Bank, 2022). Based on our findings, we conclude that although increased descriptive representation in parliament has been crucial for increasing the substantive representation of women’s interests, there are other factors besides these that have contributed to implementing policies targeting women in Latin America. This is consistent with the findings of Sacchet (2008) and Peschard (2003).

This study is the first to analyze the relationship between increased female representation in parliament and the implementation of female-focused policies in the specific context of the COVID-19 pandemic using the database provided by the UNDP. Previous studies have broadly addressed the issues of descriptive and substantive representation. However, we have tried to further examine how this relationship changes during a global crisis. Nevertheless, this study has several limitations. We attempted to provide an overall pattern of linkages between female political participation and their representation. However, there was enormous variation within the regions and among the countries included in our dataset. To provide a comprehensive picture of the relationship between these two variables, it is necessary to conduct in-depth and more specific country-level studies. Although we include a brief analysis of two contrasting countries (Argentina and Cuba) to address this issue, we acknowledge that this reveals only a small fraction of the whole picture. Future research could build on our findings and delve deeper into the specific factors that affect female representation during crises.

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea’s Brain Korea 21 FOUR Program “Cultivating the Next Generation of Academic Leaders in Interdisciplinary Studies of International Area and Development Cooperation for a New National Strategy” at the Graduate School of International Studies, Seoul National University.

References

• Azcona, G., Bhatt, A., Encarnacion, J., Plazaola-Castaño, J., Seck, P., Staab, S., & Turquet, L. (2020). From Insights to Action: Gender Equality in the Wake of COVID-19. United Nations Entity for Gender Equality and the Empowerment of Women (UN Women).
• Barnes, T. D. (2012). Gender and legislative preferences: Evidence from the Argentine provinces. Politics & Gender, 8(4), 483–507. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X12000505]
• Bhalotra, S., & Clots-Figueras, I. (2014). Health and the political agency of women. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 6(2), 164–197. [https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.6.2.164]
• Carozzi, F., & Gago, A. (2023). Who promotes gender-sensitive policies? Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 206, 371–405. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2022.11.031.]
• Chattopadhyay, R., & Duflo, E. (2001). Women as policy makers: Evidence from a randomized policy experiment in India. Econometrica, 72(5), 1409–1443. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2004.00539.x]
• Chen, L. J. (2013). Do female politicians influence public spending? Evidence from Taiwan. International Journal of Applied Economics, 10(2), 32–51.
• Chen, M. A. (2001). Women in the informal sector: A global picture, the global movement. SAIS Review, 21(1), 71–82. [https://doi.org/10.1353/sais.2001.0007]
• Coscieme, L., Fioramonti, L., Mortensen, L. F., Pickett, K. E., Kubiszewski, I., Lovins, H., Mcglade, J., Ragnarsdóttir, K. V., Roberts, D., Costanza, R., De Vogli, R., & Wilkinson, R. (2020). Women in power: Female leadership and public health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. medRxiv. [https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.13.20152397 (preprint)]
• Costa, M., Sawer, M. & Sharp, R. (2013) Women acting for women, International Feminist Journal of Politics, 15(3), 333–352. [https://doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2012.714119]
• Craske, N. (1999). Women and politics in Latin America. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
• Cunial, S. L. (2021). Do more female politicians translate into better health outcomes? Gender representation and infant mortality in Argentine provinces. World Medical & Health Policy, 13(2), 349–372. [https://doi.org/10.1002/wmh3.411]
• Davis, R. H. (1997). Women and Power in Parliamentary Democracies: Cabinet Appointments in Western Europe, 1968-1992. Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
• Devlin, C. & Elgie, R. (2008). The effect of increased women's representation in parliament: The case of Rwanda. Parliamentary Affairs, 61(2), 237–254. [https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsn007]
• Downs, J. A., Reif, L. K., Hokororo, A., & Fitzgerald, D. W. (2014). Increasing women in leadership in global health. Journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges, 89(8), 1103–1107. [https://doi.org/10.1097/ACM.0000000000000369]
• ECLAC. (2020, August 19). Care in Latin America and the Caribbean during the COVID-19: Towards comprehensive systems to strengthen response and recovery. ECLAC. Retrieved May 3, 2022, from https://www.cepal.org/en/publications/45917-care-latin-america-and- caribbean-during-covid-19-towards-comprehensive-systems
• Gago, A., & Carozzi, F. (2020). Do female leaders promote gender-sensitive policies? SSRN Electronic Journal. [https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3716566]
• Gray, T. (2003). Electoral gender quotas: Lessons from Argentina and Chile. Bulletin of Latin American Research, 22(1), 52–78. [https://doi.org/10.1111/1470-9856.00064]
• Jones, M. (1996) Increasing women’s representation via gender quotas: The Argentine Ley de Cupos. Women & Politics, 16(4), 75–98. [https://doi.org/10.1300/J014v16n04_04]
• Jones, M. (1997). Legislator gender and legislator policy priorities in the Argentine Chamber of Deputies and the United States House of Representatives. Policy Studies Journal, 25(4), 613–629. [https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.1997.tb00045.x]
• Jones, M. P., & Navia, P. (1999). Assessing the effectiveness of gender quotas in open-list proportional representation electoral systems. Social Science Quarterly, 80(2), 341–355.
• Jovani, A., Subono, N. I. & Suyanto I. (2020). Women in the parliament and their role in formulating gender responsive policies in East Nusa Tenggara. Journal of Social and Political Sciences, 3(4),1043–1062. [https://doi.org/10.31014/aior.1991.03.04.236]
• Lloren, A., & Rosset, J. (2017). Gendered policy preferences? Candidates’ views on political issues in a comparative perspective. Comparative European Politics, 15(6), 944–968. [https://doi.org/10.1057/cep.2015.4]
• Luciak, I. A. (2005). Party and state in Cuba: Gender equality in political decision making. Politics & Gender, 1(02), 241–263. [https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X05050063]
• Mansbridge, J. (1999). Should blacks represent blacks and women represent women? A contingent “yes”. The Journal of Politics, 61(3), 628–657. [https://doi.org/10.2307/2647821]
• Maqueira, A. & Torres, A. (2021). Cuba in the time of Covid-19: Untangling gendered consequences. Agenda, 35(4), 117–128. [https://doi.org/10.1080/10130950.2021.2012061]
• Marwell, G., & Oliver, P. (1993). The Critical Mass in Collective Action. New York: Cambridge University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511663765]
• O’Brien, D. Z., & Piscopo, J. M. (2019). The Impact of Women in Parliament. In S. Franceschet, M. L. Krook & N. Tan. (Eds.). The Palgrave handbook of women’s political rights (pp. 53–72). London: Palgrave Macmillan. [https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-59074-9_4]
• OECD. (2020, November 11). COVID-19 in Latin America and the Caribbean: An Overview of Government Responses to the Crisis. OECD. Retrieved July 11, 2022, from https://www.oecd.org/coronavirus/policy-responses/covid-19-in-latin-america-and-the-caribbean-an-overview-of-government-responses-to-the-crisis-0a2dee41, /
• ONEI (2016). Encuesta Nacional sobre Igualdad de Género ENIG. Retrieved March 8, 2022, from http://www.onei.gob.cu/node/14271
• Peschard, J. (2003). The quota system in Latin America: General overview. Paper presented at the Regional Workshop on ‘The Implementation of Quotas: Latin American Experience’, IDEA Lima Peru 23-4 February.
• Phillips, A. (1995). Politics of Presence. New York: Clarendon.
• Phillips, A. (1998). Democracy and representation: Or, why should it matter who our representatives are? In Feminism and Politics (pp. 224–240). Oxford: Oxford University Press. [https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198782063.003.0011]
• Phillips, A. (2007). Multiculturalism without Culture. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press
• Piscopo, J. M. (2014). Beyond hearth and home: female legislators, feminist policy change, and substantive representation in Mexico. Revista Uruguaya de Ciencia Política, 23(2), 104–127.
• Pitkin, H. F. (1967). The concept of representation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. [https://doi.org/10.1525/9780520340503]
• Priyanka, S. (2020). Do female politicians matter for female labor market outcomes? Evidence from state legislative elections in India. Labour Economics, 64. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2020.101822]
• Sacchet, T. (2008). Beyond Numbers: The impact of gender quotas in Latin America. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 10(3), 369–386. [https://doi.org/10.1080/14616740802185700]
• STATISTA. (2020), Growth of domestic violence and sexual abuse reports during the COVID-19 lockdown in selected Latin American Countries as of April 2020, Retrieved March 3, 2022, from https://www.statista.com/statistics/1113975/gender-violence-growth-coronavirus-latin-america, /
• Swigonski, M. E. (1994). The logic of feminist standpoint theory for social work research. Social Work, 39(4), 387–393. [https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/39.4.387]
• Wang, V. (2013). Women changing policy outcomes: Learning from pro-women legislation in the Ugandan parliament. In Women’s Studies International Forum, 41, 113–121. Pergamon. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wsif.2013.05.008]
• Windsor, L. C., Yannitell R., G., Windsor, A. J., Ostergard, R., Allen, S., Burns, C., Giger, J., & Wood, R. (2020). Gender in the time of COVID-19: Evaluating national leadership and COVID-19 fatalities. PLoS ONE, 15(12), e0244531. [https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0244531]
• World Bank, World Development Indicators. (2022). Proportion of seats held by women in national parliaments (%). Retrieved March 20, 2022, from https:// data.worldbank.org/indicator/SG.GEN.PARL.ZS
• Young, I. M. (2000). Inclusion and Democracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Zetterberg, P. (2009). Do gender quotas foster women’s political engagement? Lessons from Latin America. Political Research Quarterly, 62(4), 715–730. [https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912908322411]