Cited by 652Gender Politics and RepresentationHistorical Gender and Feminism StudiesSocial Policy and Reform Studies

The Civic Origins of Progressive Policy Change: Combating Violence against Women in Global Perspective, 1975–2005

HTUN, MALA, WELDON, S. LAUREL·2012·American Political Science Review

Abstract

Over the past four decades, violence against women (VAW) has come to be seen as a violation of human rights and an important concern for social policy. Yet government action remains uneven. Some countries have adopted comprehensive policies to combat VAW, whereas others have been slow to address the problem. Using an original dataset of social movements and VAW policies in 70 countries over four decades, we show that feminist mobilization in civil society—not intra-legislative political phenomena such as leftist parties or women in government or economic factors like national wealth—accounts for variation in policy development. In addition, we demonstrate that autonomous movements produce an enduring impact on VAW policy through the institutionalization of feminist ideas in international norms. This study brings national and global civil society into large-n explanations of social policy, arguing that analysis of civil society in general—and of social movements in particular—is critical to understanding progressive social policy change.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0003055412000226

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The Catalan feminist movement has been traditionally skeptical of the institutional arena, resulting in an autonomous movement.

    “In addition, the Catalan feminist movement has been traditionally skeptical of the institutional arena (Alonso, 2018), resulting in an autonomous movement (Htun & Weldon, 2012).”
  • Various gender equality policy sub-issues are characterized by different policy dynamics, including diverse patterns of actor dynamics, different dynamics of political representation, institutional friction and veto points, and this may result in differences in policy attention.

    “It has been argued earlier that various gender equality policy sub-issues are characterized by different policy dynamics, including diverse patterns of actor dynamics, different dynamics of political representation, institutional friction and veto points, and that this may result in differences in policy attention (Annesley, Engeli, & Gains, 2015;Htun & Weldon, 2012;McBride & Mazur, 2010).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
HTUN, M., & WELDON, S. L.
Affiliations
  • University of New Mexico (US)
  • Purdue University West Lafayette (US)
Corresponding author
  • HTUN, MALA
  • WELDON, S. LAUREL
Venue
American Political Science Review
Published
2012-07-30
Volume
106
Issue
3
Pages
548-569
ISSN
  • 0003-0554 (ISSN-L)
  • 1537-5943
OpenAlex
W2146959151
Cited by
652
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 35 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 53 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 67 · 2021: 46 · 2020: 72 · 2019: 74 · 2018: 49 · 2017: 41 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 45 · 2014: 37 · 2013: 26
FWCI
84.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • American Political Science Review (publishedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Gender Politics and Representation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Historical Gender and Feminism Studies
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Social Policy and Reform Studies
Keywords
violence against women, feminist activism, social movements, civil society, policy change, institutionalization, human rights, women's rights policy, cross-national comparison

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review