The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Resolving the Democracy Paradox: Democratization and Women’s Legislative Representation in Developing Nations, 1975 to 2009
Open accessAbstract
Increasing levels of democratic freedoms should, in theory, improve women’s access to political positions. Yet studies demonstrate that democracy does little to improve women’s legislative representation. To resolve this paradox, we investigate how variations in the democratization process—including pre-transition legacies, historical experiences with elections, the global context of transition, and post-transition democratic freedoms and quotas—affect women’s representation in developing nations. We find that democratization’s effect is curvilinear. Women in non-democratic regimes often have high levels of legislative representation but little real political power. When democratization occurs, women’s representation initially drops, but with increasing democratic freedoms and additional elections, it increases again. The historical context of transition further moderates these effects. Prior to 1995, women’s representation increased most rapidly in countries transitioning from civil strife—but only when accompanied by gender quotas. After 1995 and the Beijing Conference on Women, the effectiveness of quotas becomes more universal, with the exception of post-communist countries. In these nations, quotas continue to do little to improve women’s representation. Our results, based on pooled time series analysis from 1975 to 2009, demonstrate that it is not democracy—as measured by a nation’s level of democratic freedoms at a particular moment in time—but rather the democratization process that matters for women’s legislative representation.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Armed Conflict 1946-2001: A New Dataset
GLEDITSCH, N. P., WALLENSTEEN, P., ERIKSSON, M., SOLLENBERG, M., & STRAND, H. (2002) · Journal of Peace Research · doi:10.1177/0022343302039005007 · Cited by 3,846 · cited 1×
“Data on civil strife are from the Uppsala Conflict Data Program (UCDP)/Peace Research Institute Oslo (PRIO) Intrastate Conflict Onset Dataset V.4 (2007) (see Gleditsch et al. 2002).”
Method
Cited by
Women’s Political Empowerment: A New Global Index, 1900–2012
Sundström, A., Paxton, P., Wang, Y.-T., & Lindberg, S. I. (2017) · World Development · doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2017.01.016 · Cited by 292
Civil War and Trajectories of Change in Women's Political Representation in Africa, 1985–2010
Hughes, M. M., & Tripp, A. M. (2015) · Social Forces · doi:10.1093/sf/sov003 · Cited by 197
Bauer, G., & Burnet, J. E. (2013) · Women's Studies International Forum · doi:10.1016/j.wsif.2013.05.012 · Cited by 148
Autocratization Changing Nature?
Alizada, N., Boese, V. A., Lundstedt, M., Morrison, K., Natsika, N., Sato, Y., Tai, H., & Lindberg, S. I. (2022) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4052548 · Cited by 130
Improving Women's Substantive Representation in Community Government: Evidence from Chinese Villages
Sargeson, S., & Jacka, T. (2018) · Development and Change · doi:10.1111/dech.12377 · Cited by 12
Metadata
- Authors
- Fallon, K. M., Swiss, L., & Viterna, J.
- Venue
- American Sociological Review
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2012-05-07
- Volume
- 77
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 380-408
- ISSN
- 0003-1224 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-8271
- OpenAlex
- W2099393405
- Cited by
- 175
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 22.22
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Resolving the Democracy Paradox: Democratization and Women’s Legislative Representation in Developing Nations, 1975 to 2009. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0003122412443365
- The paper
- Fallon, K. M., Swiss, L., & Viterna, J. (2012). Resolving the Democracy Paradox: Democratization and Women’s Legislative Representation in Developing Nations, 1975 to 2009. American Sociological Review. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412443365
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.