Women's political participation: A comparative study of gender quota implementation in six Western Balkan countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Women’s political participation has increased globally over the course of the 21st century. However, this positive development is less reflected in countries in development, as women continue to rely heavily on affirmative measures such as gender quotas to enter politics. The lack of women’s political participation disrupts human rights and undermines democracy. This study aims to provide a comparative analysis of gender quota regimens on women’s political participation in the six Western Balkans countries: Albania, Bosnia and Hercegovina, Kosovo, Montenegro, North Macedonia, and Serbia. Qualitative research case study methods were used to analyze the policies on the implementation of gender quotas. The findings show that (i) six countries subject to this study have legislated gender quotas for women’s political representation, requiring 30-40% women’s representation in electoral lists (ii) the implementation of gender quotas has ensured positive women’s numerical representation in legislated bodies and (iii) the quotas have been less effective in achieving substantial representation of women in positions of power, as the political leadership continues to favor male candidates for decision-making. This study has important implications. It shows that gender quotas can be an effective mechanism to ensure that women are numerically represented in politics, especially in countries where men traditionally have dominated the political sphere such as in the Western Balkans. This study also underscores the potential of gender quotas as a powerful tool for augmenting women's representation in pivotal decision-making roles.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".