Gender gaps in political participation in Asia

Abstract

Recent scholarship shows that the gender gap in political activity has diminished, particularly in Western societies. Still unknown is how gender matters for political participation in Asia. Using the 2010 Asian Barometer Survey, this article analyzes the gender gap in multiple forms of political participation in 13 countries. It also investigates how individual-level characteristics mediate the differences in men’s and women’s political participation. The article shows that Asian men and women overwhelmingly vote at an equal rate in elections, but gender gaps persist in other types of political action. This study shows that gender remains the strongest predictor of political participation and suggests that Asian women remain marginalized in the political arena. The results have important implications for how to progress gender equality in the region.

Keywords

Political participation gender gap Asia public opinion gender equality

Introduction

Political participation is considered crucial for a democracy because it is a means for individuals to communicate preferences to those in power. While varying factors can explain individuals’ civic engagement, gender consistently remains a strong predictor of civic engagement across a variety of countries. Although the literature increasingly demonstrates that gender gaps are closing in some forms of political action in Western societies (Bode, 2017; Burns et al., 2018), research also shows that women, particularly in Latin America and Sub-Saharan Africa, still participate less than men in formal politics (Coffé and Bolzendahl, 2010, 2011; Coffé and Dilli, 2015; Desposato and Norrander, 2009; Espinal and Zhao, 2015). This unequal participation raises questions about the legitimacy and effectiveness of the representation of women. While mixed findings suggest that gender differences in political actions are context-specific (Kittilson and Schwindt-Bayer, 2012), a comprehensive understanding of these patterns in Asia is still lacking. It is especially crucial to examine the gender gap in Asia, as the region differs from previously studied cases. For example, Liu (2018) finds that Asian women legislators do not serve as role models but instead discourage women in the region from participating in politics. This is at odds with studies in Western contexts suggesting that female politicians increase women’s political engagement. Therefore, there is reason to believe that gender gaps in political participation in Asia work differently from those in other contexts. Understanding how men and women behave differently in politics helps us understand the extent to which Asian men and women differ in their political access, freedom, capability, capacity, will, and desire. To address the gap in existing studies, this article explores two questions: (a) To what extent do Asian men and women participate differently in politics? (b) To what extent do standard explanations at the individual-level mediate the gender gap in Asia?

Using the 2010 Asian Barometer Survey (ABS), I conduct a systematic analysis of the gender gap in multiple forms of political actions across 13 cases in East and Southeast Asia (ESA). Understanding various forms of participation is important as scholars suggest that while differences in men’s and women’s political behavior exist, it may be that women participate differently from men instead of participating less (Harrison and Munn, 2007). I find that the gender gap in ESA is absent in voting but remains strong and consistent in other modes of political action. Also, building on existing work arguing that resources and political attitudes affect gender differentials in political participation (Verba et al., 1997), I find that resources and political attitudes help mediate gender gaps only in some forms of political actions and only in some contexts.

Scholars have given insufficient attention to the gender gaps in political participation beyond Western contexts. This article addresses the gap in the current literature by offering findings from ESA, which are useful for two reasons. First, the findings address an area largely ignored in existing scholarship. The Asian population is equivalent to 60% of the total world population, suggesting that our current knowledge about political behavior is seriously lacking, since previous cross-national comparisons of gender and politics have neglected ESA. Even when scholars study gendered political participation in ESA, they focus on single cases or small-N comparisons (e.g. Buranajaroenkij et al., 2018; Huang, 2005; Lee, 2019; Yang, 2017). To my knowledge, this is the first systematic investigation of the gender gap in political participation across multiple countries in the region, making it possible and easier to compare the gender gaps across ESA. Although variation exists across the region, ESA countries still share many ethnic, linguistic, and religious similarities. ESA countries also share similar paths, patterns, and histories of democracy, making generalization possible. Building on prior single-case studies, not only does my systematic comparison enable a comprehensive understanding of Asian men’s and women’s political behavior, but it also provides empirical evidence for a theory contending that electoral participation is unique in Asia. As ESA is home for new and unconsolidated democracies, this study opens the door for future inquiries regarding the different patterns and trends of gender gaps in political participation in ESA and beyond.

The second contribution lies in the implications for gender equality in ESA—a region that is distinct from other parts of the world. ESA is home to over two billion women (United Nations World Population Prospects, 2018). Some of these women have been active in politics for decades. For example, women were major actors of the Philippines People Power Movement of 1986. These political scenes show the need to examine how gender parity exists in Asian politics. Showing what motivates and transforms women’s political actions could help close the gender gap in civic engagement, which would consequently further the development of the region towards a representative democracy. Hence, evidence from this study can help look into ways to tackle gender inequality in civic engagement in ESA.

Explaining gender gaps in political participation

Resources are essential for the ability to participate in politics (Simonsen, 2018). Drawing on Burns et al. (2001) and Verba et al. (1997), my definition of resources expands beyond traditional socioeconomic status; instead it refers to factors that explain political participation, such as ability and recruitment to participate. Based on this definition of resources, which includes independent income, political information, civic skills, and social networks—essential to participation—women experience disadvantages because they traditionally have lower education attainment and lower employment opportunities. Furthermore, women are likely to be prevented from engaging in politics in the same way that men do (Inglehart and Norris, 2000) because of gendered expectations concerning their fulfillment of familial duties. Protesting, for example, requires participants to invest time and energy and pay for transportation, resulting in women’s limited engagement.

Political attitudes are also a form of social capital that can mediate the gender gap in political participation (Morales and Giugni, 2016). Since political activities require individuals’ investment of time and energy, individuals are unlikely to participate in politics if not interested. Similarly, if individuals do not believe that the government is fair and transparent, they are unlikely to partake in electoral institutions implemented by the government. If individuals do not believe that they can influence government, they are unlikely to make the effort to shape political affairs.

Although these political attitudes determine the likelihood to participate, they can be cultivated. However, such socialization is gendered. As women’s place is often restricted to the private sphere, women are likely to be discouraged from engaging in public affairs whereas men are encouraged to pursue public office as society perceives them as potentially strong, decisive, and capable leaders. For example, parents are more likely to discuss politics with their sons than with their daughters (Fox and Lawless, 2014), suggesting that women’s interests are not cultivated in the same way as men’s. In the long term, as women tend to have a lower level of political interest and efficacy, this will result in their lower level of political participation (Verba et al., 1997).

Gender gaps in political participation in ESA

A wealth of scholarship examines the gender gaps in political participation.¹ I argue that significant gender differences do not exist in voting whereas they do in other modes of political actions in ESA.

Voting

Generally, women are found to participate less in politics than men (Gallego, 2009). However, research also demonstrates that women’s likelihood to vote has increasingly become equal or higher in Western democracies than men’s likelihood (Burrell, 2005). Like other parts of the world, ESA has been developing economically, suggesting that the gender gap in voting may follow the trajectory of disappearance elsewhere in post-industrial contexts. Additionally, ESA has unique features that may lead to gender having a different effect on political participation. For example, Taylor and Hamilton (1996) theorize that Asian citizens take elections especially seriously. Despite the lack of capacity for constituents to hold representatives accountable, Asians still like being involved in the process. The unique electoral culture of Asia, including patron–client relationships and corporatist-like desires for organizational unity and harmony, can explain the active involvement of Asian citizens. Furthermore, Chua (2007) contends that elections have a different meaning in Asia. Electoral politics in Asia can be seen as cultural events in which people actively engage, rather than political practice. Consequently, voting has been normalized for both men and women. It is possible that normalizing voting as a cultural practice leads women to vote as much as men do.

Also, unlike Western democracies, many ESA countries democratized during the third wave of democratization. Asian men and women gained suffrage at the same time during these transitions. Because men and women were introduced to deliberation simultaneously and had the same opportunity to be socialized politically, there is reason to believe that men and women are equally likely to vote in ESA.²

Political participation beyond voting

On the other hand, the region also has distinctive features that could lead to gender differences in participation. First, ESA is the only region, besides Africa, where women’s social status lags significantly behind women’s political status (Liu, 2018). Gender equality has progressed in Asian politics where many national parliaments have more than 25% women, which is higher than the global average. Eight³ out of 15 ESA countries have also adopted gender quotas, making the region more advanced than its Western counterparts. India, South Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand, have also had female heads of state. Nonetheless, Asian women still experience gender-based discrimination and prejudice in their daily lives, especially in the social sphere. Gender inequality in social structures may translate into gender disparity in political behavior, reducing women’s desire to participate in costlier and riskier actions, especially if their daily experiences with gender norms remain the same.

Moreover, recent electoral campaigns and other forms of political action have departed from the previously known methods. For instance, political marketing is popular and successful in Thailand (Phongpaichit and Baker, 2008) and Malaysia also has new ways to distribute information via technology and communication (Suffian, 2010). As the digital divide continues to be gendered (Rai, 2019), the commercialization of campaigns may also mean that women have had fewer chances to partake in such actions. Methods of political action vary across contexts and women’s political participation also varies across type of activities, depending on the ease of access for women (Liu and Banaszak, 2017). I argue that women in ESA engage less in political action that is more public in nature, costlier of time and resources, and riskier than voting.

Resources

Employment helps diversify an individual’s economic interests and extend an individual’s social circle (Campbell, 2013). The gender structure in ESA countries, nonetheless, remains somewhat more traditional than in Western counterparts (Raymo et al., 2015), preventing resources from having a similar impact on decreasing the gender gap in political participation. While proportionately fewer Asian women are employed than men, oftentimes women’s economic contribution is invisible. Asian women are more likely to contribute to the informal economy or work in rural areas than are men. Asian women retire much earlier than men (Asian Development Bank, 2016). Although women’s labor participation guarantees some degree of financial freedom in Western societies, Asian women’s economic gains do not provide increased autonomy, suggesting that gender structure does not change much as women’s socioeconomic resources increase (Al-Amin and Chowdhury, 2008). If resources are limited in enhancing women’s macro- or micro-level status in ESA, I argue that their effect on reducing the gender gap in political participation is questionable.

Political attitudes

The ESA countries differ from Western societies; they transitioned to democracy at a later period and some are still undergoing transitions. Not only does this mean that Asian democracies are newer and less consolidated, but it also means that many Asians have lived through non-democratic regimes, resulting in fears about expressing their opinions and engaging in activities (Letki, 2018). Furthermore, ESA’s equal suffrage extension means that men and women were exposed to the environment for political participation at the same time, resulting in their equal likelihoods of socialization. Asian men and women have had a chance to observe the strengths and weaknesses of Western democracies at the same time. Therefore, I argue that the effect of political attitudes on reducing the gender gap in political participation in ESA is limited.

Data and methodology

Employing the 2010 ABS⁴, I examine the gender differences in political action. The 2010 ABS uses national probability samples of citizens in 13 ESA countries: Hong Kong; Japan; the Republic of Korea; the People’s Republic of China (China); Mongolia, the Philippines; Taiwan; Thailand; Indonesia; Singapore; Vietnam; Cambodia; and Malaysia.⁵

Dependent variables

Forms of political participation vary in nature. The varying levels of risks and costs associated with political action contribute to gender differences in political participation (Liu and Banaszak, 2017). I differentiate modes of political action by incorporating Dalton’s (2013) research on civic engagement and by using four different measures.⁶

First, I examine voting—an action low in risk and cost that requires little cooperation with others. To learn about participants’ voting patterns, I code participants’ responses, 0—No and 1—Yes, to answer the question of whether they voted in the most recent national election.

Second, I evaluate campaign activity, which is higher in cost, time, energy, and initiation than voting because it requires people to make extra effort to help a candidate/party win. I operationalize it by creating an index⁷ of participants’ responses to the following activities: (a) attend a campaign meeting or rally?; (b) try to persuade others to vote for a certain candidate or party?; and (c) do anything else to help out or work for a party or candidate running in the election?

Third, departing from individualistic political activities, I evaluate the gender disparity in another political activity involving greater cost and coordination than voting and campaign activity. Collective action requires time and energy as it requires individuals to make efforts to organize and mobilize. Its success also depends on how others are convinced to partake; therefore, it can be a longer process than voting or campaigning. I create an index averaging respondents’ participation in the following activities: (a) ‘Got together with others to try to resolve local problems’; and (b) ‘Got together with others to raise an issue or sign a petition’. The items achieve a Cronbach’s alpha at 0.86, indicating good internal consistency.

Lastly, I assess protest activity,⁸ which involves the greatest risk, cost, and coordination. For a demonstration to gain attention, individuals need to mobilize others to take to the streets. Protests can be risky, however, as they can involve long-distance travel and potential arrests.

Independent and control variables

Gender is the main variable of interest. I include a dichotomous variable indicating the sex of respondents (female = 1).

I also evaluate whether resources and political attitudes mediate the gender differences in political participation in ESA by adding them as controls. I include a number of variables that capture resources: age; education; employment; income; and marital status. All of these are found to influence individuals’ political activity.⁹ Table A1 in the Online Appendix displays the summary statistics for each variable.

I also test how individuals’ political attitudes explain the gender gap, which I operationalize using three measures: trust in political institutions; political efficacy; and political interest. Evidence suggests that political trust shapes civic engagement (Uslaner and Brown, 2005). To measure trust in government, I use the variables from the ABS asking respondents how much trust they have in certain institutions: national government; parliament; and political parties. Next, I create an index averaging these three trust-related variables with a Cronbach’s alpha at 0.92 to measure individuals’ trust in political institutions. My political efficacy variable is based on two Likert-scaled statements. The first measures internal efficacy: ‘Sometimes politics and government seem so complicated that a person like me can’t really understand what is going on’, and the second measures external efficacy: ‘People like me don’t have any influence over what the government does’. I also use the variable from the ABS that asks respondents how interested they are in politics.

Estimation strategies

To examine how men and women behave politically across 13 ESA countries as well as within each country, I use two estimation strategies. First, since cross-national differences in gender structure and political participation may exist in ESA, I account for pre-existing differences across countries by using multilevel models. The limited number of countries in my sample prohibits me from including many level-2 indicators; however, I have included relevant ones for gender gap: regime type; duration of democracy; development; and women’s labor participation. Regime type is a dichotomous variable that codes 1 for democracy and 0 for a non-democracy. Duration of democracy is the number of years the case has been considered democratic. Both measures are taken from the Democracy–Dictatorship Index (Cheibub et al., 2010). I measure a country’s development by its gross domestic product (GDP) per capita and women’s labor participation by the percentage of women being employed outside the home by using the World Bank’s data.

Second, to more closely understand the gender gap in each case, I use a binary logistic model¹⁰ to predict voting behavior and ordered logistic models to analyze campaign activities, collective action, and protest. For each type of political participation, I present three models: (a) a bivariate model that analyzes the relationship between sex of the respondents and their political behavior; (b) a multivariate model controlling for resource factor; and (c) a multivariate model controlling for political attitudes.¹¹

Results: overall gender gaps in political participation in ESA

Table 1 presents the multilevel models showing that men and women do not differ significantly in their voting patterns across ESA. This is not surprising as many studies have found that the gender gap in voting has disappeared over time. It suggests that ESA shares similar gender progress in voting as Western, post-industrial societies. I suspect that voting as part of one’s civic duty is normalized for both men and women because most ESA countries simultaneously extended suffrage to women and men when the regimes democratized. Women in particular are more likely to fulfill their civic duty by turning out to vote due to their generally higher level of conscientiousness than men (Carreras, 2018). Gender parity would be limited in other forms of participation, especially those that need to be cultivated beyond suffrage extension.

Table 1.

The gender gap in political participation in East and Southeast Asia.

	Vote	Campaign	Collective action	Protest
Individual-level
Female	0.06 (0.046)	−0.04*** (0.005)	−0.05*** (0.008)	−0.02*** (0.005)
Age	0.00 (0.000)	0.00** (0.000)	0.00 (0.000)	−0.00*** (0.000)
Education	−0.27*** (0.031)	−0.01*** (0.003)	0.03*** (0.005)	0.01 (0.004)
Employed (=1)	0.23*** (0.049)	0.01** (0.005)	0.01 (0.008)	−0.01 (0.005)
Income	0.00 (0.010)	−0.00** (0.001)	−0.00 (0.002)	−0.00** (0.001)
Married (=1)	0.88*** (0.050)	0.04*** (0.006)	0.06*** (0.009)	−0.01** (0.006)
Political trust	0.18*** (0.036)	0.01 (0.004)	−0.02** (0.006)	−0.01** (0.004)
Internal political efficacy	0.03 (0.031)	0.00 (0.003)	0.01** (0.005)	0.00 (0.003)
External political efficacy	−0.02 (0.028)	−0.00 (0.003)	0.02*** (0.005)	0.01* (0.003)
Political interest	0.29*** (0.027)	0.08*** (0.003)	0.08*** (0.005)	0.03*** (0.003)
Country-level
Democracy (=1)	1.14*** (0.359)	0.02 (0.048)	0.03 (0.101)	0.03** (0.014)
Democratic duration	0.01 (0.007)	−0.00 (0.001)	0.00 (0.002)	−0.00 (0.000)
Gross domestic product per capita	−0.00 (0.008)	−0.00*** (0.001)	−0.00 (0.002)	−0.00* (0.000)
Women’s labor participation	0.037* (0.014)	0.00 (0.002)	0.00 (0.004)	−0.00 (0.001)
Constant	−2.33 (0.928)	0.04 (0.124)	−0.22 (0.258)	0.03 (0.042)
Number of observations	16,785	15,860	17,291	17,262

Conversely, also evidenced in Table 1, women participate significantly less than men in other political activities. Specifically, women are 4% points less likely than men to be involved in political campaigns. Moving away from electoral participation, women are 5% points and 2% points less likely than men to participate in collective action or partake in protests, respectively. The gender gaps are wider in political actions that are more individualistic and less costly, namely political campaigns, than in political actions that are more collective and expensive. I suspect that this can be explained by the recent democratic transitions some cases have undergone; when a country democratizes, its people are more likely to partake in activities that were previously banned, such as protest.

The multilevel models also indicate that the individual resources and the political attitudes variables are correlated only with certain types of political actions. Regarding resources, being employed leads to higher electoral participation whereas it has no significant impact on collective action and protest. As employment increases by one-point, average voter and campaign activities increase by 0.23 and 0.01 points on average, respectively. While this result differs from previous findings in other contexts, ESA is the only region in the world where the gender gap in employment has increased over the last two decades (International Labour Organization, 2017). This widening gender gap could be explained by the increase of Asian women’s participation in private, invisible labor, as well as their engagement in traditional gender roles in rural areas, which prevents them from being recruited for political participation.

Surprisingly, in ESA, more education leads to less involvement in all political actions, except protest, whereas more income leads to less involvement in campaign and protest. Being married also has a strong positive impact on voting, campaign activity, and collective action. Nevertheless, as marital status increases by 1 unit, the likelihood of engaging in riskier behavior, such as street demonstrations, reduces by 0.01 point on average.

Turning to political attitudes, political interest is the only predictor that consistently leads to higher political participation across all modes of behavior. An increase in political trust leads to an increase in voting/increased likelihood to vote but a decrease in collective action and protest. Both internal and political efficacy helps explain increased collective action, but not actions closely linked to electoral politics.

As the cases vary in a myriad of ways, I also consider potential linkages between national characteristics and the gender gaps in political participation. As Table 2 illustrates, most contextual indicators are not significantly correlated with political participation. Looking at level-2 indicators, regime type has a significant effect on voting and protest—democratic regimes also lead to higher participation in select modes of political action. The significance of democracy in my model indicates that voting and protest are perhaps the two most relevant modes of action that can be carried out in a democracy. In other words, because voting and street demonstrations require governmental permission and instrumentation, democracy plays a greater role in individuals’ voting and protest behavior than in other political activities. Democratic duration, however, has no effect on political participation. This lack of effect needs to be further explored; however, it could be a result of its little variation across ESA. Turning to the economic factor, a country’s GDP per capita, interestingly, has a negative effect on campaign and protest activities while women’s labor participation has a positive effect on voting behavior.

Table 2.

The gender gap in voting turnout in 13 East and Southeast Asia countries.

Country	Bivariate	Resources	Political attitudes
Cambodia	0.02 (0.141)	0.14 (0.160)	0.15 (0.162)
People’s Republic of China	−0.02 (0.092)	0.04 (0.095)	0.13 (0.104)
Hong Kong	−0.27 (0.1229)	−0.32* (0.181)	−0.24 (0.195)
Indonesia	−0.15 (0.187)	−0.01 (0.214)	−0.13 (0.228)
Japan	−0.20 (0.136)	−0.20 (0.144)	0.03 (0.154)
Malaysia	−0.28* (0.152)	−0.43** (0.167)	−0.21 (0.177)
Mongolia	0.13 (0.185)	0.22 (0.191)	0.24 (0.198)
The Philippines	0.06 (0.155)	0.16 (0.166)	0.14 (0.168)
Singapore	0.06 (0.142)	0.19 (0.152)	0.17 (0.157)
South Korea	0.13 (0.158)	−0.08 (0.173)	0.03 (0.181)
Taiwan	0.13 (0.153)	0.07 (0.159)	0.19 (0.171)
Thailand	−0.30 (0.208)	−0.13 (0.221)	0.12 (0.237)
Vietnam	−0.22 (0.196)	−0.09 (0.215)	0.10 (0.291)

Note: bobust standard errors in parentheses; *p < 0.10; **p < 0.05.

Results: gender gaps in political participation by case

For a closer examination of the gender gap in each case, Tables 2 –5 display the gender gaps in each form of political participation in each ESA country.¹² The first column in each of these tables are the baseline models indicating whether men and women behave differently. Three patterns emerge: (a) no significant gender gap exists in voting in ESA countries, except Malaysia; (b) gender gap remains consistent across almost all other political activities across ESA—women always participate less than men when significant gaps exist; and (c) some gender gaps disappear when controls are added while some remain strong.

Table 3.

The gender gap in campaign activities in 13 East and Southeast Asia countries.

Country	Bivariate	Resources	Political attitudes
Cambodia	−0.39*** (0.111)	−0.28** (0.116)	−0.28** (0.120)
People’s Republic of China	−0.23*** (0.077)	−0.24*** (0.079)	−0.17* (0.086)
Hong Kong	−0.43 (0.283)	−0.36 (0.294)	−0.15 (0.328)
Indonesia	−0.73*** (0.107)	−0.65*** (0.117)	−0.64*** (0.130)
Japan	−0.50*** (0.13)	−0.58*** (0.118)	−0.40*** (0.126)
Malaysia	−0.86*** (0.117)	−0.85*** (0.127)	−0.62*** (0.135)
Mongolia	−0.28** (0.105)	−0.25** (0.107)	−0.12 (0.111)
The Philippines	−0.29** (0.125)	−0.20 (0.131)	−0.19 (0.134)
Singapore	−0.49** (0.204)	−0.42* (0.211)	−0.38* (0.223)
South Korea	−0.61*** (0.147)	−0.68*** (0.161)	−0.49** (0.167)
Taiwan	0.04 (0.119)	−0.05 (0.122)	0.30** (0.132)
Thailand	−0.39*** (0.097)	−0.42*** (0.100)	−0.25** (0.019)
Vietnam	−0.26** (0.111)	−0.15 (0.119)	0.31* (0.160)

Notes: robust standard errors in parentheses; *p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01.

Table 4.

The gender gap in collective action in 13 East and Southeast Asia countries.

Country	Bivariate	Resources	Political attitudes
Cambodia	−0.69*** (0.136)	−0.64*** (0.141)	−0.62*** (0.144)
People’s Republic of China	−0.55*** (0.097)	−0.59*** (0.101)	−0.44*** (0.106)
Hong Kong	−0.24 (0.202)	−0.04 (0.210)	0.13 (0.222)
Indonesia	−0.75*** (0.098)	−0.67*** (0.107)	−0.69*** (0.118)
Japan	−0.25*** (0.087)	−0.20** (0.090)	−0.08 (0.094)
Malaysia	−0.72*** (0.111)	−0.72*** (0.121)	−0.54*** (0.125)
Mongolia	−0.23* (0.129)	−0.23* (0.132)	−0.14 (0.136)
The Philippines	−0.48*** (0.128)	−0.50*** (0.136)	−0.52*** (0.137)
Singapore	−0.34 (0.218)	−0.35 (0.227)	−0.23 (0.233)
South Korea	−0.37** (0.143)	−0.32** (0.154)	−0.24 (0.161)
Taiwan	−0.34** (0.123)	−0.27** (0.126)	−0.07 (0.133)
Thailand	−0.33*** (0.098)	−0.30*** (0.101)	−0.15 (0.111)
Vietnam	−0.50*** (0.116)	−0.48*** (0.125)	−0.20 (0.170)

Notes: robust standard errors in parentheses; *p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01.

Table 5.

The gender gap in protest in 13 East and Southeast Asia countries.

Country	Bivariate	Resources	Political attitudes
Cambodia	0.76* (0.389)	0.84** (0.403)	0.85** (0.403)
People’s Republic of China	−0.41* (0.203)	−0.49** (0.213)	−0.44* (0.225)
Hong Kong	−0.55* (0.291)	−0.37 (0.305)	−0.08 (0.341)
Indonesia	−0.75*** (0.226)	−0.89*** (0.250)	−0.96*** (0.272)
Japan	−0.75** (0.323)	−0.71** (0.337)	−0.50 (0.354)
Malaysia	−0.58** (0.025)	−0.63** (0.268)	−0.45 (0.274)
Mongolia	−0.39* (0.236)	−0. 39 (0.240)	−0.31 (0.246)
The Philippines	−0.12 (0.214)	−0.16 (0.228)	−0.11 (0.230)
Singapore	−0.60 (0.561)	−0.75 (0.576)	−0.56 (0.627)
South Korea	−0.16 (0.256)	−0.04 (0.279)	−0.15 (0.299)
Taiwan	−0.51** (0.224)	−0.54** (0.230)	−0.37 (0.238)
Thailand	−0.56** (0.222)	−0.58** (0.231)	−0.43* (0.250)
Vietnam	−0.38 (0.400)	−0.33 (0.425)	−0.19 (0.468)

Notes: robust standard errors in parentheses; *p < 0.10; **p < 0.05; ***p < 0.01.

Voting

I first examine the gender gap in individuals’ likelihood to vote. The bivariate model in the first column in Table 2 indicates that men and women vote at equal rates in all ESA countries, except Malaysia. The significant difference, however, between men’s and women’s voting behavior in Malaysia disappears when resources and political attitudes are controlled for.

Campaigning

Table 3 displays the gender gap in campaign activities, where the bivariate model indicates that all other nations experience a gender gap in campaign activities, except Hong Kong and Taiwan. Women campaign less than men in these cases. Gender gaps in Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, Thailand, and Vietnam remain significant when resources and political attitudes are controlled for. Women in these nations still participate less in campaign activities than men when controls are added. Only in Mongolia and the Philippines does controlling for political attitudes demonstrate a significant gender gap in campaign activities. Interestingly, Taiwan stands out from other cases; when resources and political attitudes are added, the gender gap appears—Taiwanese women campaign significantly more than men.

Collective action

Table 4 shows that women engage less in collective action than men in all ESA countries, except for Hong Kong, Mongolia, Singapore, and Taiwan. The gender gaps remain consistently strong in Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines when controls are added. Conversely, the gender gaps in collective action are no longer significant in Japan, Mongolia, South Korea, Thailand, and Vietnam when resources and political attitudes are accounted for.

Protest

As shown in Table 5, all nations experience gender gaps in protest, except the Philippines, Singapore, South Korea, and Vietnam. Women in these cases are less likely than men to protest. The gender gaps in Cambodia, China, Indonesia, and Thailand remain when controls are added. In contrast, the gender gaps no longer exist in Hong Kong, Japan, Malaysia, and Mongolia when I account for resources and political attitudes.

Hong Kong, Taiwan, and Singapore are three of the most economically advanced countries in Asia—they also lack a gender gap in voting, campaign activity, and collective action. Although no cause can be identified in my study, both the Philippines and South Korea have a rich history of protests, for example, the People Power Revolution in the Philippines in the 1980s and the Bu-Ma Democratic Protests in South Korea in 1979, suggesting that both women and men are equally exposed to peaceful demonstrations. Conversely, Singapore and Vietnam are non-democracies, suggesting that protests in these countries may be equally inaccessible to both men and women.

In sum, my findings about gender gaps in voting in ESA are not far from the trajectory of Western countries in which the difference has slowly diminished. Asian men and women, except Malaysians, are equally likely to have voted in the last election. Several factors could contribute to Malaysia being an outlier in the gender gap in electoral participation. For example, when the ABS was conducted, only 10% of the Malaysian parliament were women—significantly lower than the regional average (20%). Malaysia also fell behind in other gender development measures, for example, economic opportunities, education, health, and agency, when compared to other countries in the region (The World Bank Gender Data Portal, 2019). My results indicate that further analysis of the relationship between these potential explanations and the gender differences in Malaysia is needed.

The gender gaps in other forms of political participation—campaign activities, collective action, and protest—are also apparent in the bivariate model in most ESA countries when nothing else is considered. When gender gaps are significant, men always participate more than women. Prior research in Western contexts shows that the gender disparity in various modes of political participation has reduced or ameliorated (Burns et al., 2018). Although I am unable to compare the size of the effect of my findings with that of previous findings, my analysis shows that the overall patterns of gender gaps in Asia remain strong. My findings are similar to those in Latin America (Espinal and Zhao, 2015) and Africa (Coffé and Bolzendahl, 2011; Isaksson et al., 2014) where gender remains a strong indicator of political engagement and men still participate more than women.

As previously discussed, mixed findings exist on how individual-level determinants help mediate the gender gap. On the one hand, this outcome suggests that there is no one-model-fits-all to explain the gender gaps in ESA. On the other hand, it shows that some indicators concerning development or type of regime could explain the differences across cases. For example, Hong Kong is the only case that does not experience a gender gap after these additional individual-level considerations are enacted, whereas Cambodia, China, and Indonesia are the only countries where gender differences are consistent across all modes of political actions despite these individual-level controls. These three countries share a common characteristic: China is a non-democracy, while Cambodia and Indonesia are the latest Asian countries to experience democratic transitions. Political instability in Cambodia and Indonesia, the authoritarian regime of China, and the lack of gender development in these three cases might also explain why gender gaps are consistently strong predictors of political participation. The findings imply that gender parity in political participation might improve if countries such as Cambodia, China, and Indonesia follow in the footsteps of other cases such as Hong Kong. Hong Kong’s relatively higher gender and economic development could possibly mediate the gender gap. For example, the gender ratio of the employed population in Hong Kong is equal (Census and Statistics Department, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, 2017). Nevertheless, further investigation is needed to confirm this theory.

Conclusion

As ESA countries have been transitioning into more stable democracies in the last few decades, it is critical to evaluate women’s role and activity in politics in order to achieve a truly representative democracy. ESA countries have different features from Western countries. My systematic comparison of the gender gap in political participation contributes to a previously underexplored area in global politics.

The central finding of this article is that gender does not influence voter participation in ESA. However, Asian women engage significantly less than men in other types of political activity. My results show that the gender gaps in some forms of political participation ameliorate in certain contexts, while others persist even after individual-level determinants are accounted for. This finding has implications for how women’s paths to politics may differ even when they vote at equal rates to men (Harell, 2009). My findings also illustrate that when comparing each type of political participation, resources and political attitudes do not mediate the gender gap. Nevertheless, when the role of these effects is observed across actions and across ESA, very few countries’ gender gaps are impervious to mediation. This finding reflects the persistent paternalistic bias in these countries—politics are traditionally a men’s game and women are not fully incorporated into the political arena in ESA. My results also challenge the traditional practice of including Asian cases in large-N cross-sectional data analyses; they suggest that ESA should no longer be ignored when conducting systematic analyses of gender and politics.

This article is limited in its explanation of the exact causes of the distinctive findings in ESA. For example, this study is unable to explain why some of the outliers exist in ESA and cannot account for the cultural differences. Nevertheless, it opens the door for future research. Further studies examining cultural factors, such as how patrilineality and parochiality are practiced across ESA, might be used to explain the mixed findings between the political participation of men and women in the region.

The study also has implications regarding measurement of Asian women’s political participation. As the first quantitative analysis of the gender gaps in political participation in ESA, this research provides empirical evidence and increases the feasibility of comparison across ESA. Fortin-Rittberger (2016) has shown that cross-national differences explain the gender gap in political knowledge. My analysis suggests that paying attention to how survey measures in ESA match Asians’ understanding of concepts of political participation would be the next step towards comprehending the direct influence of cross-national gender gaps.

Also, this research uses traditional measures of political action. However, examining women’s informal and private political actions could be more robust because of their family responsibilities (Stolle et al., 2005). Consequently, non-traditional or non-Western forms of political actions must be examined in the future to ensure that scholars assess Asian women’s political participation appropriately and comprehensively.

Knowing more about the gender gap in Asians’ political participation paves the way for us to think about concrete ways to challenge such gender inequality. For example, knowledge about what mediates the gender gaps in political participation means we can further our fight against intimidation, harassment, and violence against women in politics. The study also encourages the government to promote women’s participation in electoral processes and institutions through awareness campaigns and women’s candidate training that pays attention to gender differences in political behavior. Knowing how gender gaps exist in ESA would also facilitate the process of proactively including women in the decision-making process, particularly in reshaping policies that discriminate against women.

As Alexander et al. write, ‘the enhancement of assets, capabilities, and achievements of women to gain equality to men’(Alexander et al., 2017: 433) is women’s global political empowerment. Acknowledging that the gender gap exists in political participation is only the first step toward understanding the gendered political experiences of women in ESA, yet this study serves as a starting point to understand how Asian women might be empowered. It enables further exploration of the transformation process from limited agency in activities that are risky and confrontational to agency in electoral politics. Also, closing the gender gap in political participation has the capacity to diminish the marginalization of women in other areas, such as political representation (Alexander et al., 2017). This study enhances the understanding of the gender gap in ESA, promoting an increase in women’s political participation as part of ongoing progress towards gender equality. It contributes to the possibility of distributing political power more equally between the sexes.

Supplemental Material

Supplemental_material – Supplemental material for Gender gaps in political participation in Asia

Supplemental material, Supplemental_material for Gender gaps in political participation in Asia by Shan-Jan Sarah Liu in International Political Science Review

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Prior versions of this article were presented at the American Political Science Association annual conference in 2019 and the Midwest Political Science Association annual conferences in 2016 and 2017 where I received helpful comments. I thank the three anonymous reviewers for their critical evaluations of the article. The article has immensely improved because of their invaluable feedback.

Funding

The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Shan-Jan Sarah Liu

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author biography

Shan-Jan Sarah Liu is Lecturer in Gender and Politics at the School of Social and Political Science at the University of Edinburgh. Her research focuses on how contexts—women’s political representation, social movements, and media’s representation of immigration—shape the gender gaps in political opinion and behavior. Her work is cross-regional, with a special focus on Asia.

References

Al-Amin

Chowdhury

Tayub

(2008) Women, Poverty and Empowerment: An investigation into the dark side of microfinance. Asian Affairs 30(2): 16–29.

Alexander

Amy C

Bolzendahl

Catherine

Jalalzai

Farida

(eds) (2017) Measuring Women’s Political Empowerment Across the Globe: Strategies, Challenges and Future Research. Cham: Springer Nature.

Asian Development Bank (2016) Female Labor Force Participation in Asia: Key trends, constraints, and opportunities. Asia Development Ban Briefs No. 71, October 2016. Available at: https://www.adb.org/sites/default/files/publication/209666/female-labor-force-participation-asia.pdf

Bode

Leticia

(2017) Closing the Gap: Gender parity in political engagement on social media. Information, Communication & Society 20(4): 587–603.

Buranajaroenkij

Duanghathai

Doneys

Philippe

Kusakabe

Kyoko

Doane

Donna L

(2018) Expansion of Women’s Political Participation Through Social Movements: The case of the red and yellow shirts in Thailand. Journal of Asian and African Studies 53(1): 34–48.

Burrell

Barbara C

(2005) Gender, Presidential Elections and Public Policy: Making women’s votes matter. Journal of Women, Politics and Policy 27(1): 31–50.

Burns

Nancy

Schlozman

Kay Lehman

Jardina

Ashley

Shames

Shauna

Verba

Sydney

(2018) What’s Happened to the Gender Gap in Political Participation?: How might we explain it? In McCammon

Holly

Banaszak

Lee Ann

(eds) 100 Years of the Nineteenth Amendment: An Appraisal of Women’s Political Activism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 69–104.

Burrell

Barbara C

(2005) Gender, presidential elections and public policy: Making women’s votes matter. Journal of Women, Politics and Policy 27(1): 31–50.

Campbell

David E

(2013) Social Networks and Political Participation. Annual Review of Political Science 16: 33–48.

10.

Carreras

Miguel

(2018) Why No Gender Gap in Electoral Participation? A civic duty explanation. Electoral Studies 52: 36–45.

11.

Census and Statistics Department, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (2017) Women and Men in Hong Kong Statistics. Available at: https://www.statistics.gov.hk/pub/B11303032017AN17B0100.pdf

12.

Cheibub

José Antonio

Gandhi

Jennifer

Vreeland

James Raymond

(2010) Democracy and Dictatorship Revisited. Public Choice 143(1–2): 67–101.

13.

Chua

Beng Huat

(2007) Elections as Popular Culture in Asia. New York: Routledge.

14.

Coffé

Hilde

Bolzendahl

Catherine

(2010) Same Game, Different Rules? Gender differences in political participation. Sex Roles 62(5–6): 318–333.

15.

Coffé

Hilde

Bolzendahl

Catherine

(2011) Gender Gaps in Political Participation Across Sub-Saharan African Nations. Social Indicators Research 102(2): 245–264.

16.

Coffé

Hilde

Dilli

Selin

(2015) The Gender Gap in Political Participation in Muslim-Majority Countries. International Political Science Review 36(5): 526–544.

17.

Dalton

Russell J

(2013) Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Thousand Oaks: CQ Press.

18.

Desposato

Scott

Norrander

Barbara

(2009) The Gender Gap in Latin America: Contextual and individual influences on gender and political participation. British Journal of Political Science 39(1): 141–162.

19.

Espinal

Rosario

Zhao

Shanyang

(2015) Gender Gaps in Civic and Political Participation in Latin America. Latin American Politics and Society 57(1): 123–138.

20.

Fortin-Rittberger

Jessica

(2016) Cross-National Gender Gaps in Political Knowledge: How much is due to context? Political Research Quarterly 69(3): 391–402.

21.

Fox

Richard L

Lawless

Jennifer L

(2014) Uncovering the Origins of the Gender Gap in Political Ambition. American Political Science Review 108(3): 499–519.

22.

Gallego

Aina

(2009) Where Else Does Turnout Decline Come From? Education, age, generation and period effects in three European countries. Scandinavian Political Studies 32(1): 23–44.

23.

Harell

Allison

(2009) Equal Participation but Separate Paths?: Women’s social capital and turnout. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 30(1): 1–22.

24.

Harrison

Lisa

Munn

Jamie

(2007) Gendered (Non) Participants? What constructions of citizenship tell us about democratic governance in the twenty-first century. Parliamentary Affairs 60(3):426–436.

25.

Huang

Chang-ling

(2005) Strength in Numbers: Increasing women’s political participation in Taiwan. In Lin

Wei-hung

Hsieh

Hsiao-chin

(eds) Gender, Culture and Society: Women’s Studies in Taiwan. Seoul: Ewha Womans University Press, 273–299.

26.

Inglehart

Ronald

Norris

Pippa

(2000) The Developmental Theory of the Gender Gap: Women’s and men’s voting behavior in global perspective. International Political Science Review 21(4): 441–463.

27.

International Labour Organization (2017) World Employment and Social Outlook: Trends for Women 2017. Geneva: International Labour Organization. Available at: https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/594236824.pdf

28.

Isaksson

Ann-Sofie

Kotsadam

Andreas

Nerman

Mans

(2014) The Gender Gap in African Political Participation: Testing theories of individual and contextual determinants. Journal of Development Studies 50(2): 302–318.

29.

Kittilson

Miki Caul

Schwindt-Bayer

Leslie A

(2012) The Gendered Effects of Electoral Institutions: Political Engagement and Participation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

30.

Lee

Young-Im

(2019) The Leaky Pipeline and Sacrificial Lambs: Gender, candidate nomination, and district assignment in South Korea’s national legislative elections. Electoral Studies 59: 27–38.

31.

Letki

Natalia

(2018) Trust in Newly Democratic Regimes. In Uslaner

Eric M.

(ed.) The Oxford Handbook of Social and Political Trust. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 335.

32.

Liu

Shan-Jan Sarah

(2018) Are Female Political Leaders Role Models? Lessons from Asia. Political Research Quarterly 71(2): 255–269.

33.

Liu

Shan-Jan Sarah

Banaszak

Lee Ann

(2017) Do Government Positions Held by Women Matter? A cross-national examination of female ministers’ impacts on women’s political participation. Politics & Gender 13(1): 132–162.

34.

Morales

Laura

Giugni

Marco

(eds) (2016) Social Capital, Political Participation and Migration in Europe: Making Multicultural Democracy Work? New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

35.

Phongpaichit

Pasuk

Baker

Chris

(2008) Thailand: Fighting over democracy. Economic and Political Weekly: 43(50): 18–21.

36.

Pietsch

Juliet

(2015) Authoritarian Durability: Public opinion towards democracy in Southeast Asia. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties 25(1): 31–46.

37.

Rai

Alka

(2019) Digital Divide: How do women in South Asia respond? International Journal of Digital Literacy and Digital Competence 10(1): 1–14.

38.

Raymo

James M

Park

Hyunjoon

Xie

Yeung

Wei-jun Jean

(2015) Marriage and Family in East Asia: Continuity and change. Annual Review of Sociology 41: 471–492.

39.

Simonsen

William

(2018) Citizen Participation in Resource Allocation. New York: Routledge.

40.

Sobel

Richard

Haynes

William-Arthur

Zheng

(2010) The Polls—Trends: Taiwan Public Opinion Trends, 1992–2008: Exploring attitudes on cross-strait issues. Public Opinion Quarterly 74(4): 782–813.

41.

Stolle

Dietlind

Hooghe

Marc

Micheletti

Michele

(2005) Politics in the Supermarket: Political consumerism as a form of political participation. International Political Science Review 26(3): 245–269.

42.

Suffian

Ibrahim

(2010) Democratisation and New Voter Mobilisation in Southeast Asia: Reflections of the 2008 Malaysian general election: Role of the internet in political communications. In Kitchen

Nicholas

(ed.) LSE IDEAS Special Reports. London: London School of Economics and Political Science, 18–22.

43.

Taylor

Robert H

Hamilton

Lee H

(eds) (1996) The Politics of Elections in Southeast Asia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

44.

United Nations World Population Prospects (2018) Available at: https://population.un.org/wpp/ (accessed 20 November 2018).

45.

Uslaner

Eric M

Brown

Mitchell

(2005) Inequality, Trust, and Civic Engagement. American Politics Research 33(6): 868–894.

46.

Verba

Sydney

Burns

Nancy

Schlozman

Kay Lehman

(1997) Knowing and Caring About Politics: Gender and political engagement. The Journal of Politics 59(4): 1051–1072.

47.

The World Bank (2019) Gender Data Portal. Washington: The World Bank. Available at: https://datatopics.worldbank.org/gender/

48.

Yang

Chia-Ling

(2017) The Political is the Personal: Women’s participation in Taiwan’s Sunflower movement. Social Movement Studies 16(6): 660–671.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.27 MB