The goal of this article is to propose a model of state feminism to analyze the impact of women's movements on state activities in post-industrial democracies. It builds on conventional theories of social movement impact, specifically addressing problems of longitudinal and comparative analyses, and introduces an intervening variable-the role of women's policy machineries. This study examines the role of these machineries in France and the United States in injecting feminist stances into the content and processes of six job-training policy debates and assesses the explanatory usefulness of two clusters of independent variables. The findings challenge the conventional wisdom about women's movement successes in the U.S. and France by showing that a strong movement does not necessarily lead to a full state response in the absence of intervention of women's policy machineries. In turn they point to the importance of left-wing govemments and the relation of the women's movement to them. The conclusion includes plans for further testing of the state feminism framework by means of comparative studies in other countries and other policy areas.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson, James E.1994. Public Policymaking: An Introduction. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
2.
Banaszak, Lee Ann. 1996. Why Movements Succeed or Fail: Opportunity, Culture, and the Strugglefor Woman Suffrage. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3.
Banaszak, Lee Ann, Karen Beckwith, and Dieter Rucht. 1996. “The New Research Planning Group: The State and Women's Movements: Expanding Theories Through Comparative Analysis.”Council for European Studies Newsletter25 (6): 1-3.
4.
Bashevkin, Sylvia. 1994. “Confronting Neo Conservatism: Anglo-American Women's Movements Under Thatcher, Reagan and Mulroney”International Political Science Review. 15 (3): 275-296.
5.
Bashevkin, Sylvia. 1998. Women on the Defensive: Living Through Conservative Times. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6.
Baudoin, Jacques. 1979. Les Discriminations et les Disparites dans le Travail Feminin. Report submitted to the Minister of Labor and the Deputy Minister of Women's Employment. October.
7.
Beckwith, Karen. 1985. “Feminism and Leftist Politics in Italy: the Case of UDIPCI Relations.”West European Politics. 8 (4): 19-37.
8.
Beckwith, Karen. 1987. “Response to Feminism in the Italian Parliament: Divorce, Abortion, and Sexual Violence Legislation. In M. E Katzenstein and C. M. Mueller, eds., The Women's Movement of the United States and Western Europe. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, pp. 153-172.
9.
Black, Naomi. 1989. Social Feminism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
10.
Buechler, Steven M.1986. The Transformation of the Woman Suffrage Movement: The Case of Illinois, 1850-1920. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
11.
Black, Naomi. 1993. “Beyond Resource Mobilization? Emerging Trends in Social Movement Theory.”The Sociological Quarterly34 (2): 217-235.
12.
Cobb, Roger, and Charles D. Elder. 1983. Participation in American Politics: The Dynamics of Agenda-Setting. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
13.
Costain, Ann. 1992. Inviting Women's Rebellion: A Political Process Interpretation of the Women's Movement. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
14.
Comite du Travail Feminin. 1976. La Formation Professionnelle Continue des Femmes. December. Government Report.
15.
Dahlerup, Drude. 1986a. “Introduction.“In D.Dahlerip, ed., The New Women's Movement, pp. 1-26. Bristol, UK: Sage.
16.
Dahlerup, Drude. Ed. 1986b. The New Women's Movement. Bristol, UK: Sage.
17.
Dahlerup, Drude. 1993. “From Movement Protest to State Feminism: The Women's Movement and Unemployment Policy in Denmark.”NORA. Nordic Journal of Women's Studies1: 4-21.
18.
Daley, Anthony. 1990. “All Worked Up Again: Employment Policy under Mitterrand II.” Paper presented at the annual conference of the American Political Science Association. San Francisco. August.
19.
Eisenstein, Hester. 1996. Inside Agitators: Australian Femocrats and the State. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
20.
Ferree, Myra Marx. 1991-92. “Institutionalizing Gender Equality: Feminist Politics and Equality Offices.”German Politics & Society. 24 and 25 (Winter): 53-66.
21.
Ferree, Myra Marx, and Patricia Yancey Martin (eds), 1995. Feminist Organizations. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
22.
Franklin, Grace, and Randall B. Ripley1984. CETA:Politics and Policy 1973-1982. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.
23.
Franzway, S., Connell, R. W, and Court, D.1989. Staking a Claim: Feminism, Bureaucracy and the State. Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
24.
Freeman, Jo. 1987. “Whom You Know Versus Whom You Represent.” In M. F Katzenstein and C. M. Mueller, eds., The Women's Movements of the United States and Western Europe, pp. 214-244. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
25.
Gamson, William A.1975. The Strategy of Social Protest. Homewood, IL: Dorsey Press.
26.
Gelb, Joyce. 1989. Feminism and Politics. Berkeley: University of California Press.
27.
Harlan, Sharon L.1989. “Women and Federal Job Training Policy: The Problem in a Policy Context.” In S. L. Harlan, and R. J. Steinberg, eds., Job Training for Women: The Promise and Limits of Public Policies, pp. 3-50. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
28.
Hawkesworth, Mary. 1994. “Policy Studies within a Feminist Frame.”Policy Sciences27: 97-118.
29.
Hayward, Jack. 1992.“The Policy Community Approach to Industrial Policy” In Dankwart A. Rustow and Kenneth Paul Erickson, eds., Comparative Political Dynamics: Global Research Perspectives, pp. 381-407. New York: HarperCollins.
30.
Heclo, Hugh. 1978. “Issue Networks and the Executive Establishment.” In Anthony King, ed., The New American Political System, pp. 87-124. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.
31.
Hemes, Helga. 1987: Welfare State and Woman Power. Oslo: Norwegian University Press.
32.
Jenson, Jane. 1989. “Ce n'est pas un hazard: The Varieties of French Feminism.” In J. Holworth and G. Ross, eds., Contemporary France, vol. 3, A Review of Interdisciplinary Studies, pp. 114-143. London: Frances Pinter.
33.
Jenson, Jane, and Mariette Sineau. 1995. Mitterrand et les Fransaises: Un rendezvous manque. Paris: Press de la Fondation Nationale des Sciences Politiques. Kaplan, Gisela. (1992). Contemporary Western Feminism. London: UCL Press and Allen & Unwin.
34.
Katzenstein, Mary Fainsod. 1995. “Discursive Politics and Feminist Activism in the Catholic Church.” In M. Ferree and P. Martin, eds, Feminist Organizations, pp. 35-53.Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press
35.
Katzenstein, Mary and Carol Mueller. 1986. The Women's Movements of the United States and Western Europe. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
36.
Kitschelt, Herbert P1986. “Political Opportunity Structures and Political Protest: Anti-Nuclear Movements in Four Democracies.”BritishJournal of Political Science16: 57-85.
37.
Kriesi, Hanspeter, Ruud Koopmans, Jan Willem Duyvendak, Marco Guigni. 1995. New Social Movements in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
38.
Lafer, Gordon. 1994. “The Politics of Job Training: Urban Poverty and the False Promise of JTPA.”Politics and Society22 (September): 349-388.
39.
Locke, Richard, and Kathleen Thelen. 1995. “Apples and Oranges Revisited: Contextualized Comparison and the Study of Comparative Labor Politics.”Politics & Society23 (3): 337-367.
40.
Lovenduski, Joni. 1986. Women and European Politics: Contemporary Feminism and Public Policy. London: Wheatsheaf.
41.
Lovenduski, Joni, and Vicky Randall. 1993. Contemporary Feminist Politics: Women and Power in BritainOxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
42.
Mazur, Amy G.1995a. “Strong State and Symbolic Reform: The Ministere des Droits de la Femme in France.” In D. M. Stetson and A.G. Mazur, eds.,Comparative State Feminism, pp. 76-94.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
43.
Mazur, Amy G.1995b. Gender Bias and the State: Symbolic Reform at Work in Fifth Republic France. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
44.
Mazur, Amy G., and Janine Parry. 1998. “Choosing not to Choose in Comparative Policy Research Design: The Case of the Research Network on Gender, Politics and the State.”Journal of Policy Studies. 26 (3): 384-395.
45.
McAdam, Doug, John D. McCarthy, Mayer N. Zald. 1988. “Social Movements.” In Handbook of Sociology, ed. N. J. Smelser, pp. 695-737. Newbury Park, UK: Sage.
46.
Meehan, Elizabeth, and Selma Sevenhuijsen, eds. 1991. Equality Politics and Gender. London: Sage Publications.
47.
MTP 1979. “Pacte National pour l'emploi des jeunes et de certaines categories de femmes.” Travail Informations: Notes du Ministere du Travail et de la Participation. No. 16. 10-16 July.
48.
Mucciaroni, Gary. 1990. The Political Failure of Employment Policy 1945-1982. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
49.
Osterman, Paul. 1988. “Rethinking the American Training System.”Social Policy19 (Summer): 28-35.
50.
Outshoorn, Joyce. 1994. “Between Movement and Government: ‘Femocrats’ in the Netherlands.” In H. Kriesi, ed., Yearbook of Swiss Political Science, pp. 14165. Bern/Stuttgart/Wien, Germany: Paul Haupt Verlag.
51.
Pringle, Rosemary, and S. Watson. 1992. “Women's Interests and the Post-Structuralist State.” In M. Barrett and A. Phillips, eds., Destabilizing Theory: Contemporary Feminist Debates, pp. 53-73. Cambridge: Polity Press.
52.
Przeworski, Adam. 1991. Democracy and the Market: Political and Economic Reforms in Eastern Europe and Latin America. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
53.
Rochon, Thomas R.1990. “Political Movements and State Authority in Liberal Democracies.”World Politics42 (January): 299-313.
54.
Rochon, Thomas R., and Daniel A. Mazmanian. 1993. “Social Movements and the Policy Process.”Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science528: 75-87.
55.
Rosenfeld, Rachel A. and Kathryn B. Ward. 1996. “Evolution of the Contemporary U.S. Women's Movement.”Research in Social Movements, Conflict and Change, 19:51-73. Greenwich CT: JAI Press.
56.
Rucht, Dieter. 1996. “The Impact of National Contexts on Social Movement Structures: A Cross-movement and Cross-national Comparison. In McAdam, D. et al., eds., Comparative Perspectives on Social Movements, pp. 185-204. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
57.
Ryan, Barbara. 1992. Feminism and the Women's Movement: Dynamics of Change in Social Movement Ideology and Activism. New York: Routledge.
58.
Sawer, Marian. 1990. Sisters in Suits, Women and Public Policy in Australia. Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
59.
Schattschneider, E. E.1960. The Semisovereign People: A Realist's View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
60.
Schneider, Anne, and Helen Ingram. 1993. “Social Construction of Target Populations: Implications for Politics and Policy”American Political Science Review87: 334-347.
61.
Stetson, Dorothy McBride, and Amy Mazur., eds. 1995. Comparative State Feminism. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
62.
Tarrow, Sidney1983. Struggling to Reform: Social Movements and Policy Change During Cycles of Protest. Western Societies Program, Occasional paper No. 15.Ithaca, NY: Cornell University
63.
Tarrow, Sidney1989. Struggles Politics, and Reform: Collective Action, Social Movements, and Cycles of Protest. Western Societies Program. Occasional Paper No. 21. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
64.
Taylor, Verta. 1989. “Social Movement Continuity: The Women's Movement in Abeyance.”American Sociological Review54 (October): 761-775.
65.
Thuillier. Guy 1981. Que sais-je, La Politique du Travail. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
66.
Tobias, Shiela. 1997. Faces of Feminism: An Activist's Reflections on the Women's Movement. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
67.
U.S. Congress, House. 1976. Oversight hearings on the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act.
68.
U.S. Congress, House. 1978. Comprehensive Employment and Training Amendments of 1978.
69.
U.S. Congress, House. 1982. Hearing on Employment and Training Proposals.
70.
U.S. Congress, House. 1984. The Women's Bureau, is it Meeting the Needs of Women Workers?
71.
U.S. Congress, House. 1989-90. The Job Training Partnership Act Amendments of 1989.
72.
U.S. Congress, Senate. 1978. Comprehensive Employment and Training Amendments of 1978.
73.
U.S. Congress, Senate. 1981. Women in Transition, 1982.
74.
U.S. Congress, Senate. 1981. Sex Discrimination in the Workplace, 1981.
75.
U.S. Congress, Senate. 1982. Employment and Training Policy, 1982.
76.
U.S. Congress, Senate. 1989. Nontraditional Employment for Women Act.
77.
Valiente, Celia. 1997. “State Feminism and Gender Equality Policies: The Case of Spain (1983-1995).” In E Gardiner, ed., Sex Equality Policy in Western Europe, pp. 127-141.London and New York: Routledge.
78.
Whittier, Nancy1995. Feminist Generations: The Persistence of the Radical Women's Movement. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
