State/Government

In their paper Gender Equality and State Environmentalism, Kari Norgaard and Richard York attempt to answer a simple question: “Does the degree of gender equality in the political realm within a nation have an impact on state environmental policy?” (p. 507). The metric used by Norgaard and York is the ratification of environmental treaties. Simply stated, does a higher percentage of female members in a nation’s governing body make that nation more likely to sign on to international environmental treaties than nations with fewer female members?

Norgaard and York expect the answer to their question to be “yes,” because “Existing work in the area of gender and the environment and ecological feminism suggests several reasons that nations with greater gender equality may be more prone to protecting the environment. These reasons roughly fall into two overlapping categories. First, numerous studies from environmental sociology, social psychology, and political science find a gender gap for environmental concern, values, and perceptions of environmental risks (Bord and O’Connor 1997; Davidson and Freudenburg 1996). This research indicates that women are more likely than men to express support for environmental protection and that women consider a variety of environmental risks, from nuclear power to toxic substances,
to be more serious than do men. From another angle, a now considerable body of
ecofeminst theory asserts that sexism and environmental degradation are interconnected processes. This perspective holds that the values, ideologies, institutions,
and economic systems that shape human-environmental relationships are themselves gendered and describes how these factors enable sexism and environmental
degradation in mutually reinforcing ways (Merchant 1980; Seager 1993). This second category of explanation ties both gender discrimination and environmental
degradation to a common hierarchical social structure that simultaneously devalues
both women and nature.” (p 508).

Using a scale developed by Roberts and Vasquez (2002) based on the ratification of 16 multilateral environmental treaties which indicates state support for environmental policies in the late twentieth century, the percentage of legislator positions in national Parliament occupied by women in 1999, the Freedom House freedom index (1997) to indicate a nation’s realistic democracy, and some basic indicators of development, the authors looked at 130 nations. These nations made up 92% of the world’s population and 95% of the world’s economic activity in 1997. As Norgaard and York expected, “societies with greater representation of women in Parliament are more prone to ratify environmental treaties.” (p. 512)

We continue to see a connection between female political leadership and state environmentalism. This paper provides additional analysis on the impact of female political empowerment on the environment, specifically air quality in Europe. Using air quality data from 230 European regions and 27 EU countries in the 2020-2021 time period, the authors conclude “Taken together, our findings suggest that women’s political empowerment is a robust determinant of air quality in European regions.” (Rios, Barba, Gianmoena, Pascual, 2024)

In this TED Talk, Dr. Katharine Wilkinson discusses equity in agriculture, education, and family planning as top solutions for addressing climate change. Wilkinson reminds us that “women are vital voices and agents for change on this planet” (10:53). From our studies in ecofeminism and the larger field of feminist theory, we can be quite confident that without more female political leaders, equity in these spaces is very likely to be unrealized.

In their paper on descriptive representation in congress, Lowande, Ritche, and Lauterbach, make the case that female politicians do more for women. They state “Women in Congress are about 8 percentage points more likely to intervene on behalf of women.” (p 655). While this research is on the U.S. Congress and we’re largely discussing the effects of climate change on women/girls in the Global South, the point stands. Lowande, Ritche, and Lauterbach state “We find that legislators are active advocates on behalf of protected classes with whom they have shared backgrounds. These results are consistent across women, racial and ethnic minorities, and military veterans in Congress.” (p 656).

We also read of some interesting statistics in the Lowande, et al. paper: “We find significant differences in the intervention patterns of female, minority, and veteran legislators that suggest descriptive representation leads to substantive representation in Congress. In each case, we find that in a given Congress, legislators are around 6–9 percentage points more likely to contact federal agencies on behalf
of constituents with whom they share background characteristics, when compared to their nonveteran, male, or white colleagues. The differences are most striking for
women and men in Congress, where being represented by a female legislator is associated with a 40% increase in the probability of relevant service.” (p. 645) Plainly stated, if you’re representative doesn’t share your experience, you’re unlikely to be well served by them.

Works Cited: