Summary of the material for the workgroup (2022) for Introduction to Political Science. INCLUDES
notes from (Total: 29 pages):
● Workgroup sessions 1-3, 5.
● Jane Mansbridge’s article (1999) “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent
Women? A Contingent ‘Yes’”.
● Adrian D. Pantoja and Gary M. Segura’s article (2003) “Does Ethnicity Matter? Descriptive
Representation in Legislatures and Political Alienation Among Latinos”.
● Karen Bird’s article (2005) “The Political Representation of Visible Minorities in Electoral
Democracies: A Comparison of France, Denmark, and Canada”.
1
Introduction to Political Science Workgroup Notes
Table of Contents
Workgroup Notes 2
Session #1 2
Session #2 3
Session #3 5
Session #5 7
“Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes’” 11
“Does Ethnicity Matter? Descriptive Representation in Legislatures and Political Alienation
Among Latinos” 16
“The Political Representation of Visible Minorities in Electoral Democracies: A Comparison
of France, Denmark, and Canada” 20
, 2
Workgroup Notes
Session #1
Preparatory Question
Question: Reflecting on the graph below, what are two possible explanations for the increase of
women MPs elected over this time period in the United Kingdom? (Approx. 200 words)
➔ Source: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01250/
Two possible explanations for the increase of women MPs elected from 1979 to 2019 in the United
Kingdom (UK) could be a result of the 1997 all-women shortlists and the 2002 Sex Discrimination
(Election Candidates) Act. Firstly, a major increase came in the Labour Party’s 1997 victory due to the
use of all-women shortlists. This affirmative action made it compulsory for women to be selected as
Labour candidates. Secondly, another explanation could be the introduction of the Sex Discrimination
(Election Candidates) Act. This allowed candidates to be selected by political parties based on their
gender. It aimed to increase the number of women in British politics.
Potential additional explanations (‘institutional’ + ‘behavioural’):
● Increasing number of women entering politics.
● Breaking down barriers to women’s prejudice in politics (changing social norms).
● Increased use of social media (alternative visibility from traditional methods/encouragement
of women to join the government).
● Implementation of direct/indirect gender-equal laws (e.g. child-care).
Potential phases where this limited result of women in government can from:
1. NOT enough women ‘running’ for the government (men > women on shortlists).
2. Party selection bias.
3. Sexism when selecting women into government (elections).
, 3
Why is it important?
● To understand barriers, how to remove them and create a more equal representation of
women and minorities in government.
Behavioural vs. institutional explanations:
● Behavioural: Bottom-up, how individuals make decisions/can be changed.
● Institutional: Top-down, institutional arrangements of government.
Session #2
Reading Guide
Questions on Mansbridge (1999):
1. What is Mansbridge’s (1999) objective? (p. 628)
● To demonstrate that when the implementation of descriptive representation involves
some costs in other values, paying them makes the most sense in these specific historical
contexts.
2. Is there a research question? If so, is this research question descriptive (what), explanatory
(when), or normative (should)?
● “Should Blacks represent Blacks and women represent women?”.
➔ Normative (“should” = contextual approach), dealing with the
justification/legitimation of political institutions/mechanisms (prescriptive).
➔ “Should there be descriptive representation?”
3. Are there any (implicit or explicit) hypotheses in this article?
● NO hypotheses → normative approach = prescribes ‘ought to be’.
● Hypotheses are used to test empirical/explanatory theory
4. What is Mansbridge’s motive? (p. 654)
● Mansbridge’s motive is “a plea for moving beyond a dichotomous approach to descriptive
representation”.
➔ Descriptive representation is NOT always necessary, but its best approach is
contextual.
5. How does Mansbridge define descriptive representation? (p. 629)
● “Descriptive Representatives”: Individuals whose backgrounds mirror the experiences of
group belonging (e.g. Black/women legislators representing Black/women constituents).
○ Needs to be promoted even if it involves losses.
○ “Descriptive” = visible characteristics or shared experiences
6. Mansbridge discusses two forms of descriptive representation: microcosmic and selective
representation. What do both forms mean? And what does Mansbridge think are the potential
problems with each form? (pp. 631-633)
● Microsmic: The entire assembly is designed to form a representative sample of the
electorate. Counter-arguments directed by Hanna Pitkin.
○ Costly = strong likelihood of choosing legislators randomly from the population
that have less expertise/commitment to the public good.
➔ “achievable only through lottery.”
○ The costs > benefits (replacing current nationally elected assemblies with those
chosen simply by random selection from the population).
○ Costs = considerable (likelihood of lesser talent), BUT NONE for choosing some
groups over others.
● Selective: Institutional design gives groups greater descriptive representation than they
would achieve, bringing legislature proportion = population percentages (compensates
effects of other interfering processes).
○ Adding a mix of criteria for selection will still slightly dilute the impact of
selection (solved by reducing negative impacts of other selection factors).
, 4
○ Costs = small (lesser talent), BUT higher in group selection processes.
7. What is the aggregative function of democracy? Why does Mansbridge believe this function
almost always be fulfilled without descriptive representation? (p. 635)
● Aggregative: Power-sharing, proportional representation of interests and minority right
protection, aiming to:
○ Produce democratically legitimate decisions when interests conflict.
○ Proportionally represent all groups (equally weighted voted in the legislature).
● Always fulfilled without descriptive representation:
○ Interests = relatively easily represented by nondescriptive representatives
(power exercised by interest bearers of the population).
○ From a range of individual preferences → one piece of legitimate legislation.
8. What is the deliberative function of democracy? Why does Mansbridge suggest this function
cannot always be fulfilled without descriptive representation? (p. 636)
● Deliberative: Ideally a representative body should consist of one representative from
every useful group, aiming to:
○ Understand which policies are good for the polity/representative’s constituents
and when interests between groups conflict.
○ Create a commonality that benefits all.
● CANNOT be fulfilled without descriptive representation:
○ Interests = poorly represented by nondescriptive representatives (experience
through others ≠ promote effective deliberation).
○ Disadvantaged groups need full representation.
9. Mansbridge suggests that one of the problems with descriptive representation is essentialism.
What is essentialism? And how does Mansbridge suggest proponents of descriptive
representation might solve this problem? (pp. 637-638)
● “Essentialism”: Assumption that a group’s members have an essential identity that all
members of that group share (NO other can partake in). Leads to:
○ A refusal to recognize a group’s major cleavage lines.
○ Assimilation of minority/subordinate interests in those of a dominant group
without recognizing their existence.
● Solved by stressing nonessentialist/contingent reasons in selecting certain groups for
descriptive representation (based on contingent historical processes).
10. Under what conditions is descriptive representation advantageous and desirable according to
Mansbridge? What is her reasoning for this? (p. 628)
● Descriptive representation is desirable in at least 4 contexts:
1. Group mistrust → better representative-group communication.
2. Uncrystallized interests → representative = experiential knowledge.
3. Historical political subordination → representative shows groups to be “fit to
rule”.
4. Group discrimination → increases de facto legitimacy.
● Advantages of:
○ Enhancing interest representation, improving deliberation quality (1+2).
○ Promoting goods unrelated to substantive representation (3+4).
11. What are the article’s main conclusions? (pp. 652-654)
● Descriptive representation is desirable in contexts of (1) mistrust, (2) uncrystallized
interests, (3) low de facto legitimacy (from past discrimination), (4) the group has been
considered unable to rule.
● Shift away from the dichotomous approach, emphasise contingency of desirability of
descriptive representation.
● Descriptive representation should NOT be institutionalised permanently but in a fluid way.
Session #3
Reading Guide
notes from (Total: 29 pages):
● Workgroup sessions 1-3, 5.
● Jane Mansbridge’s article (1999) “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent
Women? A Contingent ‘Yes’”.
● Adrian D. Pantoja and Gary M. Segura’s article (2003) “Does Ethnicity Matter? Descriptive
Representation in Legislatures and Political Alienation Among Latinos”.
● Karen Bird’s article (2005) “The Political Representation of Visible Minorities in Electoral
Democracies: A Comparison of France, Denmark, and Canada”.
1
Introduction to Political Science Workgroup Notes
Table of Contents
Workgroup Notes 2
Session #1 2
Session #2 3
Session #3 5
Session #5 7
“Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes’” 11
“Does Ethnicity Matter? Descriptive Representation in Legislatures and Political Alienation
Among Latinos” 16
“The Political Representation of Visible Minorities in Electoral Democracies: A Comparison
of France, Denmark, and Canada” 20
, 2
Workgroup Notes
Session #1
Preparatory Question
Question: Reflecting on the graph below, what are two possible explanations for the increase of
women MPs elected over this time period in the United Kingdom? (Approx. 200 words)
➔ Source: https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01250/
Two possible explanations for the increase of women MPs elected from 1979 to 2019 in the United
Kingdom (UK) could be a result of the 1997 all-women shortlists and the 2002 Sex Discrimination
(Election Candidates) Act. Firstly, a major increase came in the Labour Party’s 1997 victory due to the
use of all-women shortlists. This affirmative action made it compulsory for women to be selected as
Labour candidates. Secondly, another explanation could be the introduction of the Sex Discrimination
(Election Candidates) Act. This allowed candidates to be selected by political parties based on their
gender. It aimed to increase the number of women in British politics.
Potential additional explanations (‘institutional’ + ‘behavioural’):
● Increasing number of women entering politics.
● Breaking down barriers to women’s prejudice in politics (changing social norms).
● Increased use of social media (alternative visibility from traditional methods/encouragement
of women to join the government).
● Implementation of direct/indirect gender-equal laws (e.g. child-care).
Potential phases where this limited result of women in government can from:
1. NOT enough women ‘running’ for the government (men > women on shortlists).
2. Party selection bias.
3. Sexism when selecting women into government (elections).
, 3
Why is it important?
● To understand barriers, how to remove them and create a more equal representation of
women and minorities in government.
Behavioural vs. institutional explanations:
● Behavioural: Bottom-up, how individuals make decisions/can be changed.
● Institutional: Top-down, institutional arrangements of government.
Session #2
Reading Guide
Questions on Mansbridge (1999):
1. What is Mansbridge’s (1999) objective? (p. 628)
● To demonstrate that when the implementation of descriptive representation involves
some costs in other values, paying them makes the most sense in these specific historical
contexts.
2. Is there a research question? If so, is this research question descriptive (what), explanatory
(when), or normative (should)?
● “Should Blacks represent Blacks and women represent women?”.
➔ Normative (“should” = contextual approach), dealing with the
justification/legitimation of political institutions/mechanisms (prescriptive).
➔ “Should there be descriptive representation?”
3. Are there any (implicit or explicit) hypotheses in this article?
● NO hypotheses → normative approach = prescribes ‘ought to be’.
● Hypotheses are used to test empirical/explanatory theory
4. What is Mansbridge’s motive? (p. 654)
● Mansbridge’s motive is “a plea for moving beyond a dichotomous approach to descriptive
representation”.
➔ Descriptive representation is NOT always necessary, but its best approach is
contextual.
5. How does Mansbridge define descriptive representation? (p. 629)
● “Descriptive Representatives”: Individuals whose backgrounds mirror the experiences of
group belonging (e.g. Black/women legislators representing Black/women constituents).
○ Needs to be promoted even if it involves losses.
○ “Descriptive” = visible characteristics or shared experiences
6. Mansbridge discusses two forms of descriptive representation: microcosmic and selective
representation. What do both forms mean? And what does Mansbridge think are the potential
problems with each form? (pp. 631-633)
● Microsmic: The entire assembly is designed to form a representative sample of the
electorate. Counter-arguments directed by Hanna Pitkin.
○ Costly = strong likelihood of choosing legislators randomly from the population
that have less expertise/commitment to the public good.
➔ “achievable only through lottery.”
○ The costs > benefits (replacing current nationally elected assemblies with those
chosen simply by random selection from the population).
○ Costs = considerable (likelihood of lesser talent), BUT NONE for choosing some
groups over others.
● Selective: Institutional design gives groups greater descriptive representation than they
would achieve, bringing legislature proportion = population percentages (compensates
effects of other interfering processes).
○ Adding a mix of criteria for selection will still slightly dilute the impact of
selection (solved by reducing negative impacts of other selection factors).
, 4
○ Costs = small (lesser talent), BUT higher in group selection processes.
7. What is the aggregative function of democracy? Why does Mansbridge believe this function
almost always be fulfilled without descriptive representation? (p. 635)
● Aggregative: Power-sharing, proportional representation of interests and minority right
protection, aiming to:
○ Produce democratically legitimate decisions when interests conflict.
○ Proportionally represent all groups (equally weighted voted in the legislature).
● Always fulfilled without descriptive representation:
○ Interests = relatively easily represented by nondescriptive representatives
(power exercised by interest bearers of the population).
○ From a range of individual preferences → one piece of legitimate legislation.
8. What is the deliberative function of democracy? Why does Mansbridge suggest this function
cannot always be fulfilled without descriptive representation? (p. 636)
● Deliberative: Ideally a representative body should consist of one representative from
every useful group, aiming to:
○ Understand which policies are good for the polity/representative’s constituents
and when interests between groups conflict.
○ Create a commonality that benefits all.
● CANNOT be fulfilled without descriptive representation:
○ Interests = poorly represented by nondescriptive representatives (experience
through others ≠ promote effective deliberation).
○ Disadvantaged groups need full representation.
9. Mansbridge suggests that one of the problems with descriptive representation is essentialism.
What is essentialism? And how does Mansbridge suggest proponents of descriptive
representation might solve this problem? (pp. 637-638)
● “Essentialism”: Assumption that a group’s members have an essential identity that all
members of that group share (NO other can partake in). Leads to:
○ A refusal to recognize a group’s major cleavage lines.
○ Assimilation of minority/subordinate interests in those of a dominant group
without recognizing their existence.
● Solved by stressing nonessentialist/contingent reasons in selecting certain groups for
descriptive representation (based on contingent historical processes).
10. Under what conditions is descriptive representation advantageous and desirable according to
Mansbridge? What is her reasoning for this? (p. 628)
● Descriptive representation is desirable in at least 4 contexts:
1. Group mistrust → better representative-group communication.
2. Uncrystallized interests → representative = experiential knowledge.
3. Historical political subordination → representative shows groups to be “fit to
rule”.
4. Group discrimination → increases de facto legitimacy.
● Advantages of:
○ Enhancing interest representation, improving deliberation quality (1+2).
○ Promoting goods unrelated to substantive representation (3+4).
11. What are the article’s main conclusions? (pp. 652-654)
● Descriptive representation is desirable in contexts of (1) mistrust, (2) uncrystallized
interests, (3) low de facto legitimacy (from past discrimination), (4) the group has been
considered unable to rule.
● Shift away from the dichotomous approach, emphasise contingency of desirability of
descriptive representation.
● Descriptive representation should NOT be institutionalised permanently but in a fluid way.
Session #3
Reading Guide
