This article explores the underlying motives for ensuring the political inclusion of marginalised groups. More specifically, it analyses whether laws guaranteeing representation are designed differently for women and minorities and, if so, whether these differences correspond to normative arguments for group representation. We use a novel research strategy by comparing quota designs in all countries that have adopted quotas for both groups. Theoretically, we reconceptualise the relevant distinction between quota types by focusing on whether a special constituency is created or not. We identify substantial differences in quota design between the two groups. Minorities tend to be guaranteed representation through the creation of special constituencies, whereas gender quotas more commonly imply integration into pre-existing constituencies. The analysis largely supports those who argue that quotas for minorities aim to increase the autonomy of the group in question while gender quotas are adopted with the intention to integrate women into the political system.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 33 citations exist upstream.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.