Year 1, Block 4, Introduction to Political Science. Please contact me if you would like the source articles!
Introduction
Summary
Motivated by the inability of previous research to pass dichotomous thinking, Mansbridge outlines from a normative theoretical perspective why the implementation of Descriptive Representation for disadvantaged groups within a given polity would bring net benefits for the wider political system. She outlines which contexts and for which functions Descriptive Representation can operate within, and asserts that if institutionalised in a fluid manner, it can ultimately be a highly useful tool for improving the quality of overall democracy. Particularly improving the aggregative and deliberative functions. Yet, Mansbridge stresses the importance of context; using it to weigh up the costs and benefits of utilising particular forms of Descriptive Representation. Comparatively, Bird was provoked to write her article after directly citing gaps in previous research (such as Mansbridge’s), which she contends has not focused on the interplay of institutions and minority community organising structures. Moreover, they over essentialised minority groups, whom upon closer inspection are not all equally underrepresented. Bird writes her article in the hope to develop a conceptual framework of factors influencing the political opportunity structures within a given polity that effect visible minorities access to the political system and office. She takes a more qualitative approach with single depth studies of advanced democratic polities, with a more institutionalist orientation. She argues that the degree of openness of the political system, party processes of candidate selection and electoral rules are the most critical factors in influencing her ‘opportunity structures’. However, the interplay of these is not universal, which Bird qualifies in the differences identified between her case studies, which all have different level of autonomous organising capabilities within minority communities. Finally, Pantoja & Segura were motivated to write their article by the lack of studies surrounding the Latino experience of Political Alienation, with the goal to see if one form of political alienation; normlessness, was felt by Latino’s to different levels based on whether they were co-ethnically represented at atleast one or more legislative level. Pantoja & Segura take a positivist approach to their methodology, focusing on quantitative statistical modelling to provide them with the data from which to create inferences. They find overall that, outside of smaller misgivings, their main conclusion is logically supported by their findings; that co-ethnic representation is more desirable than none to most Latino’s, yet it was not overtly endorsed by all. Whilst finding that Descriptive Representation is not sufficient on its own to instantly address the interests of minority groups, Pantoja & Segura consider it a necessary part of a wider strategy to improve the quality of representation and thus the connection between citizen and state.
Analysis
Indeed, all three research groups have differing focuses of their pieces, which heavily influence the theoretical and methodological approaches taken. Mansbridge primarily focuses on advancing her more optimistic view of the power of Descriptive Representation, and how it can be properly integrated into democracy to improve representation. This leads Mansbridge to take an idealistic tone within her normative approach, marking the conceptual bounds of Descriptive Representation in what it is, how it operates, in which contexts and for which reasons it should operate (1999, p. 628). In essence Mansbridge provides a uniform conceptualisation and conceptual application of Descriptive Representation. Alternatively, Pantoja & Segura’s focus upon Descriptive Representation is less for the promotion and explanation of the concept, and more directly for assessing its impact in specifically alleviating American Latinos feelings of political alienation through normlessness within California and Texas (2003, p. 441) This direct focus leads Pantoja & Segura to take a smaller-scale angle, and utilise a more positivist and analytical approach which emphasises descriptive quantitative modelling in order to provide insights into the size of Descriptive Representation’s impact on Latino views of government in the US. Finally, Bird’s focus is along similar lines to that of Pantoja & Segura in that it is more of an assessment, yet focuses less on the behavioural responses of a particular minority group. Instead, Bird’s focus lies in identifying which institutional level of governance is the most influential in affecting minority candidates ability to entering legislative office (2005, p. 425). To illustrate better the prevalence of such level, Bird uses qualitative methods of single depth studies into multiple polity’s in order to compare and find commonalities across systemic lines, highlighting which democratic mechanisms are closest tied to the ‘Political Opportunity Structures’ that exist (p. 429).
Despite this difference in methodology, all of the texts emphasize the importance of context when understanding the substantive power of Descriptive Representation. Indeed, most explicitly, Mansbridge does this by identifying “…group mistrust, uncrystallised interests, a history suggesting an inability to rule and low de facto legitimacy…” as defining the contextual boundaries for Descriptive Representation (1999, p. 628). Mansbridge spends considerable time in explanation of these different contexts within the text and the choices presented within each, as well as the risks and benefits to institutional designers. It is therefore no surprise in her concluding remarks, that Mansbridge ascertains that the best understanding of Descriptive Representation is contextual, when the benefits are most likely to outweigh the costs (p. 654). Pantoja & Segura also provide this similar verdict through the results of their research. Indeed, they contend that the power of co-ethnic representatives to improve trust in government must be viewed in the context of the interplay of all present factors. Empirically, Pantoja & Segura find that the statistical strength of Descriptive Representation is minor, and overall was second to many other factors. They explain that past this initial agreement, co-ethnic representation was not the most influential tool in reducing alienated responses. Latino Representative Power, Internal Efficacy, Spanish Media, Age and living in Texas all had higher mitigating effects (Pantoja & Segura, 2003 p. 450). This finding was qualified by their inclusion of Hero & Tolbert, who in their own testing during 1995, found that little evidence existed for the connection between Latino descriptive representation and substantive representation (p. 456), which has evidently been upheld by Pantoja & Segura’s research. Therefore it can be inferred through Pantoja & Segura’s writing that in their view, Descriptive Representatives do not solve all representative issues singularly, and rather their impact can differentiate to a large degree based upon the different contexts they operate within, even within the same country (2003, p. 457). Bird adds to the emphasis upon contextualisation, by extending the same assertion to cross-state contexts. Indeed Bird understands that the influence of the existence of visible minority representation (Bird’s alternative wording of Descriptive Representation) is based upon a multitude of other variables. Primarily, the practical power of Descriptive Representation is constrained by the very political system it exists within, with its own nuanced political institutional arrangements, civil society and histories of migration (p. 427). Bird examines this through the comparative analysis of France, Denmark and Canada which starkly evidence these differences within their own microcosm. Bird finds that the power and strategies of ethnic minority representatives differs significantly across the three states due to these differences. For example, in Denmark due to the more hostile environment that exists in the view of migrant communities, ethnic minority representatives have to allow for the views of the majority to have any electoral ability to win (2005, p. 441). Meaning less of their time is spent directly representing minority communities. Comparatively, in Canada this sentiment is less so and thus representatives can dedicate more time to specific representation of minority communities (p. 451). Therefore, all three research teams understand the importance of context as they, in their own research, have found just how volatile Descriptive Representation can be and the impossibility of blanket practical application.
Evaluation
However, the combination of texts still do not collectively address the implicit biases that exist in their work. These innate biases tend to promote the observation of Advanced Western Liberal Democracies. This Western, and more subtly US, bias exists in the research evidence across all texts, showing that there is little understanding or desire to understand Descriptive Representation outside of advanced democratic polities. Indeed, all three sets of authors selected only Western empirical or in Mansbridge’s case anecdotal, evidence (derived from the country case studies) to support their investigations of minority representation. Although it may be that the most amount of evidence exists for these types of states, it is not an excuse to leave out the vast amount of also available data from the rest of the world, particularly emerging democracies and semi-democratic states. Indeed, Mansbridge, Pantoja & Segura and Bird offer no individual or collective prescription for democracies in these cases, due to this complete oversight. Therefore there is no investigation into how Descriptive Representation operates at different levels of democratisation, which by virtue of systemic difference, will inevitably produce varying results. This is highly disappointing as the inclusion of such cases would provide greater insight into Descriptive Representation’s impact on Democracy as a whole, and thus provide a wider base of from which further research can be constructed. Yet further than this, the equitable, representative distribution of cases should be a necessary requirement in all research, especially with regard to the study of Descriptive Representation; where the diversity of majority ethnicities in different democracies is critical to understanding the specific contexts of each polity, and thus conducting research.
However, this is not to say that Mansbridge, Pantoja & Segura and Bird do not provide any value in their research (however diminished by what they left out). The combination of all three texts provide a strong basis for further research, that can take on my previous evaluation. With the combination of all three texts and their accompanying theoretical and empirical evidence, method and discussion, they provide some extensive general clarity for Descriptive Representation and its uses, desirability and impact in different contexts, despite the limited nature of these. It is of course particularly useful for the Advanced Democratic contexts, where minority political relations in general has been, and to an even further extent, are highly contentious issues which require a large amount of attention if we are to make substantial progress. Therefore Mansbridge, Pantoja & Segura and Bird provide a starting (western orientated) base, but definitely do not define the ceiling for Descriptive Representation.
Conclusion
In conclusion, Mansbridge, Pantoja & Segura and Bird compliment each other to a high degree, and therefore are highly useful in the initial study of Descriptive Representation. It is a highly important issue, especially for the progression of ethnic minority-majority relations within democratic states, where no matter how hard we try to profess our progress, racial tensions and hatred still exist. Therefore for the progression of the research agenda, as well as race relations in a western context, the research of Mansbridge, Pantoja & Segura and Bird is vital. However, this is not sufficient research upon its own value. This should, therefore, be used as a base to expand upon, taking into consideration of the innate Western and US bias and diversifying democratic case studies to include all forms of democracy. However, what is the most valuable contribution of the three research groups is their consistent identification of context; for context is everything.
References
Mansbridge, J. (1999). Should blacks represent blacks and women represent women? A contingent “yes”. The Journal of Politics, 61, 628-657. https://doi.org/10.2307/2647821
Pantoja, A. D & Segura, G. M (2003). Does ethnicity matter? Descriptive representation in legislatures and political alienation among Latinos. Social Science Quarterly, 84, 441-460. https://doi.org/10.1111/1540-6237.8402014
Bird, K. (2005). The political representation of visible minorities in electoral democracies: A comparison of France, Denmark, and Canada. Nationalism and Ethnic Politics, 11(4), 425-465. https://doi.org/10.1080/13537110500379211
Politica Carnivora 