Women make up half of the Argentine population, but when we look at the power and decision-making spaces, things change. And if we consider each province separetly, the results are even more surprising. Who has the power in the Argentine provinces? A Gender, Decision-Making and Representation Index.
Argentina was the first country in the world to establish statutory quotas for women’s representation under electoral law. Act No. 24,012, enacted in 1991, required that a minimum 30% threshold of women candidates be included in every electoral ballot; which was later increased to 50% in 2017. This leading move in the struggle for equality was supported by significant social demonstrations. The work of feminist movements led the State to look at every angle of gender inequality. However, although three decades have already gone by since these changes and despite a high level of social engagement, several challenges still exist that hinder equitable access to the different levels of political and economic power.
In spite of the contributions made by the academia, reports and databases available, we still know very little about gender inequalities. One aspect worth exploring —and the innovative approach of this paper— lies with the disparity in terms of decision-making and representation. To assess this disparity, we developed the Gender, Decision and Representation Index (GDIR), designed specifically for the Argentine context, which permits analyzing women’s chances of participating in political, judicial and economic elites. This analysis is not solely based on the country’s grand totals which reflect women’s chances nationwide, but on individual measurements across every jurisdiction which are reflected in a map covering the 24 provinces. It is worth noting that since there is almost no data on the situation of transgender, transvestite and non-binary individuals, this index only provides data on women and men categories.
Access to positions of power in the provinces
The index presents a map of gender gaps showcasing variations among provinces and government elite and the private sector. A detailed analysis of the parity scores for each jurisdiction shows that on a 0 to 100 scale, with 100 representing absolute parity for the constructed composite indicator, Santiago del Estero is the highest-ranking province, with 71.8% parity, while Santa Cruz, the lowest-ranking, stands at 42.4%. It thus arises that the index has an effective range of variation of 29.3 points. These differences cannot be explained by each province’s economic development and wealth or by the incumbent political parties, nor do they follow a regional criterion. In analyzing the different factors that influence women’s access to power, a distinction will be drawn between access to representation in legislative bodies (where the incorporation of female legislators seeks to guarantee women’s representation) and access to decision-making positions (where the rules of entry are not always elective). To capture this, the Index (GDMRI) is organized around two components: political representation and decision-making power, to determine the parity levels in the three branches of government and the private sector, measured in all branches of each of the 24 jurisdictions.
Decision-making power
Decision-making power is the component with the highest bearing in the differences in parity levels across provinces. This is due to the fact that the provinces that score better in the gender equality index have more women in executive branch, judiciary and private sector positions.
The Judicial Branch is the most feminized sector, and it is also the branch with the highest average parity (83%), and the one in which more provinces have attained equality (eight). This may be attributed to the professional job stability of women who opt for a career in the judiciary or to institutional regulations governing promotions.
The Executive Branch is, on the contrary, one of the most masculinized sectors. At the provincial level, we find cabinets have an average gender parity of 40.9% (i.e,. the number of men more than doubles that of women). However, that disparity goes beyond the mere presence of women in cabinets and extends to the offices and positions they hold. In fact, no province has reached the highest parity score given that, even when there is parity in the cabinet, it is a man who holds the highest position. The context is no different at the municipal level: the number of women mayors per province is by far the worst-performing indicator in the entire index and gender parity has not been obtained in any province.
The Executive Branch is, on the contrary, one of the most masculinized sectors. At the provincial level, we find cabinets have an average gender parity of 40.9% (i.e,. the number of men more than doubles that of women). However, that disparity goes beyond the mere presence of women in cabinets and extends to the offices and positions they hold. In fact, no province has reached the highest parity score given that, even when there is parity in the cabinet, it is a man who holds the highest position. The context is no different at the municipal level: the number of women mayors per province is by far the worst-performing indicator in the entire index and gender parity has not been obtained in any province.
The issue of the masculinization of power is not privy to the public sector. In the private sector, the gender parity percentage is barely 51%, which is equivalent to saying that for every two companies led by a man there is one led by a woman, with San Luis being the province with the highest score (65%). Despite being one of the areas that continues to be masculinized, it is worth noting that this number is in line with regional levels, since only 22% of SMEs in Latin America are women-managed (i.e., a 44% parity). The absence of women in non-state decision-making spheres is also prevalent in key areas such as the Argentine Industrial Union, where only three of the 26 members of the Executive Committee are women, or in the Argentine Rural Society, where only one of the 19 directors is a woman.
Representative positions
Unlike decision-making power, the disparity between men and women in accessing representative positions shows less variation. Twenty-two of the country’s twenty-four jurisdictions have gender parity laws that promote the presence of female legislators. And, although we would not go as far as to say that parity is the rule, these affirmative actions have had a strong impact in the spheres of legislative representation.
The Legislative Branch is the second-most feminized branch after the Judiciary. It is the one where most provinces have attained parity: a total of six, including Santiago del Estero, San Luis, Neuquén, Mendoza, Catamarca and Misiones. At the provincial level, it should be noted that all Argentine provinces have tools guaranteeing women’s legislative participation. Almost all provincial parity laws extend the parity mandate to the selection of candidates for Local Councils, with the exception of Catamarca. Legislation is key to achieving parity between men and women, but legislative efforts need to be supported by the enforcement of such laws. Those jurisdictions with inadequate enforcement of gender parity or quota laws present slightly lower provincial scores. This is the case of the party power indicator that measures the number of legislative lists headed by women competing for seats in the Federal Legislative Branch.
A final indicator to be reviewed is party power distribution, measured in terms of the number of legislative lists that compete electorally for seats in the Federal Legislative Branch and that are headed by women. This is the representation indicator with the lowest number of provinces reaching parity. Given this relatively equal representation on legislative lists, it is worth analyzing who heads these lists and the positions held by female and male representatives. Some provinces extend parity mandates to the designation of party authorities, but only San Luis has so far required alternation in the gender of candidates heading the electoral lists, pursuant to two interim electoral provisions of 2021 and 2023.
Considering regional realities
So far, we have examined the gender parity situation by sector. The subnational nature of this index also allows us to present a drill-down for each province and carry out a comparative analysis. Along these lines, we grouped the country’s twenty-four jurisdictions into three major groups.
Group A comprises the six top-ranked provinces in terms of gender equality, including Santiago del Estero, San Luis, Santa Fe, Neuquén, Río Negro and Mendoza, with an average gender parity of 66.1%. Broadly speaking, these provinces have the highest parity across the different areas analyzed, with five indicators that are well above average. The first four provinces even feature 80 points of equality in at least four of them. Their performance stands above the critical values in provincial legislatures, without exception, and all of them have provincial gender-parity laws. It is also the best-performing group in terms of gender parity in municipal councils, with five out of six provinces above the national average.
Group B accounts for almost half of the provinces: eleven jurisdictions with an average parity of 56.6% (Chubut, Chaco, CABA, Córdoba, Catamarca, La Pampa, Misiones, Corrientes, Entre Ríos, Salta, Buenos Aires and Jujuy). When we analyze individual indicators, we note that only the provincial judiciary maintains consistent ranking in the top third, with the exception of Entre Ríos and Buenos Aires, presenting erratic performance for the rest of the indicators. One salient feature is the masculinization of the provincial executive branch in all provinces in the group but for Chaco and Entre Ríos. However, their performance in terms of private leadership and party power is among the lowest in the entire Index.
Lastly, Group C, ranked at the bottom, groups the most masculinized territories (Tucumán, Formosa, San Juan, Tierra del Fuego, La Rioja and Santa Cruz) with an average gender parity rating of 44.7%. Although this group outperforms Group B in terms of provincial executive power, it scores rather poorly on the rest of the indicators. In fact, it has the lowest scores in terms of overall political representation.
The subnational character of the index begs the question of whether we should use the same tools for all provinces and all actors equally. At first glance, it could be argued that the dissimilar contexts of the provinces suggest that standards may vary, but it is also true that access has improved in cases where instruments such as quotas or parity-gender laws were implemented.
Neither so equal nor so unequal
Focused as we are on the inclusion of women into decision-making and representative spheres, what is the purpose of an index? As a standalone number, it does not say much. However, Its potential stems from its capacity to condense and structure evidence; and, while data alone may not settle discussions, it can certainly enhance them. In this regard, this index not only contributes to the national gender parity debate, but also provides insights into regional debates through snapshots of each of the 24 jurisdictions. These snapshots help determine the responsibility of the provincial elites for disparities and their potential for change. Identifying the factors that explain the different levels of women’s inclusion in positions of power allows interested organizations and agencies to determine where to direct their initiatives.
The process for leveling up the participation of women in the provincial power sectors is not linear, and progress cannot be observed simultaneously across the executive, legislative, judicial and business spheres. Instead, these indicators often reflect very inconsistent performance across the board. Advancements in one sphere does not necessarily imply a ripple effect in another, since the local context also plays a significant role. There does not seem to be a horizontal or phased-out process either whereby a stronger presence of women in certain positions of power leads to an increase in others. On the very contrary, the increase in the inclusion of women seems to be explained by a multiplicity of microprocesses that pave the way for their incorporation in select areas or specific niches.
