September 2015

Briefing

The power to decide

Women, decision-making and gender equality
Tam ONeil and Pilar Domingo1

Around the world, women now have more influence over the decisions that affect their lives.

Key
messages

In even the most conservative societies, feminists and gender advocates have been able to
forward more equitable policies and outcomes.
Important drivers of womens political power and influence include improved access
to education and material assets, more equal and inclusive politics, strong womens
movements and women being effective political operators.
Increases in womens political power are not uniform. Some women have more influence
than others, both within and between countries. Men continue to dominate some sectors
and the most powerful positions in society.
Women in positions of power may not champion gender equality: women and their interests
are diverse.
The international community can better support womens political leadership by investing
in womens education and economic assets, their organisations and their political
apprenticeship; focusing on political systems and not just elections; and supporting locally
led and problem-driven responses.

Shaping policy for development

odi.org
developmentprogress.org

This briefing2 is about womens decision-making power, in

particular their ability to influence political decisions about
the distribution of public authority, rights and resources.
We look at the reasons for womens increased presence
in public life around the world, and why women in some
socioeconomic groups, sectors and countries have less
political power than others. We also examine when and
how women have power and influence in practice, and what
they seek to achieve. Finally, we provide recommendations
on how the international community can better support
womens access to decision-making and leadership.

Box 1: Leadership, decision-making power and influence

Leadership means the individual and collective
capabilities to mobilise people and resources
(economic, political and other) in pursuit of
particular ends (Lynne de Ver, 2009). This includes
the political aspect of mobilisation that is, the
ability to navigate power relations to secure
desired outcomes through contestation and
negotiation, the co-option and persuasion of allies
and the outmanoeuvring of opponents. Leadership
therefore involves the ability to influence the ideas
and behaviour of others and is effective when it
translates into outcomes, whatever the content of
those might be. Leadership may or may not coincide
with public positions of authority.
Decision-making power is the ability to influence
decisions that affect ones life both private and
public. Formal access to positions of authority and
to decision-making processes is an important, if
insufficient, condition for women to have decisionmaking power in the public domain. In fact,
decision-making power is a composite of access,
capabilities and actions that shape whether women
have influence over the polity or decisions about
their private life. Having influence with, over and
through people and processes is therefore central to
both leadership and decision-making power.

Explaining gains in womens decision-making

power
Women are more visible in public life now than they have
been at any other point in modern history. Globally, women
have more access to positions of authority than they did
30 years ago from the judiciary to parliament, from
professional associations to the boardroom (see Box 2).

Box 2: The representation gap an upward trend

In the past 30 years, the gender gap in several
aspects of public life in low- and middle-income
countries has narrowed significantly. The global
proportion of women national parliamentarians
the most common measure of this fell from 11.3%
to 22% between 1995 and 2015. By 2011, women
made up 40% of the formal labour force and 27%
of judges worldwide. Women are even starting to
make inroads into solidly male areas, such as the
police force (9% by 2011) and the boardroom, with
women CEOs of Fortune 500 companies going from
0 in 1995 to 26 in 2015 (Hughes, 2014; ILO, 2012;
The Economist, 2015; UN Women, 2011).

This is not a uniform global trend, however. Womens

political power differs between regions and countries
and, within countries, between sectors and socioeconomic
groups. Three main factors enable or constrain womens
decision-making power and leadership and explain which
women gain political power, when and how.
Institutions
Institutions are rules and norms that shape peoples
behaviour and interactions in social, political and economic
life. Four changes to formal (written) rules have been
instrumental to the increase in womens access to decisionmaking. First, the extension of civil and political rights has
made it more possible for women (and men) to participate
in public and economic life. Second, many countries are
progressively eliminating laws that discriminate against
women specifically. Third, democratisation has given much
greater numbers of women experience of political office
including poorer women in those countries with elected
local government. Fourth, positive measures, such as
electoral or party quotas, have been critical to reducing the
representation gap in many countries, particularly within
national legislatures.
In practice, however, it is the combination of
different rules and incentives that structures the political
opportunities of different women. For example, how
quotas work with other features of the political system
such as different types of electoral systems, internal party
workings and variations in presidential and parliamentary
systems defines which women rise through the political
ranks and where their loyalties might lie.

1 Tam ONeil and Pilar Domingo are Research Fellows in ODIs Politics and Governance Team. The authors thank Marta Foresti for comments on earlier
drafts of the briefing.
2 The briefing builds on the peer-reviewed outputs from a two-year DFID-funded evidence and learning project on Womens Voice and Leadership in
Decision-Making. This includes a comprehensive review of the academic literature, by Domingo, Holmes, ONeil, Jones, Bird, Larson, Presler-Marshall
and Valters (2015), and two rapid evidence reviews by ONeil and Cummings (2015) and ONeil and Plank (2015). See reports for full citations of
empirical sources and methods.

2 ODI Report

Critically, how formal rules work also depends on their

interaction with informal (unwritten) rules, social norms
and practices. These include customary and religious law
and informal political norms, such as patronage-based
or big man politics. They also include norms that are so
hidden people may not even recognise their effect on their
behaviour, such as patriarchy, sexism or racism (Chappell
and Waylen, 2013).
Structures
Structures are the deeper social, economic and political
endowments, groupings and patterns that shape a society.
They tend to be persistent over time: for example, socially
constructed categories and identities, such as class, gender,
ethnicity or sexuality, endure for centuries. But structural
changes that reduce inequalities are ultimately what are
required to close the representation gap.
Urbanisation, economic diversification and changes
in the gendered division of labour are slowly shifting
social beliefs and expectations in developing countries.
For example, women moving into traditionally masculine
jobs in larger numbers in Zambia is disrupting gender
stereotypes about womens capabilities vis--vis men and
the associated cultural expectations about the roles women
and men should perform (Evans, forthcoming). Womens
participation in the formal labour market has challenged
restrictions on womens mobility in Bangladesh.
Social ruptures and shocks can also produce rapid
structural change. In particular, large-scale conflict has
catalysed shifts in gender relations. The disruption of
traditional gender roles and stereotypes during war is one
reason for this. For instance, in El Salvador, Peru, Sierra
Leone and Sri Lanka, not all women returned to their prewar roles at the end of the conflict; some women continue
in newfound leadership roles, for instance in new civil
society organisations (Wood, 2008).
But peace processes and constitutional reform during and
after conflict have also provided opportunities for women to
renegotiate their share of rights and resources, on paper at
least, as part of larger political reforms. While women still
rarely have an actual seat at the negotiating table, they have
been effective in influencing outcomes, including through
strategic networking and lobbying with key decision-makers
(Nazneen and Mahmud, 2012; Waylen, 2014b).
After conflicts or regime change, male elites often
backslide on formal commitments to womens rights,
as was seen in Latin America in the 1980s and after the
more recent Arab Uprisings. But constitutional gains
such as equality and non-discrimination provisions,
quotas, primacy of statutory over customary law or
the criminalisation of gender-based violence are still
significant because they increase the likelihood of womens
future presence in political life. For example, of the 44
African countries that have rewritten their constitutions
since the 1990s, 75% of those that did so after conflict
have quota provisions, compared with only 25% of those

that did not experience conflict and, on average, the

post-conflict African countries have double the number of
women members of parliament (MPs) (Tripp, 2014).
Capabilities
Women must draw on a range of capabilities to take
advantage of the opportunities institutional and structural
changes present. Female politicians tend to be educated,
middle-class, often professional particularly those who
engage in politics outside their immediate communities.
A girls future political power is therefore often directly
related to her familys socioeconomic status and her
parents attitude to education for girls and, in particular,
to higher education.
Families can also be a critical training ground for
women leaders. Living in a politically active household can
equip women with the nous and connections necessary to
be effective political operators as when parents or spouses
are involved in community activism, trade unionism or
national office, for instance. Student politics, volunteering
and professional life are other key opportunities for
women to build their political skills, their reputation and
a constituency what Cornwall and Goetz (2005) call
political apprenticeship more so even than political
parties or formal training programmes in political skills.
The private sphere also informs womens power in the
public sphere into their adulthood. Women have less time
and fewer resources than men because of the gendered
division of domestic and reproductive labour: financial
and moral support of husbands and other close family
members is therefore often instrumental to a womans
political career (Tadros, 2014). And women who have
economic capital, in the form of ownership of and control
over resources, income and assets, are more likely to have
decision-making power in the home particularly when
this economic capital is combined with cultural and social
capital, such as education (Klugman et al., 2014).
Womens political power also depends on their collective
capabilities. Women organising with other women is
critical to their questioning of mens dominance and to
the solidarity needed to challenge it. Strong, independent
womens organisations are also instrumental to achieve
changes in gender laws and practices, especially in areas
that are likely to generate strong resistance, such as with
violence against women or family law (Htun and Weldon,
2011). Much less is known about womens role within
political parties and faith-based organisations, and the
implications of this for womens political power.

Explaining variations (and deviations) in

womens decision-making power
Too often, strategies to support womens decision-making
focus on institutions, structures or capabilities in isolation,
with limited appreciation of the linkages between them.
This is problematic because how particular capabilities,

The power to decide 3

institutions and social structures combine and interact

shapes womens actual influence in decision-making
processes. These relationships are the political economy of
womens decision-making. They help explain variations in
womens political power and leadership, such as:

decisions already taken in private discussion between the

most powerful players.

Inequalities between women

Adverse gender norms affect all women but how they
affect them depends on other structural factors. Gendered
barriers to political power are compounded for women
who are disadvantaged by their class, ethnicity, religion,
age or sexuality. Women from marginalised social groups
are less likely than those from dominant social groups to
have the social and economic assets to enable them to take
advantage of new opportunities for political power.

Women in the most senior positions are more likely to

have actual decision-making power, and there has been
some progress here too. In 2015, 10 heads of state and
14 heads of government were women, and the number of
women in cabinet between 1999 and 2010 had increased
from 9% to 17% (Hughes, 2014). However, it also the case
that women are more likely to lead soft ministries, such
as health, education or women/childrens welfare, and still
only rarely get finance, home, security or foreign affairs
portfolios (Krook and OBrien, 2012).
In any case, when opportunities for political influence
present themselves, it is not just capabilities that matter
but also what women do and how. This is a fourth factor
that explains womens decision-making power in practice:
how women negotiate gendered institutions and decisionmaking processes and fora across politics, economics and
society. And, in particular, whether they are able to make
the strategic decisions and build the relationships necessary
to work with and around political realities (see Box 3).
Holding official power and positions is also only part
of the story: women with clout in business, professional,
religious and other civic associations can have significant
indirect influence over politicians and other public
officials.3 While womens movements have been central
to advancing gender equality agendas, campaigning and
advocacy are just the most visible face of womens political
struggles. Whether they are business, civic or political
leaders, influential women (just like influential men)
are those able to leverage informal relationships, build
alliances and convince others. This is true of all societies,
because personal relationships and the ability to bestow
favours is the engine of politics the world over. But the
need for politicians and activists to be effective off-stage
as well as on-stage is particularly acute in countries where
the rule of law is weak, politics is patronage-based and
trust derives from who you are and who you know.
Successful womens coalitions in Egypt and Jordan,
for example, are those whose leaders have leveraged their
informal relationships with key decision-makers to lobby
for controversial legislation, for instance on family issues
or domestic violence. Behind-the-scenes networking,
combined with accepted credibility of these women

Variations between countries

Countries also have different social, economic and political
conditions that combine in different ways to enable
or constrain womens agency and leadership. Multiple
pathways to womens political power have emerged
from these differences. For example, in Western social
democracies, left-of-centre and socially progressive parties
have driven large increases in womens representation in
national parliaments, even in the absence of quotas. In
sub-Saharan Africa, by contrast, womens activism around
quotas in post-conflict political negotiations has been
critical (Krook, 2010).
Deviation between formal and actual power
The political economy of decision-making also explains
why formal authority or positions of power do not always
give women substantive influence over private and public
decisions that affect their lives. Informal norms and
practices influence how formal laws and regulations works.
Gender and other social norms are sticky (Mackay,
2014), and typically mean women are unable to exercise
power on the same terms as men even after reforms to
discriminatory laws. For example, women activists may be
unable to attend political meetings in the evening because
of domestic responsibilities, or male MPs may use sexual
harassment to dominate female MPs.
In addition, behind-the-scenes deliberations can be as
important determinants of what public officials decide and
why as public deliberations. For example, party positions
may be decided on in private social spaces that (formally
or informally) exclude women, such as bars or sports clubs,
and/or a parliament or board may simply rubber-stamp

Undercover feminism: how women negotiate

and influence the rules of the game

3 Data on who these women are and their assets and organisational roles are less readily available, yet case studies suggest these informal powers and roles
can be effective mechanisms for women to exercise power.

4 ODI Report

Box 3: Negotiating gendered institutions: Michele

Bachelet and executive power in Chile
In an analysis of the presidency of Bachelet in Chile,
Staab and Waylen (2015) underline the importance
of the politically strategic ways in which critical
gender actors (male and female) in government
navigated the opportunities and constraints that
defined the scope of what was politically possible
in terms of gender equality policy. The Bachelet
governments capacity to advance this agenda has
been constrained by both formal and informal
institutional structures and by a range of entrenched
interests and power structures, notably related
to the Catholic Church, business interests and
conservative elements among elite groups.
Nevertheless, progress has been possible across
a range of social reform areas (health, pensions
and child care). Each of these areas has seen very
different sets of challenges and opportunities.
Reforms have been possible thanks to the creative
strategies of gender actors, who have resorted to
a wide range of formal and informal rules and
relationships to achieve change within the different
policy fields. And these strategies have varied
significantly including in terms of accepting tradeoffs which reflects the specific constraints, interests
and incentive structures within each policy area.
Staab and Waylen underline the importance of
examining and understanding not only the key
actors, both supporter and opponents of positive
gender change, but also the formal and informal
institutional rules, norms and practices that
influence their relative leverage.

activists, including because of their in-depth knowledge of

law, has enabled them to frame socially sensitive issues in
ways that have outmanoeuvred (religious) opposition. But
key to effective gains has been the ability to spot and use
political opportunities within the corridors of power, and
through deep political sensitivities regarding social norms
around family life and gender relations (Tadros, 2011).
In all patriarchal societies, but particularly in extremely
conservative societies, women who wish to advance gender
equality also need to convince potential male allies, make
deals and compromises and frame issues in ways that
minimise hard opposition. In constitutional negotiations
in Uganda in 1995, for example, the womens caucus was
able to convince male allies of the need for progressive
gender provisions, such as affirmative action, but had to
compromise on the wording of the abortion provision
(Tamale, 1999). Technical knowledge, such as legal or
scientific skills, as well as political instinct, has been

important to womens effectiveness in such negotiations.

Feminist lawyers have played a key role in developing
gender-sensitive legal and policy reform. In Colombia,
the activism of experienced feminist lawyers has been
important to shape law on transitional justice and violence
against women legislation (Diaz and Marin, 2013).

What women with political power do with it

By working politically, women have driven progressive
changes in womens rights and gender relations in countries
around the world ones that would once have been
unthinkable let alone achievable. In most countries, urban,
educated women working inside and outside the state,
through a combination of long-term campaigning and
seizing opportunities, have won constitutional recognition
of womens equal status with men and legal and policy
reform across a range of issues, including property and
inheritance, reproductive health and violence against
women. The struggles of grassroots activists, which mostly
focus on more localised and practical issues that affect
the day-to-day life of their families, have led to improved
health and sanitation, safer environments for women and
girls, the exposure of corruption and better outcomes for
women in local dispute resolution.
It would be a mistake, however, to assume women with
influence, whether at national or grassroots levels, will
always use it to advance womens interests. While there is a
common assumption that women are more likely than men
to pursue policies beneficial for women and children and
sometimes even that they are, on the whole, more socially
progressive and peaceful we actually know relatively
little about the preferences, actions and achievements of
women leaders. This is especially so outside the most senior
women (e.g. positions beneath president) and politics (e.g.
business leaders).
Some studies do suggest women leaders are more
likely to prioritise public goods,4 and there are plenty of
case studies of women who individually or collectively
seek to reduce gender inequality. But the evidence does
not substantiate the premise that having more women in
power even a critical mass will automatically improve
outcomes for women more generally. There are two
main reasons why descriptive representation (how many
women?) does not equal substantive representation (what
women do and who they act for?)
First, women are not a homogenous group with a
discernible set of womens interests. They may have more
in common with men from their own social group than
with women from a different class, ethnic group, religion,
location or ideological persuasion. For example, women
elected through quotas in Burundi are widely seen as

4 For example, Beaman et al. (2006) use the natural experiment produced by the random assignment of womens leaders in Gram Panchayats in India to
look at their impact on outcomes, finding women leaders are more likely to promote public good provision.

The power to decide 5

token women rather than representatives of poor women

or gender interests.
Second, even powerful women can find their options
for advancing womens rights to be limited. They may
face resistance and backlash, such as when women who
transgress gender stereotypes are subject to violence, and
gender discrimination, such as when women are prevented
from reaching senior positions. The wider political
environment may also limit the power of women leaders,
such as when the executive marginalises parliament in
practice, or when loyalty to patrons weakens the ability of
women to organise with other women.
Nevertheless, whether women in formal positions
identify as feminist, in public or private what Childs and
Krook (2008) call critical actors and the quality of their
relations with womens organisations and activists does
appears to be more important to gender equality gains
than the number of women in power.

Towards better support to womens political

power and leadership
There is international momentum around improving the
lives of women and girls. Reducing gender inequalities
has high-level political support in several bilateral and
multilateral agencies. The newly agreed 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development includes a specific target on
womens full and effective participation in leadership at
all levels of decision-making. The anniversaries of the UN
Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing (1995)
and UN Security Resolution 1325 on Women, Peace and
Security (2000) provide political opportunities to push the
agenda on womens political power and leadership. Our
assessment of the evidence suggests five ways international
agencies might do this.
Be clear about the objective: Increasing womens presence
in public life is a valid political project and indicator
of gender equality in itself, and a necessary condition
for women to have influence. Increasing the chances of
women being politically influential is a different, if related,
objective, requiring different types of interventions.
Increasing the likelihood that powerful women will use
their influence to increase womens rights and gender
equality is a third objective, which involves a different set
of considerations again, for instance about who the women
in power are, which interests they prioritise, and whether
they are likely to support feminist causes. Conflating these
distinct objectives makes it less likely that programmes will
be well designed, makes it more difficult to communicate
progress and reinforces erroneous assumptions.
Invest in womens organisations and movements: Support
to womens organisations should always be a priority.

6 ODI Report

While short-term benefits might be difficult to predict or

report, the importance of strong, independent womens
movements to gender gains over time cannot be overstated.
Womens organisations need to arise from domestic
processes of contestation, however; attempts by foreign
actors and funders to drive agendas can undermine
domestic capacity and voluntarism and create backlash.
Focus on political systems, not just elections: There is
clear value in supporting mechanisms to increase womens
representation, through quotas, womens caucuses and
whole-of-electoral-cycle support to women candidates and
politicians. But whether and how these mechanisms work
to increase the decision-making power of different women
will depend on the wider political system. To be effective,
support to womens political power must pay attention
to how different features of the system work together,
including electoral rules, party system, regime type and
political culture.
Invest in political apprenticeship: Women develop political
skills and experience in a range of ways and through
different modes of political action. Political parties are
essential to womens influence once elected, but may
not be the most important training grounds for women
politicians. Supporting schools and civic associations can
be effective ways to extend opportunities for political
apprenticeship to greater numbers and groups of women.
Donors therefore need also to invest in a range of potential
pathways to womens leadership, with a countrys political
economy shaping decisions.
Invest in womens education and economic assets: It will be
an opportunity missed if increased spending for womens
leadership goes only to bigger gender programmes that
focus directly on womens political participation. Economic
and social capabilities provide a building block for political
capabilities. There is a clear opportunity to indirectly
support womens decision-making power through
education, but also economic programmes that increase
womens access to property, land, livelihoods, other capital
and business opportunities. Existing initiatives can be
adapted so they not only help achieve womens economic
empowerment but also enhance womens role in decisionmaking in business and economic policy.
Be locally led and problem driven: Support to womens
decision-making needs to be driven by actual opportunities
for reform in specific contexts. Identifying specific
problems also helps move away from generic gender
interventions. Instead, it is important to focus on the
obstacles to womens capacity for influence and decisionmaking in different political, social and economic roles and
the opportunities to achieve concrete outcomes in gender

equality gains. The presence and willingness of local reform

champions is therefore critical, as are adaptive programmes
that allow them to work politically and flexibly.

References
Beaman, L., Duflo, E., Pande, Y. and Topalova, P. (2006)
Women Politicans, Gender Bias and Policy-Making
in Rural India. Background Paper for the State of the
Worlds Children 2007. New York: UNICEF.
Chappell, L. and Waylen, G. (2013) Gender and the Hidden
Life of Institutions. Public Administration 91(3): 599-615.
Childs, S. and Krook, M. L. (2008) Critical Mass Theory
and Womens Political Representation. Political
Studies 56: 725-736.
Cornwall, A. and Goetz, A. M. (2005)
Democratising Democracy: Feminist Perspectives.
Democratization 12(5): 783-800.
Diaz, C. and Marin, I. (2013) Reparations in Colombia:
Advancing the Womens Rights Agenda, in L. Yarwood
(ed.) Women and Transitional Justice: The Experience of
Women as Participants. Abingdon: Routledge.
Domingo, P., Holmes, R., ONeil, T., Jones, N., Bird, K.,
Larson, A., Presler-Marshall, E. and Valters, C. (2015)
Womens Voice and Leadership in Decision-Making:
Assessing the Evidence. London: ODI.
Evans, A. (forthcoming) For the Elections, We Want
Women!: Closing the Gender Gap in Zambian Politics.
Development and Change.
Htun, M. and Weldon, S. L. (2011) The Civic Origins of
Progressive Policy Change: Combating Violence against
Women in Global Perspective, 19752005. American
Political Science Review 106(03): 548-569.
Hughes, M., with Duncan, B. and Pournik, M. (2014)
Womens Leadership as a Route to Greater
Empowerment: Report on the Diamond Leadership
Model. Washington, DC: USAID.
ILO (International Labour Organization) (2012) Global
Employment Trends for Women. Geneva: ILO.
Klugman, J., Hanmer, L. Twigg, S. Hasan, T. McClearySills, J. and Santamaria, J. (2014) Voice and Agency:
Empowering Women and Girls for Shared Prosperity.
Washington, DC: World Bank.
Krook, M. L. (2010) Womens Representation in
Parliament: A Qualitative Comparative Analysis.
Political Studies 58: 886-908.
Krook, M. L. and OBrien, D. (2012) All the Presidents
Men? The Appointment of Female Cabinet Ministers
Worldwide. Journal of Politics 74(3): 840-55.
Lynne De Ver, H. (2009) Conceptions of Leadership.
Background Paper 4. Birmingham: Developmental
Leadership Programme.

Nazneen, S. and Mahmud, S. (2012) Gendered Politics of

Securing Inclusive Development. Manchester: ESID.
Mackay, F. (2014) Remembering the Old, Forgetting the
New: Nested Newness and the Limits of Gendered
Institutional Change. Politics & Gender 10(4): 459-471.
ONeil, T. and Cummings, C. (2015) Do Digital
Information and Communication Technologies Increase
the Voice and Influence of Women and Girls? A Rapid
Review of the Evidence. London: ODI.
ONeil, T. and Plank, G. (2015) Support to Women and Girls
Leadership: A Rapid Review of the Evidence. London: ODI.
Staab, S. and Waylen, G. (2015) Understanding Gender
in the Executive: Politics, Institutions and Policy
Change in Bachelets Chile 2006-10. Manchester:
University of Manchester.
Tadros, M. (2011) Working Politically Behind Red Lines:
Structure and Agency in a Comparative Study of Womens
Coalitions in Egypt and Jordan. Research Paper 12.
Birmingham: Developmental Leadership Programme.
Tadros, M. (2014) Engaging Politically: Rethinking
Womens Pathways to Power, in M. Tadros (ed.)
Women in Politics: Gender, Power and Development.
London: Zed Books.
Tamale, S. (1999) When Hens Begin to Crow: Gender and
Parliamentary Politics in Uganda. Boulder, CO, and
Kampala: Westview Press and Fountain Publishers.
The Economist (2015) Whats Holding Women
Back?, 23 January, www.economist.com/blogs/
democracyinamerica/2015/01/women-and-work,
accessed 10 August 15.
Tripp, A. M. (2012) Women and Politics in Uganda.
Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press.
UN Women (2011) Progress of the Worlds Women: In
Pursuit of Justice. New York: UN Women.
Waylen, G. (2014a) Informal Institutions, Institutional
Change and Gender Equality. Political Research
Quarterly 67(1): 212-223.
Waylen, G. (2014b) A Seat at the Table Is It enough?
Gender and Multiparty Negotiations in South Africa and
Northern Ireland. Politics & Gender 10(4): 495-523.
Wood, E. J. (2008) The Social Processes of Civil War: The
Wartime Transformation of Social Networks. Annual
Review of Political Science 11(1): 539-561.

The power to decide 7

Overseas Development Institute

203 Blackfriars Road
London SE1 8NJ
Tel +44 (0)20 7922 0300
Fax +44 (0)20 7922 0399
www.odi.org
[email protected]

8 ODI Report

ODI is the UKs leading independent think tank on international development andhumanitarian issues. Readers are
encouraged to reproduce material for their own publications, as long as they are not being sold commercially. As
copyright holder, ODI requests due acknowledgement and acopy of the publication. For online use, weask readers
to link to the original resource onthe ODIwebsite. The views presented in this paper are those of the author(s) and
do not necessarily represent the views of ODI or our partners.
Overseas Development Institute 2015.This work is licensed under a Creative Commons AttributionNonCommercial Licence (CC BY-NC 3.0). ISSN: 2052-7209