Jamus discusses motion on Women's Development.
13 hrs ·
The recently-concluded Women’s Development motion touched on a host of action items to advance the position of women in Singaporean society. There were a number of suggestions specific to the workplace, including shared leave, and promoting female mentorship. On its face, mentorship is a fine idea. We know that close guidance from a someone who has been-there-done-that can be hugely beneficial for those who are just starting out, or for helping those who have been around make the next leap in their careers.
But there are issues with relying solely on this approach. It is a bit chicken-and-egg; it presumes that there are many female leaders to look up to and draw on. But their dearth is the issue in the first place! We then run the risk of overtaxing those who step up. In a post-
#MeToo world, male mentors may be uncomfortable with fostering close relationships with women. But it is often the camaraderie born from social settings that blossom into trust, and opportunities extended to the budding protégés.
That’s where quotas come in. In a society raised on a diet of meritocracy, many of us have an inherent discomfort with the principle of quotas, especially when they are used to determine what would otherwise be positions of merit. But the truth is, quotas already exist in our system. We reserve seats in GRCs for minority candidates, to ensure representation of certain groups. We impose EIP quotas for HDB estates, to avoid enclaves. We keep spaces for students that are kids of alumni. Whatever one thinks of the merits these policies (see what I did there?), the fact is that quotas are quite pervasive, and so we should evaluate the assignment of quotas based on whether it makes sense for a given policy issue.
So is there a case for quotas based on gender? Research suggests that there is. There is a famous paper by a team of economists that did much to change minds. The paper used randomly-assigned quotas—the gold standard of scientific inference—to village councils in India. The paper found that quotas helped overturn long-held perceptions about to competence of women, and helped usher in lasting gains in representation, even after they were removed:
https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2009.124.4.1497.
In some ways, this shouldn’t be surprising. Many historical inequalities are so deeply entrenched, a gentle shove is needed to shift mindsets and practices. Rather than tokenism, quotas work to displace old and outdated ways of doing things. That’s why I had proposed a limited quota for female corporate board representation: set a voluntary target, not too far above currently levels (I’d suggest 1/3), and require this for only large firms for a temporary period (say, 10 years).
Could less-meritorious people be out in place if we impose quotas? Perhaps. But we have to also believe that those who are chosen are always the best. For anyone that has observed how job selections occur in the real world, we know this is seldom true. If anything, quality could actually improve. Other research has shown that gender quotas in Sweden raised overall competence; hence, quotas can enhance meritocracy, by removing mediocre men:
https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20160080. That’s why we should seriously consider a role for gender quotas for leadership positions, even if such quotas are temporary. It can address the gender imbalance in business or politics, and pave the way for a more equal world.
#makingyourvotecount