Security Threats and the Policy Agenda: Understanding State Action on Women's Rights in the Middle East

Summer Nicole Forester, Purdue University

Abstract

The usual explanations for variation in women’s rights—women’s movements, levels of democracy, state religiosity—do not adequately explain why women’s rights vary across and within the nations of the Middle East and North Africa. Through comparative case studies of Jordan, Morocco, and Kuwait, I show how securitization—that is, the process by which leaders identify and respond to security threats—affects government action on violence against women, reserved-seat gender quotas, and family law. Drawing on extensive fieldwork in Jordan combined with cross-national statistical analyses, I argue that security threats do not displace or obstruct progress on women’s rights by dominating the policy agenda, as many gender and politics scholars might expect. Rather, I argue, the relationship between securitization and women’s rights is more complex. In some contexts, securitization may enable the adoption of gender policies. Specifically, securitization facilitates governments action on women’s rights when: 1) the policy reinforces the primacy of the state as the protector of women, 2) the policy will improve the state’s image or status internationally, and 3) key actors frame the policy as bolstering state security. This study provides greater analytical leverage for explaining the unequal development of women’s rights in the region, for understanding the effect of security threats on domestic politics, and in explaining the policymaking process in authoritarian states.

Degree

Ph.D.

Advisors

Weldon, Purdue University.

Subject Area

Womens studies|Middle Eastern Studies|International Relations|Public policy

COinS