Indian women rarely claim inheritance, for fear of alienating kin. This sustains dependence on husbands (even if abusive).

Quotas that increase women's local political representation help women secure inheritance rights instead of dowry.

A fascinating new book by @BruleRachel

That's the policy-evaluation positive spin

My own interpretation (focusing on the majority) is more pessimistic..

Where sons provide old age support & customarily inherit, & where women seldom expect support from gov (since they are mostly male-dominated), patriarchy persists.

So you can read the evidence in two ways:

1) women representatives help their female constituents secure their rights. quotas work

2) given men's economic dominance, persistent patriarchal norms & low female representation, the odds are stacked against the majority.

India's gender quotas clearly have positive effects (Beaman et al 2012).

But.. what's the magnitude of these effects in a context where men monopolise economic opportunities?

Compare India with Latin America, where quotas, female representation, & FLFP are rising in tandem.

So if the question is, 'do quotas advance women's rights?', the answer is an unequivocal yes.

But comparing across regions, it seems that the magnitude of those effects depends on women's participation in the economy & public sphere (both of which are lower in India).

Political scientists should correct me but it seems like there's a wealth of evidence demonstrating that quotas 'work'

But far less comparative research exploring what mediates their effectiveness, & why they seem so much more transformative in Latin America compared to India..?

Do correct me if I'm ignorantly omitting such work.

But in Latin America there's been a snowballing process of quota mobilisation: feminists have pushed for better enforcement & wider reach.

Whereas in India, the Lok Sabha is still 86% male. Scant change in representation.