Who thinks their Government, and not Donors, should Pay for Women's Political Empowerment? Survey Results from Malawi

Different interventions to advance gender equality in political office have been put on the international agenda over the past few decades. As electoral gender quotas have met resistance in several countries, alternative or additional measures such as financing of women's electoral campaigns have gained momentum among international agents, including UN Women. Gendered electoral financing builds specifically on the idea that lack of resources hinders women's political advancement, but as such schemes are costly, who should fund them? In this paper we study popular perceptions of gendered electoral financing in Malawi, a developing country with no gender quotas, but where women standing for elections have received earmarked funds to run in the two last general elections (2009 and 2014). Our empirical analysis is based on results from the LGPI survey conducted in Malawi in April 2016. We examine how support and knowledge about efforts to increase women’s numerical representation is related to views of who should pay for gendered electoral funding schemes. The paper contributes to the very limited literature on popular perceptions of international aid in recipient countries and the emerging literature on gendered electoral financing. According to the survey, the Malawian public appears spilt over the decision of who should pay for women’s political empowerment in their country. Identifying the sources of support for government funding, is important if western donors are to build knowledge of the sustainability of non-quota solutions to increase women's presence in politics.