One of the most repeated dictums about executive politics is that politicians are among the most important political actors in contemporary democracies. However, it has become conventionally accepted that executive politicians would be unable to perform their duties without the support of ministerial advisers. Pressing contemporary policy issues (climate change, migration or disease outbreaks) require governments to combine analytical skills and expert knowledge. In parallel, given increasing political polarization, the emergence and electoral success of populist parties and the pressing media, politicians are increasingly seeking advisory capacity from individuals they trust. Despite their relevance, ministerial advisers tend not to be subject to much legal scrutiny and, most importantly, their functions tend to be legally vague, neglected or bypassed (Di Mascio & Nalini, 2016), generating distrust from citizens.
Moreover, difficulties in data-gathering and transparency in these appointments to ministerial private offices have precluded research on the profile of the individuals appointed. By aiming to assess the extent to which demographic features impact on career patterns of the extended coterie of ministerial advisers, this article seeks to contribute to the debate on representative decision-making, with a specific focus on the gender dimension. In fact, despite considerable efforts to accelerate gender equality in key political and public decision-making positions, progress has been slow and uneven. Studies on women’s political representation have privileged descriptive representation – be it in elected legislatures, political parties or executive office. However, other venues for representation are equally relevant in political decision-making as ministerial private offices. Beyond a descriptive account of the representation of women in ministerial private offices (gender composition, hierarchies in office and among ministries), the paper addresses the extent to which such appointments may emerge as a stepping stone to other political positions, namely later career paths into parliament, thus further clarifying implications on parliamentary representation outcomes.
Empirically, the article draws in the on publicly available data of appointed staff to ministerial private offices in the new millennium, considering the Portuguese case, a ‘typical case’ (Gerring 2011) of ‘cabinetisation’, characterised by a long tradition of engaging ministerial advisers, as the structural bridges between politics and administration, increasingly regarded as fundamental pieces in policymaking. Despite their dominant position, colonising all policy cycle stages, evidence supporting that belief is scarce and mostly focused on the first decade after the emergence of ministerial cabinets. The time-frame encompasses seven governments (from 2000 to 2022).
Our preliminary results suggest that, in the Portuguese case, ministerial private offices are indeed gendered institutions, featuring clear traits of vertical and horizontal gender segregation and showing that women’s noticeable presence in such positions is clearly not enough as women are not granted equal status and equal resources.
