Do all-women shortlists produce more active parliamentarians? A comparison of the parliamentary activity of quota and open-list Labour women MPs from 2005 to 2017

While gender quotas in politics have received considerable scholarly debate, much of the focus remains on whether quota-elected women are less qualified due to their pre-election background. Far less attention has been given to their actual parliamentary performance and how it compares to their non-quota peers. This study uses UK parliamentary records between 2005 and 2017 to compare the parliamentary activity of Labour women selected via All-Women Shortlists (AWS) with those selected via the traditional Open-List. Parliamentary activity is measured through contributions in spoken debate, rebellion rates, submission of written questions, and vote attendance, alongside an examination of AWS women’s commitment to women’s substantive representation. The results show that AWS women were equally active in most parliamentary channels, but they were more active in submitting written questions and speaking about women’s issues during debates compared to their Open-List counterparts. Consequently, the findings refute claims that AWS women are less active or underperform in Parliament, demonstrating that they perform as well as, or better than, their Open-List counterparts across all measures. These results should encourage the broader adoption of quotas in other UK political parties.