Overcoming Barriers to Women’s Political Participation: Evidence from Nigeria

Overcoming Barriers to Women’s Political Participation: Evidence from Nigeria

In Nigeria, women are far less likely than men to attend meetings or contact leaders. Claire Adida’s research reveals interventions that make a difference.
Claire Adida

On September 25, 2025, FSI Senior Fellow Claire Adida presented her team’s research at a CDDRL Research Seminar Series talk under the title, “Overcoming Barriers to Women’s Political Participation: Evidence from Nigeria.” The seminar addressed a central paradox in global politics: although women’s legal formal right to vote is nearly universal, deep gender gaps remain in informal forms of political participation, such as contacting a local government official or attending a community meeting. This lack of engagement means women’s voices are underrepresented in governance and policies are less likely to reflect their priorities. This is particularly salient in hybrid democracies, where informal political participation may matter more than casting a vote.

Adida situated the study in the context of Nigeria, a large and diverse democracy that remains heavily patriarchal. Surveys highlight these disparities starkly: nearly half of Nigerian men believe men make better leaders than women; two in five women report never discussing politics with friends or family; and women are consistently less likely than men to attend meetings or contact community leaders. Against this backdrop, the project tested interventions designed to reduce barriers that discourage women’s participation.

The research team identified three categories of constraints: resource-based (a lack of time, skills, or information), norms-based (social expectations that women should remain outside the public sphere), and psychological (feelings of disempowerment and doubt about one’s capacity to create change). The study focused on the last two. To explore these, the team partnered with ActionAid Nigeria to conduct a randomized control trial (RCT) across 450 rural wards in three southwestern states. Local leaders identified groups of economically active women, aged 21 to 50, who were permitted by their spouses to join.

All communities began with an informational session on local governance. Beyond that, two types of training were introduced. The first, targeted at women, consisted of five sessions over five months designed to build leadership, organizing, and advocacy skills. These emphasized group-based learning and aimed to foster collective efficacy — the belief that a group can act together to achieve change. The second, targeted at men, encouraged husbands to act as allies in supporting women’s participation. After the initial informational session, communities were randomly assigned to no longer receive further training, to receive the 5 sessions of women’s training, or to receive the 5 sessions of women’s training and the 5 sessions of men’s training.

The findings were striking. Women’s trainings had clear positive effects: participants were more likely to engage in politics, attend meetings, and contact local leaders. The quality of their participation also improved, suggesting greater confidence and effectiveness. There was also evidence that these women’s trainings activated collective and self-efficacy, lending credence to the Social Identity Model of Collective Action (SIMCA), a framework explaining how a sense of shared identity, group-based injustice, and group efficacy build political engagement. By contrast, men’s trainings produced modest results. They did not increase women’s participation beyond the women’s trainings and, in some cases, had small negative effects, such as on grant applications. Still, men’s trainings reduced opposition to women’s involvement, improved beliefs about women in leadership, and increased perceptions of more permissive community norms, even if they did not translate into an increase in women’s political participation.

Adida noted that these limited effects may reflect “ceiling effects” — many men in the sample were already relatively supportive compared to national averages, or lower attendance rates. It is also possible that changes in men’s attitudes take longer to manifest in behavior. The seminar concluded that advocacy trainings for women show strong promise in boosting participation, while efforts to reshape patriarchal norms among men may require longer-term strategies.

Read More

Natalia Forrat presented her research in a CDDRL seminar on May 29, 2025.
News

Unity, Division, and the Grassroots Architecture of Authoritarian Rule

Dr. Natalia Forrat, a comparative political sociologist and lecturer at the University of Michigan’s Center for Russian, East European, and Eurasian Studies, explores how authoritarian regimes are maintained not only through top-down coercion but also through everyday social dynamics at the grassroots level.
Unity, Division, and the Grassroots Architecture of Authoritarian Rule
Paul Pierson presented his research in a CDDRL seminar on May 22, 2025.
News

The Risks of U.S. Democratic Backsliding

University of California, Berkeley Distinguished Professor Paul Pierson explores the risks of democratic backsliding in the United States in the face of rising polarization and inequality.
The Risks of U.S. Democratic Backsliding
Clémence Tricaud presented her research in a CDDRL seminar on May 15, 2025.
News

Margins That Matter: Understanding the Changing Nature of U.S. Elections

In a CDDRL research seminar, Clémence Tricaud, Assistant Professor of Economics at the UCLA Anderson School of Management, shared her research on the evolving nature of electoral competition in the United States. She explored a question of growing political and public interest: Are U.S. elections truly getting closer—and if so, why does that matter?
Margins That Matter: Understanding the Changing Nature of U.S. Elections