used to think they knew: women representatives acting for women in a feminist fashion. More recent research suggests that ‘good’ substantive representation is better considered as a process, one which involves debate, deliberation, and contestation. Here we conduct comparative analysis of Belgium, New Zealand and the UK in order to first investigate the presence of formal parliamentary bodies ‘for women’, as well as more informal networks and friendship groups. We then examine the extent to which both contribute, either separately or together, to an inclusive, equal and responsive process of women’s substantive representation. Belgium has long established institutionalized gender equality committees in both of its two chambers and these are considered to be part of the state architecture. In the UK, in contrast, women’s parliamentary bodies are far less formalized and state-oriented. All-Party Parliamentary Groups (APPGs) are informal cross-party groups that have no official status within Parliament. The two main Westminster political parties also have parliamentary party women’s organizations. In New Zealand gender networks and friendships look to the more informal, where representation is more roving and contingent on the issue or on what standing or ad-hoc committees are working on. Our data comes from (1) official parliamentary documents and records; (2) the institution’s website; (3) email correspondence/interviews with institutions’ Chairs/administrators; (4) news/internet searches. We ask of: Responsiveness: ‘Are the claims included in the process of SRW responsive to women in society?’; Inclusiveness: ‘Is the process of SRW inclusive of all/ a wide variety of claims?’; Equality & egalitarianism: ‘Are all claims included in the process of SRW treated equally and given equal consideration?’. We also examine Capacity: ‘Is the institutional setting such that a process of SRW is secured and in matters for the broader parliamentary decision-making process?’
