BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
More women in the labour market leads to higher GDP

By introducing gender quotas to ensure gender equality, one could not only increase the labour force by bringing more women but also enhance the labour productivity and the available talent pool in a country. This would stimulate businesses to expand, innovate, and compete. This process has an effect of raising tax revenue and social security payments. The overall effect is the positive growth of the economy.   Therefore, addressing social injustice and higher economic returns are mutually supportive goals. This argument is particularly relevant for qualified women who could be hired at executive positions, but are prevented from doing so due to cultural beliefs, societal practices, and lack of economic and institutional support. A study by Asa Löfström on the links between economic growth and productivity in the labour market argues that if women’s productivity level rises to the level of  men’s, Europe’s GDP could grow 27% which makes women’s participation is of crucial importance to Europe’s economy.[1] Quotas would allow for a better utilisation of the talent pool; as currently, 59% of the students graduating from Europe’s higher educational institutes are women.[2] With the current access to education and the introduction of quotas against barriers of existing prejudices, women will have incentives and support to increase their productivity In the case of Norway, the quota law requires all public, state-owned , municipal, inter-municipal and cooperative companies to appoint at least 40% women on their boards per 2008. The law led to a fast increase from 6% women on boards of public limited companies in 2002 to 36% in 2008.[3] [1] Löfström, Asa. Gender Equality, Economic Growth and Employment. Swedish Presidency of the European Union, 2009. Web. [2] European Parliament, “Gender Quotas in Management Boards”, 2012 [3] Working Paper: “The Quota-instrument: Different Approaches across Europe”. N.p.: European Commission’s Network to Promote Women in Decision-making in Politics and the Economy, 2011. Web.
Quotas encourage women to pursue education and professional job positions

Quotas attempting to maximise the number of educated and skilled women in executive positions could improve corporate performance and help raise national productivity. But doing so will depend on keeping ambitious, well-qualified women moving up the management ranks. Gender quotas will encourage more women to pursue education and career options leading to the top of executive positions. Quotas create incentives for women to adapt their job preferences to the more accessible boardroom positions and develop necessary skills which would reduce the need for positive discrimination in the future. Encouraged to develop relevant skills, women will contribute to the long-term talent pool and the economy. According to McKinsey report, women’s interest in being leaders increases as they progress from entry level to middle management[1] which is exactly what the principle behind quotas aims to encourage - more women following professional career development. This is very important in the short run during which, according to research, women who have high position stimulate other women’s interest in traditionally male-dominated sectors and encourage them to pursue similar career paths.[2] [1] Barsh, Joanna, and Lareina Yee. "Unlocking the Full Potential of Women in the US Economy." McKinsey & Company. N.p., 2011. Web. [2] Australian Human Rights Commission, “Women in leadership”
Quota-led gender equality in executive boards will help shape a gender sensitive and highly performing business environment.

There are many reports showing that there is a positive correlation between the number of women on high positions and the companies’ performance. A report from The McKinsey Organizational Health Index (OHI) argues that companies with three or more women in top positions (executive committee and higher) scored higher than their peers. Companies that score highly on all the OHI measures have also shown superior financial performance.[1] This is often related to the high overall education level of women on boards. In Norway, there has been some advancement in firms’ human capital as a result of the quotas,[2] which may result in increased profits in the future due to the increasing number of well educated women. Female managers tend to promote a communal and collaborative style of leadership that can improve a company’s performance and work culture. Organizations with women in top leadership positions are also more likely to provide work-life assistance to all employees.[3] Norwegian scholars have found that the increased number of women on boards has led to more focused and strategic decision-making, increased communication, and decreased conflict.[4] In fact, many successful business women, such as Sheryl Sandberg, also argue that more women in business could change business ethics and the male-associated image of successful business model that will bring competitive advantages to companies and thus, to the EU economies.[5] [1] Barsh, Joanna, and Lareina Yee. "Unlocking the Full Potential of Women in the US Economy." McKinsey & Company. N.p., 2011. Web. [2] Sandberg, Sheryl, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead, New York, 2013 [3]  Matos, Kenneth, and Galinsky, Ellen, “2012 National Study of Employers”, Families and Work Institute, 2012, p.45 [4] Sweigart, Anne. "Women on Board for Change: The Norway Model of Boardroom Quotas As a Tool For Progress in the United States and Canada." Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business 32.4, 2012 [5] Sandberg, Sheryl, Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead, New York, 2013
There is no clear link between gender quota and economic growth

As Pande and Ford found in their report, countries often adopt gender quotas as a response to changing attitudes to women. However, these countries more often than not are Western advanced economies characterised by efficiency.[1] Therefore, the correlations between gender quotas and good economic performance cannot be attributed entirely to the gender equality measures. Moreover, the competitiveness of the EU economies is damaged by domestic policies and the sovereign debt crisis which will have a larger negative impact on the European economies rather than this measure. Therefore, the expected spillover effects on the economy are unlikely to be realised.[2] Such sceptic views on quotas when accompanied by bad economic factors are shared by international institutions like the International Labour Organisation (ILO). Breaking the glass ceiling may require affirmative action like gender quotas, but if supply-side barriers remain, even such proactive policies will not necessarily lead to the desired result of gender equality and economic advantages.[3] [1] Pande, Rohini & Deanna Ford, “Gender Quotas and Female Leadership: A Review” , Background Paper for the World Development Report on Gender, 2011 [2] ibid [3] Gerecke, Megan, “A policy mix for gender equality? Lessons from high-income countries”, International Labour Organisation, 2013, p.13
Public and private institutions should hire people based on skills not gender to achieve positive economic impact

Businesses advance when they hire the best person for a job who can unite people and create value. These qualities are individual and enhanced through training rather than not gender-specific. Letting both private and public companies to hire according to their needs and those who meet them is a more efficient way to ensure economic growth. In some countries in the EU the proportion of women with relevant education is lower and such a measure will bring structural inefficiencies in the short to mid - term for the companies and the overall economy. The empirical data from Norway, for example, reveals that after being exposed to a severe limitation on their choice of directors, boards experienced large declines in value.[1] Often women hired after the quotas implementation had less upper management experience than the previously hired employees. However, since the average size of boards did not increase, male employees were dismissed and less experienced female professionals hired, so that companies could fulfil the quotas. [1] Ahern, Kenneth, and Amy Dittmar. "The Changing of the Boards: The Impact on Firm Valuation of Mandated Female Board Representation." The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2012.
There are other policy options that are less distortive and more advantageous for the economy.

Quotas are discriminatory and could be anti-constitutional in countries like France while there are other policy instruments that could be easier to implement. Rather than implementing quotas as a top-down approach, for example, there could be more access to capital and less regulatory obstacles for starting businesses for women. However, women in OECD enterprise account for an average 30% of all entrepreneurs and there are more self-employed or firm-owners. These gender gaps are particularly large in Ireland, Iceland, and Sweden.[1] Entrepreneurs or individuals starting up new firms are crucial to productivity in all countries. In the OECD area, the levels of entrepreneurship are highest in countries showing the fastest growth. The number of women entrepreneurs, as seen in female to male start-up ratios, is also growing fastest in these countries, which include the United States and Canada. Enhanced access to credit and less red tape for women-owned ventures is a promising source of business and job creation without the distortive effects of quotas on business competitiveness. Other non-legislative instruments encouraging gender equality in companies are labels, awards, charter signing, and rankings.[2] They do not require externally imposed structural changes but stimulate companies to commit to gender equality in a manner acceptable to them. Moreover, even if quotas are implemented, they should be flexible and voluntary. A one-size fits all binding quota scheme could easily harm more national economies than it would help. Even by implementing voluntary rather than obligatory quotas in addition to existing national efforts for gender equality, the EU could avoid economic distortions and constitutional complications. [1] OECD, “Gender and Sustainable Development: Maximising the economic, social and environmental role of women”, 2008, p.35 [2] European Parliament, “Gender Quotas in Management Boards”, 2012
Gender equality is based on fundamental human rights endorsed by the EU which needs to be addressed

Gender equality comes from the society. Businesses operate in a different way than the overall society and imposing quotas on them will not necessarily change the gender inequality. Businesses require skills to expand and progress and, therefore, quotas undermine them by affecting their employment process. At the same time, these measures do not address the origins of inequality which are linked to tradition and cultural background of a society and thus, will not bring progress in this field.
More women in the labour market leads to higher GDP

If there is no equal access to education and training opportunities, this measure does not address gender inequality. On the contrary, gender quotas are likely to bring inefficiencies because companies face sanctions if they do not abide by the legislation. Introducing this legislation on the overall population of the EU rather than simply on matters regarding qualified women will introduce impediments to businesses across sectors. The EU member states uphold gender equality in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights. Therefore, women do not face particular institutional obstacles to their employment. On the contrary, they have the legal support of the EU law. Moreover, evidence shows the effects of quotas are distortive. In the case of Sweden, the short-term effects of quotas suggest some negative impact on firm returns. The companies had to reorganise their activities to compensate for this consequence.[1] Even in Norway, many firms changed their status (e.g. they moved to other countries) to avoid the sanctions for non-compliance while those who introduced the compromise experienced a relative decline in annual profits over assets associated with the quota.[2] [1] Pande, Rohini & Deanna Ford, “Gender Quotas and Female Leadership: A Review” , Background Paper for the World Development Report on Gender, 2011 [2] Matsa, David, and Amalia Miller. "A Female Style in Corporate Leadership? Evidence from Quotas." American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 30 April 2012
Quotas encourage women to pursue education and professional job positions

There is no clear and conclusive statistical data to support the long-term link between quotas and women’s participation on highest executive positions. The introduction of quotas around the world has not increased the number of women on high positions in some male-dominated sectors and there is no certainty that such policy measures in the EU will change the current status quo. For example, despite the 40% increase in women in executive positions, there was no significant change in the number of female CEOs . Moreover, there should not be a one-size fits all binding quota, but member states should come with their own rules that change gender mentality in the respective country. Gender equality and women’s choice of career have cultural and industry-specific implications which common gender quotas do not address
Penalizing a non-act is unconstitutional

The federal government mandates positive activities all the time, and this is why several courts have also upheld the constitutionality of the individual mandate.(7) Regarding the charge that the individual mandate penalizes a 'non-action', Stephanie Cutter, an adviser to President Barack Obama, has argued: "Individuals who choose to go without health insurance are making an economic decision that affects all of us—when people without insurance obtain health care they cannot pay for, those with insurance and taxpayers are often left to pick up the tab."(7) Thus these people are not engaging in a 'non-action' but rather in an economic choice which has negative implications for other Americans, something Congress has the constitutional power to regulate under the commerce clause and the constitution's provision that Congress should promote the general welfare.
The mandate is not constitutional under the commerce clause

A refusal to purchase healthcare insurance can have an effect on interstate commerce, because in shrinking the risk pool of insured the premiums would incrementally rise. In 2007, healthcare expenditures amounted to $2.2 trillion, or $7,421 a person, and accounted for 16.2% of the gross domestic product. These statistics leave no doubt that regulating health insurance is synonymous with regulating interstate commerce.(10) Not engaging in economic transactions is a form of commercial behaviour that Congress can regulate. The Supreme Court held that Congress could require that hotels and restaurants provide services to African-Americans. Their refusal to engage in commerce still was deemed to be within the scope of Congress's commerce clause power.(10) The likelihood is that everyone will require medical care at some point. An uninsured person in a car accident will be taken to the emergency room for treatment. An uninsured person with a communicable disease will be treated; indeed, it is necessary for the health and welfare of the general population to provide treatment to individuals suffering from infectious diseases. Congress can ensure that there is an adequate fund to pay for everyone's medical needs.
The individual mandate gives too much power to the Federal Government

The healthcare insurance can be unprecedented but still be constitutional as Erwin Chemerinsky argues: “Anything that has never been done before is literally unprecedented, which means it lacks any precedent. So the question is, will the Supreme Court want to authorize this new extension of congressional power in light of the fact that it violates the first principles it affirmed in Lopez and Morrison? Or, to the contrary, will it want to take the opportunity reaffirm that these principles still apply, notwithstanding Raich, in a case with no further implications beyond the statute in question?”(10) Regarding the argument that the healthcare mandate will allow Congress to regulate everything and everyone, such hyperbole and apocalyptic predictions are familiar in this area. In 1918, in Hammer v. Dagenhart, the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional a federal law that prohibited the shipment in interstate commerce of goods made by child labour. The Court concluded its opinion by declaring: "[I]f Congress can thus regulate matters entrusted to local authority by prohibition of the movement of commodities in interstate commerce, all freedom of commerce will be at an end, and the power of the states over local matters may be eliminated, and thus our system of government practically destroyed." For more than 70 years Congress has prohibited child labour and none of these dire predictions have come to pass. Nor would allowing Congress to mandate the purchase of health insurance mean that Congress could regulate who people invite to their homes for dinner or end our system of federalism.(10)
The mandate falls under taxation and general welfare powers

Insurance mandates are not a tax and therefore are outside of constitutional powers. Randy Barnett, a Georgetown University law professor, claims that health insurance mandates are not a tax, and therefore falls outside congressional power. “You're fining people for failing to enter a private insurance contract.”(3) Moreover, as Peter Urbanowicz and Dennis G. Smith argue: “the question of whether the compelled purchase of health insurance constitutes the 'taking' of private property under the Fifth Amendment. Given the novel nature of the individual health insurance mandate, a Fifth Amendment challenge can be expected. Requiring a citizen to devote a per-cent of his or her income for a purpose for which he or she otherwise might not choose based on individual circumstances could be considered an arbitrary and capricious “taking” no matter how many hardship exemptions the federal government might dispense.”(6) Regarding the “general welfare” arguments adduced by side opposition: The words 'general Welfare' show up in the first line of Article I, Section 8: 'The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States'. Significantly, Notice the Constitution does not say the 'general welfare of the citizens of the United States.' It says "general Welfare of the United States.' This clause only gives the Congress the power to raise money to defend the country and pay for the day-to-day operations of the government. It says nothing at all about building bridges to nowhere, or paving bike paths, or spending money on any other kind of pork barrel project, including health care.(13)
The mandate is constitutional under the commerce clause

These arguments overlook the existence of two major cases – United States v. Lopez and United States v. Morrison – in which the Supreme Court has specifically rejected the notion that Congress can regulate non-commercial behaviour merely because, arguably, such behaviour can have an impact on Commerce. The Court's overarching reason for doing so was its compellingly articulated belief that the Commerce Clause is a limited grant of power and one that cannot be infinitely capacious. This reasoning is unassailable, and demonstrated that the individual mandate is not a reasonable application of the commerce clause.(8) Rather, this interpretation of the commerce clause could potentially America's constitutional structure. Every single decision made by individual Americans, be it buying health insurance, a car, health club memberships or any other good or service, has some impact on the economy. Such decisions could therefore be subject to regulation by Congress. Indeed, Congress would be able to determine how individuals would dispose of every penny of whatever monies they have left after paying taxes. Meanwhile, the Supremacy Clause- which ensures that any constitutional federal legislation trumps exercises of state power- would all but guarantee that an infinitely capacious Commerce Clause would rob States of any remaining authority. This point was ably articulated by Justice Kennedy in his concurring opinion in Lopez.(8)  Accordingly, there is a great deal at stake here. No matter how important the cause of health care reform might be, it is not consequential enough to destroy the very sinews of America’s constitutional system.
Mandatory health insurance is analogous to constitutional mandates

Mandatory health insurance is not analogous to car insurance. Car insurance requirements impose a condition on the voluntary activity of driving; a health insurance mandate imposes a condition on life itself. States do not require non-drivers, including passengers in cars with potentially bad drivers, to buy auto insurance liability policies -- even though such a requirement undoubtedly would lower the auto insurance premiums for those who do drive. The auto insurance requirement is linked to driving and to the possibility that bad driving may cause injuries to others, including passengers in the driver's car, not to those who benefit from roads generally.(2) The primary purpose of the auto insurance mandate was to provide financial protection for people that a driver may harm, and not necessarily for the driver himself. And the auto insurance mandate is a quid pro quo for having the state issuing a privilege: in this case a driver’s license.(6) Regarding the claim that Medicare tax provides a justifying precedent for the individual healthcare mandate, it is worth noting that the architects of Medicare harboured grave doubts about its constitutionality, which was ultimately settled on the taxing power of the United States government. However, in contrast to an individual mandate, federal benefits are attached to Medicare taxes and there is a specific “contract” involved between the current payment of taxes and future government benefits. No such relationship would exist with the individual health insurance mandate. Additionally, while one can “opt-out” of receiving Social Security and Medicare benefits, although one must still pay Social Security and Medicare taxes, none of the individual mandate proposals provide for an “opt out”, other than for yet undefined religious objections. Interestingly, a suit being led by former House Majority Leader Richard Armey is challenging a federal regulation that suggests that opting out of Medicare will put a person’s Social Security benefits at risk.(6)