Is representation of marginalised groups decreasing
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Recent reporting and research show mixed signals: some measures of representation for marginalized groups are rising slowly (women hold 27.2% of parliamentary seats as of Jan 1, 2025), while public acceptance of diversity and some occupational pipelines are slipping in parts of the world (acceptance in Germany fell sharply; some medical-school pipelines for Black-identifying physicians have declined by about half in certain categories) [1] [2] [3].
1. Representation is not a single trend — different measures tell different stories
Global political representation has improved over the last decade — women’s share of national parliament seats rose 4.9 percentage points since 2015 to 27.2% by 1 January 2025 — but that pace has slowed to a 0.3 point increase from 2024, signaling deceleration rather than reversal [1]. At the same time, scholarly and policy literature documents persistent underrepresentation and compound exclusion in other domains — housing, employment, health care, and political voice — that leave many groups still “left behind” despite incremental gains [4] [5].
2. Public attitudes can erode visible progress: evidence from Germany’s Diversity Barometer
Survey data from the 2025 Diversity Barometer indicate acceptance of diversity in Germany has declined, with the overall diversity index at 63/100 and especially steep drops on ethnicity and religion — the report ties part of this to economic anxiety and discomfort with the increased visibility of formerly marginalized groups [2]. This suggests representation gains can be undermined by shifting public sentiment even if formal seat or hiring numbers rise.
3. Media and cultural representation remain contested and mixed
Meta-analytic reviews and media studies in 2025 show both positive and negative portrayals persist: while some media create constructive narratives, mainstream outlets still regularly perpetuate stereotyped depictions that harm outgroup evaluations, and critics continue to call for better content evaluation tools and more mindful representation by platforms and creators [6] [7]. Thus the visibility of marginalized groups in media does not automatically equal accurate or empowering representation [6] [7].
4. Intersectionality hides intracategory declines — “marginalized within marginalized”
Analysis by the American Bar Association highlights that even within groups labeled as marginalized there are subgroups who are overlooked — people with intersecting identities (for example, disabled members of racial minorities, or transgender people experiencing homelessness) face compounded barriers and can be undercounted in aggregate measures [8] [9]. National or sectoral improvements can therefore coexist with worsening conditions for specific intersectional subpopulations [8] [9].
5. Institutional pipelines and professions show stark local declines
Institution-specific reporting points to acute declines in representation in some professional sectors: psychiatric and medical commentary in 2025 notes that representation of “FDBA” doctors — and especially FDBA men — has fallen sharply in recent decades, in one instance “by roughly 50%,” contributing to classrooms and clinical settings that sometimes lack epistemological and living representation among Black students and staff [3]. These local reversals highlight that progress in one domain (parliaments) can mask retrogression in another (health professions).
6. Political inclusion does not automatically change policy positions
Research on legislative representation in Latin America finds MPs from marginalized backgrounds do not necessarily differ ideologically from their peers, nor does their presence predict party-level ideological shifts [10]. That complicates assumptions that descriptive representation (presence) will always deliver substantive policy changes for marginalized constituencies [10].
7. Development and homelessness data show persistent disproportionality
UNDP and homelessness organizations emphasize that the world’s most marginalized remain left behind in development priorities and that homelessness statistics continue to show complex, sometimes counterintuitive patterns (for example, Latinos in U.S. federal homelessness counts have at times been proportionate or slightly underrepresented relative to population share) [4] [5]. Such figures caution against simple narratives of universal decline or improvement [4] [5].
8. Why the question “Is representation decreasing?” resists a single answer
Available sources show no single global downward trend; instead they document heterogeneous patterns: modest gains with slowing momentum in formal political seats [1], declines in public acceptance in at least one advanced economy [2], local professional pipeline collapses [3], persistent media misrepresentation [6], and deep intersectional blind spots [8] [9]. Any claim that representation is categorically decreasing lacks support in the assembled reporting and requires specifying which domain, country, or subgroup is meant (not found in current reporting).
9. What to watch next — indicators that will matter
Monitor: a) year-on-year changes in parliamentary and local office shares by group (SDG/UN stats) [1]; b) representative attitudinal surveys like the Diversity Barometer for social acceptance [2]; c) sectoral pipeline reports (medical and higher-education enrollments) for occupational reversals [3]; and d) media-content meta-analyses for shifts in portrayal quality [6] [7].
Limitations: sources cover different geographies and sectors and do not provide a single, unified metric for “representation,” so conclusions must remain domain-specific [1] [2] [3] [6].