Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T19:40:40.824Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are Parties Equally Responsive to Women and Men?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 August 2017

Jonathan Homola
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article explores (1) whether policy makers are equally responsive to the preferences of women and men and (2) whether the increased presence of women in parliament improves responsiveness to women’s preferences. Using a time-series cross-sectional analysis of 351 party shifts by sixty-eight different parties across twelve Western European countries, the study finds that parties respond to the preference shifts of women and men. However, parties are more responsive to the preference shifts among men than among women – a finding that is not affected by the share of female politicians in parliament. The findings question the implicit assumption that substantive political representation of women necessarily follows from their descriptive representation in legislatures.

Keywords

party responsivenesssubconstituency representationwomen, men
Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , July 2019 , pp. 957 - 975
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

Department of Political Science, Washington University in St. Louis (email: homola@wustl.edu). The author would like to thank Ian Budge, Lawrence Ezrow, Jeff Gill, Matt Golder, Sona Golder, Belen Gonzalez, Zachary Greene, Onawa Lacewell, Diana O’Brien, Margit Tavits, Michelle Torres, Annika Werner and Carla Xena for comments on earlier drafts of this article. The author would also like to thank Shaun Bowler and the anonymous reviewers. Data replication sets are available in Harvard Dataverse at: doi:10.7910/DVN/K1TVXL and online appendices are available at https://doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0007123417000114.

References

Adams, James. 2001. Party Competition and Responsible Party Government: A Theory of Spatial Competition Based Upon Insights from Behavioral Voting Research. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Adams, James, Clark, Michael, Ezrow, Lawrence, and Glasgow, Garrett. 2004. Understanding Change and Stability in Party Ideologies: Do Parties Respond to Public Opinion or to Past Election Results? British Journal of Political Science 34:589–610.Google Scholar
Adams, James, Clark, Michael, Ezrow, Lawrence, and Glasgow, Garrett. 2006. Are Niche Parties Fundamentally Different from Mainstream Parties? The Causes and the Electoral Consequences of Western European Parties’ Policy Shifts, 1976–1998. American Journal of Political Science 50:513–529.Google Scholar
Adams, James, and Ezrow, Lawrence. 2009. Who do European Parties Represent? How Western European Parties Represent the Policy Preferences of Opinion Leaders. Journal of Politics 71:206–223.Google Scholar
Adams, James, and Somer-Topcu, Zeynep. 2009. Policy Adjustment by Parties in Response to Rival Parties’ Policy Shifts: Spatial Theory and the Dynamics of Party Competition in Twenty-Five Post-War Democracies. British Journal of Political Science 39:825–846.Google Scholar
Armingeon, Klaus, Weisstanner, David, Engler, Sarah, Potolidis, Panajotis, and Gerber, Marlène. 2012. Comparative Political Data Set I 1960-2010. Bern: Institute of Political Science, University of Bern.Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2008. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Beckwith, Karen. 2014. Women, Gender, and Conservative Parties in the 21st Century. Presented at the Conference on Women, Gender and Conservative Parties in the 21st Century, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH, 9 –11 October.Google Scholar
Benoit, Kenneth, and Laver, Michael. 2007. Estimating Party Policy Positions: Comparing Expert Surveys and Hand-Coded Content Analysis. Electoral Studies 26:90–107.Google Scholar
Berkman, Michael B., and O’Connor, Robert E.. 1993. Do Women Legislators Matter? Female Legislators and State Abortion Policy. American Politics Research 21:102–1124.Google Scholar
Bernauer, Julian, Giger, Nathalie, and Rosset, Jan. 2015. Mind the Gap: Do Proportional Electoral Systems Foster a More Equal Representation of Women and Men, Poor and Rich? International Political Science Review 36:78–98.Google Scholar
Berry, William D., Golder, Matt, and Milton, Daniel. 2012. Improving Tests of Theories Positing Interaction. Journal of Politics 74:653–671.Google Scholar
Bratton, Kathleen A. 2005. Critical Mass Theory Revisited: The Behavior and Success of Token Women in State Legislatures. Politics and Gender 1:97–125.Google Scholar
Budge, Ian. 1994. A new Spatial Theory of Party Competition: Uncertainty, Ideology and Policy Equilibria Viewed Comparatively and Temporally. British Journal of Political Science 24:443–467.Google Scholar
Budge, Ian, Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, Volkens, Andrea, Bara, Judith, and Tanenbaum, Eric. 2001. Mapping Policy Preferences. Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945–1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, Rosie, and Childs, Sarah. 2015. ‘To the Left, to the Right’. Representing Conservative Women’s Interests. Party Politics 21:626–637.Google Scholar
Carey, John M. 2007. Competing Principals, Political Institutions, and Party Unity in Legislative Voting. American Journal of Political Science 51:92–107.Google Scholar
Catalano, Ana. 2009. Women Acting for Women? An Analysis of Gender and Debate Participation in the British House of Commons 2005–2007. Politics & Gender 5:45–68.Google Scholar
Celis, Karen. 2006. Substantive Representation of Women: The Representation of Women’s Interests and the Impact of Descriptive Representation in the Belgian Parliament (1900–1979). Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 28:85–114.Google Scholar
Cheng, Christine, and Tavits, Margit. 2011. –Informal Influences in Selecting Female Political Candidates. Political Research Quarterly 64:460–471.Google Scholar
Crisp, Brian F., Betul, Demirkaya, Leslie A., Schwindt-Bayer, and Courtney, Millian. 2016. The Role of Rules in Representation: Group Membership and Electoral Incentives. British Journal of Political Science. doi: 10.1017/S0007123415000691.Google Scholar
Dahlerup, Drude, and Freidenvall, Lenita. 2005. Quotas as a ‘Fast Track’ to Equal Representation for Women: Why Scandinavia is No Longer the Model. International Feminist Journal of Politics 7:26–48.Google Scholar
Dalton, Russell J. 1985. Political Parties and Political Representation. Comparative Political Studies 17:267–299.Google Scholar
Devlin, Claire, and Elgie, Robert. 2008. The Effect of Increased Women’s Representation in Parliament: The Case of Rwanda. Parliamentary Affairs 61:237–254.Google Scholar
Dolan, Kathleen. 2011. Do Women and Men Know Different Things? Measuring Gender Differences in Political Knowledge. The Journal of Politics 73:97–107.Google Scholar
Duverger, Maurice. 1955. The Political Role of Women. Paris: UNESCO.Google Scholar
Enns, Peter K., and Wlezien, Christopher. 2011. Who Gets Represented? New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Erikson, Robert, MacKuen, Michael, and Stimson, James. 2002. The Macro Polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Esaiasson, Peter, and Holmberg, Sören. 1996. Representation from Above: Members of Parliament and Representative Democracy in Sweden. Aldershot: Dartmouth.Google Scholar
Ezrow, Lawrence. 2008. Research Note: On the Inverse Relationship Between Votes and Proximity for Niche Parties. European Journal of Political Research 47:206–220.Google Scholar
Ezrow, Lawrence, De Vries, Catherine, Steenbergen, Marco, and Edwards, Erica. 2011. Mean Voter Representation and Partisan Constituency Representation: Do Parties Respond to the Mean Voter Position or to Their Supporters? Party Politics 17:275–301.Google Scholar
Fox, Richard L., and Lawless, Jennifer L.. 2004. Entering the Arena? Gender and the Decision to Run for Office. American Journal of Political Science 48:264–280.Google Scholar
Franceschet, Susan, and Piscopo, Jennifer M.. 2008. Gender Quotas and Women’s Substantive Representation: Lessons from Argentina. Politics & Gender 4:393–425.Google Scholar
Fukuyama, Francis. 1998. Women and the Evolution of World Politics. Foreign Affairs 77:24–40.Google Scholar
Gilens, Martin. 2005. Inequality and Democratic Responsiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly 69:778–796.Google Scholar
Gilens, Martin. 2009. Preference Gaps and Inequality in Representation. PS: Political Science & Politics 42:335–341.Google Scholar
Gilens, Martin, and Page, Benjamin I.. 2014. Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens. Perspectives on Politics 12:564–581.Google Scholar
Griffin, John D., and Newman, Brian. 2005. Are Voters Better Represented? Journal of Politics 67:1206–1227.Google Scholar
Greene, Zachary, and O’Brien, Diana Z.. 2016. Diverse Parties, Diverse Agendas? The Parliamentary Party’s Role in Platform Formation. European Journal of Political Research 55:435–453.Google Scholar
Hainmueller, Jens, Mummolo, Jonathan, and Xu, Yiqing. 2016. How Much Should We Trust Estimates from Multiplicative Interaction Models? Simple Tools to Improve Empirical Practice. Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Political Methodology, Houston, TX, 21–23 July.Google Scholar
Hix, Simon, Noury, Abdul, and Roland, Gérard. 2005. Power to the Parties: Cohesion and Competition in the European Parliament, 1979–2001. British Journal of Political Science 35:209–234.Google Scholar
Homola, Jonathan. 2017. “Replication Data for: Are Parties Equally Responsive to Women and Men?”, doi: 10.7910/DVN/K1TVXL, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:BqhmZTHFo+59PB/BAAdHaA==.Google Scholar
Huber, John D. 1989. Values and Partisanship in Left-Right Orientations: Measuring Ideology. European Journal of Political Research 17:599–621.Google Scholar
Inglehart, Ronald, and Klingemann, Hans-Dieter. 1976. Party Identification, Ideological Preference and the Left-Right Dimension Among Western Mass Publics. In Party Identification and Beyond, edited by Ian Budge, Ivor Crewe, and Dennis Farlie, 243–273. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
Inglehart, Ronald, and Norris, Pippa. 2003. Rising Tide: Gender Equality and Cultural Change Around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Inter-Parliamentary Union. 2016. Women in National Parliaments. Available from http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/world.htm. Accessed 20 January 2017.Google Scholar
Kittilson, Miki Caul. 1999. Women’s Representation in Parliament: The Role of Political Parties. Party Politics 5:79–98.Google Scholar
Kittilson, Miki Caul. 2011. Women, Parties and Platforms in Post-Industrial Democracies. Party Politics 17:66–92.Google Scholar
Kittilson, Miki Caul, and Schwindt-Bayer, Leslie A.. 2012. The Gendered Effects of Electoral Institutions: Political Engagement and Participation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, Volkens, Andrea, Bara, Judith, Budge, Ian, and McDonald, Michael. 2006. Mapping Policy Preferences II. Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments in Eastern Europe, the European Union and the OECD 1990–2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Knutsen, Oddbjørn. 1997. The Partisan and the Value-Based Component of Left-Right Self-Placement: A Comparative Study. International Political Science Review 18:191–225.Google Scholar
Koenig, Anne M., Eagly, Alice H., Mitchell, Abigail A., and Ristikari, Tiina. 2011. Are Leader Stereotypes Masculine? A Meta-Analysis of Three Research Paradigms. Psychological Bulletin 137:616–642.Google Scholar
Kunovich, Sheri, and Paxton, Pamela. 2005. Pathways to Power: The Role of Political Parties in Women’s National Political Representation. American Journal of Sociology 111:505–552.Google Scholar
Laver, Michael, and Budge, Ian. 1992. Party Policy and Government Coalitions. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Lawless, Jennifer L., and Fox, Richard L.. 2005. It Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Lowe, Will, Benoit, Kenneth, Mikhaylov, Slava, and Laver, Michael. 2011. Scaling Policy Preferences from Coded Political Texts. Legislative Studies Quarterly 36:123–155.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 1999. Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes’. Journal of Politics 61:628–657.Google Scholar
McAllister, Ian, and Studlar, Donley T.. 1992. Gender and Representation Among Legislative Candidates in Australia. Comparative Political Studies 25:388–411.Google Scholar
McDonald, Michael, and Budge, Ian. 2005. Elections, Parties, Democracy: Conferring the Median Mandate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Milkman, Katherine L., Akinola, Modupe, and Chugh, Dolly. 2015. What Happens Before? A Field Experiment Exploring How Pay and Representation Differentially Shape Bias on the Pathway into Organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology 100:1678–1712.Google Scholar
Mondak, Jeffery J., and Anderson, Mary R.. 2004. The Knowledge Gap: A Reexamination of Gender-Based Differences in Political Knowledge. The Journal of Politics 66:492–512.Google Scholar
Moss-Racusin, Corinne A., Dovidio, John F., Brescoll, Victoria L., Graham, Mark J., and Handelsman, Jo. 2012. Science Faculty’s Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109:16474–16479.Google Scholar
Nir, Lilach, and McClurg, Scott D.. 2015. How Institutions Affect Gender Gaps in Public Opinion Expression. Public Opinion Quarterly 79:544–567.Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa, and Lovenduski, Joni. 1995. Political Recruitment: Gender, Race and Class in the British Parliament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa. 1996. Legislative recruitment. In Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective, edited by LeDuc, Lawrence, Richard G. Niemi, and Pippa Norris, 184–215. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Diana Z. 2012. When Women Matter: The Relationship Between Women’s Presence and Policy Representation in Western European States. Paper 973. Electronic Theses and Dissertations.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Diana Z. 2015. Rising to the Top: Gender and Party Leadership in Advanced Industrial Democracies. American Journal of Political Science 59:1022–1039.Google Scholar
O’Brien, Diana Z., and Rickne, Johanna. 2016. Gender Quotas and Women’s Political Leadership. American Political Science Review 110:112–126.Google Scholar
O’Neill, Olivia A., and Charles O’Reilly, III. 2011. Reducing the Backlash Effect: Self-Monitoring and Women’s Promotions. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology 84:825–832.Google Scholar
Osborn, Tracy L. 2012. How Women Represent Women: Political Parties, Gender and Representation in the State Legislatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, Anne. 1995. The Politics of Presence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Andrew, Seawright, Jason, and Cyr, Jennifer. 2012. Do Electoral Laws Affect Women’s Representation? Comparative Political Studies 46:1555–1581.Google Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni. 1968. Representational Systems. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 13:470–475.Google Scholar
Sartori, Giovanni. 1976. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Hermann, Scholz, Evi, Leim, Iris, and Moschner, Meinhard. 2008. The Mannheim Eurobarometer Trend File 1970–2002, Version 2.0.1. Europäische Kommission. Köln: GESIS Datenarchiv.Google Scholar
Schwindt-Bayer, Leslie A. 2006. Still Supermadres? Gender and Policy Priorities of Latin American Legislators. American Journal of Political Science 50:570–585.Google Scholar
Schwindt‐Bayer, Leslie A., and Mishler, William. 2005. An Integrated Model of Women’s Representation. Journal of Politics 67:407–428.Google Scholar
Sieberer, Ulrich. 2006. Party Unity in Parliamentary Democracies: A Comparative Analysis. Journal of Legislative Studies 12:150–178.Google Scholar
Soroka, Stuart N., and Wlezien, Christopher. 2008. On the Limits to Inequality in Representation. PS: Political Science & Politics 41:319–327.Google Scholar
Stimson, James, MacKuen, Michael, and Erikson, Robert. 1995. Dynamic Representation. American Political Science Review 89:543–565.Google Scholar
Swers, Michele. 2005. Connecting Descriptive and Substantive Representation: An Analysis of Sex Differences in Cosponsorship Activity. Legislative Studies Quarterly 30:407–432.Google Scholar
Vega, Arturo, and Firestone, Juanita M.. 1995. The Effects of Gender on Congressional Behavior and the Substantive Representation of Women. Legislative Studies Quarterly 20:213–222.Google Scholar
Volkens, Andrea, Bara, Judith, Budge, Ian, McDonald, Michael D., and Klingemann, Hans-Dieter. 2013. Mapping Policy Preferences from Texts: Statistical Solutions for Manifesto Analysts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Volkens, Andrea, Lacewell, Onawa, Lehmann, Pola, Regel, Sven, Schultze, Henrike, and Werner, Annika. 2012. Manifesto Project. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.Google Scholar
Wängnerud, Lena. 2000. Testing the Politics of Presence: Women’s Representation in the Swedish Riksdag. Scandinavian Political Studies 23:67–91.Google Scholar
Wängnerud, Lena. 2009. Women in Parliaments: Descriptive and Substantive Representation. Annual Review of Political Science 12:51–69.Google Scholar
Werner, Annika, Lacewell, Onawa, and Volkens, Andrea. 2011. Manifesto Coding Instructions, 4th fully revised Edition. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Homola Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/K1TVXL
Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Homola supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Homola supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 195.2 KB