Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-5wvtr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-19T00:01:58.980Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Rethinking Women's Interests: An Inductive and Intersectional Approach to Defining Women's Policy Priorities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 August 2021

Tevfik Murat Yildirim*
Affiliation:
Department of Media and Social Sciences, University of Stavanger, Stavanger, Norway
*
Corresponding author. E-mail: murat.yildirim@uis.no

Abstract

Much of the vast literature on the substantive representation of women takes as its point of departure important a priori assumptions about the nature of women as a group. Calling for a rethink of many of those assumptions, a recent body of work recommends an inductive approach to defining women's interests. In line with this view, this article draws on a recently constructed dataset that codes nearly a million Americans' policy priorities over the past 75 years to explore what constitutes women's interests and whether gender differences in priorities cut across partisan and racial divisions. The results suggest there are consistent gender gaps across a large number of policy categories, with women showing particular concern for policy areas traditionally associated with issues of ‘women's interests’. While in many policy areas women were more likely to share policy priorities with other women than with their male counterparts of the same race or partisan background, the results also document considerable heterogeneity among women in various policy areas, which has major policy implications for the representation of women's interests.

Type
Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

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.)

References

Bäck, H, Debus, M and Müller, J (2014) Who takes the parliamentary floor? The role of gender in speech-making in the Swedish Riksdag. Political Research Quarterly 67(3), 504518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, TD and Cassese, EC (2017) American party women: a look at the gender gap within parties. Political Research Quarterly 70(1), 127141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bendyna, ME et al. (1996) Gender differences in public attitudes toward the Gulf War: a test of competing hypotheses. The Social Science Journal 33(1), 122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beutel, AM and Marini, MM (1995) Gender and values. American Sociological Review 60(3), 436448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bratton, KA and Ray, LP (2002) Descriptive representation, policy outcomes, and municipal day-care coverage in Norway. American Journal of Political Science 46(2), 428437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broockman, DE (2016). Approaches to studying policy representation. Legislative Studies Quarterly 41(1), 181215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burns, NE and Schumaker, P (1987) Gender differences in attitudes about the role of local government. Social Science Quarterly 68(1), 138.Google Scholar
Campbell, R, Childs, S and Lovenduski, J (2010) Do women need women representatives? British Journal of Political Science 40(1), 171194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, SJ (2001) The Impact of Women in Public Office. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Cassese, EC, Barnes, TD and Branton, RP (2015) Racializing gender: public opinion at the intersection. Politics & Gender 11(1), 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Celis, K (2007) 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(2), 85114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Celis, K (2009) Substantive representation of women (and improving it): what it is and should be about? Comparative European Politics 7(1), 95113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Celis, K and Childs, S (2008) Introduction: the descriptive and substantive representation of women: new directions. Parliamentary Affairs 61(3), 419425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Celis, K and Childs, S (2020) Feminist Democratic Representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Celis, K et al. (2008) Rethinking women's substantive representation. Representation 44(2), 99110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Celis, K et al. (2014) Constituting women's interests through representative claims. Politics & Gender 10(2), 149174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Childs, S (2004) New Labour's Women MPs: Women Representing Women. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Childs, S and Krook, ML (2006) Should feminists give up on critical mass? A contingent yes. Politics & Gender 2(4), 522.Google Scholar
Childs, S and Krook, ML (2009) Analysing women's substantive representation: from critical mass to critical actors. Government and opposition 44(2), 125145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Childs, S and Withey, J (2004) Women representatives acting for women: sex and the signing of early day motions in the 1997 British Parliament. Political Studies 52(3), 552564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chodorow, N (1978) Mothering, object-relations, and the female oedipal configuration. Feminist Studies 4(1), 137158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conover, PJ (1988) Feminists and the gender gap. The Journal of Politics 50(4), 9851010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cook, EA and Wilcox, C (1991) Feminism and the gender gap–a second look. The Journal of Politics 53(4), 11111122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dittmar, K, Sanbonmatsu, K and Carroll, SJ (2018) A Seat at the Table: Congresswomen's Perspectives on why Their Presence Matters. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dolan, KA (2014) When Does Gender Matter? Women Candidates and Gender Stereotypes in American Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagly, AH (2013) Sex Differences in Social Behavior: A Social-Role Interpretation. Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagly, AH and Crowley, M (1986) Gender and helping behavior: a meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin 100(3), 283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eagly, AH and Steffen, VJ (1986) Gender and aggressive behavior: a meta-analytic review of the social psychological literature. Psychological Bulletin 100(3), 309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eagly, AH and Wood, W (2016) Social role theory of sex differences. The Wiley Blackwell Encyclopedia of Gender and Sexuality Studies, 13.Google Scholar
Escobar-Lemmon, M and Taylor-Robinson, MM (2009) Getting to the top: career paths of women in Latin American cabinets. Political Research Quarterly 62(4), 685699.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fite, D, Genest, M and Wilcox, C (1990) Gender differences in foreign policy attitudes: a longitudinal analysis. American Politics Quarterly 18(4), 492513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Flavin, P and Franko, WW (2017) Government's unequal attentiveness to citizens’ political priorities. Policy Studies Journal 45(4), 659687.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Funk, KD and Philips, AQ (2019) Representative budgeting: women mayors and the composition of spending in local governments. Political Research Quarterly 72(1), 1933.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilens, M (1988) Gender and support for Reagan: a comprehensive model of presidential approval. American Journal of Political Science 32(1), 1949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakim, C (1996a) Key Issues in Women's Work: Female Heterogeneity and the Polarisation of Women's Employment, Vol. 4. London: A&C Black.Google Scholar
Hakim, C (1996b) Labour mobility and employment stability: rhetoric and reality on the sex ferential in labour-market behaviour. European Sociological Review 12(1), 131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hakim, C (2002) Lifestyle preferences as determinants of women's differentiated labor market careers. Work and occupations 29(4), 428459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardy-Fanta, C, Pinderhughes, D, Sierra, CM, et al. (2016) Contested Transformation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harteveld, E et al. (2019) Gender differences in vote choice: social cues and social harmony as heuristics. British Journal of Political Science 49(3), 11411161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harteveld, E and Ivarsflaten, E (2018) Why women avoid the radical right: internalized norms and party reputations. British Journal of Political Science 48(2), 369384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hawkesworth, M (2003) Congressional enactments of race-gender: toward a theory of raced-gendered institutions. American Political Science Review 97(4), 529550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heffington, C, Park, BB and Williams, LK (2019) The “Most Important Problem” Dataset (MIPD): a new dataset on American issue importance. Conflict Management and Peace Science 36(3), 312335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddy, L, Cassese, E and Lizotte, M (2008) Gender, public opinion, and political reasoning. Political women and American democracy, 3149. In Wolbrecht, C, Beckwith, K, Baldez, L (eds), Political Women and American Democracy, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddy, L et al. (2005) Threat, anxiety, and support of antiterrorism policies. American journal of political science 49(3), 593608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hurwitz, J and Smithey, S (1998) Gender differences on crime and punishment. Political Research Quarterly 51(1), 89115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jelen, TG, Thomas, S and Wilcox, C (1994) The gender gap in comparative perspective: gender differences in abstract ideology and concrete issues in Western Europe. European Journal of Political Research 25(2), 171186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, BD and Baumgartner, FR (2005) The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, KM and Petrocik, JR (1999) The changing politics of American men: understanding the sources of the gender gap. American Journal of Political Science 43(3), 864887.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kellstedt, PM, Peterson, D and Ramirez, MD (2010) The macro politics of a gender gap. Public Opinion Quarterly 74(3), 477498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, G, Tomz, M and Wittenberg, J (2000) Making the most of statistical analyses: Improving interpretation and presentation. American Journal of Political Science 44(2), 347361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krook, ML and O'Brien, DZ (2012) All the president's men? The appointment of female cabinet ministers worldwide. The Journal of Politics 74(3), 840855.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawless, JL (2015) Female candidates and legislators. Annual Review of Political Science 18, 349366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, J (1999) Should blacks represent blacks and women represent women? A contingent ‘yes’. The Journal of Politics 61(3), 628657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDermott, ML (2016) Masculinity, Femininity, and American Political Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, JL, Rossi, PH and Simpson, JE (1986) Perceptions of justice: race and gender differences in judgments of appropriate prison sentences. Law and Society Review 20(3), 313334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Minta, MD and Brown, NE (2014) Intersecting interests: gender, race, and congressional attention to women's issues. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race 11(2), 253272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norris, P (2003) The gender gap: old challenges, new approaches. In Carroll, SJ (eds), Women and American Politics: New Questions, New Directions, 146172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ondercin, HL (2017) Who is responsible for the gender gap? The dynamics of men's and women's democratic macropartisanship, 1950–2012. Political Research Quarterly 70(4), 749761.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orey, BDA et al. (2007) Race and gender matter: refining models of legislative policy making in state legislatures. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 28(3–4), 97119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, BI and Shapiro, RY (2010) The Rational Public: Fifty Years of Trends in Americans’ Policy Preferences. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Parent, MC, DeBlaere, C and Moradi, B (2013) Approaches to research on intersectionality: perspectives on gender, LGBT, and racial/ethnic identities. Sex Roles 68(11–12), 639645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pew Research Center (2019) Little Public Support for Reductions in Federal Spending. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center. Available from https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/04/11/little-public-support-for-reductions-in-federal-spending/ (accessed 23 June 2021).Google Scholar
Phillips, A (1995) The Politics of Presence. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Pitkin, HF (1967) The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reingold, B (2008) Women as office holders: linking descriptive and substantive representation. Political Women and American Democracy 9, 128147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reingold, B and Smith, AR (2012) Welfare policymaking and intersections of race, ethnicity, and gender in US state legislatures. American Journal of Political Science 56(1), 131147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reingold, B and Swers, M (2011) An endogenous approach to women's interests: when interests are interesting in and of themselves. Politics & Gender 7(3), 429435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sapiro, V (1981) Research frontier essay: when are interests interesting? The problem of political representation of women. American Political Science Review 75(3), 701716.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwindt-Bayer, LA (2006) Still supermadres? Gender and the policy priorities of Latin American legislators. American Journal of Political Science 50(3), 570585.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwindt-Bayer, LA (2010) Political Power and Women's Representation in Latin America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shapiro, RY and Mahajan, H (1986) Gender differences in policy preferences: a summary of trends from the 1960s to the 1980s. Public Opinion Quarterly 50(1), 4261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singer, MM (2011) Who says ‘it's the economy’? Cross-national and cross-individual variation in the salience of economic performance. Comparative Political Studies 44(3), 284312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smooth, W (2011) Standing for women? Which women? The substantive representation of women's interests and the research imperative of intersectionality. Politics & Gender 7(3), 436441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steinbugler, AC, Press, JE and Dias, JJ (2006) Gender, race, and affirmative action: operationalizing intersectionality in survey research. Gender & Society 20(6), 805825.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swers, M (2001) Understanding the policy impact of electing women: evidence from research on congress and state legislatures. PS: Political Science and Politics 34(2), 217220.Google Scholar
Swers, ML (2002) The Difference Women Make: The Policy Impact of Women in Congress. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor-Robinson, MM and Heath, RM (2003) Do women legislators have different policy priorities than their male colleagues? A critical case test. Women & Politics 24(4), 77101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tesler, M (2012) The spillover of racialization into health care: how President Obama polarized public opinion by racial attitudes and race. American Journal of Political Science 56(3), 690704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wahman, M, Frantzeskakis, N and Yildirim, TM (2021) From thin to thick representation: how a female president shapes female parliamentary behavior. American Political Science Review 115(2), 360378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weldon, SL (2006) The structure of intersectionality: a comparative politics of gender. Politics & Gender 2(2), 235.Google Scholar
Winter, NJ (2010). Masculine republicans and feminine democrats: gender and Americans’ explicit and implicit images of the political parties. Political Behavior 32(4), 587618.Google Scholar
Wolbrecht, C (2008) What we saw at the revolution: women in American politics and political science. In Wolbrecht, C, Beckwith, K, Baldez, L (eds), Political Women and American Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yildirim, TM (2021) “Replication Data for: Rethinking Women's Interests: An Inductive and Intersectional Approach to Defining Women's Policy Priorities”, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/D9FL9Z, Harvard Dataverse, V1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Yildirim Dataset

Link
Supplementary material: File

Yildirim supplementary material

Yildirim supplementary material

Download Yildirim supplementary material(File)
File 880.6 KB