Skip to main content Accessibility help
Hostname: page-component-7ccbd9845f-z5z76 Total loading time: 0.513 Render date: 2023-01-28T18:26:03.578Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Women’s Representation, Accountability and Corruption in Democracies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 January 2017


At the turn of the twenty-first century, an important pair of studies established that greater female representation in government is associated with lower levels of perceived corruption in that government. But recent research finds that this relationship is not universal and questions why it exists. This article presents a new theory explaining why women’s representation is only sometimes related to lower corruption levels and provides evidence in support of that theory. The study finds that the women’s representation–corruption link is strongest when the risk of corruption being detected and punished by voters is high – in other words, when officials can be held electorally accountable. Two primary mechanisms underlie this theory: prior evidence shows that (1) women are more risk-averse than men and (2) voters hold women to a higher standard at the polls. This suggests that gender differences in corrupt behavior are proportional to the strength of electoral accountability. Consequently, the hypotheses predict that the empirical relationship between greater women’s representation and lower perceived corruption will be strongest in democracies with high electoral accountability, specifically: (1) where corruption is not the norm, (2) where press freedom is respected, (3) in parliamentary systems and (4) under personalistic electoral rules. The article presents observational evidence that electoral accountability moderates the link between women’s representation and corruption in a time-series, cross-sectional dataset of seventy-six democratic-leaning countries.

© 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.)



Department of Political Science, Rice University (email:; Department of Political Science, Rice University (email: We would like to thank the participants and audiences at the numerous workshops and departmental colloquia where we presented this paper, including ‘Why is Gender Equality Good for Governance?’ at Freie Universitat, Berlin; the University of Tennessee; the University of Maryland; the Center for Women’s Leadership at Portland State University; the Quality of Government Institute at the University of Gothenburg; the European Conference on Politics and Gender in Uppsala, Sweden; and ITAM, Mexico City. We also thank Margit Tavits for sharing the data that she and Leslie Schwindt-Bayer collected. Data replication sets including logs, analysis scripts and data files are available at and online appendices are available at


Adserà, Alícia, Boix, Carles, and Payne, Mark. 2003. Are You Being Served? Political Accountability and Quality of Government. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 19:445490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alatas, Vivi, Cameron, Lisa, Chaudhuri, Ananish, Erkal, Nisvan, and Gangadharan, Lata. 2009. Gender, Culture, and Corruption: Insights from an Experimental Analysis. Southern Economic Journal 75:663680.Google Scholar
Alhassan-Alolo, Namawu. 2007. Gender and Corruption: Testing the New Consensus. Public Administration and Development 27 (3):227237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anzia, Sarah F., and Berry, Christopher R.. 2011. The Jackie (and Jill) Robinson Effect: Why Do Congresswomen Outperform Congressmen? American Journal of Political Science 55:478493.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armantier, Olivier, and Boly, Amadou. 2011. A Controlled Field Experiment on Corruption. European Economic Review 55:10721082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, Tiffany D., and Beaulieu, Emily. 2014. Gender Stereotypes and Corruption: How Candidates Affect Perceptions of Election Fraud. Politics & Gender 10:365391.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bauer, Gretchen, and Tremblay, Manon. 2011. Women in Executive Power: A Global Overview, 1st Edition. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bernasek, Alexandra, and Shwiff, Stephanie. 2001. Gender, Risk, and Retirement. Journal of Economic Issues 35:345356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bjarnegård, Elin. 2013. Gender, Informal Institutions and Political Recruitment: Explaining Male Dominance in Parliamentary Representation. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brambor, Thomas, Clark, William Roberts, and Golder, Matt. 2006. Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses. Political Analysis 14:6382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Branisa, Boris, and Ziegler, Maria. 2011. Reexamining the Link Between Gender and Corruption: The Role of Social Institutions. Proceedings of the German Development Economics Conference, Berlin. Verein für Socialpolitik, Research Committee Development Economics. Available from, accessed 19 November 2014.Google Scholar
Byrnes, James P., Miller, David C., and Schafer, William D.. 1999. Gender Differences in Risk-Taking: A Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin 125:367383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cain, Bruce, Ferejohn, John, and Fiorina, Morris. 1990. The Personal Vote: Constituency Service and Electoral Independence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Carey, John M., and Shugart, Matthew Soberg. 1995. Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas. Electoral Studies 14:417439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA). 2013. CIA World Factbook. Available from, accessed 22 June 2016.Google Scholar
Chang, Eric C. C. 2005. Electoral Incentives for Political Corruption Under Open-List Proportional Representation. Journal of Politics 67:716730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chang, Eric C. C., and Golden, Miriam A.. 2007. Electoral Systems, District Magnitude and Corruption. British Journal of Political Science 37:115137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chaudhuri, Ananish. 2012. Gender and Corruption: A Survey of the Experimental Evidence. In New Advances in Experimental Research on Corruption , edited by Danila Serra and Leonard Wantchekon, 1349. Bingley, UK: Emerald.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Childs, Sarah, and Krook, Mona Lena. 2012. Labels and Mandates in the United Kingdom. In The Impact of Gender Quotas, edited by Susan Franceschet, Mona Lena Krook and Jennifer M. Piscopo, 89102. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cingranelli, David, and Richards, David. 2010. The Cingranelli-Richards (CIRI) Human Rights Dataset. Available from, accessed 22 June 2016.Google Scholar
Clague, Christopher, Keefer, Philip, Knack, Stephen, and Olson, Mancur. 1999. Contract-Intensive Money: Contract Enforcement, Property Rights, and Economic Performance. Journal of Economic Growth 4:185211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croson, Rachel, and Gneezy, Uri. 2009. Gender Differences in Preferences. Journal of Economic Literature 47:448474.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolan, Kathleen. 2010. The Impact of Gender Stereotyped Evaluations on Support for Women Candidates. Political Behavior 32:6988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolan, Kathleen. 2014. Gender Stereotypes, Candidate Evaluations, and Voting for Women Candidates What Really Matters? Political Research Quarterly 67:96107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dollar, David, Fisman, Raymond, and Gatti, Roberta. 2001. Are Women Really the ‘Fairer’ Sex? Corruption and Women in Government. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 46:423429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donchev, Dilyan, and Ujhelyi, Gergely. 2014. What Do Corruption Indices Measure? Economics & Politics 26:309331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dowling, Conor M., and Miller, Michael G.. 2015. Can Information Alter Perceptions About Women’s Chances of Winning Office? Evidence from a Panel Study. Politics & Gender 11:5588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eckel, Catherine C., and Grossman, Philip J.. 2008. Men, Women, and Risk Aversion: Experimental Evidence. In Handbook of Experimental Economic Results, Vol. 1, edited by Charles Plott and Vernon Smith, 10611073. New York: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Economist, The . 2013. What is Brazil’s ‘Mensalão’? The Economist, 18 November. Available from, accessed 5 April 2014.Google Scholar
Elgie, Robert. 2011. Semi-Presidentialism: Sub-Types and Democratic Performance. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esarey, Justin, and Chirillo, Gina. 2013. ‘Fairer Sex’ or Purity Myth? Corruption, Gender, and Institutional Context. Politics and Gender 9:390413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esarey, Justin, and DeMeritt, Jacqueline H. R.. 2014. Defining and Modeling State-Dependent Dynamic Systems. Political Analysis 22:6185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fisman, Raymond, and Miguel, Edward. 2007. Corruption, Norms, and Legal Enforcement: Evidence from Diplomatic Parking Tickets. Journal of Political Economy 115:10201048.CrossRefGoogle 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 48:264280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franceschet, Susan, and Piscopo, Jennifer M.. 2008. Gender Quotas and Women’s Substantive Representation: Lessons from Argentina. Politics & Gender 4:393425.Google Scholar
Freedom House. 2014. Freedom in the World. Available from, accessed 4 February 2014.Google Scholar
Gerring, John, and Thacker, Strom C.. 2004. Political Institutions and Corruption: The Role of Unitarism and Parliamentarism. British Journal of Political Science 34:295330.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gneezy, Uri, Leonard, Kenneth L., and List, John A.. 2009. Gender Differences in Competition: Evidence from a Matrilineal and a Patriarchal Society. Econometrica 77:16371664.Google Scholar
Goetz, Anne Marie. 2002. No Shortcuts to Power: Constraints on Women’s Political Effectiveness in Uganda. The Journal of Modern African Studies 40:549575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goetz, Anne Marie. 2007. Political Cleaners: Women as the New Anti-Corruption. Development and Change 38:87105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grimes, Marcia, and Wängnerud, Lena. 2012. Good Government in Mexico: The Relevance of the Gender Perspective. QoG Working Paper Series. Gothenburg: University of Gothenburg. Available from, accessed 25 October 2016.Google Scholar
Hellwig, Timothy, and Samuels, David. 2008. Electoral Accountability and the Variety of Democratic Regimes. British Journal of Political Science 38 (1):6590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Helmke, Gretchen, and Levitsky, Steven. 2004. Informal Institutions and Comparative Politics: A Research Agenda. Perspectives on Politics 2:725740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henrich, Joseph, and McElreath, Richard. 2002. Are Peasants Risk-Averse Decision Makers? Current Anthropology 43 (1):172181.Google Scholar
Holt, Charles A., and Laury, Susan K.. 2002. Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects. The American Economic Review 92:16441655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hsiao, Cheng. 2003. Analysis of Panel Data. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inglehart, Ronald, and Norris, Pippa. 2003. Rising Tide: Gender Equality and Cultural Change Around the World. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inter-Parliamentary Union. 2012. Women in Parliaments: World and Regional Averages. Available from, accessed 11 July 2012.Google Scholar
Inter-Parliamentary Union. n.d. Women’s Suffrage. Available from, accessed 2 January 2016.Google Scholar
Johnson, Janet Elise, Einarsdóttir, Þorgerður, and Pétursdóttir, Gyða Margrét. 2013. A Feminist Theory of Corruption: Lessons from Iceland. Politics & Gender 9:174206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Jesse C., Souva, Mark, and Smith, Dale L.. 2013. Market-Protecting Institutions and the World Trade Organization’s Ability to Promote Trade. International Studies Quarterly 57:410417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Joel W., and Wallack, Jessica S.. 1997. Electoral Systems and the Personal Vote. Harvard Dataverse Network. Available from V1, accessed 22 June 2016.Google Scholar
Jones, Philip Edward. 2014. Does the Descriptive Representation of Gender Influence Accountability for Substantive Representation? Politics & Gender 10:175199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Judson, Ruth A., and Owen, Ann L.. 1999. Estimating Dynamic Panel Data Models: A Guide for Macroeconomists. Economics Letters 65:915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, Carrie. 2013. Mexican State’s Anti-Corruption Plan: Hire Female Traffic Cops. Available from, accessed 23 April 2014.Google Scholar
Karim, Sabrina. 2011. Madame Officer. Americas Quarterly, 5. Available from, accessed 20 July 2012.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, Daniel, Kraay, Aart, and Mastruzzi, Massimo. 2007. Measuring Corruption: Myths and Realities. Available from, accessed 19 December 2015.Google Scholar
Kaufmann, Daniel, Kraay, Aart, and Mastruzzi, Massimo. 2010. The Worldwide Governance Indicators: Methodology and Analytical Issues. Policy Research Working Paper No. 5430. Washington, DC: World Bank. Available from, accessed 25 October 2016.Google Scholar
Knack, Stephen. 2007. Measuring Corruption: A Critique of Indicators in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Journal of Public Policy 27:255291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kolstad, Ivar, and Wiig, Arne. 2011. Does Democracy Reduce Corruption? Working Paper No. 4. Bergen, Norway: Chr. Michelsen Institute. Available from, accessed 25 October 2016.Google Scholar
Kunicová, Jana. 2006. Democratic Institutions and Corruption: Incentives and Constraints in Politics. In International Handbook on the Economics of Corruption, edited by Susan Rose-Ackerman, 140160. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Kunicová, Jana, and Rose-Ackerman, Susan. 2005. Electoral Rules and Constitutional Structures as Constraints on Corruption. British Journal of Political Science 35:573606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambsdorff, Johann Graf. 2006. Measuring Corruption – The Validity and Precision of Subjective Indicators (CPI). In Measuring Corruption, edited by Charles J. G. Sampford, Arthur Shacklock, Carmel Connors, and Fredrik Galtung, 8199. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd.Google Scholar
Lawless, Jennifer L. 2004. Women, War, and Winning Elections: Gender Stereotyping in the Post-September 11th Era. Political Research Quarterly 57:479490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawless, Jennifer L., and Fox, Richard L.. 2005. It Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lebovic, James H., and Voeten, Erik. 2009. The Cost of Shame: International Organizations and Foreign Aid in the Punishing of Human Rights Violators. Journal of Peace Research 46:7997.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lederman, Daniel, Loayza, Norman V., and Soares, Rodrigo R.. 2005. Accountability and Corruption: Political Institutions Matter. Economics & Politics 17:135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linz, Juan J. 1990. The Perils of Presidentialism. Journal of Democracy 1:5169.Google Scholar
Linz, Juan J. 1994. Presidential or Parliamentary: Does It Make a Difference?. In The Failure of Presidential Democracy, Vol. 1, edited by Juan J. Linz and Arturo Valenzuela, 390. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Mainwaring, Scott, and Shugart, Matthew Sobert. 1997. Juan Linz, Presidentialism, and Democracy: A Critical Appraisal. Comparative Politics 29:449472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, Monty, Gurr, Ted Robert, and Jaggers, Keith. 2014. Polity IV Project Political Regime Characteristics and Transitions, 1800–2013: Dataset Users’ Manual. Available from, accessed 9 November 2014.Google Scholar
McDermott, Jeremy. 1999. International: Women Police Ride In On A Ticket of Honesty. The Daily Telegraph, 31 July 31, 17.Google Scholar
Mishra, Ajit. 2006. Persistence of Corruption: Some Theoretical Perspectives. World Development 34:349358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, Molly. 1999. Mexico City’s Stop Sign to Bribery; To Halt Corruption, Women Traffic Cops Replace Men. The Washington Post, 31 July, A15.Google Scholar
Morgan, Jana, and Buice, Melissa. 2013. Latin American Attitudes Toward Women in Politics: The Influence of Elite Cues, Female Advancement, and Individual Characteristics. American Political Science Review 107:644662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murray, Rainbow. 2010. Cracking the Highest Glass Ceiling: A Global Comparison of Women’s Campaigns for Executive Office, 1st Edition. Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.Google Scholar
Neyman, Jerzy, and Scott, Elizabeth L.. 1948. Consistent Estimates Based on Partially Consistent Observations. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 16 (1):132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickell, Stephen. 1981. Biases in Dynamic Models with Fixed Effects. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 49 (6):14171426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, David, and Smith, Jessi L.. 2008. Subtle Sexism? Examining Vote Preferences When Women Run Against Men for the Presidency. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 29:451476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Persson, Torsten, Roland, Gerard, and Tabellini, Guido. 1997. Separation of Powers and Political Accountability. Quarterly Journal of Economics 112:11631202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Persson, Torsten, and Tabellini, Guido. 2002. Political Economics: Explaining Economic Policy. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Persson, Torsten, Tabellini, Guido, and Trebbi, Francesco. 2003. Electoral Rules and Corruption. Journal of the European Economic Association 1:958989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Political Risk Services Group. 2012. ICRG Methodology. Available from, accessed 11 July 2012.Google Scholar
Provost, Claire. 2013. Is Transparency International’s Measure of Corruption Still Valid? The Guardian, 3 December.Google Scholar
Przeworski, Adam, Alvarez, Michael E., Cheibub, Jose Antonio, and Limongi, Fernando. 2000. Democracy and Development: Political Regimes and Material Well-Being in the World, 1950–1990. In Political Science and the Public Interest, edited by Edward D. Mansfield and Richard Sisson. Columbus: Ohio State University Press.Google Scholar
Quinones, Sam. 1999. Stop! Ms, December, 24.Google Scholar
Reed, William Robert. 2015. On the Practice of Lagging Variables to Avoid Simultaneity. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 77:897905.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodríguez, Victoria E. 2003. Women in Contemporary Mexican Politics. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Roodman, David. 2006. How to Do xtabond2: An Introduction to ‘Difference’ and ‘System’ GMM in Stata. The Stata Journal 9:86136.Google Scholar
Rose-Ackerman, Susan. 1999. Corruption and Government: Causes, Consequences, and Reform. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royston, Patrick, and White, Ian R.. 2011. Multiple Imputation by Chained Equations (MICE): Implementation in Stata. Journal of Statistical Software 45:120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, Donald B. 1996. Multiple Imputation After 18+ Years. Journal of the American Statistical Association 91:473489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuels, David, and Shugart, Matthew. 2003. Presidentialism, Elections and Representation. Journal of Theoretical Politics 15:3360.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuels, David, and Shugart, Matthew. 2010. Presidents, Parties, and Prime Ministers: How the Separation of Powers Affects Party Organization and Behavior. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schulze, Günther G., and Frank, Björn. 2003. Deterrence Versus Intrinsic Motivation: Experimental Evidence on the Determinants of Corruptibility. Economics of Governance 4:143160.Google Scholar
Schwindt-Bayer, Leslie. 2010. Political Power and Women’s Representation in Latin America. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwindt-Bayer, Leslie, and Tavits, Margit. 2016. Clarity of Responsibility, Accountability and Corruption. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwindt-Bayer, Leslie A., Malecki, Michael, and Crisp, Brian F.. 2010. Candidate Gender and Electoral Success in Single Transferable Vote Systems. British Journal of Political Science 40:693709.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seltzer, Richard A., Newman, Jody, and Leighton, Melissa Voorhees. 1997. Sex as a Political Variable: Women as Candidates and Voters in U.S. Elections. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.Google Scholar
Shugart, Matthew, and Carey, John M.. 1992. Presidents and Assemblies Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stockemer, Daniel. 2011. Women’s Parliamentary Representation in Africa: The Impact of Democracy and Corruption on the Number of Female Deputies in National Parliaments. Political Studies 59:693712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sundén, Annika E., and Surette, Brian J.. 1998. Gender Differences in the Allocation of Assets in Retirement Savings Plans. The American Economic Review 88:207211.Google Scholar
Sundström, Aksel, and Wängnerud, Lena. 2016. Corruption as an Obstacle to Women’s Political Representation Evidence from Local Councils in 18 European Countries. Party Politics 22 (3):354369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sung, Hung-En. 2003. Fairer Sex or Fairer System? Gender and Corruption Revisited. Social Forces 82:703723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swamy, Anand, Knack, Stephen, Lee, Young, and Azfar, Omar. 2001. Gender and Corruption. Journal of Development Economics 64:2555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tavits, Margit. 2007. Clarity of Responsibility and Corruption. American Journal of Political Science 51:218229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teorell, Jan, Charron, Nicholas, Samanni, Marcus, Holmberg, Sören, and Rothstein, Bo. 2015. The Quality of Government Dataset, Version Jan 15. University of Gothenburg: The Quality of Government Institute. Available from Scholar
Transparency International. 2011. Methodological Brief. Available from, accessed 11 July 2012.Google Scholar
Transparency International. 2015. Research – GCB – Overview. Available from, accessed 15 December 2015.Google Scholar
Treisman, Daniel. 2000. The Causes of Corruption: A Cross-National Study. Journal of Public Economics 76:399457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Treisman, Daniel. 2007. What Have We Learned About the Causes of Corruption from Ten Years of Cross-National Empirical Research? Annual Review of Political Science 10:211244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tripp, Aili. 2001. Women’s Movements and Challenges to Neopatrimonial Rule: Preliminary Observations from Africa. Development and Change 32:3354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Buuren, Stef. 2012. Flexible Imputation of Missing Data. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman and Hall/CRC.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wangnerud, Lena. 2012. Why Women Are Less Corrupt than Men. In Good Government: The Relevance of Political Science, edited by Sören Holmberg and Bo Rothstein, 230250. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Watson, David, and Moreland, Amy. 2014. Perceptions of Corruption and the Dynamics of Women’s Representation. Politics & Gender 10:392412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, John, and McNaughton, Mark. 2007. Gender Differences in Risk Aversion and Expected Retirement Benefits. Financial Analysts Journal 63:5262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
World Bank. 2013. World Development Indicators. Available from, accessed 4 February 2014.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Esarey and Schwindt-Bayer Dataset

Supplementary material: PDF

Esarey and Schwindt-Bayer supplementary material

Tables S1-S6 and Figure S1

Download Esarey and Schwindt-Bayer supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 171 KB
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the or variations. ‘’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Women’s Representation, Accountability and Corruption in Democracies
Available formats

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Women’s Representation, Accountability and Corruption in Democracies
Available formats

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Women’s Representation, Accountability and Corruption in Democracies
Available formats

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *