Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

Are Parties Equally Responsive to Women and Men?

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.

Copyright
Footnotes
Hide All
*

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.

Footnotes
References
Hide All
AdamsJames. 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.
AdamsJames, ClarkMichael, EzrowLawrence, and GlasgowGarrett. 2004. Understanding Change and Stability in Party Ideologies: Do Parties Respond to Public Opinion or to Past Election Results? British Journal of Political Science 34:589610.
AdamsJames, ClarkMichael, EzrowLawrence, and GlasgowGarrett. 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 50:513529.
AdamsJames, and EzrowLawrence. 2009. Who do European Parties Represent? How Western European Parties Represent the Policy Preferences of Opinion Leaders. Journal of Politics 71:206223.
AdamsJames, and Somer-TopcuZeynep. 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 39:825846.
ArmingeonKlaus, WeisstannerDavid, EnglerSarah, PotolidisPanajotis, and GerberMarlène. 2012. Comparative Political Data Set I 1960-2010. Bern: Institute of Political Science, University of Bern.
BartelsLarry M. 2008. Unequal Democracy: The Political Economy of the New Gilded Age. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
BeckwithKaren. 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.
BenoitKenneth, and LaverMichael. 2007. Estimating Party Policy Positions: Comparing Expert Surveys and Hand-Coded Content Analysis. Electoral Studies 26:90107.
BerkmanMichael B., and O’ConnorRobert E.. 1993. Do Women Legislators Matter? Female Legislators and State Abortion Policy. American Politics Research 21:102–1124.
BernauerJulian, GigerNathalie, and RossetJan. 2015. Mind the Gap: Do Proportional Electoral Systems Foster a More Equal Representation of Women and Men, Poor and Rich? International Political Science Review 36:7898.
BerryWilliam D., GolderMatt, and MiltonDaniel. 2012. Improving Tests of Theories Positing Interaction. Journal of Politics 74:653671.
BrattonKathleen A. 2005. Critical Mass Theory Revisited: The Behavior and Success of Token Women in State Legislatures. Politics and Gender 1:97125.
BudgeIan. 1994. A new Spatial Theory of Party Competition: Uncertainty, Ideology and Policy Equilibria Viewed Comparatively and Temporally. British Journal of Political Science 24:443467.
BudgeIan, KlingemannHans-Dieter, VolkensAndrea, BaraJudith, and TanenbaumEric. 2001. Mapping Policy Preferences. Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945–1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
CampbellRosie, and ChildsSarah. 2015. ‘To the Left, to the Right’. Representing Conservative Women’s Interests. Party Politics 21:626637.
CareyJohn M. 2007. Competing Principals, Political Institutions, and Party Unity in Legislative Voting. American Journal of Political Science 51:92107.
CatalanoAna. 2009. Women Acting for Women? An Analysis of Gender and Debate Participation in the British House of Commons 2005–2007. Politics & Gender 5:4568.
CelisKaren. 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 28:85114.
ChengChristine, and TavitsMargit. 2011. –Informal Influences in Selecting Female Political Candidates. Political Research Quarterly 64:460471.
CrispBrian F., BetulDemirkaya, Leslie A.Schwindt-Bayer, and CourtneyMillian. 2016. The Role of Rules in Representation: Group Membership and Electoral Incentives. British Journal of Political Science. doi: 10.1017/S0007123415000691.
DahlerupDrude, and FreidenvallLenita. 2005. Quotas as a ‘Fast Track’ to Equal Representation for Women: Why Scandinavia is No Longer the Model. International Feminist Journal of Politics 7:2648.
DaltonRussell J. 1985. Political Parties and Political Representation. Comparative Political Studies 17:267299.
DevlinClaire, and ElgieRobert. 2008. The Effect of Increased Women’s Representation in Parliament: The Case of Rwanda. Parliamentary Affairs 61:237254.
DolanKathleen. 2011. Do Women and Men Know Different Things? Measuring Gender Differences in Political Knowledge. The Journal of Politics 73:97107.
DuvergerMaurice. 1955. The Political Role of Women. Paris: UNESCO.
EnnsPeter K., and WlezienChristopher. 2011. Who Gets Represented? New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
EriksonRobert, MacKuenMichael, and StimsonJames. 2002. The Macro Polity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
EsaiassonPeter, and HolmbergSören. 1996. Representation from Above: Members of Parliament and Representative Democracy in Sweden. Aldershot: Dartmouth.
EzrowLawrence. 2008. Research Note: On the Inverse Relationship Between Votes and Proximity for Niche Parties. European Journal of Political Research 47:206220.
EzrowLawrence, De VriesCatherine, SteenbergenMarco, and EdwardsErica. 2011. Mean Voter Representation and Partisan Constituency Representation: Do Parties Respond to the Mean Voter Position or to Their Supporters? Party Politics 17:275301.
FoxRichard L., and LawlessJennifer L.. 2004. Entering the Arena? Gender and the Decision to Run for Office. American Journal of Political Science 48:264280.
FranceschetSusan, and PiscopoJennifer M.. 2008. Gender Quotas and Women’s Substantive Representation: Lessons from Argentina. Politics & Gender 4:393425.
FukuyamaFrancis. 1998. Women and the Evolution of World Politics. Foreign Affairs 77:2440.
GilensMartin. 2005. Inequality and Democratic Responsiveness. Public Opinion Quarterly 69:778796.
GilensMartin. 2009. Preference Gaps and Inequality in Representation. PS: Political Science & Politics 42:335341.
GilensMartin, and PageBenjamin I.. 2014. Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens. Perspectives on Politics 12:564581.
GriffinJohn D., and NewmanBrian. 2005. Are Voters Better Represented? Journal of Politics 67:12061227.
GreeneZachary, and O’BrienDiana Z.. 2016. Diverse Parties, Diverse Agendas? The Parliamentary Party’s Role in Platform Formation. European Journal of Political Research 55:435453.
HainmuellerJens, MummoloJonathan, and XuYiqing. 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.
HixSimon, NouryAbdul, and RolandGérard. 2005. Power to the Parties: Cohesion and Competition in the European Parliament, 1979–2001. British Journal of Political Science 35:209234.
HomolaJonathan. 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==.
HuberJohn D. 1989. Values and Partisanship in Left-Right Orientations: Measuring Ideology. European Journal of Political Research 17:599621.
InglehartRonald, and KlingemannHans-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, 243273. London: Wiley.
InglehartRonald, and NorrisPippa. 2003. Rising Tide: Gender Equality and Cultural Change Around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Inter-Parliamentary Union. 2016. Women in National Parliaments. Available from http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/world.htm. Accessed 20 January 2017.
KittilsonMiki Caul. 1999. Women’s Representation in Parliament: The Role of Political Parties. Party Politics 5:7998.
KittilsonMiki Caul. 2011. Women, Parties and Platforms in Post-Industrial Democracies. Party Politics 17:6692.
KittilsonMiki Caul, and Schwindt-BayerLeslie A.. 2012. The Gendered Effects of Electoral Institutions: Political Engagement and Participation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
KlingemannHans-Dieter, VolkensAndrea, BaraJudith, BudgeIan, and McDonaldMichael. 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.
KnutsenOddbjørn. 1997. The Partisan and the Value-Based Component of Left-Right Self-Placement: A Comparative Study. International Political Science Review 18:191225.
KoenigAnne M., EaglyAlice H., MitchellAbigail A., and RistikariTiina. 2011. Are Leader Stereotypes Masculine? A Meta-Analysis of Three Research Paradigms. Psychological Bulletin 137:616642.
KunovichSheri, and PaxtonPamela. 2005. Pathways to Power: The Role of Political Parties in Women’s National Political Representation. American Journal of Sociology 111:505552.
LaverMichael, and BudgeIan. 1992. Party Policy and Government Coalitions. London: Macmillan.
LawlessJennifer L., and FoxRichard L.. 2005. It Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
LoweWill, BenoitKenneth, MikhaylovSlava, and LaverMichael. 2011. Scaling Policy Preferences from Coded Political Texts. Legislative Studies Quarterly 36:123155.
MansbridgeJane. 1999. Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes’. Journal of Politics 61:628657.
McAllisterIan, and StudlarDonley T.. 1992. Gender and Representation Among Legislative Candidates in Australia. Comparative Political Studies 25:388411.
McDonaldMichael, and BudgeIan. 2005. Elections, Parties, Democracy: Conferring the Median Mandate. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
MilkmanKatherine L., AkinolaModupe, and ChughDolly. 2015. What Happens Before? A Field Experiment Exploring How Pay and Representation Differentially Shape Bias on the Pathway into Organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology 100:16781712.
MondakJeffery J., and AndersonMary R.. 2004. The Knowledge Gap: A Reexamination of Gender-Based Differences in Political Knowledge. The Journal of Politics 66:492512.
Moss-RacusinCorinne A., DovidioJohn F., BrescollVictoria L., GrahamMark J., and HandelsmanJo. 2012. Science Faculty’s Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 109:1647416479.
NirLilach, and McClurgScott D.. 2015. How Institutions Affect Gender Gaps in Public Opinion Expression. Public Opinion Quarterly 79:544567.
NorrisPippa, and LovenduskiJoni. 1995. Political Recruitment: Gender, Race and Class in the British Parliament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
NorrisPippa. 1996. Legislative recruitment. In Comparing Democracies: Elections and Voting in Global Perspective, edited by LeDuc, Lawrence, Richard G. Niemi, and Pippa Norris, 184215. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
O’BrienDiana Z. 2012. When Women Matter: The Relationship Between Women’s Presence and Policy Representation in Western European States. Paper 973. Electronic Theses and Dissertations.
O’BrienDiana Z. 2015. Rising to the Top: Gender and Party Leadership in Advanced Industrial Democracies. American Journal of Political Science 59:10221039.
O’BrienDiana Z., and RickneJohanna. 2016. Gender Quotas and Women’s Political Leadership. American Political Science Review 110:112126.
O’NeillOlivia A., and Charles O’ReillyIII. 2011. Reducing the Backlash Effect: Self-Monitoring and Women’s Promotions. Journal of Occupational & Organizational Psychology 84:825832.
OsbornTracy L. 2012. How Women Represent Women: Political Parties, Gender and Representation in the State Legislatures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
PhillipsAnne. 1995. The Politics of Presence. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
RobertsAndrew, SeawrightJason, and CyrJennifer. 2012. Do Electoral Laws Affect Women’s Representation? Comparative Political Studies 46:15551581.
SartoriGiovanni. 1968. Representational Systems. International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 13:470475.
SartoriGiovanni. 1976. Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
SchmittHermann, ScholzEvi, LeimIris, and MoschnerMeinhard. 2008. The Mannheim Eurobarometer Trend File 1970–2002, Version 2.0.1. Europäische Kommission. Köln: GESIS Datenarchiv.
Schwindt-BayerLeslie A. 2006. Still Supermadres? Gender and Policy Priorities of Latin American Legislators. American Journal of Political Science 50:570585.
Schwindt‐BayerLeslie A., and MishlerWilliam. 2005. An Integrated Model of Women’s Representation. Journal of Politics 67:407428.
SiebererUlrich. 2006. Party Unity in Parliamentary Democracies: A Comparative Analysis. Journal of Legislative Studies 12:150178.
SorokaStuart N., and WlezienChristopher. 2008. On the Limits to Inequality in Representation. PS: Political Science & Politics 41:319327.
StimsonJames, MacKuenMichael, and EriksonRobert. 1995. Dynamic Representation. American Political Science Review 89:543565.
SwersMichele. 2005. Connecting Descriptive and Substantive Representation: An Analysis of Sex Differences in Cosponsorship Activity. Legislative Studies Quarterly 30:407432.
VegaArturo, and FirestoneJuanita M.. 1995. The Effects of Gender on Congressional Behavior and the Substantive Representation of Women. Legislative Studies Quarterly 20:213222.
VolkensAndrea, BaraJudith, BudgeIan, McDonaldMichael D., and KlingemannHans-Dieter. 2013. Mapping Policy Preferences from Texts: Statistical Solutions for Manifesto Analysts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
VolkensAndrea, LacewellOnawa, LehmannPola, RegelSven, SchultzeHenrike, and WernerAnnika. 2012. Manifesto Project. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.
WängnerudLena. 2000. Testing the Politics of Presence: Women’s Representation in the Swedish Riksdag. Scandinavian Political Studies 23:6791.
WängnerudLena. 2009. Women in Parliaments: Descriptive and Substantive Representation. Annual Review of Political Science 12:5169.
WernerAnnika, LacewellOnawa, and VolkensAndrea. 2011. Manifesto Coding Instructions, 4th fully revised Edition. Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

British Journal of Political Science
  • ISSN: 0007-1234
  • EISSN: 1469-2112
  • URL: /core/journals/british-journal-of-political-science
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords:

Type Description Title
PDF
Supplementary Materials

Homola supplementary material
Online Appendix

 PDF (195 KB)
195 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 13
Total number of PDF views: 98 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 541 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 30th August 2017 - 20th October 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.