Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-768ffcd9cc-s8fcc Total loading time: 0.62 Render date: 2022-12-06T20:19:12.675Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "useRatesEcommerce": false } hasContentIssue true

Gender and Legislative Preferences: Evidence from the Argentine Provinces

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 December 2012

Tiffany D. Barnes*
Affiliation:
University of Kentucky

Extract

Women are underrepresented in most of the world's legislatures. While the scarcity of female representation is problematic for multiple reasons, one of the central concerns of advocates and scholars rests on the assumption that women have different legislative preferences than their male counterparts. If this is the case, then it implies that where women do not occupy an equitable proportion of the legislature, their interests are not well represented.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2012

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

REFERENCES

Alemán, Eduardo, Calvo, Ernesto, Jones, Mark P., and Kapland, Noah. 2009. “Comparing Cosponsorship and Roll Call Ideal Points.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 34 (1): 87116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Balla, Steven J., and Christine Nemacheck, L.. 2000. “Position-Taking, Legislative Signaling, and Non-Expert Extremism: Cosponsorship of Managed Care Legislation in the 105th House of Representatives.” Congress and the Presidency 27 (2): 163–88.Google Scholar
Barnello, Michele A. 1999. “Gender and Roll Call Voting in the New York State Assembly.” Women and Politics 20 (4): 7794.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnes, Tiffany D., and Jones, Mark. P.. 2011. “Women in Executives: Latin America” In Women in Executives: A Global Overview, eds. Bauer, Gretchen and Tremblay, Manon. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Bratton, Kathleen A., and Haynie, Kerry L.. 1999. “Agenda Setting and Legislative Success in State Legislatures: The Effects of Gender and Race.” Journal of Politics 61 (3): 658–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Burrell, Barbara C. 1994. A Woman's Place is in the House: Campaigns for Congress in the Feminist Era. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, James. 1982. “Cosponsoring Legislation in the U.S. Congress.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 7 (3): 415–22.Google Scholar
Carey, John. 2009. Legislative Voting and Accountability. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Chhibber, Pradeep, and Kollman, Ken. 1998. “Party Aggregation and the Number of Parties in India and the United States.” American Political Science Review 92 (2): 329–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Janet. 1998. “Women at the National Level: An Update on Roll-call Voting Behavior.” In Women and Elective Office: Past, Present and Future, eds. Thomas, Sue and Wilcox, Clyde. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Clinton, Joshua D., Jackman, Simon D., and Rivers, Douglas. 2004. “The Statistical Analysis of Roll Call Data: A Unified Approach.” American Political Science Review 98 (2): 355–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, Gary W., and McCubbins, Mathew D.. 2005. Setting the Agenda: Responsible Party Government in the U.S. House of Representatives. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crisp, Brian, Kanthak, Kristin, and Leijonhufvud, Jenny. 2004. “The Reputations Legislators Build: With Whom Should Representatives Collaborate?American Political Science Review 98 (4): 703–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Luca, Miguel, Jones, Mark P., and Inés Tula, María. 2002. “Back Rooms or Ballot Boxes? Candidate Nomination in Argentina.” Comparative Political Studies 35 (4): 413–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Riz, Liliana. 1996. “Argentina: Democracy in Turmoil.” In Constructing Democratic Governance: South America in the 1990s, eds. Jorge Domínguez, I. and Lowenthal, Abraham F.. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Desposato, Scott. 2004. “The Impact of Federalism on National Party Cohesion in Brazil.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 29 (2): 259–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, James H. 2006. “Connecting the Congress: A Study of Cosponsorship Networks.” Political Analysis 14 (4): 456–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franceschet, Susan. 2011. “Gender Policy and State Architecture in Latin America.” Politics & Gender 7 (2): 273–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Franceschet, Susan, and Piscopo, Jennifer. 2008. “Gender Quotas and Women's Substantive Representation: Lessons from Argentina.” Politics & Gender 4 (3): 393425.Google Scholar
Frankovich, Kathleen A. 1977. “Sex and Voting in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1961–1975.” American Politics Quarterly 5 (3): 315–31.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and Hill, Jennifer. 2007. Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gibson, Edward L., and Calvo, Ernesto. 2000. “Federalism and Low-Maintenance Constituencies: The Territorial Dimension of Economic Reform in Argentina.” Studies in Comparative International Development 35 (5): 3255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Highton, Benjamin, and Rocca, Michael. 2005. “Beyond the Roll-call Arena: The Determinants of Position Taking in Congress.” Political Research Quarterly 58 (2): 303–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogan, Robert E. 2008. “Sex and the Statehouse: The Effects of Gender on Legislative Roll-Call Voting.” Social Science Quarterly 89 (4): 956–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Mark P. 2008. “The Recruitment and Selection of Legislative Candidates in Argentina.” In Pathways to Power: Political Recruitment and Candidate Selection in Latin America, eds. Peter Siavelis, M. and Morgenstern, Scott. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Jones, Mark P., and Hwang, Wonjae. 2005a. “Party Government in Presidential Democracies: Extending Cartel Theory Beyond the U.S. Congress.” American Journal of Political Science 49 (2): 267–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Mark P., and Hwang, Wonjae. 2005b. “Provincial Party Bosses: Keystone of the Argentine Congress.” In The Politics of Institutional Weaknesses: Argentine Democracy, eds. Levitsky, Steven and Victoria Murillo, María. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Kessler, Daniel, and Krehbiel, Keih. 1996. “Dynamics of Cosponsorship.” The American Political Science Review 90 (3): 555–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koger, Gregory. 2003. “Position-Taking and Cosponsorship in the U.S. House.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 28 (2): 225–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krehbiel, Keith. 1995. “Cosponsors and Wafflers from A to Z.” American Journal of Political Science 39 (4): 906–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leader, Shelah G. 1977. “The Policy Impact of Elected Women Officials.” In The Impact of the Electoral Process, eds. Maisel, Louis and Cooper, Joseph. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Londregan, John. 2000. “Estimating Legislators' Preferred Points.” Political Analysis 8 (1): 3556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarty, Nolan, Keith Poole, T., and Rosenthal, Howard. 2001. “The Hunt for Party Discipline in Congress.” American Political Science Review 95 (3): 673–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mainwaring, Scott P. 1999. Rethinking Party Systems in the Third Wave of Democratization: The Case of Brazil. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 1999. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes.’” Journal of Politics 61 (3): 628–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Manzetti, Luigi. 1993. Institutions, Parties, and Coalitions in Argentine Politics. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.Google Scholar
Martin, Andrew, and Quinn, Kevin. 2002. “Dynamic Ideal Point Estimation via Markov Chain Monte Carlo for the U.S. Supreme Court, 1953–1999.” Political Analysis 10 (2): 134–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Norton, Noelle H. 1997. “Analyzing Roll Call Voting Tools for Content: Are Women's Issues Excluded from Legislative Research?Women and Politics 17 (4): 4769.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phillips, Anne. 1995. The Politics of Presence. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Piscopo, Jennifer M. 2011. “Rethinking Descriptive Representation: Rendering Women in Legislative Debates.” Parliamentary Affairs 11 (3): 125.Google Scholar
Pitkin, Hannah. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Poggione, Sarah. 2004. “Exploring Gender Differences in State Legislators' Policy Preferences.” Political Research Quarterly 57 (2): 305–14.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith. 2000. “Non-parametric Unfolding of Binary Choice Data.” Political Analysis 8 (3): 211–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith, and Rosenthal, Howard. 1991. “Patterns of Congressional Voting.” American Journal of Political Science 35 (1): 228–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Poole, Keith, and Rosenthal, Howard. 1997. Congress: A Political Economic History of Roll Call Voting. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Poole, Keith, and Rosenthal, Howard. 2001. “D-Nominate after 10 Years: A Comparative Update to Congress: A Political-Economic History of Roll-Call Voting.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 16 (1): 529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reingold, Beth. 1992. “Concepts of Representation among Female and Male State Legislators.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 17 (4): 509–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwindt-Bayer, Leslie A. 2010. Political Power and Women's Representation in Latin America. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwindt-Bayer, Leslie A., and Corbetta, Renato. 2004. “Gender Turnover and Roll Call Voting in the U.S. House of Representatives.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 29 (2): 215–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1979. “Institutional Arrangements and Equilibrium in Multidimensional Voting Models.” American Journal of Political Science 23 (1): 2760.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sulkin, Tracy, and Swigger, Nathaniel. 2008. “Is There Truth in Advertising? Campaign Ad Images as Signals about Legislative Behavior.” Journal of Politics 70 (1): 232–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swers, Michele. L. 1998. “Are Women More Likely to Vote for Women's Issue Bills Than Their Male Colleagues?Legislative Studies Quarterly 23 (3): 435–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swers, Michele. L.. 2002. The Difference Women Make. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Talbert, Jeffery C., and Potoski, Matthew. 2002. “Setting the Legislative Agenda: The Dimensional Structure of Bill Cosponsoring and Floor Voting.” Journal of Politics 64 (3): 864–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tatalovitch, Raymond, and Schier, David. 1993. “The Persistence of Ideological Cleavage in Voting on Abortion Legislation in the House of Representatives, 1973–1988.” American Politics Research 21 (1): 125–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Sue. 1989. “Voting Patterns in the California Assembly: The Role of Gender.” Women and Politics 9 (4): 4353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, Sue. 1997. “Why Gender Matters: The Perceptions of Women Officeholders.” Women and Politics 17 (1): 2753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vega, Arturo, and Firestone, Juanita M.. 1995. “The Effects of Gender on Congressional Behavior and Substantive Representation of Women.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 20 (2): 213–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welch, Susan. 1985. “Are Women More Liberal Than Men in the U.S. Congress?Legislative Studies Quarterly 10 (1): 125–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Rick K., and Young, Cheryl D.. 1997. “Cosponsorship in the United States Congress.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 22 (1): 2443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28
Cited by

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org 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 @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ 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.

Gender and Legislative Preferences: Evidence from the Argentine Provinces
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.

Gender and Legislative Preferences: Evidence from the Argentine Provinces
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.

Gender and Legislative Preferences: Evidence from the Argentine Provinces
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? *