Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-ktprf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T12:32:01.771Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Inclusive meritocracy: ability and descriptive representation among Danish politicians

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 April 2024

Jens Olav Dahlgaard
Affiliation:
Copenhagen Business School, Frederiksberg, Denmark
Rasmus T. Pedersen*
Affiliation:
The Danish Center for Social Science Research (VIVE), Copenhagen, Denmark
*
Corresponding author: Rasmus T. Pedersen; Email: ratp@vive.dk
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Can democracies attract and elect politicians who are both high-ability and from diverse backgrounds? Using data covering the entire Danish population, including every candidate for local and national elections in 1990–2015, we explore the selection of political candidates. We show that Danish candidates and elected politicians have higher ability than the voters they represent, that selection on ability reflects individual skills rather than social background, that politicians are selected from economically diverse backgrounds, and that there is no substantial trade-off between ability and representation. Furthermore, we utilize a major structural reform, which significantly reduced the number of municipalities in Denmark, to show that increased political competition did not affect politicians’ ability, economic background, or the trade-off between the two.

Information

Type
Original Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution and reproduction, provided the original article is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2024. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of EPS Academic Ltd
Figure 0

Figure 1. Selection of politicians compared to the population. The top panel shows the distribution on the z-scores from the earnings scores for the different politician groups compared to the population (transparent bars). We average over all elections starting in 1994 for the national elections and 1997 for the local elections. We start at the second election in our data in order to be able to remove candidates elected in an earlier term. To avoid that some very large residuals have a disproportional impact on the results, we remove the top and bottom 0.1 percent of the distribution on this variable. For the analyses, we rescale the ability measure to be centered at zero with a standard deviation of one. The bottom panel compares the distribution of politicians’ educational background to that of the population (transparent bars). Both graphs are averaged over the election years.

Figure 1

Figure 2. Selection of politicians compared to siblings. The top panel shows the distribution on the z-scores from the earnings scores for the different politician groups compared to the population (transparent bars) and their siblings. We average over all elections starting in 1994 for the national elections and 1997 for the local elections. We start at the second election in our data in order to be able to remove candidates elected in an earlier term. To avoid that some very large residuals have a disproportional impact on the results, we remove the top and bottom 0.1 percent of the distribution on this variable. For the analyses, we rescale the ability measure to be centered at zero with a standard deviation of one. The bottom panel compares the distribution of politicians’ educational background to that of the population (transparent bars) and their siblings.

Figure 2

Figure 3. Politicians’ income compared to that of their siblings. The figure compares the income distribution of politicians and siblings relative to their gender and birth year. Each bar represent five percentiles. The dashed lines are the population distributions, which are by definition distributed evenly across the percentile distributions. The figure is based on average income in the three years leading up to the first time the politician ran for local or national office during the time period under investigation. We start at the second election in our data in order to be able to remove candidates running in an earlier term. For each election in our time series, we then exclude anyone who ran in the same type of election in an earlier year.

Figure 3

Figure 4. Distribution of fathers’ income in 1985–1987 relative to the population. The figure compares the income distribution of the fathers of politicians in 1985–1987 relative to the population of men in their municipality by their birth year. We average over three years to limit potential influence from fluctuations in one year. Each bar represents five percentiles. The dashed lines are the population distributions, which are by definition distributed evenly across the percentile distributions.

Figure 4

Figure 5. Mean of fathers’ income percentile in 1985–1987. The figure shows averages of the fathers’ place in the income distribution in 1985–1987 relative to the population of men in their municipality in 1986 by their birth year with 95 percent (CIs) for candidates including electees and those elected for office in each local and national election. The dashed lines are at the 50th percentile, which is where the average father in the population falls. In each election year, local council politicians are compared to the population of 48 year olds with a BA or higher, an MA or higher, or a PhD. National politicians are compared to 45 year olds with these educational backgrounds. These age groups are selected because they equal the average age of politicians at those levels. People with a PhD are a subset of people with an MA or more, which is a subset of people with a BA or more. PhDs are omitted from elections prior to 1998, because there are too few PhDs for whom we observe the father's income in 1985–1987.

Figure 5

Figure 6. Representation–ability trade-off. The figure shows the relationship between the index for selection on the Y-axis and the index for representation on the X-axis. Each point represents the binned average for 50 municipality-year observations. In some early election years, there is a low number of council members for whom we know fathers’ income in 1985–1987. We include only municipality-year observations if we have five or more councilor observations.

Figure 6

Figure 7. Selection on ability (mincer measure) with sibling fixed effects. The figure shows the average difference relative to 2001 on the ability measure based on income for candidates for city council and election winners for every election year except for 2005 in the data with 95 percent CIs. We omit the 2005 election, because it was the election that took place when the reform was known but not implemented. The plot is split by whether the municipality was affected by the reform (amalgamated) or not (continuing). The population average for fathers is zero, so values above zero indicate that there is some selection on ability. The dashed vertical line signifies when the reform was known.

Figure 7

Table 1. Effect of the reform on ability for candidates running for office

Figure 8

Figure 8. Average income percentile for fathers in 1985–1987. The figure shows the average income percentile that fathers belonged to in 1985–1987 relative to their municipality and birth year for candidates for city council and election winners for every election year in the data with 95 percent CIs. We average over three years to limit potential influence from fluctuations in one year. The plot is split by whether the municipality was affected by the reform (amalgamated) or not (continuing). The population average for fathers is 0.5, so values above 0.5 indicate that there is some selection on father's background. The dashed vertical line signifies when the reform was known.

Figure 9

Table 2. DiD result on selection on the income of fathers (1985–1987) in 2009 compared to 2001

Figure 10

Table 3. DiD for ability–background trade-off in 2009 versus 2001

Supplementary material: File

Dahlgaard and Pedersen supplementary material

Dahlgaard and Pedersen supplementary material
Download Dahlgaard and Pedersen supplementary material(File)
File 324.2 KB