Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T17:29:50.908Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are Politicians More Responsive Towards Men’s or Women’s Service Delivery Requests? A Survey Experiment with Ugandan Politicians

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2021

SangEun Kim Open the ORCID record for SangEun Kim [Opens in a new window]  and
Kristin Michelitch Open the ORCID record for Kristin Michelitch [Opens in a new window]
SangEun Kim
Affiliation:
Vanderbilt University, Commons Center PMB 0505, 230 Appleton Place, Nashville, Tennessee 37203-5721, USA. Email: [email protected]
Kristin Michelitch*
Affiliation:
Vanderbilt University, Commons Center PMB 0505, 230 Appleton Place, Nashville, Tennessee 37203-5721, USA. Email: [email protected]
*
Corresponding Author: Email: [email protected]. Twitter: @KGMichelitch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study examines whether politicians exhibit gender bias in responsiveness to constituents’ requests for public service delivery improvements in Uganda. We leverage an in-person survey experiment conducted with 333 subnational politicians, of which one-third are elected to women’s reserved seats. Politicians hear two constituents request improvements in staff absenteeism in their local school and health clinic and must decide how to allocate a fixed (hypothetical) budget between the two improvements. The voices of the citizens are randomly assigned to be (1) male-school, female-health or (2) female-school, male-health. We find no evidence of gender bias toward men versus women, or toward same-gender constituents. This study expands on the mixed results of prior studies examining gender bias in politician responsiveness (typically over email) by adding a critical new case: a low-income context with women’s reserved seats.

Keywords

Politician responsivenessgenderdiscriminationpublic service delivery
Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Experimental Political Science , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , Winter 2022 , pp. 326 - 338
Open Practices
Open data Open materials
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of The Experimental Research Section of the American Political Science Association

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.)

Footnotes

*

This paper is from a larger project coauthored between Guy Grossman and Kristin Michelitch conducted by Innovations for Poverty Action in partnership with Advocates Coalition for Development and Environment. We are grateful to the Carnegie Corporation of New York and Democratic Governance Facility for its generous funding. We thank Christine Goldrick, Ana Garcia Hernandez, Austin Walker, Areum Han, and Maximilian Seunik for research assistance and the Vanderbilt RIPS lab, Experimental Studies of Elite Behavior Conference, Mia Costa, Tariq Thachil, and Amanda Clayton for feedback. This study is pre-registered with EGAP.

This article has earned badges for transparent research practices: Open Data and Open Materials. For details see the Data Availability Statement.

References

Alizade, Jeyhun, Dancygier, Rafaela and Ruth, Ditlmann. 2021. National Penalties Reversed: The Local Politics of Citizenship and Politician Responsiveness to Immigrants. The Journal of Politics 83(3): 867–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Broockman, David E. 2013. Black politicians are more intrinsically motivated to advance blacks’ interests: A field experiment manipulating political incentives. American Journal of Political Science 57(3): 521–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Butler, Daniel M and Broockman, David E. 2011. Do politicians racially discriminate against constituents? A field experiment on state legislators. American Journal of Political Science 55(3): 463–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnes, Nicholas and Holbein, John. 2019. Do public officials exhibit social class biases when they handle casework? Evidence from multiple correspondence experiments. PLoS One 14(3): 1–9.Google ScholarPubMed
Chattopadhyay, Raghabendra and Duflo, Esther. 2004. Women as policy makers: Evidence from a randomized policy experiment in India. Econometrica 72(5): 1409–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coppock, Alexander. 2019. Avoiding post-treatment bias in audit experiments. Journal of Experimental Political Science 6(1): 1–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Costa, Mia. 2017. How responsive are political elites? A meta-analysis of experiments on public officials. Journal of Experimental Political Science 4(3): 241–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croson, Rachel and Gneezy, Uri. 2009. Gender differences in preferences. Journal of Economic Literature 47(2): 448–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dhima, Kostanca. 2020. Do elites discriminate against female political aspirants? Evidence from a field experiment. Politics & Gender 1–32.Google Scholar
Dingler, Sarah C, Kroeber, Corinna and Fortin-Rittberger, Jessica. 2019. Do parliaments underrepresent women’s policy preferences? Exploring gender equality in policy congruence in 21 European democracies. Journal of European Public Policy 26(2): 302–21.Google ScholarPubMed
Distelhorst, Greg and Hou, Yue. 2014. Ingroup bias in official behavior: A national field experiment in China. Quarterly Journal of Political Science 9(2): 203–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Driscoll, Amanda, Cepaluni, Gabriel, de Sá Guimarães, Feliciano and Spada, Paolo. 2018. Prejudice, strategic discrimination, and the electoral connection: Evidence from a pair of field experiments in Brazil. American Journal of Political Science 62(4): 781–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Einstein, Katherine Levine and Glick, David M.. 2017. Does race affect access to government services? An experiment exploring street-level bureaucrats and access to public housing. American Journal of Political Science 61(1): 100–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
FOWODE. 2020. Women Shattering the Glass Ceiling: Experiences from the 2016 Elections in Uganda. Kampala, Uganda: Forum for Women in Democracy.Google Scholar
Franceschet, Susan and Piscopo, Jennifer M. 2008. Gender quotas and women’s substantive representation: Lessons from Argentina. Politics & Gender 4(3): 393–425.Google Scholar
Gaikwad, Nickhar and Nellis, Gareth. Forthcoming. Do politicians discriminate against internal migrants? Evidence from nationwide field experiments in India. American Jounral of Political Science.Google Scholar
Garcia-Hernandez, Ana, Grossman, Guy and Michelitch, Kristin. 2020. Networks and the Size of the Gender Gap in Politician Performance Across Job Duties. Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions Working Paper 3-2018.Google Scholar
Gell-Redman, Micah, Visalvanich, Neil, Crabtree, Charles and Fariss, Christopher J.. 2018. It’s all about race: How state legislators respond to immigrant constituents. Political Research Quarterly 71(3): 517–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giulietti, Corrado, Tonin, Mirco and Vlassopoulos, Michael. 2019. Racial discrimination in local public services: A field experiment in the United States. Journal of the European Economic Association 17(1): 165–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goetz, Anne Marie. 2003. The problem with patronage: Constraints on women’s political effectiveness in Uganda. In No Shortcuts to Power: African Women in Politics and Policy Making, ed. Goetz, Anne Marie and Hassim, Shireen. London & New York: Zed Books, pp. 110–39.Google Scholar
Golder, Sona N., Crabtree, Charles and Dhima, Kostanca. 2019. Legislative representation and gender (bias). Political Science 71(1) :1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grose, Christian R. 2011. Congress in Black and White: Race and Representation in Washington and at Home. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grossman, Guy and Michelitch, Kristin. 2018. Information dissemination, competitive pressure, and politician performance between elections: A field experiment in Uganda. American Political Science Review 112(2): 280–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Habel, Philip and Birch, Sarah. 2019. A field experiment on the effects of ethnicity and socioeconomic status on the quality of representation. Legislative Studies Quarterly 44(3): 389–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hancock, Ange-Marie. 2007. When multiplication doesn’t equal quick addition: Examining intersectionality as a research paradigm. Perspectives on Politics 5(1): 63–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harding, Robin. 2015. Attribution and accountability: Voting for roads in Ghana. World Politics 67(4): 656–89.Google Scholar
Hughes, D. Alex, Gell-Redman, Micah, Crabtree, Charles, Krishnaswami, Natarajan, Rodenberger, Diana and Monge, Guillermo. 2020. Persistent bias among local election officials. Journal of Experimental Political Science 7(3): 179–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jayachandran, Seema. 2015. The roots of gender inequality in developing countries. Annual Review of Economics 7(1): 63–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, Deb, Kabuchu, Hope and Kayonga, Santa Vusiya. 2003. Women in Ugandan local government: The impact of affirmative action. Gender & Development 11(3): 8–18.Google Scholar
Kalla, Joshua, Rosenbluth, Frances and Teele, Dawn Langan. 2017. Are you my mentor? A field experiment on gender, ethnicity, and political self-starters. The Journal of Politics 80(1): 337–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, Sangeun and Michelitch, Kristin. 2019. Shortcomings in Substantive Representation: Accountability Gaps and Policy Preference Incongruence. Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions Working Paper 1-2019.Google Scholar
Kim, SangEun and Michelitch, Kristin. 2021. Replication Data for: Are Politicians More Responsive Towards Men’s or Women’s Service Delivery Requests? A Survey Experiment with Ugandan Politicians. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/79T40F, Harvard Dataverse, UNF:6:DC+sjXaLNTDMhsmTeaEccA== [fileUNF].CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Krook, Mona Lena. 2014. Electoral gender quotas: A conceptual analysis. Comparative Political Studies 47(9): 1268–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindberg, Staffan I. 2010. What accountability pressures do MPs in Africa face and how do they respond? Evidence from Ghana. The Journal of Modern African Studies 48(1): 117–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loewen, Peter John and MacKenzie, Michael Kennet. 2019. Service representation in a federal system: A field experiment. Journal of Experimental Political Science 6(2): 93–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lukes, Steven. 1974. Power: A Radical View. London, UK: Red Globe Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magni, Gabriele and de Leon, Zoila Ponce. 2020. Women want an answer! Field experiments on elected officials and gender bias. Journal of Experimental Political Science 1–12.Google Scholar
McClendon, Gwyneth. 2016. Race, responsiveness and electoral strategy: A field experiment with South African politicians. The Journal of Experimental Political Science 3(1): 60–74.Google Scholar
Mendez, Matthew S. and Grose, Christian R.. 2018. Doubling down: Inequality in responsiveness and the policy preferences of elected officials. Legislative Studies Quarterly 43(3): 457–91.CrossRefGoogle 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(4): 644–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newland, Sara A. and Liu, John Chung-En. ${\omega _{\rm{\Phi }}}$Z. Ethnic identity and local government responsiveness in Taiwan. Governance.Google Scholar
Pfaff, Steven, Crabtree, Charles, Kern, Holger L. and Holbein, John B.. 2021. Do street-level bureaucrats discriminate based on religion? A large-scale correspondence experiment among American public school principals. Public Administration Review 81(2): 244–59.Google Scholar
Pitkin, Hanna. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Porter, Ethan and Rogowski, Jon C. 2018. Partisanship, bureaucratic responsiveness, and election administration: Evidence from a field experiment. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory 28(4): 602–617.Google Scholar
Rhinehart, Sarina. 2020. Mentoring the next generation of women candidates: A field experiment of state legislators. American Politics Research 48(4): 492–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodrguez, Rafael Piñeiro and Rossel, Cecilia. 2018. A field experiment on bureaucratic discretionary bias under FOI laws. Government Information Quarterly 35(3): 418–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomsen, Danielle M. and Sanders, Bailey K.. 2020. Gender differences in legislator responsiveness. Perspectives on Politics 18(4): 1017–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wiener, Elizabeth. Forthcoming. Getting a high heel in the door: An experiment on State legislator responsiveness to women’s issue lobbying. Political Research Quarterly.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Kim and Michelitch Dataset

Dataset

https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/79T40F
Link
Supplementary material: File

Kim and Michelitch supplementary material

Kim and Michelitch supplementary material

Download Kim and Michelitch supplementary material(File)
File 46.8 KB