Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T14:39:42.468Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Effect of Electing Women on Future Female Candidate Selection Patterns: Findings from a Regression Discontinuity Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 June 2019

Michael Jankowski Open the ORCID record for Michael Jankowski [Opens in a new window] ,
Kamil Marcinkiewicz  and
Anna Gwiazda
Michael Jankowski
Affiliation:
University of Oldenburg
Kamil Marcinkiewicz
Affiliation:
University of Oldenburg
Anna Gwiazda
Affiliation:
King's College London
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this article, we address the question of how electing women to national or subnational parliaments affects future female candidate selection in an open-list proportional representation system, using the example of Poland. We consider three potential effects of electing a woman. First, based on existing theories of the incumbency advantage, elected women should have higher chances of reselection and reelection in future elections (incumbency effect). Second, as a result of becoming more powerful within their party, elected women might have a stronger influence on future list composition, and thus more women should run for office on these lists (empowerment effect). Finally, we argue that other parties might adjust their candidate selection patterns in response to the election of women on other party lists (contagion effect). We find strong evidence for the incumbency effect and some support for the contagion effect. The empowerment hypothesis, however, finds no empirical support.

Keywords

Women's representationcandidate selectionregression discontinuity designPolandopen-list proportional representation systems
Type
Research Article
Information
Politics & Gender , Volume 15 , Issue 2 , June 2019 , pp. 182 - 210
Copyright
Copyright © The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2019 

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

We are grateful to three anonymous reviewers of Politics & Gender; to Sarah Dingler, Florian Foos, and Corinna Kroeber; and to the audience of the panel “Electoral Systems and Women's Representation” at the European Consortium for Political Research General Conference 2018 in Hamburg for providing extremely helpful comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. The usual disclaimer applies.

References

REFERENCES

Allik, Mirjam. 2015. “Who Stands in the Way of Women? Open vs. Closed Lists and Candidate Gender in Estonia.” East European Politics 31 (4): 429–51.Google Scholar
Angrist, Joshua D., and Pischke, Jörn-Steffen. 2008. Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Baer, Denise. 1993. “Political Parties: The Missing Variable in Women and Politics Research.” Political Research Quarterly 46 (3): 547–76.Google Scholar
Bhalotra, Sonia, Clots-Figueras, Irma, and Iyer, Lakshmi. 2018. “Pathbreakers? Women's Electoral Success and Future Political Participation.” Economic Journal 128 (613): 1844–78.Google Scholar
Bhavnani, Rikhil. 2009. “Do Electoral Quotas Work after They Are Withdrawn? Evidence from a Natural Experiment in India.” American Political Science Review 103 (1): 23–35.Google Scholar
Broockman, David. 2014. “Do Female Politicians Empower Women to Vote or Run for Office? A Regression Discontinuity Approach.” Electoral Studies 34: 190–204.Google Scholar
Calonico, Sebastian, Cattaneo, Matias D., and Titiunik, Rocio. 2014. “Robust Nonparametric Confidence Intervals for Regression-Discontinuity Designs.” Econometrica 82 (6): 2295–2326.Google Scholar
Calonico, Sebastian, Cattaneo, Matias D., and Titiunik, Rocio. 2015. “Optimal Data-Driven Regression Discontinuity Plots.” Journal of the American Statistical Association 110 (512): 1753–69.Google Scholar
Cattaneo, Matias D., Jansson, Michael, and Ma, Xinwei. 2017. “Simple Local Regression Distribution Estimators,” Working Paper, September 27. https://eml.berkeley.edu/~mjansson/Papers/CattaneoJanssonMa_LocPolDensity.pdf (accessed February 6, 2019).Google Scholar
Cattaneo, Matias D., and Vazquez-Bare, Gonzalo. 2016. “The Choice of Neighborhood in Regression Discontinuity Designs.” Observational Studies 2: 134–46.Google Scholar
Caughey, Devin, and Sekhon, Jasjeet S.. 2011. “Elections and the Regression Discontinuity Design: Lessons from Close U.S. House Races, 1942–2008.” Political Analysis 19 (4): 385–408.Google Scholar
Chiva, Cristina. 2017. Gender, Institutions and Political Representation: Reproducing Male Dominance in Europe's New Democracies. London: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Dahlgaard, Jens. 2016. “You Just Made It: Individual Incumbency Advantage under Proportional Representation.” Electoral Studies 44: 319–28.Google Scholar
de la Cuesta, Brandon, and Imai, Kosuke. 2016. “Misunderstandings about the Regression Discontinuity Design in the Study of Close Elections.” Annual Review of Political Science 19: 375–96.Google Scholar
Dubrow, Joshua. 2017. “East European Parliamentarian and Candidate Data (EAST PaC), 1985–2015.” Version 2.0. Funded by Poland's National Science Centre (Decision no. 2012/05/E/HS6/03556).Google Scholar
Faas, Thorsten, and Schoen, Harald. 2006. “The Importance of Being First: Effects of Candidates’ List Positions in the 2003 Bavarian State Election.” Electoral Studies 25 (1): 91–102.Google Scholar
Fiva, Jon H., and Røhr, Helene Lie. 2018. “Climbing the Ranks: Incumbency Effects in Party-List Systems.” European Economic Review 101(C): 142–56.Google Scholar
Folke, Olle, Persson, Torsten, and Rickne, Johanna. 2016. “The Primary Effect: Preference Votes and Political Promotions.” American Political Science Review 110 (3): 559–78.Google Scholar
Foos, Florian, and Gilardi, Fabrizio. 2017. “Role Models Can Decrease Women's Political Ambition.” Working Paper, January 14. https://fabriziogilardi.org/resources/papers/Foos-Gilardi.pdf (accessed February 7, 2019).Google Scholar
Fox, Richard L., and Lawless, Jennifer L.. 2004. “Entering the Arena? Gender and the Decision to Run for Office.” Americal Journal of Political Science 48 (2): 264–80.Google Scholar
Gallagher, Michael, and Marsh, Michael, eds. 1988. Candidate Selection in Comparative Perspective: The Secret Garden of Politics. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Gelman, Andrew, and King, Gary. 1990. “Estimating Incumbency Advantage without Bias.” American Journal of Political Science 34 (4): 1142–64.Google Scholar
Gilardi, Fabrizio. 2015. “The Temporary Importance of Role Models for Women's Political Representation.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (4): 957–70.Google Scholar
Górecki, Maciej, and Kukołowicz, Paula. 2014. “Gender Quotas, Candidate Background and the Election of Women: A Paradox of Gender Quotas in Open-List Proportional Representation Systems.” Elecotral Studies 36: 65–80.Google Scholar
Górecki, Maciej, and Kukołowicz, Paula. 2018. “Electoral Formula, Legal Threshold and the Number of Parties: A Natural Experiment.” Party Politics 24 (6): 617–28.Google Scholar
Gwiazda, Anna. 2015. “Women's Representation and Gender Quotas: the Case of the Polish Parliament.” Democratization 22 (4): 679–97.Google Scholar
Gwiazda, Anna. 2017. “Women in Parliament: Assessing the Effectiveness of Gender Quotas in Poland.” Journal of Legislative Studies 23 (3): 326–47.Google Scholar
Imbens, Guido, and Kalyanaraman, Karthik. 2012. “Optimal Bandwidth Choice for the Regression Discontinuity Estimator.” Review of Economic Studies 79 (3): 933–59.Google Scholar
Jankowski, Michael, and Marcinkiewicz, Kamil. 2018. “Are Populist Parties Fostering Women's Political Representation in Poland? A Comment on Kostadinova and Mikulska.” Party Politics 24 (2): 185–96.Google Scholar
Jankowski, Michael, and Marcinkiewicz, Kamil. 2019. “Ineffective and Counterproductive? The Impact of Gender Quotas in Open-List Proportional Representation Systems.” Politics & Gender 15 (1): XXX–XXX.Google Scholar
Keele, Luke. 2015. “The Statistics of Causal Inference. A View from Political Methodology.” Political Analysis 23 (3): 313–35.Google Scholar
Lee, David. 2008. “Randomized Experiments from Non-random Selection in U.S. House Elections.” Journal of Econometrics 142 (2): 675–97.Google Scholar
Lee, David, and Lemieux, Thomas. 2010. “Regression Discontinuity Designs in Economics.” Journal of Economic Literature 48 (2): 281–355.Google Scholar
Lovenduski, Joni. 2016. “The Supply and Demand Model of Candidate Selection: Some Reflection.” Government and Opposition 51 (3): 513–28.Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 1999. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes.’” Journal of Politics 61 (3): 628–57.Google Scholar
Marcinkiewicz, Kamil. 2014. “Electoral Contexts That Assist Voter Coordination: Ballot Position Effects in Poland.” Electoral Studies 33 (1): 322–34.Google Scholar
Marcinkiewicz, Kamil, and Stegmaier, Mary. 2015. “Ballot Position Effects under Compulsory and Optional Preferential-List PR Electoral Systems.” Political Behavior 37 (2): 465–86.Google Scholar
Matland, Richard, and Studlar, Donley. 1996. “The Contagion of Women Candidates in Single-Member District and Proportional Representation Electoral Systems: Canada and Norway.” Journal of Politics 58 (3): 707–33.Google Scholar
McCrary, Justin. 2008. “Manipulation of the Running Variable in the Regression Discontinuity Design: A Density Test.” Journal of Econometrics 142 (2): 698–714.Google Scholar
McGregor, R. Michael, Moore, Aaron, Jackson, Samantha, Bird, Karen, and Stephenson, Laura B.. 2017. “Why So Few Women and Minorities in Local Politics? Incumbency and Affinity Voting in Low Information Elections.” Representation 53 (2): 135–52.Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa, and Lovenduski, Joni. 1995. Political Recruitment: Gender, Race, and Class in the British Parliament. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Phillips, Anne. 1995. The Politics of Presence. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Pitkin, Hanna Fenichel. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Ranney, Austin. 1981. “Candidate Selection.” In Democracy at the Polls: A Comparative Study of Competitive National Elections, eds. Butler, David, Penniman, Howard R., and Ranney, Austin. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 75–106.Google Scholar
Schwindt-Bayer, Leslie A. 2005. “The Incumbency Disadvantage and Women's Election to Legislative Office.” Electoral Studies 24 (2): 227–44.Google Scholar
Shair-Rosenfield, Sarah, and Hinojosa, Magda. 2014. “Does Female Incumbency Reduce Gender Bias in Elections? Evidence from Chile.” Political Research Quarterly 67 (4): 837–50.Google Scholar
Shugart, Matthew Søberg. 2005. “Comparative Electoral Systems Research: The Maturation of a Field and New Challenges Ahead.” In The Politics of Electoral Systems, eds. Gallagher, Michael and Mitchell, Paul. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 3–27.Google Scholar
Wolak, Jennifer. 2015. “Candidate Gender and the Political Engagement of Women and Men.” American Politics Research 43 (5): 872–96.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Jankowski et al. supplementary material

Online Appendix

Download Jankowski et al. supplementary material(File)
File 246.7 KB