Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T02:58:26.862Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Limits of Gendered Leadership: Policy Implications of Female Leadership on “Women's Issues”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 August 2013

Dana E. Wittmer  and
Vanessa Bouché
Dana E. Wittmer
Affiliation:
Colorado College
Vanessa Bouché
Affiliation:
Texas Christian University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Over the course of the last thirty years, women have made significant strides toward gender equity in politics. The percentage of women serving in state legislatures has risen from 8.1% in 1975 to more than 24% in 2013 (CAWP 2013). Not surprisingly, this increase of women in politics has sparked many questions and much research about the impact of women in public office (Carroll 2001). While this body of scholarship has investigated such important and diverse topics as legislative strategies (Reingold 1996), conversational dynamics (Kathlene 1994; Pearson and Dancey 2011), and legislative effectiveness (Anzia and Berry 2011; Volden, Wiseman, and Wittmer 2013), the substantive effects of having women in office have garnered the most attention.

Type
Research Article
Information
Politics & Gender , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , September 2013 , pp. 245 - 275
Copyright
Copyright © The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association 2013 

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

Anzia, Sarah F., and Berry, Christopher R.. 2011. “The Jackie (and Jill) Robinson Effect: Why Do Congresswomen Outperform Congressmen?” American Journal of Political Science 55 (3): 478–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnello, Michelle A. 1999. “Gender and Roll Call Voting in the New York State Assembly.” Women & Politics 20 (4): 77–94.Google Scholar
Barnello, Michelle A., and Bratton, Kathleen A.. 2007. “Bridging the Gender Gap in Bill Sponsorship.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 32 (3): 449–74.Google Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, Katz, Jonathan N., and Tucker, Richard. 1998. “Taking Time Seriously: Time-Series-Cross-Section Analysis with a Binary Dependent Variable.” American Journal of Political Science 42 (4): 1260–88.Google Scholar
Beckwith, Karen. 2007. “Numbers and Newness: The Descriptive and Substantive Representation of Women.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 40 (1): 27–49.Google Scholar
Berkman, Michael B., and O'Connor, Robert E.. 1993. “Do Women Legislators Matter? Female Legislators and State Abortion Policy.” American Politics Quarterly 21 (1): 102–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Berry, William D., Ringquist, Evan J., Fording, Richard C., and Hanson, Russell L.. 1998. “Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the American States, 1960–93.” American Journal of Political Science 42 (1): 327–48.Google Scholar
Boles, Janet K. 2001. “Local Elected Women and Policy-Making: Movement Delegates or Feminist Trustees? In The Impact of Women in Public Office, ed. Carroll, Susan. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Bratton, Kathleen. 2002. “The Effect of Legislative Diversity on Agenda Setting—Evidence from Six State Legislatures.” American Politics Research 30 (2): 115–42.Google Scholar
Bratton, Kathleen. 2005. “Critical Mass Theory Revisited: The Behavior and Success of Token Women in State Legislatures.” Politics & Gender 1 (1): 97–125.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.Google Scholar
Bouché, Vanessa, and Wittmer, Dana E.. 2009. “State Human Trafficking Legislation: The Determinants of Comprehensiveness.” Paper presented at the Interdisciplinary Conference on Human Trafficking. October.Google Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M., and Zorn, Christopher. 2002. “Duration Models for Repeated Events.” Journal of Politics 64 (4): 1069–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, Mark D. 2005. “The Rise of Partisanship and the Expansion of Partisan Conflict within the American Electorate.” Political Research Quarterly 58 (2): 219–29.Google Scholar
Bzdek, Victor. 2010. “Why Did Health Care Reform Pass? Nancy Pelosi was in Charge.” Washington Post. March 28.Google Scholar
Carey, John M., Niemi, Richard G., and Powell, Lynda W.. 1998. “Are Women State Legislators Different?” In Women and Elective Office: Past, Present, and Future, ed. Thomas, Susan and Wilcox, Clyde. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, Susan J. 1985. Women as Candidates in American Politics. Bloomingtom: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, Susan J.. 2001. “Introduction.” In The Impact of Women in Public Office, ed. Carroll, Susan. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Carroll, Susan J.. 2002. “Representing Women: Congresswomen's Perceptions of Their Representational Roles.” In Women Transforming Congress, ed. Rosenthal, Cindy Simon and Fenno, Richard F. Jr.Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). 2013. “Women in State Legislatures Fact Sheets.” Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University.Google Scholar
Center for Women Policy Studies. 2008. “Fact Sheet on State Anti-Trafficking Laws.” US Policy Advocacy to Combat Trafficking.Google Scholar
Cowell-Meyers, Kimberly, and Langbein, Laura. 2009. “Linking Women's Descriptive and Substantive Representation in the United States.” Politics & Gender 5 (4): 491–518.Google Scholar
Crowley, Jocelyn Elise. 2004. “When Tokens Matter.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 29 (1): 109–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dolan, Julie. 1998. “Support for Women's Interests in the 103rd Congress.” Women & Politics 18 (4): 81–94.Google Scholar
Fahy, Stephanie, Farrell, Amy, and McDevitt, Jack. 2006. “Human Trafficking: Media Representation of a Historic Problem.” Presented at the American Society of Criminology, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
Farrell, Amy. 2007. “State Human Trafficking Legislation.” Mobilizing Every Resource: State Responses to Human Trafficking. Princeton, NJ: Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs.Google Scholar
Farrell, Amy, and Fahy, Stephanie. 2009. “The Problem of Human Trafficking in the U.S.: Public Frames and Policy Responses.” Journal of Criminal Justice 37 (6): 617–26.Google Scholar
Fellowes, Matthew, Gray, Virginia, and Lowery, David. 2006. “What's on the Table? The Content of State Policy Agendas.” Party Politics 12 (1): 35–55.Google Scholar
Fenno, Richard F. Jr. 1973. Congressmen in Committees. Boston: Little, Brown and Company.Google Scholar
Frederick, Brian. 2011. “Gender Turnover and Roll Call Voting in the US Senate.” Journal of Women, Politics, & Policy 32 (3): 193–210.Google Scholar
Gagné, Patricia. 1996. “Identity, Strategy, and Feminist Politics: Clemency for Battered Women Who Kill.” Social Problems 43 (1): 77–93.Google Scholar
Gerrity, Jessica C., Osborn, Tracy, and Mendez, Jeanette Morehouse. 2007. “Women and Representation: A Different View of the District.” Politics & Gender 3 (2): 179–200.Google Scholar
Gibbs, Jewelle Taylor, and Bankhead, Teiahsha. 2001. Preserving Privilege: California Politics, Propositions, and People of Color. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
Hall, Richard L. 1996. Participation in Congress. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Jenkins, Shannon. 2012. “How Gender Influences Roll Call Voting.” Social Science Quarterly 93 (2): 415–33.Google Scholar
Jeydel, Alana, and Taylor, Andrew J.. 2003. “Are Women Legislators Less Effective? Evidence from the U.S. House in the 103rd–105th Congress.” Political Research Quarterly 56 (1): 19–27.Google Scholar
Kanter, Rosebeth M. 1977. “Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and Responses to Token Women.” American Journal of Sociology 82 (5): 965–90.Google Scholar
Kathlene, Lyn. 1994. “Power and Influence in State Legislative Policymaking: The Interactions of Gender and Position in Committee Hearing Debates.” American Political Science Review 88 (3): 560–76.Google Scholar
Layman, Geoffrey C., Carsey, Thomas M., and Horowitz, Juliana Menasce. 2006. “Party Polarization in American Politics: Characteristics, Causes, and Consequences.” Annual Review of Political Science 9: 83–110.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
Mansbridge, Jane. 2003. “Rethinking Representation.” American Political Science Review 97 (4): 515–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 2005. “Quota Problems: Combating the Dangers of Essentialism.” Politics & Gender 1 (4): 622–38.Google Scholar
Mayhew, David R. 1974. Congress: The Electoral Connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
McCombs, Maxwell. 2004. Setting the Agenda: The Mass Media and Public Opinion. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Menard, Scott. 2002. Applied Logistic Regression Analysis, 2nd ed.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Murphy, Patricia. 1997. “Domestic Violence Legislation and the Police: The Role of Socio-Economic Indicators, Political Factors and Women's Political Activism on State Policy Adoption.” Women & Politics 18 (2): 27–53.Google Scholar
National Council of State Legislatures. http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=16701 (accessed June 1, 2013).Google Scholar
Pearson, Kathryn, and Dancey, Logan. 2011. “Elevating Women's Voices in Congress: Speech Participation in the House of Representatives.” Political Research Quarterly 64 (4): 910–23.Google Scholar
Poggione, Sarah. 2004. “Exploring Gender Differences in States Legislators’ Policy Preferences.” Political Research Quarterly 57 (2): 305–14.Google Scholar
Reingold, Beth. 1992. “Concepts of Representation Among Female and Male State Legislators.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 17 (4): 509–37.Google Scholar
Reingold, Beth. 1996. “Conflict and Cooperation: Legislative Strategies and Concepts of Power among Female and Male State Legislators.” Journal of Politics 58 (2): 464–85.Google Scholar
Reingold, Beth. 2000. Representing Women: Sex, Gender, and Legislative Behavior in Arizona and California. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.Google Scholar
Saint-Germain, Michelle A. 1989. “Does Their Difference Make a Difference? The Impact of Women on Public Policy in the Arizona Legislature.” Social Science Quarterly 70 (4): 956–68.Google Scholar
Schiller, Wendy J. 1995. “Senators as Political Entrepreneurs: Using Bill Sponsorship to Shape Legislative Agendas.” American Journal of Political Science 39 (1): 186–203.Google Scholar
Shipan, Charles R., and Volden, Craig. 2006. “Bottom-Up Federalism: The Diffusion of Antismoking Policies from U.S. Cities to States.” American Journal of Political Science 50 (4): 825–43.Google Scholar
Shipan, Charles R., and Volden, Craig. 2008. “The Mechanisms of Policy Diffusion.” American Journal of Political Science 52 (4): 840–57.Google Scholar
Sinclair, Barbara. 1989. The Transformation of the U.S. Senate. Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.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.Google Scholar
Swers, Michele L.. 2002a. “Transforming the Agenda: Analyzing Gender Differences in Women's Issue Bill Sponsorship.” In Women Transforming Congress, ed. Rosenthal, Cindy. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.Google Scholar
Swers, Michele L.. 2002b. The Difference Women Make: The Policy Impact of Women in Congress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Swers, Michele L.. 2005. “Connecting Descriptive and Substantive Representation: An Analysis of Cosponsorship Activity.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 30 (3): 407–33.Google Scholar
Swers, Michelle L., and Larson, Carin. 2005. “Women in Congress: Do They Act as Advocates for Women's Issues?” In Women and Elective Office: Past, Present, and Future, ed. Thomas, Sue and Wilcox, Clyde. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tamerius, Karin L. 1995. “Sex, Gender, and Leadership in the Representation of Women.” In Gender, Power, Leadership, and Governance, ed. Duerst-Lahti, Georgia and Kelly, Rita Mae. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Tan, Yue, and Weaver, David H.. 2009. “Local Media, Public Opinion, and State Legislative Policies Agenda Setting at the State Level.” International Journal of Press-Politics 14 (4): 454–76.Google Scholar
Thomas, Sue. 1991. “The Impact of Women on State Legislative Policies.” Journal of Politics 53 (4): 958–76.Google Scholar
Thomas, Sue. 1994. How Women Legislate. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thomas, Sue, and Welch, Susan. 2001. “The Impact of Women in States Legislatures: Numerical and Organizational Strength.” In The Impact of Women in Public Office, ed. Carroll, Susan. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Nations, United. 2000. Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children, Supplementing the United Nations Convention Against Transnational Organized Crime. http://www.uncjin.org/Documents/Conventions/dcatoc/final_documents_2/convention_%20traff_eng.pdf (accessed June 1, 2013).Google Scholar
US Department of Justice. 2004. Assessment of US Government Activities to Combat Trafficking in Persons.Google Scholar
US Department of State. 2007. Trafficking in Persons Report.Google Scholar
Volden, Craig, Wiseman, Alan, and Wittmer, Dana. 2013. “When Are Women More Effective Lawmakers Than Men?” American Journal of Political Science 57 (2): 326–41.Google Scholar
Walker, Jack L. 1969. “The Diffusion of Innovations among the American States.” American Political Science Review 63 (3): 880–99.Google Scholar
Wawro, Gregory. 2000. Legislative Entrepreneurship in the U.S. House of Representatives. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Weitzer, Ronald. 2006. “Moral Crusade against Prostitution.” Society 43 (3): 33–38.Google Scholar