IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeborg/v156y2018icp166-183.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Getting past the gender gap in political ambition

Author

Listed:
  • Pate, Jennifer
  • Fox, Richard

Abstract

Women's under-representation in politics is an empirical fact. The U.S. ranks 102nd in the world in the percentage of women serving in the national legislature. A leading explanation is the persistence of a substantial gender gap in political ambition. Research explaining the gender gap in political ambition has focused primarily on factors such as self-assessed qualifications, risk aversion, and competitiveness. We make two advances on the existing literature: first, we examine the extent of the gender gap in political ambition using a discrete elicitation measure that provides a more precise measurement of the degree to which women and men exhibit electoral aversion. Second, we test three recruitment appeals - a leadership message, community service message, and qualifications message - to determine which type of appeal could reduce or eliminate the gender gap in political ambition. Our results, based on a laboratory experiment, confirm that women are less interested than men in standing for elective office. However, we also find that while women are less willing to enter an election, women are not unwilling to run for election. We conclude that women's lack of interest is not as definitive as prior research may have suggested. In terms of recruitment, all three messages significantly boost women's willingness to run in the election. Notably, though, the message describing running for office as a collective endeavor to help serve the community actually reduces men's willingness to enter the election, closing the gap in ambition.

Suggested Citation

  • Pate, Jennifer & Fox, Richard, 2018. "Getting past the gender gap in political ambition," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 166-183.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:156:y:2018:i:c:p:166-183
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2018.10.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268118302725
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.jebo.2018.10.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Eckel, Catherine C. & Grossman, Philip J., 2008. "Differences in the Economic Decisions of Men and Women: Experimental Evidence," Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, in: Charles R. Plott & Vernon L. Smith (ed.), Handbook of Experimental Economics Results, edition 1, volume 1, chapter 57, pages 509-519, Elsevier.
    2. Muriel Niederle & Lise Vesterlund, 2007. "Do Women Shy Away From Competition? Do Men Compete Too Much?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 122(3), pages 1067-1101.
    3. Charles A. Holt & Susan K. Laury, 2002. "Risk Aversion and Incentive Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(5), pages 1644-1655, December.
    4. Preece, Jessica & Stoddard, Olga, 2015. "Why women don’t run: Experimental evidence on gender differences in political competition aversion," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 117(C), pages 296-308.
    5. Urs Fischbacher, 2007. "z-Tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 10(2), pages 171-178, June.
    6. Fox, Richard L. & Lawless, Jennifer L., 2014. "Uncovering the Origins of the Gender Gap in Political Ambition," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 108(3), pages 499-519, August.
    7. Andrew Healy & Jennifer Pate, 2011. "Can Teams Help to Close the Gender Competition Gap?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 121(555), pages 1192-1204, September.
    8. Richard L. Fox & Jennifer L. Lawless, 2011. "Gendered Perceptions and Political Candidacies: A Central Barrier to Women's Equality in Electoral Politics," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(1), pages 59-73, January.
    9. Preece, Jessica Robinson & Stoddard, Olga Bogach, 2015. "Does the Message Matter? A Field Experiment on Political Party Recruitment," Journal of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 2(1), pages 26-35, April.
    10. Uri Gneezy & Muriel Niederle & Aldo Rustichini, 2003. "Performance in Competitive Environments: Gender Differences," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(3), pages 1049-1074.
    11. Sarah F. Anzia & Christopher R. Berry, 2011. "The Jackie (and Jill) Robinson Effect: Why Do Congresswomen Outperform Congressmen?," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 55(3), pages 478-493, July.
    12. Bowles, Hannah Riley & Babcock, Linda & McGinn, Kathleen L., 2005. "Constraints and Triggers: Situational Mechanics of Gender in Negotiation," Working Paper Series rwp05-051, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Baraldi, Anna Laura & Immordino, Giovanni & Stimolo, Marco, 2022. "Mafia wears out women in power: Evidence from italian municipalities," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 193(C), pages 213-236.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Peter Kuhn & Marie-Claire Villeval, 2011. "Do Women Prefer a Co-operative Work Environment?," Working Papers 1127, Groupe d'Analyse et de Théorie Economique Lyon St-Étienne (GATE Lyon St-Étienne), Université de Lyon.
    2. Zhang, Peilu & Zhang, Yinjunjie & Palma, Marco, 2018. "Social Norms and Competitiveness: My Willingness to Compete Depends on Who I am (supposed to be)," MPRA Paper 89727, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. Dato, Simon & Nieken, Petra, 2014. "Gender differences in competition and sabotage," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 64-80.
    4. Peter Kuhn & Marie Claire Villeval, 2015. "Are Women More Attracted to Co‐operation Than Men?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 125(582), pages 115-140, February.
    5. Zhengyang Bao & Andreas Leibbrandt, 2020. "Tournaments with Safeguards: A Blessing or a Curse for Women?," Monash Economics Working Papers 02-20, Monash University, Department of Economics.
    6. Beaurain, Guillaume & Masclet, David, 2016. "Does affirmative action reduce gender discrimination and enhance efficiency? New experimental evidence," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 90(C), pages 350-362.
    7. Philipp Schreck, 2020. "Volume or value? How relative performance information affects task strategy and performance," Journal of Business Economics, Springer, vol. 90(5), pages 733-755, June.
    8. Lovász, Anna & Bat-Erdene, Boldmaa & Cukrowska-Torzewska, Ewa & Rigó, Mariann & Szabó-Morvai, Ágnes, 2023. "Competition, subjective feedback, and gender gaps in performance," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 102(C).
    9. W. Viscusi & Owen Phillips & Stephan Kroll, 2011. "Risky investment decisions: How are individuals influenced by their groups?," Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, Springer, vol. 43(2), pages 81-106, October.
    10. Bertrand, Marianne, 2011. "New Perspectives on Gender," Handbook of Labor Economics, in: O. Ashenfelter & D. Card (ed.), Handbook of Labor Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 17, pages 1543-1590, Elsevier.
    11. Mourelatos, Evangelos & Krimpas, George & Giotopoulos, Konstantinos, 2022. "Sexual identity and Gender Gap in Leadership. A political intention experiment," GLO Discussion Paper Series 1187, Global Labor Organization (GLO).
    12. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    13. Becchetti, Leonardo & Degli Antoni, Giacomo & Ottone, Stefania & Solferino, Nazaria, 2013. "Allocation criteria under task performance: The gendered preference for protection," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 45(C), pages 96-111.
    14. Cornaglia, Francesca & Drouvelis, Michalis & Masella, Paolo, 2019. "Competition and the role of group identity," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 162(C), pages 136-145.
    15. Emmanuel Dechenaux & Dan Kovenock & Roman Sheremeta, 2015. "A survey of experimental research on contests, all-pay auctions and tournaments," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(4), pages 609-669, December.
    16. Claussen, Jörg & Czibor, Eszter & van Praag, Mirjam C., 2015. "Women Do Not Play Their Aces: The Consequences of Shying Away," IZA Discussion Papers 9612, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    17. Alison L. Booth & Patrick Nolen, 2012. "Gender differences in risk behaviour: does nurture matter?," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 122(558), pages 56-78, February.
    18. Ludwig, Sandra & Fellner-Röhling, Gerlinde & Thoma, Carmen, 2017. "Do women have more shame than men? An experiment on self-assessment and the shame of overestimating oneself," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 31-46.
    19. Beugnot, Julie & Fortin, Bernard & Lacroix, Guy & Villeval, Marie Claire, 2019. "Gender and peer effects on performance in social networks," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 113(C), pages 207-224.
    20. Balafoutas, Loukas & Sutter, Matthias, 2019. "How uncertainty and ambiguity in tournaments affect gender differences in competitive behavior," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 1-13.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Elections; Voting; Gender; Politics; Willingness-to-compete;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • D72 - Microeconomics - - Analysis of Collective Decision-Making - - - Political Processes: Rent-seeking, Lobbying, Elections, Legislatures, and Voting Behavior
    • J16 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demographic Economics - - - Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination
    • C91 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Individual Behavior

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:156:y:2018:i:c:p:166-183. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jebo .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.