IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/pscirm/v13y2025i4p994-1007_13.html

Competent legislators or mere pawns? Experimental evidence of attitudes toward gender quota politicians

Author

Listed:
  • Barnett, Carolyn
  • Blackman, Alexandra
  • Shalaby, Marwa

Abstract

Do citizens evaluate quota and non-quota politicians similarly? Do voters perceive quota-elected politicians as less competent and autonomous? Despite the proliferation of gender quotas, it remains unclear how citizens view female quota politicians compared to their non-quota male and female counterparts. This is particularly important in electoral systems where competitive and reserved seats both exist. We conducted a vignette experiment in Morocco where we randomized information about how politicians were elected and their legislative behavior. We find no evidence that voters evaluate quota women as less competent than non-quota male and female politicians. Our data demonstrate partial support for the argument that quota women are perceived as pawns of their parties, although information about legislative behavior can mitigate this perception.

Suggested Citation

  • Barnett, Carolyn & Blackman, Alexandra & Shalaby, Marwa, 2025. "Competent legislators or mere pawns? Experimental evidence of attitudes toward gender quota politicians," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 13(4), pages 994-1007, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:pscirm:v:13:y:2025:i:4:p:994-1007_13
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2049847024000694/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    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:cup:pscirm:v:13:y:2025:i:4:p:994-1007_13. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ram .

    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.