IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/irlaec/v71y2022ics0144818822000382.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Lost in election. How different electoral systems translate the voting gender gap into gender representation bias

Author

Listed:
  • Migheli, Matteo

Abstract

The voting gender gap characterises several countries and is likely to translate into the composition of elected assemblies and governments. Starting from the given preferences of the electors, different electoral rules may translate this gap into different outcomes in terms of parliament composition. To amplify or attenuate this gap results in generating a sort of gender representation bias. This paper investigates if and to what extent different electoral rules generate gender representation bias when translating votes into seats. It proposes a theoretical framework to capture the potential of an electoral system to amplify or attenuate the voting gender gap. Then, using survey data and different indices of representativeness and governability, this paper provides empirical tests for the theoretical framework. Both the theory and the simulations indicate that majority systems magnify the gender gap while proportional rules are likely to reproduce it with minimal distortions.

Suggested Citation

  • Migheli, Matteo, 2022. "Lost in election. How different electoral systems translate the voting gender gap into gender representation bias," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:irlaec:v:71:y:2022:i:c:s0144818822000382
    DOI: 10.1016/j.irle.2022.106082
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0144818822000382
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.irle.2022.106082?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. Gillion, Daniel Q. & Ladd, Jonathan M. & Meredith, Marc, 2020. "Party Polarization, Ideological Sorting and the Emergence of the US Partisan Gender Gap," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 50(4), pages 1217-1243, October.
    2. De Paola, Maria & Scoppa, Vincenzo & Lombardo, Rosetta, 2010. "Can gender quotas break down negative stereotypes? Evidence from changes in electoral rules," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 94(5-6), pages 344-353, June.
    3. Box-Steffensmeier, Janet M. & De Boef, Suzanna & Lin, Tse-Min, 2004. "The Dynamics of the Partisan Gender Gap," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 98(3), pages 515-528, August.
    4. De Paola, Maria & Scoppa, Vincenzo & De Benedetto, Marco Alberto, 2014. "The impact of gender quotas on electoral participation: Evidence from Italian municipalities," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 141-157.
    5. Matteo Migheli & Guido Ortona & Ferruccio Ponzano, 2014. "Competition among parties and power: an empirical analysis," Annals of Operations Research, Springer, vol. 215(1), pages 201-214, April.
    6. Genny Bonomi & Giorgio Brosio & Maria Laura Di Tommaso, 2013. "The Impact of Gender Quotas on Votes for Women Candidates: Evidence from Italy," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(4), pages 48-75, October.
    7. Philippe Thalmann, 2004. "The Public Acceptance of Green Taxes: 2 Million Voters Express Their Opinion," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 119(1_2), pages 179-217, April.
    8. Eckel, Catherine C. & Grossman, Philip J., 1996. "The relative price of fairness: gender differences in a punishment game," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 143-158, August.
    9. Konstantinos Matakos & Orestis Troumpounis & Dimitrios Xefteris, 2015. "Turnout and Polarization Under Alternative Electoral Systems," Studies in Political Economy, in: Norman Schofield & Gonzalo Caballero (ed.), The Political Economy of Governance, edition 127, pages 335-362, Springer.
    10. Mona Lena Krook & Pippa Norris, 2014. "Beyond Quotas: Strategies to Promote Gender Equality in Elected Office," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 62(1), pages 1-1, March.
    11. Lena Edlund & Rohini Pande, 2002. "Why Have Women Become Left-Wing? The Political Gender Gap and the Decline in Marriage," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 117(3), pages 917-961.
    12. 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.
    13. Panzer, John & Paredes, Ricardo D, 1991. "The Role of Economic Issues in Elections: The Case of the 1988 Chilean Presidential Referendum," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 71(1-2), pages 51-59, August.
    14. Miller, Warren E., 1991. "Party Identification, Realignment, and Party Voting: Back to the Basics," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 85(2), pages 557-568, June.
    15. Danny Hayes & Jennifer L. Lawless & Gail Baitinger, 2014. "Who Cares What They Wear? Media, Gender, and the Influence of Candidate Appearance," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 95(5), pages 1194-1212, December.
    16. Mona Lena Krook & Pippa Norris, 2014. "Beyond Quotas: Strategies to Promote Gender Equality in Elected Office," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 62(1), pages 2-20, March.
    17. Bornstein, Nicholas & Lanz, Bruno, 2008. "Voting on the environment: Price or ideology? Evidence from Swiss referendums," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(3), pages 430-440, October.
    18. David Stadelmann & Marco Portmann & Reiner Eichenberger, 2014. "Politicians and Preferences of the Voter Majority: Does Gender Matter?," Economics and Politics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 26(3), pages 355-379, November.
    19. Rachel Croson & Uri Gneezy, 2009. "Gender Differences in Preferences," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 47(2), pages 448-474, June.
    20. Toke Aidt & Bianca Dallal, 2008. "Female voting power: the contribution of women’s suffrage to the growth of social spending in Western Europe (1869–1960)," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 134(3), pages 391-417, March.
    21. Kai Arzheimer, 2009. "Contextual Factors and the Extreme Right Vote in Western Europe, 1980–2002," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 53(2), pages 259-275, April.
    22. Tali Mendelberg & Christopher F. Karpowitz & Nicholas Goedert, 2014. "Does Descriptive Representation Facilitate Women's Distinctive Voice? How Gender Composition and Decision Rules Affect Deliberation," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 58(2), pages 291-306, April.
    23. Brian F. Schaffner, 2005. "Priming Gender: Campaigning on Women's Issues in U.S. Senate Elections," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(4), pages 803-817, October.
    24. Migheli, Matteo, 2014. "Preferences for government interventions in the economy: Does gender matter?," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 39-48.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Migheli, Matteo, 2014. "Preferences for government interventions in the economy: Does gender matter?," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 39-48.
    2. Stefano Gagliarducci & M. Daniele Paserman, 2012. "Gender Interactions within Hierarchies: Evidence from the Political Arena," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 79(3), pages 1021-1052.
    3. Hessami, Zohal & da Fonseca, Mariana Lopes, 2020. "Female political representation and substantive effects on policies: A literature review," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 63(C).
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. Matteo Migheli, 2021. "Green purchasing: the effect of parenthood and gender," Environment, Development and Sustainability: A Multidisciplinary Approach to the Theory and Practice of Sustainable Development, Springer, vol. 23(7), pages 10576-10600, July.
    7. Baltrunaite, Audinga & Bello, Piera & Casarico, Alessandra & Profeta, Paola, 2014. "Gender quotas and the quality of politicians," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 62-74.
    8. Marcus Dittrich & Andreas Knabe & Kristina Leipold, 2014. "Gender Differences In Experimental Wage Negotiations," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 52(2), pages 862-873, April.
    9. Stadelmann, David & Portmann, Marco & Eichenberger, Reiner, 2013. "How do Female Preferences Influence Political Decisions by Female and Male Representatives?," VfS Annual Conference 2013 (Duesseldorf): Competition Policy and Regulation in a Global Economic Order 79748, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    10. Chaudhuri, Ananish & Cruickshank, Amy & Sbai, Erwann, 2015. "Gender differences in personnel management: Some experimental evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 20-32.
    11. Galasso, Vincenzo & Nannicini, Tommaso, 2013. "Men Vote in Mars, Women Vote in Venus: A Survey Experiment in the Field," CEPR Discussion Papers 9547, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    12. Haucap, Justus & Heldman, Christina & Rau, Holger A., 2024. "Gender and cooperation in the presence of negative externalities," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 147(C), pages 148-169.
    13. Kauder, Björn & Potrafke, Niklas & Ursprung, Heinrich, 2018. "Behavioral determinants of proclaimed support for environment protection policies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 26-41.
    14. Hayo, Bernd & Vollan, Björn, 2012. "Group interaction, heterogeneity, rules, and co-operative behaviour: Evidence from a common-pool resource experiment in South Africa and Namibia," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 81(1), pages 9-28.
    15. David Stadelmann & Marco Portmann & Reiner Eichenberger, 2012. "Do Female Representatives Adhere More Closely to Citizens’ Preferences Than Male Representatives?," CREMA Working Paper Series 2012-02, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    16. Paola Profeta & Eleanor Woodhouse, 2018. "Do Electoral Rules Matter for Female Representation?," Working Papers 121, "Carlo F. Dondena" Centre for Research on Social Dynamics (DONDENA), Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi.
    17. Wang, Zhao & He, Yali & Jiang, Tianqi, 2024. "Does the gender composition of local governments matter for firms’ information environment? Evidence from China," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    18. Debski, Julia & Jetter, Michael & Mösle, Saskia & Stadelmann, David, 2018. "Gender and corruption: The neglected role of culture," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 526-537.
    19. Bozzano, Monica & Profeta, Paola & Puglisi, Riccardo & Scabrosetti, Simona, 2024. "Women’s voice on redistribution: From gender equality to equalizing taxation," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    20. Marcus Dittrich & Kristina Leipold, 2014. "Gender Differences in Strategic Reasoning," CESifo Working Paper Series 4763, CESifo.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Voting gender gap; Electoral systems; Gender representation bias; Simulations;
    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
    • K16 - Law and Economics - - Basic Areas of Law - - - Election Law

    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:irlaec:v:71:y:2022:i:c:s0144818822000382. 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/irle .

    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.