IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/amposc/v63y2019i3p644-659.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Descriptive and Substantive Representation in Congress: Evidence from 80,000 Congressional Inquiries

Author

Listed:
  • Kenneth Lowande
  • Melinda Ritchie
  • Erinn Lauterbach

Abstract

A vast literature debates the efficacy of descriptive representation in legislatures. Though studies argue it influences how communities are represented through constituency service, they are limited since legislators' service activities are unobserved. Using Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, we collected 88,000 records of communication between members of the U.S. Congress and federal agencies during the 108th–113th Congresses. These legislative interventions allow us to examine members' “follow‐through” with policy implementation. We find that women, racial/ethnic minorities, and veterans are more likely to work on behalf of constituents with whom they share identities. Including veterans offers leverage in understanding the role of political cleavages and shared experiences. Our findings suggest that shared experiences operate as a critical mechanism for representation, that a lack of political consensus is not necessary for substantive representation, and that the causal relationships identified by experimental work have observable implications in the daily work of Congress.

Suggested Citation

  • Kenneth Lowande & Melinda Ritchie & Erinn Lauterbach, 2019. "Descriptive and Substantive Representation in Congress: Evidence from 80,000 Congressional Inquiries," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 63(3), pages 644-659, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:amposc:v:63:y:2019:i:3:p:644-659
    DOI: 10.1111/ajps.12443
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12443
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/ajps.12443?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
    ---><---

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Tiffany D. Barnes & Mirya R. Holman, 2020. "Essential Work Is Gender Segregated: This Shapes the Gendered Representation of Essential Workers in Political Office," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(5), pages 1827-1833, September.
    2. Lindsey Cormack, 2021. "Strength in numbers: The forces of constituency size, legislator identity, and institutional position on veterans’ representation," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(6), pages 2849-2862, November.
    3. Brogaard, Jonathan & Gerasimova, Nataliya & Rohrer, Maximilian, 2024. "The effect of female leadership on contracting from Capitol Hill to Main Street," Journal of Financial Economics, Elsevier, vol. 155(C).
    4. Bose, Paul, 2021. "Political (self-)selection and competition: Evidence from U.S. Congressional elections," VfS Annual Conference 2021 (Virtual Conference): Climate Economics 242377, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    5. Rametta, Jack T., 2024. "Did the Republican Revolution Hamstring Congressional Oversight? Evidence from 55,000 GAO Reports," OSF Preprints 7zk4p, Center for Open Science.
    6. Sørensen, Rune J., 2023. "Educated politicians and government efficiency: Evidence from Norwegian local government," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 210(C), pages 163-179.
    7. Christian Salas, 2022. "Representation increases participation: evidence from a reform in Chile," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 191(1), pages 21-30, April.

    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:wly:amposc:v:63:y:2019:i:3:p:644-659. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1540-5907 .

    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.