IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ces/ceswps/_10922.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Issue Salience and Women’s Electoral Performance: Theory and Evidence from Google Trends

Author

Listed:
  • Michela Cella
  • Elena Manzoni
  • Francesco Scervini

Abstract

In this paper we study whether and how the belief that the gender of politicians affects their competence on different issues influences electoral outcomes depending on the salience of those issues. We first propose a theoretical model of issue-specific gender bias in elections which can describe both the presence of a real comparative advantage (‘kernel-of-truth’ case, or stereotype) and the case of pure prejudice. We show that, if the bias exists, it influences electoral results and that its effect can be partially reversed by successful information transmission during the electoral campaign. We then empirically investigate the relation between issue salience and women’s performance using US data on House and Senate elections. Estimates of issue salience are obtained using Google Trends data. Exploiting the longitudinal dimension of the dataset at district level and an IV strategy to rule out possible endogeneity, we show a positive correlation between the salience of those issues that are typically listed as feminine and women’s electoral outcomes. We therefore conclude that a bias indeed exists. The average effect of the bias is sizable with respect to the share of votes for women candidates, even if not large enough to significantly increase the probability that women candidates win elections.

Suggested Citation

  • Michela Cella & Elena Manzoni & Francesco Scervini, 2024. "Issue Salience and Women’s Electoral Performance: Theory and Evidence from Google Trends," CESifo Working Paper Series 10922, CESifo.
    • Handle: RePEc:ces:ceswps:_10922
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cesifo.org/DocDL/cesifo1_wp10922.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Castelnuovo, Efrem & Tran, Trung Duc, 2017. "Google It Up! A Google Trends-based Uncertainty index for the United States and Australia," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 161(C), pages 149-153.
    2. Anzia, Sarah F. & Bernhard, Rachel, 2022. "Gender Stereotyping and the Electoral Success of Women Candidates: New Evidence from Local Elections in the United States," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(4), pages 1544-1563, October.
    3. David H. Autor & David Dorn & Gordon H. Hanson, 2013. "The China Syndrome: Local Labor Market Effects of Import Competition in the United States," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(6), pages 2121-2168, October.
    4. Pedro Bordalo & Katherine Coffman & Nicola Gennaioli & Andrei Shleifer, 2019. "Beliefs about Gender," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(3), pages 739-773, March.
    5. Dan Bernhardt & Odilon Câmara & Francesco Squintani, 2011. "Competence and Ideology," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 78(2), pages 487-522.
    6. Erika Falk & Kate Kenski, 2006. "Issue Saliency and Gender Stereotypes: Support for Women as Presidents in Times of War and Terrorism," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 87(1), pages 1-18, March.
    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. Nobuhiro Mizuno & Ryosuke Okazawa, 2022. "Why do voters elect less qualified candidates?," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 34(3), pages 443-477, July.
    2. Delfino, Alexia, 2021. "Breaking Gender Barriers: Experimental Evidence on Men in Pink-Collar Jobs," IZA Discussion Papers 14083, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Nikolay Hristov & Markus Roth, 2019. "Uncertainty Shocks and Financial Crisis Indicators," CESifo Working Paper Series 7839, CESifo.
    4. Jae Song & David J Price & Fatih Guvenen & Nicholas Bloom & Till von Wachter, 2019. "Firming Up Inequality," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 134(1), pages 1-50.
    5. Dani Rodrik, 2018. "Populism and the economics of globalization," Journal of International Business Policy, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 1(1), pages 12-33, June.
    6. Yane, Haruka & Yamada, Hiroyuki, 2015. "Import Competition from Neighbors: Impacts on Performances of Enterprises in Vietnam," Conference papers 332621, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    7. Bobba, Matteo & Frisancho, Veronica, 2022. "Self-perceptions about academic achievement: Evidence from Mexico City," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 231(1), pages 58-73.
    8. Chiquiar, Daniel & Covarrubias, Enrique & Salcedo, Alejandrina, 2016. "Labor market consequences of trade openness and competition in foreign markets," Conference papers 332760, Purdue University, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Global Trade Analysis Project.
    9. Bühler, Mathias, 2024. "Who Benefits from Free Trade?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 179(C).
    10. Emil Verner & Győző Gyöngyösi, 2020. "Household Debt Revaluation and the Real Economy: Evidence from a Foreign Currency Debt Crisis," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 110(9), pages 2667-2702, September.
    11. Aleksandra Parteka & Joanna Wolszczak-Derlacz, 2020. "Wage response to global production links: evidence for workers from 28 European countries (2005–2014)," Review of World Economics (Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv), Springer;Institut für Weltwirtschaft (Kiel Institute for the World Economy), vol. 156(4), pages 769-801, November.
    12. Picarelli, Nathalie, 2016. "Who really benefits from export processing zones? Evidence from Nicaraguan municipalities," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 318-332.
    13. Amuedo-Dorantes, Catalina & Arenas-Arroyo, Esther & Sevilla, Almudena, 2018. "Immigration enforcement and economic resources of children with likely unauthorized parents," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 63-78.
    14. Markus Brueckner & Ngo Van Long & Joaquin L. Vespignani, 2020. "Non-Gravity Trade," Globalization Institute Working Papers 388, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
    15. Delaney, Judith M. & Devereux, Paul J., 2021. "High School Rank in Math and English and the Gender Gap in STEM," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C).
    16. Gianluca Orefice & Giovanni Peri, 2020. "Immigration and Worker-Firm Matching," Working Papers DT/2020/02, DIAL (Développement, Institutions et Mondialisation).
    17. Tiago Pereira, 2016. "The effect of developing countries' competition on regional labour markets in Portugal," GEE Papers 0058, Gabinete de Estratégia e Estudos, Ministério da Economia, revised Mar 2016.
    18. Tschopp, Jeanne, 2015. "The Wage Response to Shocks: The Role of Inter-Occupational Labour Adjustment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 28-37.
    19. John Van Reenen, 2018. "Increasing differences between firms: market power and the macro-economy," CEP Discussion Papers dp1576, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    20. Hylke Vandenbussche & William Connell & Wouter Simons, 2022. "Global value chains, trade shocks and jobs: An application to Brexit," The World Economy, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 45(8), pages 2338-2369, August.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    gender bias; elections; female politicians;
    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

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:ces:ceswps:_10922. 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: Klaus Wohlrabe (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    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.