IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/26781.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Votes For Women: An Economic Perspective on Women’s Enfranchisement

Author

Listed:
  • Carolyn Moehling
  • Melissa A. Thomasson

Abstract

The ratification of the Nineteenth Amendment in 1920 officially granted voting rights to women across the United States. However, many states extended full or partial suffrage to women before the federal amendment. In this paper, we discuss the history of women's enfranchisement using an economic lens. We examine the demand-side, discussing the rise of the women's movement and its alliances with other social movements, and describe how suffragists put pressure on legislators. On the supply side, we draw from theoretical models of suffrage extension to explain why men shared the right to vote with women. Finally, we review empirical studies that attempt to distinguish between competing explanations. We find that no single theory can explain women's suffrage in the US, and note that while the Nineteenth Amendment extended the franchise to women, state-level barriers to voting limited the ability of black women to exercise that right until the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

Suggested Citation

  • Carolyn Moehling & Melissa A. Thomasson, 2020. "Votes For Women: An Economic Perspective on Women’s Enfranchisement," NBER Working Papers 26781, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:26781
    Note: DAE
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w26781.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Braun, Sebastian & Kvasnicka, Michael, 2013. "Men, women, and the ballot: Gender imbalances and suffrage extensions in the United States," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 405-426.
    2. Rick Geddes & Dean Lueck, 2002. "The Gains From Self-Ownership and the Expansion of Women's Rights," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(4), pages 1079-1092, September.
    3. Alessandro Lizzeri & Nicola Persico, 2004. "Why did the Elites Extend the Suffrage? Democracy and the Scope of Government, with an Application to Britain's "Age of Reform"," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 119(2), pages 707-765.
    4. Khan, B. Zorina, 1996. "Married Women's Property Laws and Female Commercial Activity: Evidence from United States Patent Records, 1790–1895," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 56(2), pages 356-388, June.
    5. McDonagh, Eileen L. & Price, H. Douglas, 1985. "Woman Suffrage in the Progressive Era: Patterns of Opposition and Support in Referenda Voting, 1910-1918," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 79(2), pages 415-435, June.
    6. Moehling, Carolyn M. & Thomasson, Melissa A., 2012. "The Political Economy of Saving Mothers and Babies: The Politics of State Participation in the Sheppard-Towner Program," The Journal of Economic History, Cambridge University Press, vol. 72(1), pages 75-103, March.
    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. Stahl, Jörg R., 2023. "Changes in the electorate and firm values: Evidence from the introduction of female suffrage in Switzerland," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 386-402.
    2. Hiller, Victor & Touré, Nouhoum, 2021. "Endogenous gender power: The two facets of empowerment," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 149(C).
    3. Scott A. Carson, 2020. "Nineteenth through early 20th Century Female and Male Statures within the Household," CESifo Working Paper Series 8616, CESifo.
    4. Eiji Yamamura, 2021. "Female teachers effect on male pupils' voting behavior and preference formation," Papers 2101.08487, arXiv.org.
    5. Yaron Zelekha, 2024. "The effect of spouses on the entrepreneurial gender gap," International Entrepreneurship and Management Journal, Springer, vol. 20(4), pages 2481-2514, December.
    6. Scott Alan Carson, 2023. "Late Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Century Social Feminism and Women’s Suffrage: A Female–Male Net Nutrition Comparison using Differences- in-decompositions," Journal of Interdisciplinary Economics, , vol. 35(2), pages 191-215, July.
    7. Scott A. Carson, 2021. "The Changing Antebellum Period through Early 20th Century Net Nutrition between Male and Females: A Difference-In-Decompositions within and across Group Comparison," CESifo Working Paper Series 9402, CESifo.

    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. Carolyn M. Moehling & Melissa A. Thomasson, 2020. "Votes for Women: An Economic Perspective on Women's Enfranchisement," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 34(2), pages 3-23, Spring.
    2. Matthias Doepke & Michèle Tertilt, 2009. "Women's Liberation: What's in It for Men?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 124(4), pages 1541-1591.
    3. Bertocchi, Graziella, 2011. "The enfranchisement of women and the welfare state," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(4), pages 535-553, May.
    4. Raquel Fernández, 2014. "Women’s rights and development," Journal of Economic Growth, Springer, vol. 19(1), pages 37-80, March.
    5. Michèle Tertilt & Matthias Doepke & Anne Hannusch & Laura Montenbruck, 2022. "The Economics of Women’s Rights," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 20(6), pages 2271-2316.
    6. Raquel Fernández, 2009. "Women's Rights and Development," NBER Working Papers 15355, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Braun, Sebastian & Kvasnicka, Michael, 2010. "Men, women, and the ballot: Gender imbalances and suffrage extensions in US states," Kiel Working Papers 1625, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    8. Anna Maria Koukal & Reiner Eichenberger, 2017. "Explaining a Paradox of Democracy: The Role of Institutions in Female Enfranchisement," CREMA Working Paper Series 2017-13, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    9. Anna Maria Koukal & Reiner Eichenberger & Patricia Schafera, 2019. "Enfranchising Foreigners: What Drives Natives’ Willingness to Share Power?," CREMA Working Paper Series 2019-10, Center for Research in Economics, Management and the Arts (CREMA).
    10. Stefania Albanesi & Claudia Olivetti, 2014. "Maternal health and the baby boom," Quantitative Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 5, pages 225-269, July.
    11. Doepke, M. & Tertilt, M., 2016. "Families in Macroeconomics," Handbook of Macroeconomics, in: J. B. Taylor & Harald Uhlig (ed.), Handbook of Macroeconomics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 1789-1891, Elsevier.
    12. Fernández, Raquel, 2009. "Women's Rights and Development," CEPR Discussion Papers 7464, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    13. Braun, Sebastian & Kvasnicka, Michael, 2013. "Men, women, and the ballot: Gender imbalances and suffrage extensions in the United States," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 50(3), pages 405-426.
    14. Davis, Lewis S. & Williamson, Claudia R., 2022. "Individualism and women's economic rights," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 198(C), pages 579-597.
    15. Koukal, Anna Maria & Schafer, Patricia & Eichenberger, Reiner, 2021. "Enfranchising non-citizens: What drives natives’ willingness to share power?," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(4), pages 1088-1108.
    16. Nikolova, Elena & Nikolova, Milena, 2017. "Suffrage, labour markets and coalitions in colonial Virginia," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 108-122.
    17. Raquel Fernandez, 2010. "Women's Rights and Development," Working Papers 2011-029, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group.
    18. Di Matteo, Livio, 2013. "Women, wealth and economic change: An assessment of the impact of women's property law in Wentworth County, Ontario, 1872–1927," Explorations in Economic History, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 285-307.
    19. repec:hka:wpaper:2013-03 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Kainuma, Shuhei, 2024. "Transition to broader-based politics: The role of suffrage extension in early 20th century Japan," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    21. Kose, Esra & Kuka, Elira & Shenhav, Na'ama, 2016. "Women's Enfranchisement and Children's Education: The Long-Run Impact of the U.S. Suffrage Movement," IZA Discussion Papers 10148, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • N11 - Economic History - - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics; Industrial Structure; Growth; Fluctuations - - - U.S.; Canada: Pre-1913
    • N12 - Economic History - - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics; Industrial Structure; Growth; Fluctuations - - - U.S.; Canada: 1913-

    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:nbr:nberwo:26781. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.