Throughout history and across countries, women appear more likely than men to enter politics on the heels of a close family relative or spouse. To explain this dynastic bias in women’s representation, we introduce a theory that integrates political selection decisions with informational inequalities across social groups. Candidates with dynastic ties benefit from the established reputations of their predecessors, but these signals of quality are more important to political newcomers such as women. Legislator-level data from twelve democracies and candidate-level data from Ireland and Sweden support the idea that dynastic ties are differentially more helpful to women, and that the quality of predecessors may be more relevant for the entry and evaluation of female successors than their male counterparts. The role of informational inequalities is also reflected in the declining dynastic bias over time (as more women enter politics), and in the differential effect of a gender quota across Swedish municipalities.
AnziaS. F.BerryC. R. (2011). The Jackie (and Jill)Robinson effect: Why do congresswomen outperform congressmen?American Journal of Political Science, 55(3), 478–493.
2.
BarnesT. D.BrantonR. P.CasseseE. C. (2017). A reexamination of women’s electoral success in open seat elections: The conditioning effect of electoral competition. Journal of Women, Politics and Policy, 38(3), 298–317.
3.
BasuA. (2016). Women, dynasties, and democracy in India. In ChandraK. (Ed.), Democratic dynasties: State, party, and family in contemporary Indian politics (pp. 127–160). Cambridge University Press.
4.
BattoN. F. (2018). Legacy candidates in Taiwan elections, 2001–2016: Just a bunch of bullies. Asian Survey, 58(3), 486–510.
5.
BaturoA.GrayJ. (2018). When do family ties matter? the duration of female suffrage and women’s path to high political office. Political Research Quarterly, 71(3), 695–709.
6.
BesleyT.Reynal-QuerolM. (2017). The logic of hereditary rule: Theory and evidence. Journal of Economic Growth, 22(2), 123–144.
7.
BjerkD. (2008). Glass ceilings or sticky floors? Statistical discrimination in a dynamic model of hiring and promotion. The Economic Journal, 118(530), 961–982.
8.
CareyJ. M.ShugartM. S. (1995). Incentives to cultivate a personal vote: A rank ordering of electoral formulas. Electoral Studies, 14(4), 417–440.
9.
Casas-ArceP.SaizA. (2015). Women and power: Unpopular, unwilling, or held back?”Journal of Political Economy, 123(3), 641–669.
10.
ClaytonA.RobinsonA. L.JohnsonM. C.MuriaasR. (2020). (How) do voters discriminate against women candidates? Experimental and qualitative evidence from Malawi. Comparative Political Studies, 53(3–4), 601–630.
11.
CornellB.WelchI. (1996). Culture, information, and screening discrimination. Journal of Political Economy, 104(3), 542–571.
12.
Crowder-MeyerM. (2013). Gendered recruitment without trying: How local party recruiters affect women’s representation. Politics & Gender, 9(4), 390–413.
13.
DahlerupD. (Ed.) (2006). Women, quotas and politics. Routledge.
14.
Dal BóE.FinanF.FolkeO.PerssonT.RickneJ. (2017). Who becomes a politician?The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 132(4), 1877–1914.
15.
Dal BóE.Dal BóP.SnyderJ. (2009). Political dynasties. Review of Economic Studies, 76(1), 115–142.
16.
Esteve-VolartB.BaguesM. (2012). Are women pawns in the political game? Evidence from elections to the Spanish senate. Journal of Public Economics, 96(3–4), 387–399.
17.
FolkeO.RickneJ. (2016). The glass ceiling in politics: Formalization and empirical tests. Comparative Political Studies, 49(5), 567–599.
18.
FolkeO.PerssonT.RickneJ. (2016). The primary effect: Preference votes and political promotions. American Political Science Review, 110(3), 559–578.
19.
FranceschetS.PiscopoJ. M. (2008). Gender quotas and women’s substantive representation: Lessons from Argentina. Politics & Gender, 4(3), 393–425.
20.
FultonS. A. (2012). Running backwards and in high heels: The gendered quality gap and incumbent electoral success. Political Research Quarterly, 65(2), 303–314.
21.
GagliarducciS.PasermanM. D. (2012). Gender interactions within hierarchies: Evidence from the political arena. The Review of Economic Studies, 79(3), 1021–1052.
22.
GalaisC.ÖhbergP.CollerX. (2016). Endurance at the top: Gender and political ambition of Spanish and Swedish MPs. Politics & Gender, 12(3), 596–621.
23.
GallagherM. (1980). Candidate selection in Ireland: The impact of localism and the electoral system. British Journal of Political Science, 10(4), 489–503.
24.
GertzogI. N. (1980). The matrimonial connection: The nomination of congressmen’s widows for the house of representatives. The Journal of Politics, 42(3), 820–833.
25.
GeysB. (2017). Political dynasties, electoral institutions and politicians’ human capital. The Economic Journal, 127(605), F474–F494.
26.
GoldinC. (2014). A pollution theory of discrimination: Male and female differences in occupations and earnings. In BoustanL. P.FrydmanC.MargoR. A. (Eds.), Human capital in history: The American record (pp. 313–353). University of Chicago Press.
27.
GrosecloseT. (2001). A model of candidate location when one candidate has a valence advantage. American Journal of Political Science, 45(4), 862–886.
28.
HoriuchiY.SmithD. M.YamamotoT. (2020). Identifying voter preferences for politicians’ personal attributes: A conjoint experiment in Japan. Political Science Research and Methods, 8(1), 75–91.
29.
HuddyL.TerkildsenN. (1993). Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37(1), 119–1147.
30.
IbarraH. (1992). Homophily and differential returns: Sex differences in network structure and access in an advertising firm. Administrative Science Quarterly, 37(3), 422–447.
31.
JalalzaiF. (2013). Shattered, cracked, or firmly intact? Women and the executive glass ceiling worldwide. Oxford University Press.
32.
JalalzaiF.RinckerM. (2018). Blood is thicker than water: Family ties to political power worldwide. Historical Social Research, 43(4), 54–72.
33.
KincaidD. D. (1978). Over his dead body: A positive perspective on widows in the U.S. congress. The Western Political Quarterly, 31(1), 96–104.
34.
KrookM. L. (2018). Electoral systems and women’s representation. In HerronE. S.PekkanenR. J.ShugartM. S. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of electoral systems (pp. 175–192). Oxford University Press.
35.
LabonneJ.ParsaS.QuerubinP. (2019). Political dynasties, term limits and female political empowerment: Evidence from the Philippines (NBER Working Paper No. 26431). National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
36.
LawlessJ. L.FoxR. L. (2005). It takes a candidate: Why women don’t run for office. Cambridge University Press.
37.
Lipman-BlumenJ. (1976). Toward a homosocial theory of sex roles: An explanation of the sex segregation of social institutions. Signs, 1(3), 15–31.
38.
MatlandR. E. (1998). Women’s representation in national legislatures: Developed and developing countries. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 23(1), 109–125.
39.
McDermottM. L. (1997). Voting cues in low-information elections: Candidate gender as a social information variable in contemporary United States elections. American Journal of Political Science, 41(1), 270–283.
40.
McDonaghE. (2002). Political citizenship and democratization: The gender paradox. American Political Science Review, 96(3), 535–552.
41.
McPhersonM.Smith-LovinL.CookJ. M. (2001). Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology, 27(1), 415–444.
42.
NiklassonB. (2005). Contact capital in political careers: Gender and recruitment of parliamentarians and political appointees (PhD thesis). University of Gothenburg.
43.
NishizakiY. (2018). New wine in an old bottle: Female politicians, family rule, and democratization in Thailand. The Journal of Asian Studies, 77(2), 375–403.
44.
NivenD. (1998). Party elites and women candidates: The shape of bias. Women & Politics, 19(2), 57–80.
45.
NorrisP.LovenduskiJ. (1995). Political recruitment: Gender, race and class in the British parliament. Cambridge University Press.
46.
NorrisP.InglehartR. (2006). Gendering social capital: Bowling in women’s leagues? In O’NeillB.GidengilE. (Eds.), Gender and social capital (pp. 73–98). Routledge
47.
O’BrienD.RickneJ. (2016). Gender quotas and women’s political leadership. American Political Science Review, 110(1), 112–126.
48.
PinkstonJ. C. (2003). Screening discrimination and the determinants of wages. Labour Economics, 10(6), 643–658.
49.
QuerubinP. (2016). Family and politics: Dynastic persistence in the Philippines. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 11(2), 151–181.
50.
SanbonmatsuK. (2006). Where women run: Gender and party in the American States. University of Michigan Press.
51.
Schwindt-BayerL. A. (2011). Women who win: Social backgrounds, paths to power, and political ambition in Latin American legislatures. Politics & Gender, 7(1), 1–33.
52.
SmithD. M. (2018). Dynasties and democracy: The inherited incumbency advantage in Japan. Stanford University Press.
53.
SmithD. M.MartinS. (2017). Political dynasties and the selection of cabinet ministers. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 42(1), 131–165.
54.
StokesD. E. (1963). Spatial models of party competition. American Political Science Review, 57(2), 368–377.
55.
StuartT. E.HoangH.HybelsR. C. (1999). Interorganizational endorsements and the performance of entrepreneurial ventures. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 315–349.
56.
TeeleD. LKallaJ.RosenbluthF. (2018). The ties that double bind: Social roles and women’s underrepresentation in politics. American Political Science Review, 112(3), 525–541.
57.
ThomsenD. M.SwersM. L. (2017). Which women can run? Gender, partisanship, and candidate donor networks. Political Research Quarterly, 70(2), 449–463.
58.
TrippA. M.KangA. (2008). The global impact of quotas: On the fast track to increased female legislative representation. Comparative Political Studies, 41(3), 338–361.
59.
WidenstjernaT. (2019). Vem väljar vem—och varför? [Who recruits whom to politics, and why?] (PhD thesis). Mid Sweden University.
60.
ZetterbergP. (2008). The downside of gender quotas? Institutional constraints on women in Mexican state legislatures. Parliamentary Affairs, 61(3), 442–460.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
