How does the salience of clientelism in politics impact voter support for women legislative candidates? Existing research finds little bias against women legislative candidates in survey experiments. Where bias exists, it is due to “role congruity,” where voters penalize women because of a perceived lack of specific traits or issue preferences suitable for the position. Building on existing work, I theorize that the ability to deliver patronage is a “role” voters might find stereotypically incongruous with women. Using two waves of a nationally representative survey in Vietnam, I generate preregistered predictions about the impact of a clientelism prime on bias against women legislative candidates. I then test the prediction, with results showing that when clientelism is primed, bias against women candidates increases. These results provide evidence that clientelism has gendered effects on political representation. It also theorizes an additional “role” that could penalize women at the polls.
AbramsonS.F.KocakK.MagazinnikA. (2022). What Do We Learn about Voter Preferences from Conjoint Experiments?American Journal of Political Science, 66(4), 1008–1020. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12714
2.
AnziaS. F.BernhardR. (2022). Gender stereotyping and the electoral success of women candidates: New evidence from local elections in the United States. British Journal of Political Science, 52(4), 1544–1563. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123421000570
3.
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. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00512.x
4.
AspinallE.WhiteS.SaviraniA. (2021). Women's political representation in Indonesia: Who wins and how?Journal of Current Southeast Asian Affairs, 40(1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1868103421989720
5.
BansakK.HainmuellerJ.HopkinsD. J.YamamotoT. (2021). Beyond the breaking point? Survey satisficing in conjoint experiments. Political Science Research and Methods, 9(1), 53–71. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2019.13
6.
BarnesT. D.BeaulieuE. (2014). Gender stereotypes and corruption: How candidates affect perceptions of election fraud. Politics & Gender, 10(03), 365–391. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1743923x14000221
7.
BarnesT. D.BeaulieuE. (2019). Women politicians, institutions, and perceptions of corruption. Comparative Political Studies, 52(1), 134–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414018774355
8.
BauerN. M. (2020). A feminine advantage? Delineating the effects of feminine trait and feminine issue messages on evaluations of female candidates. Politics & Gender, 16(3), 660–680. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1743923x19000084
9.
BeckL. J. (2003). Democratization and the hidden public: The impact of patronage networks on Senegalese women. Comparative Politics, 35(2), 147–169. https://doi.org/10.2307/4150149
10.
BensteadL.JamalA.LustE. (2015). Is it gender, religiosity or both? A role congruity theory of candidate electability in transitional Tunisia. Perspectives on Politics, 13(1), 74–94. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592714003144
11.
BensteadL. J. (2016). Why quotas are needed to improve women's access to services in clientelistic regimes. Governance, 29(2), 185–205. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12162
12.
BensteadL. J. (2019). Do female local councilors improve women’s representation?The Journal of the Middle East and Africa, 10(2), 95–119. https://doi.org/10.1080/21520844.2019.1580085
BerinskyA. J.MargolisM. F.SancesM. W. (2014). Separating the shirkers from the workers? Making sure respondents pay attention on self-administered surveys. American Journal of Political Science, 58(3), 739–753. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12081
15.
BermeoN.BhatiaJ. (2017). Strongmen or technocrats? Experimental evidence testing leadership preferences in Afghanistan. International Growth Center. Technical Report.
16.
BjarnegårdE. (2013). Gender, informal institutions and political recruitment. Palgrave Macmillan.
17.
BjarnegårdE.KennyM. (2016). Comparing Candidate Selection: A Feminist Institutionalist Approach. Government and Opposition, 370–392. https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2016.4
18.
BlackmanA. D.JacksonM. (2021). Gender stereotypes, political leadership, and voting behavior in Tunisia. Political Behavior, 43(3), 1037–1066. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-019-09582-5
19.
BlairG.CoppockA.MoorM. (2020). When to worry about sensitivity bias: A social reference theory and evidence from 30 Years of list experiments. American Political Science Review, 114(4), 1297–1315. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055420000374
20.
BlaydesL. (2010). Elections and distributive politics in mubarak's Egypt. Cambridge University Press.
21.
BrooksD. J. (2013). He runs, she runs: Why gender stereotypes do not harm women candidates. Princeton University Press.
22.
BucchianeriP. (2018). Is running enough? Reconsidering the conventional wisdom about women candidates. Political Behavior, 40(2), 435–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-017-9407-7
23.
CareyJ. M.ShugartM. S. (1995). Incentives to cultivate a personal vote: A rank ordering of electoral formulas. Electoral Studies, 14(4), 417–439. https://doi.org/10.1016/0261-3794(94)00035-2
24.
CECODES, VFF-CRT, RTA, and UNDP. (2020). The 2019 Viet Nam governance and public administration performance index (PAPI): Measuring citizens’ experiences. Hanoi, Vietnam: A joint policy research paper by the centre for community support and development studies (CECODES), centre for research and training of the Viet Nam fatherland front (VFF-CRT), real-time analytics. and United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). UNDP.
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. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414019858960
27.
ClaytonA.ZetterbergP. (2021). Gender and party discipline: Evidence from africa’s emerging party systems. American Political Science Review, 115(3), 869–884. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055421000368
28.
CruzC.LabonneJ.QuerubinP. (2017). Politician family networks and electoral outcomes: Evidence from the Philippines. American Economic Review, 107(10), 3006–3037. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20150343
29.
DabyM. (2020). The gender gap in political clientelism: Problem-solving networks and the division of political work in Argentina. Comparative Political Studies, 54(2), 215–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414020926194
30.
DafoeA.ZhangB.CaugheyD. (2018). Information Equivalence in Survey Experiments. Political Analysis, 26(4), 399–416. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2018.9
31.
DoQ.-A.NguyenK.-T.TranA. N. (2017). One Mandarin benefits the whole clan: Hometown favoritism in an authoritarian regime. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 9(4), 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20130472
32.
DolanK. (2014). Gender stereotypes, candidate evaluations, and voting for women candidates: What really matters?Political Research Quarterly, 67(1), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912913487949
EsareyJ.ChirilloG. (2013). “Fairer sex” or purity myth? Corruption, gender, and institutional context. Politics & Gender, 9(04), 361–389. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1743923x13000378
35.
EsareyJ.Schwindt-BayerL. A. (2019). Estimating causal relationships between women’s representation in government and corruption. Comparative Political Studies, 52(11), 1713–1741. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414019830744
36.
Escobar-LemmonM.Taylor-RobinsonM. M.Talyor-RobinsonM. (2005). Women ministers in Latin American government: When, where, and why?American Journal of Political Science, 49(4), 829–844. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2005.00158.x
37.
FolkeO.RickneJ.SmithD. M. (2021). Gender and dynastic political selection. Comparative Political Studies, 54(2), 339–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414020938089
38.
FultonS. A. (2012). Running backwards and in high heels: The gendered quality gap and incumbent electoral success. Political Research Quarterly, 65(2), 303–314. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912911401419.
39.
GainsboroughM. (2007). From patronage to 'outcomes': Vietnam's communist party Congresses reconsidered. Journal of Vietnamese Studies, 2(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/10.1525/vs.2007.2.1.3
40.
HainmuellerJ.HopkinsD. J.YamamotoT. (2014). Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis, 22(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpt024
41.
HåkanssonS. (2021). Do women pay a higher price for power? Gender bias in political violence in Sweden. The Journal of Politics, 83(2), 515–531. https://doi.org/10.1086/709838
HickenA.NathanN. L. (2020). Clientelism's red herrings: Dead ends and new directions in the study of nonprogrammatic politics. Annual Review of Political Science, 23(1), 277–294. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-050718-032657
44.
HinojosaM. (2012). Selecting women, electing women: political representation and candidate selection in Latin America. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
45.
HögströmJ. (2015). Do development and democracy positively affect gender equality in cabinets?Japanese Journal of Political Science, 16(3), 332–356. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1468109915000225
46.
HuddyL.TerkildsenN. (1993). Gender stereotypes and the perception of male and female candidates. American Journal of Political Science, 37(1), 119–147. https://doi.org/10.2307/2111526
47.
JonesJ. J. (2016). Talk “like a man”: The linguistic styles of Hillary Clinton, 1992–2013. Perspectives on Politics, 14(3), 625–642. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592716001092
KaoK.EllenL.RaknerL. (2017). Money machine: Do the poor demand clientelism?SSRN Working Paper.
50.
KitscheltH. (2000). Linkages between citizens and politicians in democratic polities. Comparative Political Studies, 33(6–7), 845–879. https://doi.org/10.1177/001041400003300607
51.
KrookM.L. (2010). Why Are Fewer Women than Men Elected? Gender and the Dynamics of Candidate Selection. Political Studies Review, 8(2), 155–168. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1478-9302.2009.00185.x
52.
Lust-OkarE.Ellen (2006). Elections under authoritarianism: Preliminary lessons from Jordan. Democratization, 13(3), 456–471. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510340600579359
53.
MaleskyE.SchulerP. (2020). Single-party incumbency advantage in Vietnam: A conjoint survey analysis of public electoral support. Journal of East Asian Studies, 20(1), 25–52. https://doi.org/10.1017/jea.2019.40
54.
McDonaldJ. (2020). Avoiding the hypothetical: Why 'mirror' experiments are an essential part of survey research. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 32(2), 266–283. https://doi.org/10.1093/ijpor/edz027
55.
MuftiM.JalalzaiF. (2021). The importance of gender quotas in patriarchal and clientelistic polities: The case of Pakistan. Journal of Women, Politics & Policy, 42(2), 107–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/1554477x.2021.1882826
56.
MunroJ. (2012). Women's representation in leadership in Viet Nam. UNDP.
57.
MurrayR. (2010). Parties, gender quotas and candidate selection in France. Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
PaxtonP.HughesM. M. (2014). Women, politics, and power: A global perspective. Sage.
60.
PellicerM.WegnerE.BayerM.TischmeyerC. (2022). Clientelism from the Client’s Perspective: A Meta-Analysis of Ethnographic Literature. Perspectives on Politics, 20(3), 931–947. https://doi.org/10.1017/s153759272000420x
61.
SanbonmatsuK. (2002). Gender stereotypes and vote choice. American Journal of Political Science, 46(1), 20–34. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088412
62.
SchulerP. (2019). Female autocrats as role models? The effect of female leaders on political knowledge and engagement in Vietnam. The Journal of Politics, 81(4), 1546–1550. https://doi.org/10.1086/704786
63.
SchulerP. (2021). United front: Projecting solidarity through deliberation in Vietnam's single-party legislature. Stanford University Press.
64.
SchwarzS.CoppockA. (2022). What have we learned about gender from candidate choice experiments? A meta-analysis of sixty-seven factorial survey experiments. The Journal of Politics, 84(2), 655–668. https://doi.org/10.1086/716290
65.
Schwindt-BayerL. A.VallejoA.CantúF. (2022). Gender and family ties in Latin American legislatures. Politics & Gender, 18(1), 158–182. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1743923x20000288
66.
ShalabyM.BarnettC. (2021). Success beyond gender quotas: Gender, local politics, and clientelism in Morocco. In GLD working paper. The Program on Governance and Local Development.
67.
SzwarcbergM. (2015). Moblizing poor voters: Machine politics, clientelism, and social networks in Argentina. Cambridge University Press.
68.
TeeleD. L.KallaJ.RosenbluthF. (2018). The ties that double bind: Social roles and women's underrepresentation in politics. American Political Science Review, 112(3), 525–541. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055418000217
69.
TrinhM. (2022). Tea Leaf Elections: Inferring Purpose for Authoritarian Elections from Postelection Responses to Defeats. The Journal of Politics, 84 (4): 2140–55. Journal of Politics, 84(4), 2140–2155. https://doi.org/10.1086/720306
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.
