Can qualifications help candidates from historically marginalized groups win over out-group voters? We help answer this question with an original conjoint experiment fielded on a face-to-face survey conducted in three Afghan provinces between 2016 and 2017. The conjoint asked over 2,400 Afghan respondents to rank and choose between profiles of hypothetical candidates with varying gender, ethnic and educational attributes. We explore whether candidate qualifications – as measured by educational attainment – can amplify respondents’ support for hypothetical candidates from two social groups traditionally underrepresented in Afghan politics: women and Hazaras, a predominately Shi’a ethnic minority group. We find that higher qualifications consistently increase male (non-Hazara) respondents’ ranking and likelihood of choosing profiles with female (Hazara) candidates. These gains, however, do not completely offset male (non-Hazara) respondents’ in-group biases. Qualifications help but are not enough to dismantle voter preferences for in-group candidates.
AbramsonS. F.KoçakK.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.
AdidaC.GottliebJ.KramonE.McClendonG. (2017). Overcoming or reinforcing coethnic preferences? An experiment on information and ethnic voting. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 12(4), 437–477. https://doi.org/10.1561/100.00017018
AlesinaA.DevleeschauwerA.EasterlyW.KurlatS.WacziargR. (2003). Fractionalization. Journal of Economic Growth, 8(2), 155–194. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024471506938
6.
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
7.
BarnesT. D.BurchardS. M. (2013). “engendering” politics: The impact of descriptive representation on women’s political engagement in sub-saharan africa. Comparative Political Studies, 46(7), 767–790. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414012463884
8.
BarnesT. D.HolmanM. R. (2019). Taking diverse backgrounds into account in studies of political ambition and representation. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 7(4), 829–841. https://doi.org/10.1080/21565503.2018.1532916
9.
BarnettC.A JamalA.MonroeS. L. (2021). Earned income and women’s segmented empowerment: Experimental evidence from Jordan. American Journal of Political Science, 65(4), 954–970. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12561
BauerN. M. (2017). The effects of counterstereotypic gender strategies on candidate evaluations. Political Psychology, 38(2), 279–295. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12351
12.
BauerN. M. (2020). Shifting standards: How voters evaluate the qualifications of female and male candidates. The Journal of Politics, 82(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1086/705817
13.
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
14.
BensteadL. J.MuriaasR.WangV. (2023). Explaining backlash: Social hierarchy and men’s rejection of women’s rights reforms. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society, 30(2), 496–524. https://doi.org/10.1093/sp/jxac037
BhatiaJ.MonroeS. L. (2024). Insecurity and support for female leadership in conflict states: Evidence from Afghanistan. British Journal of Political Science, 54(3), 771–792. https://doi.org/10.1017/s000712342300056x
17.
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
18.
BruléR. E. (2020). Reform, representation, and resistance: The politics of property rights’ enforcement. The Journal of Politics, 82(4), 1390–1405. https://doi.org/10.1086/708645
19.
BushS. S. (2011). International politics and the spread of quotas for women in legislatures. International Organization, 65(1), 103–137. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818310000287
20.
CallenM.LongJ. D. (2015). Institutional corruption and election fraud: Evidence from a field experiment in Afghanistan. The American Economic Review, 105(1), 354–381. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20120427
21.
CarlsonE. (2015). Ethnic voting and accountability in africa: A choice experiment in Uganda. World Politics, 67(2), 353–385. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0043887115000015
22.
ChandraK. (2007). Why ethnic parties succeed: Patronage and ethnic head counts in India. Cambridge University Press.
23.
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
24.
ClaytonK.HoriuchiY.KaufmanA. R.KingG.KomisarchikM. (2024). Correcting measurement error bias in conjoint survey experiments. Working Paper. Harvard University.
25.
CollingwoodL. (2020). Campaigning in a racially diversifying America: When and how cross-racial electoral mobilization works: Oxford University Press.
CorstangeD. (2016). The price of a vote in the middle east: Clientelism and communal politics in Lebanon and Yemen. Cambridge University Press.
28.
CrenshawK. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
29.
DesaiZ.FreyA. (2021). Can descriptive representation help the right win votes from the poor? Evidence from Brazil. American Journal of Political Science.
30.
DolanK. (2008). Is there a “gender affinity effect” in american politics? Information, affect, and candidate sex in us house elections. Political Research Quarterly, 61(1), 79–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912907307518
31.
DolanK. (2014). When does gender matter? Women candidates and gender stereotypes in American elections. Oxford University Press.
32.
FerreeK. E.GibsonC. C.LongJ. D. (2021). Mixed records, complexity, and ethnic voting in african elections. World Development, 141, Article 105418. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2021.105418
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
35.
HanklaC.BanerjeeS.ThomasA.BanerjeeA. (2022). Electing women in ethnically divided societies: Candidates, campaigns, and intersectionality in Bihar, India. Comparative Political Studies.
36.
HayesD.LawlessJ. L. (2016). Women on the run: Gender, media, and political campaigns in a polarized era. Cambridge University Press.
37.
HolmanM. R.MerollaJ. L.ZechmeisterE. J. (2016). Terrorist threat, male stereotypes, and candidate evaluations. Political Research Quarterly, 69(1), 134–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912915624018
38.
HoriuchiY.MarkovichZ.YamamotoT. (2022). Does conjoint analysis mitigate social desirability bias?Political Analysis, 30(4), 535–549. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2021.30
39.
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. https://doi.org/10.1017/psrm.2018.26
HtunM. (2004). Is gender like ethnicity? The political representation of identity groups. Perspectives on Politics, 2(03), 439–458. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1537592704040241
JohnsonT. H.BarnhartR. J. (2020). An examination of Afghanistan’s 2018 wolesi jirga elections: Chaos, confusion and fraud. Journal of Asian Security and International Affairs, 7(1), 57–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/2347797020906635
KaoK.BensteadL. (2019). The importance of intersectionality: Gender, islamism, and tribalism in elections. Program on Governance and Local Development Working Paper, (Vol. 23).
KrookM. L.O’BrienD.SwipK. (2010). Military invasion and women’s political representation. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 12(1), 66–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616740903429130
48.
KruegerA. B.LindahlM. (2001). Education for growth: Why and for whom?Journal of Economic Literature, 39(4), 1101–1136. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.39.4.1101
49.
LeeperT.HoboltS.TilleyJ. (2020). Measuring subgroup preferences in conjoint experiments. Political Analysis, 28(2), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2019.30
50.
ManzanoS.SanchezG. R. (2010). Take one for the team? Limits of shared ethnicity and candidate preferences. Political Research Quarterly, 63(3), 568–580. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912909333130
51.
MoC. H. (2015). The consequences of explicit and implicit gender attitudes and candidate quality in the calculations of voters. Political Behavior, 37(2), 357–395. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-014-9274-4
52.
MonroeS. L. A.BhatiaJ. (2024). Replication data for candidate qualifications and out-group support: Evidence from Afghanistan. American Economic Association. https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/KE6VPA
53.
MosamimP.VilleneuveJ. P. (2023). Women in government: The limits and challenges of a representative bureaucracy for Afghanistan (2001–2021). Policy Studies, 44(6), 703–727. https://doi.org/10.1080/01442872.2022.2161499
54.
MousaviS. A. (2018). The hazaras of Afghanistan. Routledge.
55.
MüggeL. M.ErzeelS. (2016). Double jeopardy or multiple advantage? Intersectionality and political representation. Parliamentary Affairs, 69(3), 499–511. https://doi.org/10.1093/pa/gsv059
56.
NijatA.MurtazashviliJ. (2015). Women’s leadership roles in Afghanistan (tech. rep. No. 350). US Institute of Peace.
57.
O’BrienD.RickneJ. (2016). Gender quotas and women’s political leadership. American Political Science Review, 110(1), 112–126. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055415000611
PiscopoJ. M.HinojosaM.ThomasG.SiavelisP. M. (2022). Follow the money: Gender, incumbency, and campaign funding in Chile. Comparative Political Studies, 55(2), 222–253. https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140211024300
62.
ProfetaP.WoodhouseE. F. (2022). Electoral rules, women’s representation and the qualification of politicians. Comparative Political Studies, Article 00104140211047414.
63.
RashidA. (2002). Taliban: Islam, oil and the new great game in central asia. IB Tauris London.
SchuesslerJ.FreitagM. (2020). Power analysis for conjoint experiments.
67.
SchulerP. (2023). Gender and clientelism: Do expectations of patronage penalize women candidates in legislative elections?Comparative Political Studies, Article 00104140231204248.
68.
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
69.
SempleM. (2011). The rise of the hazaras and the challenge of pluralism in Afghanistan 1978–2011.
Shair-RosenfieldS.HinojosaM. (2014). Does female incumbency reduce gender bias in elections? Evidence from Chile. Political Research Quarterly, 67(4), 837–850. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912914550044
72.
ShockleyB.GenglerJ. J. (2020). Social identity and coethnic voting in the middle east: Experimental evidence from Qatar. Electoral Studies, 67, Article 102213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2020.102213
73.
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
74.
TohaR.HazraA. (2022). Winning elections and changing the game? Challenges to broadening female political representation in new democracies. Unpublished Manuscript.
75.
UNDP. (2021). Gender development index 2021. (Accessed: 04-03-2023).
76.
UN Women. (2021). Women’s rights in Afghanistan: Where are we now? (Accessed: 04-03-2023).
77.
WeigandF. (2022). Waiting for dignity: Legitimacy and authority in Afghanistan. Columbia University Press.
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.
