Gender inequities in public organizations manifest in various forms, including gaps in leadership roles and compensation. Increasing women’s representation in elected offices may reduce gender inequities in the public sector. This study examines whether women’s representation in local elected offices reduces gender wage disparities among men and women serving in Brazilian municipal executive bureaucracies. The findings suggest that municipalities with women mayors and larger proportions of women on the city council have smaller gender wage gaps in the municipal executive bureaucracy than those with men mayors and few women councilors. Furthermore, statistical models that account for diversity among men and women mayors in terms of their age, education, and partisanship suggest that even men mayors that likely hold progressive attitudes do not reduce gender disparities to the same degree as most women mayors. These findings underscore the importance of women’s representation for reducing gender inequities in the public sector.
AlkadryM. G.BishuS. G.Bruns AliS. (2019). Beyond representation: Gender, authority, and city managers. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 39(2), 300–319.
2.
AlkadryM. G.TowerL. E. (2006). Unequal pay: The role of gender. Public Administration Review, 66(6), 888–898.
3.
AshforthB. E.MaelF. (1989). Social identity theory and the organization. Academy of Management Review, 14(1), 20–39.
4.
BaldezL. (2011). The UN Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW): A new way to measure women’s interests. Politics & Gender, 7(3), 419–423.
5.
BarnesT. D. (2016). Gendering legislative behavior: Institutional constraints and collaboration in Argentina. Cambridge University Press.
6.
BarrosR.FoxL.MendonçaR. (1997). Female-headed households, poverty, and the welfare of children in urban Brazil. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 45(2), 231–257.
7.
BishuS. G.AlkadryM. G. (2017). A systematic review of the gender pay gap and factors that predict it. Administration & Society, 49(1), 65–104.
8.
BishuS. G.KennedyA. R. (2020). Trends and gaps: A meta-review of representative bureaucracy. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 40(4), 559–588.
9.
BolzendahlC. I.MyersD. J. (2004). Feminist attitudes and support for gender equality: Opinion change in women and men, 1974–1998. Social Forces, 83(2), 759–789.
10.
BrattonK. A.RayL. P. (2002). Descriptive representation, policy outcomes, and municipal day-care coverage in Norway. American Journal of Political Science, 46(2), 428–437.
11.
CasseseE. C.BarnesT. D. (2019a). Intersectional motherhood: Investigating public support for child care subsidies. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 7(4), 775–793.
12.
CasseseE. C.BarnesT. D. (2019b). Reconciling sexism and women’s support for Republican candidates: A look at gender, class, and whiteness in the 2012 and 2016 presidential races. Political Behavior, 41(3), 677–700.
13.
CohenP. N.HuffmanM. L. (2007). Working for the woman? Female managers and the gender wage gap. American Sociological Review, 72(5), 681–704.
14.
CrenshawK. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299.
15.
DeHart-DavisL.HatmakerD.NelsonK.PandeyS. K.PandeyS.SmithA. (2020). Gender imbalance in public sector leadership: The glass cliff in public service careers. Cambridge University Press.
16.
ElyR. (1994). The effects of organizational demographics and social identity on relationships among professional women. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39(2), 203–238.
17.
FaveroN.MolinaA. L.Jr. (2018). Is active representation an organizational-level process? The indirect effect of bureaucrats on clients they don’t directly serve. American Review of Public Administration, 48(1), 3–17.
18.
FeeneyM. K.CamarenaL. (2021). Gender, race, and diversity values among local government leaders. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 41(1), 105–131.
19.
FeeneyM. K.StritchJ. M. (2019). Family-friendly policies, gender, and work–life balance in the public sector. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 39(3), 422–448.
20.
FunkK. D.HinojosaM.PiscopoJ. M. (2017). Still left behind: Gender, political parties, and Latin America’s pink tide. Social Politics, 24(4), 399–424.
21.
FunkK. D.PhilipsA. Q. (2019). Representative budgeting: Women mayors and the composition of spending in local governments. Political Research Quarterly, 72(1), 19–33.
22.
FunkK. D.SilvaT.Escobar-LemmonM. C. (2019). Leading toward equality: The effect of women mayors on gender equality in local bureaucracies. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 7(3), 554–573.
23.
GivensT. E. (2004). The radical right gender gap. Comparative Political Studies, 37(1), 30–54.
24.
HolmanM. R. (2014). Sex and the city: Female leaders and spending on social welfare programs in U.S. municipalities. Journal of Urban Affairs, 36(4), 701–715.
25.
HolmanM. R. (2017). Women in local government: What we know and where we go from here. State and Local Government Review, 49(4), 285–296.
26.
InglehartR.NorrisP. (2003). Rising tide: Gender equality and cultural change around the world. Cambridge University Press.
27.
KamC. D.FranzeseR. J.Jr. (2007). Modeling and interpreting interactive hypotheses in regression analysis. University of Michigan Press.
28.
KeiserL. R.WilkinsV. M.MeierK. J.HollandC. A. (2002). Lipstick and logarithms: Gender, institutional context, and representative bureaucracy. American Political Science Review, 96(3), 553–564.
29.
MeierK. J.FunkK. D. (2017). Women and public administration in comparative perspective: The case of representation in Brazilian local governments. Administration & Society, 49(1), 121–142.
30.
MeierK. J.Nicholson-CrottyJ. (2006). Gender, representative bureaucracy, and law enforcement: The case of sexual assault. Public Administration Review, 66(6), 850–860.
31.
MintaM. D.BrownN. E. (2014). Intersecting interests: Gender, race, and congressional attention to women’s issues. Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race, 11(2), 253–272.
32.
MorganJ.BuiceM. (2013). Latin American attitudes toward women in politics: The influence of elite cues, female advancement, and individual characteristics. American Political Science Review, 107(4), 644–662.
33.
NelsonA.PiatakJ. (2019). Intersectionality, leadership, and inclusion: How do racially underrepresented women fare in the federal government?Review of Public Personnel Administration. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734371x19881681
34.
NorranderB.WilcoxC. (2008). The gender gap in ideology. Political Behavior, 30(4), 503–523.
35.
NugentM. K. (2019). When does he speak for she? Men representing women in Parliament [PhD Dissertation]. Rutgers University.
36.
PachecoR. S. (2010a). A agenda da Nova Gestão Pública [The New Public Management agenda]. In LoureiroM. R.AbrucioF. L.PachecoR. S. (Eds.), Burocracia e política no Brasil: Desafios para a ordem democrática no Século XXI [Bureaucracy and policy in Brazil: Challenges for democratic order in the 21st Century]. Editoria FGV.
37.
PachecoR. S. (2010b). Profissionalização, mérito e proteção da burocracia no Brasil [Professionalization, merit, and protection of bureaucracy in Brazil]. In LoureiroM. R.AbrucioF. L.PachecoR. S. (Eds.), Burocracia e política no Brasil: Desafios para a ordem democrática no Século XXI [Bureaucracy and policy in Brazil: Challenges for democratic order in the 21st Century]. Editoria FGV.
38.
PoggioneS. (2004). Exploring gender differences in state legislators’ policy preferences. Political Research Quarterly, 57(2), 305–314.
39.
PowerT. J.ZuccoC. (2012). Elite preferences in a consolidating democracy: The Brazilian legislative surveys, 1990-2009. Latin American Politics and Society, 54(4), 1–27.
40.
ReeseC. C. (2019). The status of public sector pay equity for women of color in the United States. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 39(4), 594–610.
41.
RiccucciN. M.Van RyzinG. G. (2017). Representative Bureaucracy: A lever to enhance social equity, coproduction, and democracy. Public Administration Review, 77(1), 21–30.
42.
Schwindt-BayerL. A. (2010). Political power and women’s representation in Latin America. Oxford University Press.
43.
ValdiniM. E. (2019). The inclusion calculation: Why men appropriate women’s representation. Oxford University Press.
44.
WaiselfiszJ. J. (2015). Mapa da violência 2015: Homicídio de mulheres no Brasil [Violence map 2015: Homicide of women in Brazil]. Faculdade Latino-Americana de Ciências Sociais Brasil (FLACSO).
45.
WhitfordA. B.WilkinsV. M.BallM. G. (2007). Descriptive representation and policymaking authority: Evidence from women in cabinets and bureaucracies. Governance, 20(4), 559–580.
46.
WilkinsV. M.KeiserL. R. (2006). Linking passive and active representation by gender: The case of child support agencies. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16(1), 87–102.
47.
WilkinsV. M.WilliamsB. N. (2008). Black or blue: Racial profiling and representative bureaucracy. Public Administration Review, 68(4), 654–664.
48.
WilkinsV. M.WilliamsB. N. (2009). Representing blue: Representative bureaucracy and racial profiling in the Latino community. Administration & Society, 40(8), 775–798.
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.
