The incumbency advantage is typically thought to constrain female political representation, but can female incumbency provide a signal to parties that reduces strategic gender bias? We argue that once women prove they can win elections, parties will revise their strategic evaluations of their value as candidates. We test this using an original dataset of twenty-one Chilean elections between 1989 and 2012. We use a Heckman selection model to assess re-election rates by incumbent candidate gender, conditional on the re-nomination of incumbents. We find that female incumbents are just as likely to be re-nominated and re-elected as their male counterparts.
AmbrosiusMargery M.WelchSusan. 1984. “Women and Politics at the Grassroots: Women Candidates for State Office in Three States, 1950–1978.” Social Science Journal21:29–42.
2.
BaldezLisa. 2004. “Elected Bodies: The Gender Quota Law for Legislative Candidates in Mexico.” Legislative Studies Quarterly29:239–58.
3.
BeamanLoriChattopadhyayRaghabendraDufloEstherPandeRohiniTopalovaPetia. 2009. “Powerful Women: Does Exposure Reduce Prejudice?” Quarterly Journal of Economics124:1497–540.
4.
BerchNeil. 2004. “Women Incumbents, Elite Bias and Voter Response in the 1996 and 1998 U.S. House Elections.” Women & Politics26:21–33.
5.
BhavnaniRikhil R.2009. “Do Electoral Quotas Work after They Are Withdrawn? Evidence from a Natural Experiment in India.” American Political Science Review103:23–35.
6.
BlackJerome H.EricksonLynda. 2003. “Women Candidates and Voter Bias: Do Women Politicians Need to Be Better?” Electoral Studies22:81–100.
7.
CarrollSusan. 1994. Women as Candidates in American Politics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
8.
DarcyRobertWelchSusanClarkJanet. 1994. Women, Elections, and Representation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
9.
DonnoDanielaRussettBruce. 2004. “Islam, Authori-tarianism and Female Empowerment: What Are the Linkages?” World Politics56:582–607.
10.
Escobar-LemmonMariaTaylor-RobinsonMichelle M.2008. “How Do Candidate Recruitment and Selection Processes Affect the Representation of Women?” In Pathways to Power: Political Recruitment and Candidate Selection in Latin America, edited by SiavelisPeterMorgensternScott, 345–68. State College: Pennsylvania State University Press.
11.
FoxRichard L.LawlessJennifer L.2004. “Entering the Arena: Gender and the Decision to Run for Office.” American Journal of Political Science48:264–80.
12.
FoxRichard L.LawlessJennifer L.2011. “Gaining and Losing Interest in Running for Public Office: The Concept of Dynamic Political Ambition.” Journal of Politics73:443–62.
13.
FoxRichard L.LawlessJennifer L.FeeleyCourtney. 2001. “Gender and the Decision to Run for Office.” Legislative Studies Quarterly26:411–35.
14.
FréchetteGuillaumeManiquetFrancoisMorelliMassimo. 2008. “Incumbents’ Interest and Gender Quotas.” American Journal of Political Science52:891–909.
15.
FultonSarah A.2012. “Running Backwards and in High Heels: The Gendered Quality Gap and Incumbent Electoral Success.” Political Research Quarterly65:303–14.
16.
FultonSarah A.MaestasCherie D.MaiselL. SandyStoneWalter J.2006. “The Sense of a Woman: Gender, Ambition, and the Decision to Run for Congress.” Political Research Quarterly59:235–48.
17.
GordonSanford C.LandaDimitri. 2009. “Do the Advantages of Incumbency Advantage Incumbents?” Journal of Politics71:1481–98.
18.
HinojosaMagda. 2012. Selecting Women, Electing Women: Political Representation and Candidate Selection in Latin America. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
19.
HinojosaMagdaFranceschetSusan. 2012. “Separate but Not Equal: The Effects of Municipal Electoral Reform on Female Representation in Chile.” Political Research Quarterly65:758–70.
20.
HiranoShigeoSnyderJames M.Jr.2009. “Using Multimember District Elections to Estimate the Sources of the Incumbency Advantage.” American Journal of Political Science53:292–306.
21.
InglehartRonaldNorrisPippa. 2003. Rising Tide: Gender Equality and Cultural Change around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22.
KochJeffrey W.2000. “Do Citizens Apply Gender Stereotypes to Infer Candidates’ Ideological Orientations?” Journal of Politics62:414–29.
23.
KunovichSheriPaxtonPamela. 2005. “Pathways to Power: The Role of Political Parties in Women’s National Political Representation.” American Journal of Sociology111:505–52.
24.
LawlessJennifer L.2004. “Women, War, and Winning Elections: Gender Stereotyping in the Post September 11th Era.” Political Research Quarterly53:479–90.
25.
LawlessJennifer L.FoxRichard L.2005. It Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office. New York: Cambridge University Press.
26.
LunaJuan P.RosenblattFernando. 2012. “¿Notas para una autopsia? Los partidos políticos en el Chile actual” (Autopsy Notes? Political Parties in Chile Today). In Democracia con Partidos: Informe para la reforma de los partidos políticos en Chile, edited by Díaz ApablazaFrancisco JavierSierraLucas, 115–267. Santiago: Centro de Estudios Públicos and Corporación de Estudios Para Latinoamérica.
27.
MorganJanaBuiceMelissa. 2013. “Latin American Attitudes toward Women in Politics: The Influence of Elite Cues, Female Advancement, and Individual Characteris-tics.” American Political Science Review107:644–62.
28.
NivenDavid. 2006. “Throwing Your Hat Out of the Ring: Negative Recruitment and the Gender Imbalance in State Legislative Candidacy.” Politics & Gender2:473–89.
29.
NorrisPippaLovenduskiJoni. 1995. Political Recruitment: Gender, Race and Class in the British Parliament. New York: Cambridge University Press.
PalmerBarbaraSimonDennis. 2005. “When Women Run against Women: The Hidden Influence of Female Incumbents in Elections to the U.S. House of Representatives, 1956–2002.” Politics & Gender1:39–63.
33.
SanbonmatsuKira. 2002. “Political Parties and the Recruitment of Women to State Legislatures.” Journal of Politics64:791–809.
34.
SanbonmatsuKira. 2006. “Do Parties Know that ‘Women Win?’ Party Leader Beliefs about Women’s Electoral Chances.” Politics & Gender2:431–50.
35.
Schwindt-BayerLeslie A.2005. “The Incumbency Disadvantage and Women’s Election to Legislative Office.” Electoral Studies24:227–44.
36.
SeltzerRichardNewmanJodyLeightonMelissa Voorhees. 1997. Sex as a Political Variable: Women as Candidates and Voters in U.S. Elections. Boulder: Lynne Rienner.
37.
Shair-RosenfieldSarah. 2012. “The Alternative Incumbency Effect: Electing Women Legislators in Indonesia.” Electoral Studies31:576–87.
38.
SiavelisPeter M.2002. “The Hidden Logic of Candidate Selection for Chilean Parliamentary Elections.” Compara-tive Politics34:419–38.
39.
SiavelisPeter M.2006. “Accommodating Informal Institu-tions and Chilean Democracy.” In Informal Institutions and Democracy: Lessons from Latin America, edited by HelmkeGretchenLevitskySteven, 33–55. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
40.
StegmaierMaryTosunJaleVlachováKlára. 2014. “Women’s Parliamentary Representation in the Czech Republic: Does Preference Voting Matter?” East Euro-pean Politics and Societies28:187–204.
41.
ThomasMelanieBodetMarc A.2013. “Sacrificial Lambs, Women Candidates, and District Competitiveness in Canada.” Electoral Studies32:153–66.
42.
TomzMichaelWittenbergJasonKingGary. 2003. “CLARIFY: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results.” Journal of Statistical Software8:1–30.
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.
