Many scholars have offered explanations as to why women are underrepresented at all levels of government. Conventional wisdom states that fewer women are in public office due to lower ambition, and that the presence of gendered perceptions among women considering elected office contributes to women’s disinterest in the political arena. Using original survey data, this article expands the theory of gendered perceptions to current state-level appointed officeholders to explain their levels of interest in pursuing higher public office. The results indicate that gendered perceptions affect the progressive ambitions of appointees; like studies of ambition in elected officials, this study of appointed officials finds that women are generally less ambitious, and unlike studies of ambition in elected officials, this study of appointed officials finds that women with higher self-assessments are less ambitious rather than more.
BaiocchiGianpaloBennettElizabeth A.CordnerAlissaKleinPeter TaylorSavellStephanie. 2014. The Civic Imagination. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.
2.
BellahRobertMadsenRichardSullivanWilliamSwindlerAnnTiptonSteven. 2008. Habits of the Heart: Individualism and Commitment in American Life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
3.
BledsoeTimothyHerringMary. 1990. “Victims of Circumstances: Women in Pursuit of Political Office.” The American Political Science Review84 (1): 213–23.
4.
BullardAngela M.WrightDeil S.1993. “Circumventing the Glass Ceiling: Women Executives in American State Governments.” Public Administration Review53 (3): 189–202.
5.
CarrollSusan J.1985a. “Political Elites and Sex Differences in Political Ambition: A Reconsideration.” The Journal of Politics47:1231–43.
6.
CarrollSusan J.1985b. Women as Candidates in American Politics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
7.
CarrollSusan J.1994. Women as Candidates in American Politics, Second Edition. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
8.
CarrollSusan JSanbonmatsuKira. 2013. More Women Can Run. New York: Oxford University Press.
9.
Center for American Women and Politics. 1983. Women Appointed to State Government: A Comparison with All State Appointees. New Brunswick: Rutgers University.
10.
Center for American Women and Politics. 2014. Current Numbers of Women Officeholders 2014. Eagleton Institute of Politics.New Brunswick.
11.
Center for Women in Government and Civil Society. 2008. Appointed Policy Makers in State Government: Glass Ceiling in Gubernatorial Appointments, 1997–2007. Albany: State University of New York at Albany.
12.
ConstantiniEdmond. 1990. “Political Women and Political Ambition: Closing the Gender Gap.” American Journal of Political Science. 34: 741-70.
13.
CraigStephen C.1993. Malevolent Leaders: Popular Discontent in America. Boulder: Westview Press.
14.
DiamondIrene. 1977. Sex Roles in the State House. New Haven: Yale University Press.
15.
DolanKathleenFordLynne. 1997. “Change and Continuity among Women State Legislators: Evidence from Three Decades.” Political Research Quarterly50:137–51.
16.
FoxRichard L.LawlessJennifer L.2010. “If Only They’d Ask: Gender, Recruitment, and Political Ambition.” The Journal of Politics72 (2): 310–26.
17.
FoxRichard L.LawlessJennifer L.2011. “Gendered Perceptions and Political Candidacies: A Central Barrier to Women’s Equality in Electoral Politics.” American Journal of Political Science55 (1): 59–73.
18.
FoxRichard L.LawlessJennifer L.2014. “Reconciling Family Roles with Political Ambition: The New Normal for Women in Twenty-First Century U.S. Politics.” The Journal of Politics76 (2): 398–414.
19.
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 (2): 235–48.
KellyRita MaeNewmanMeredith A.2001. “The Gendered Bureaucracy: Agency Mission, Equality of Opportunity, and Representative Bureaucracy.” Women & Politics22 (3): 1–33.
24.
KirkpatrickJeane J.1974. Political Woman. New York: Basic Books.
25.
LawlessJennifer L.2012. Becoming a Candidate. New York: Cambridge University Press.
26.
LawlessJennifer L.FoxRichard L.2005. It Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office. New York: Cambridge University Press.
27.
LowiTheodore J.1972. “Four Systems of Policy, Politics, and Choice.” Public Administration Review32 (4): 298–310.
28.
MacedoStephen. 2005. Democracy at Risk: How Political Choices Undermine Citizen Participation, and What We Can Do about It. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
29.
MaestasCherie D.FultonSarahMaiselL. SandyStoneWalter J.2006. “When to Risk it? Institutions, Ambitions, and the Decision to Run for the U.S. House.” The American Political Science Review100 (2): 195–208.
30.
MillerWillKerrBrinckReidMargaret. 1999. “A National Study of Gender-Based Occupational Segregation in Municipal Bureaucraies: Persistance of Glass Walls?”Public Administration Review. 5 (1): 218-230.
31.
MitchellJerry. 1997. “Representation in Government Boards and Commissions.” Public Administration Review57 (2): 160–67.
NewmanMeredith Ann. 1994. “Gender and Lowi’s Thesis: Implications for Career Advancement.” Public Administration Review54 (3): 277–84.
34.
NewmanMeredith Ann. 1995. “The Gendered Nature of Lowi’s Typology: Or, Who Would Guess You Could Find Gender Here? In Gender Power, Leadership, and Governance, edited by Duerst-LahtiGeorgiaKellyRita Mae, 141–66. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
35.
OndercinHeatherWelchSusan. 2009. “Comparing Predictors of Women’s Congressional Election Success: Candidates, Primaries and the General Election.” American Politics Research37 (4): 593–613.
36.
PalmerBarbaraSimonDennis. 2003. “Political Ambition and Women in the U.S. House of Representatives, 1916-2000.” Political Research Quarterly56 (2): 127–38.
37.
PharrSusanPutnamRobert, eds. 2000. Disaffected Democracies: What’s Troubling the Trilateral Countries?Princeton: Princeton University Press.
38.
ReidMargaret F.KerrBrinckMillerWill. 2004. Glass Walls and Glass Ceilings: Women’s Representation in State and Municipal Bureaucracies. Westport: Praeger.
39.
RipleyRandall B.FranklinGrace A.1991. Congress, the Bureaucracy, and Public Policy. 5th ed.Belmont: Wadsworth.
40.
RohdeDavid W.1979. “Risk-Bearing and Progressive Ambition: The Case of Members of the United States House of Representatives.” American Journal of Political Science23 (1): 1–26.
41.
SanbonmatsuKira. 2006. Where Women Run: Gender and Party in the American States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
42.
SapiroVirginia. 1982. “Private Costs of Public Commitments or Pubic Costs of Private Commitments? Family Roles versus Political Ambition.” American Journal of Political Science26 (2): 265–79.
43.
SchneiderSaundra. 1986. “The Policy Role of State Professional Licensing Agencies: Perceptions of Board Members.” Public Administration Quarterly9, no. 4 (Winter): 414–33.
44.
SchneiderSaundra. 1987. “Influences on State Professional Licensure Policy.” Public Administration Review47 (November/December): 479–84.
45.
WeingartJohn. 2004. Another Government Success Story: Citizen Volunteers on New Jersey State Boards and Commissions. New Brunswick: Eagleton Institute of Politics.
46.
WelchSusan. 2008. “Commentary on ‘Recruitment of Women to Public Office: A Discriminant Analysis,’ 1978.” Political Research Quarterly61 (1): 29–31.
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.
