One potential consequence of increasing women’s numeric representation is that women elected officials will behave differently than their men counterparts and improve women’s substantive representation. This study examines whether electing women to local offices changes how local government expenditures are allocated in ways that benefit women. Using compositional expenditure data from more than 5,400 Brazilian municipalities over eight years, we find significant differences in the ways men and women mayors allocate government expenditures. Our findings indicate that women mayors spend more on traditionally feminine issues, and less on traditionally masculine issues, relative to men mayors. In regard to specific policy areas, we find that women spend more on women’s issues, including education, health care, and social assistance, and less on masculine issues, including transportation and urban development, relative to men mayors. We further find that women’s legislative representation significantly influences the allocation of expenditures as a larger percentage of women councilors increases spending on traditionally feminine issues, as well as education, health care, and social assistance, relative to other policy issues. These findings indicate that women local elected officials improve women’s substantive representation by allocating a larger percentage of expenditures to issues that have historically and continue to concern women in Brazil.
AckerJoan. 1992. “From Sex Roles to Gendered Institutions.” Contemporary Sociology21 (5): 565–69.
2.
AlexanderAmy C.2012. “Change in Women’s Descriptive Representation and the Belief in Women’s Ability to Govern: A Virtuous Cycle.” Politics & Gender8 (4): 437–64.
3.
BaekgaardMartinKjaerUlrik. 2012. “The Gendered Division of Labor in Assignments to Political Committees: Discrimination or Self-Selection in Danish Local Politics?”Politics & Gender8 (4): 465–82.
4.
BaldezLisa. 2011. “The UN Convention to Eliminate All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW): A New Way to Measure Women’s Interests.” Politics & Gender7 (3):419–23.
5.
BarnesTiffany D.2016. Gendering Legislative Behavior: Institutional Constraints and Collaboration in Argentina. New York: Cambridge University Press.
6.
BarrosRicardoFoxLouiseMendonçaRosane. 1997. “Female-Headed Households, Poverty, and the Welfare of Children in Urban Brazil.” Economic Development and Cultural Change45 (2): 231–57.
7.
BolzendahlCatherine. 2009. “Making the Implicit Explicit: Gen-der Influences on Social Spending in Twelve Industrialized Democracies, 1980–99.” Social Politics16 (1): 40–81.
8.
BolzendahlCatherine. 2011. “Beyond the Big Picture: Gender Influences on Disaggregated and Domain-Specific Measures of Social Spending, 1980–1999.” Politics & Gender7 (1): 35–70.
9.
BraendleThomasColombierCarsten. 2016. “What Drives Public Health Care Expenditure Growth? Evidence from Swiss Cantons, 1970–2012.” Health Policy120 (9): 1051–60.
10.
BrattonKathleen A.RayLeonard P. 2002. “Descriptive Representation, Policy Outcomes, and Municipal Day-Care Coverage in Norway.” American Journal of Political Science46 (2): 428–37.
11.
CampaPamela. 2011. “Gender Quotas, Female Politicians and Public Expenditures: Quasi-Experimental Evidence.” Unpublished Manuscript.
12.
ChattopadhyayRaghabendraDufloEsther. 2004. “Women as Policy Makers: Evidence from a Randomized Policy Experiment in India.” Econometrica72 (5): 1409–43.
13.
ChenLi-Ju. 2010. “Do Gender Quotas Influence Women’s Representation and Policies?”The European Journal of Comparative Economics7 (1): 13–60.
14.
ChenLi-Ju. 2013. “Do Female Politicians Influence Public Spending? Evidence from Taiwan.” International Journal of Applied Economics10 (2): 32–51.
15.
ChildsSarah. 2004. New Labour’s Women MPs: Women Representing Women. New York: Routledge.
16.
ChildsSarahKrookMona Lena. 2008. “Critical Mass Theory and Women’s Political Representation.” Political Studies56 (3): 725–36.
17.
Clots-FiguerasIrma. 2011. “Women in Politics: Evidence from the Indian States.” Journal of Public Economics95 (7): 664–90.
18.
CourtemancheMarieGreenJoanne Connor. 2017. “The Influence of Women Legislators on State Health Care Spending for the Poor.” Social Sciences6 (2): 1–24.
19.
EaglyAlice H.KarauSteven J.2002. “Role Congruity Theory of Prejudice toward Female Leaders.” Psychological Review109 (3): 573–98.
20.
Ennser-JedenastikLaurenz. 2017. “How Women’s Political Representation Affects Spending on Family Benefits.” Journal of Social Policy46 (3): 563–81.
21.
Escobar-LemmonMaria C.FunkKendall D.2018. “Women’s Representation in Subnational Governments: Replicating National Institutions or Forging a Unique Path?” In Gender and Representation in Latin America, edited by Schwindt-BayerLeslie A., 99–118. New York: Oxford University Press.
22.
Escobar-LemmonMaria C.Schwindt-BayerLeslie A.Taylor-RobinsonMichelle M.2014. “Representing Women: Empirical Insights from Legislatures and Cabinets in Latin America.” In Representation: The Case of Women, edited by Escobar-LemmonMaria C.Taylor-RobinsonMichelle M., 205–24. New York: Oxford University Press.
23.
Escobar-LemmonMaria C.Taylor-RobinsonMichelle M.2009. “Getting to the Top: Career Paths of Women in Latin American Cabinets.” Political Research Quarterly62 (4): 685–99.
24.
FerreiraFernandoGyourkoJoseph. 2014. “Does Gender Matter for Political Leadership? The Case of U.S. Mayors.” Journal of Public Economics1 (12): 24–39.
25.
FunkKendall D.2015. “Gendered Governing? Women’s Leadership Styles and Participatory Institutions in Brazil.” Political Research Quarterly68 (3): 564–78.
26.
FunkKendall D.MoralesLauraTaylor-RobinsonMichelle M.2017. “The Impact of Committee Composition and Agendas on Women’s Participation: Evidence from a Legislature with Near Numerical Equality.” Politics & Gender13 (2): 253–75.
27.
FunkKendall D.SilvaThiagoEscobar-LemmonMaria C. Forthcoming. “Leading toward Equality: The Effect of Women Mayors on Gender Equality in Local Bureaucracies.” Politics, Groups, and Identities.
28.
FunkPatriciaGathmannChristina. 2015. “Gender Gaps in Policy Making: Evidence from Direct Democracy in Switzerland.” Economic Policy30 (81): 141–81.
29.
HalimNafisaYountKathryn M.CunninghamSolveig A.PandeRohini P.2016. “Women’s Political Empowerment and Investments in Primary Schooling in India.” Social Indicators Research125 (3): 813–51.
30.
HeathRoseanna MichelleSchwindt-BayerLeslie A.Taylor-RobinsonMichelle M.2005. “Women on the Sidelines: Women’s Representation on Committees in Latin American Legislatures.” American Journal of Political Science49 (2): 420–36.
31.
HinojosaMagdaFridkinKim L.KittilsonMiki Caul. 2017. “The Impact of Descriptive Representation on ‘Persistent’ Gender Gaps: Political Engagement and Political Trust in Uruguay.” Politics, Groups, and Identities5 (3): 435–53.
32.
HolmanMirya R.2014. Women in Politics in the American City. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
33.
InglehartRonaldNorrisPippa. 2003. Rising Tide: Gender Equality and Cultural Change around the World. New York: Cambridge University Press.
IversenTorbenRosenbluthFrances. 2006. “The Political Economy of Gender: Explaining Cross-National Variation in the Gender Division of Labor and the Gender Voting Gap.” American Journal of Political Science50 (1): 1–19.
36.
JalalzaiFarida. 2013. Shattered, Cracked, or Firmly Intact? Women and the Executive Glass Ceiling Worldwide. New York: Oxford University Press.
37.
JonesMark P.1997. “Legislator Gender and Legislator Policy Priorities in the Argentine Chamber of Deputies and the United States House of Representatives.” Policy Studies Journal25 (4): 613–29.
38.
KanterRosabeth M.1977. “Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and Responses to Token Women.” American Journal of Sociology82 (5): 965–90.
39.
KeiserLael R.WilkinsVicky M.MeierKenneth J.HollandCatherine A.2002. “Lipstick and Logarithms: Gender, Institutional Context, and Representative Bureaucracy.” American Political Science Review96 (3): 553–64.
40.
KerevelYann P.AtkesonLonna Rae. 2015. “Reducing Stereotypes of Female Political Leaders in Mexico.” Political Research Quarterly68 (4): 732–44.
41.
KittilsonMiki Caul. 2008. “Representing Women: The Adoption of Family Leave in Comparative Perspective.” Journal of Politics70 (2): 323–34.
42.
KochMichael T.FultonSarah A.2011. “In the Defense of Women: Gender, Office Holding, and National Security Policy in Established Democracies.” Journal of Politics73 (1): 1–16.
43.
KrookMona LenaO’BrienDiana Z. 2012. “All the President’s Men? The Appointment of Female Cabinet Ministers Worldwide.” Journal of Politics74 (3): 840–55.
44.
Latin American Public Opinion Project. (n.d.). AmericasBaro-meter. www.lapopsurveys.org.
45.
LipsmeyerChristine S.PhilipsAndrew Q.WhittenGuy D. 2017. “The Effects of Immigration and Integration on European Budgetary Trade-Offs.” Journal of European Public Policy24 (6): 912–30.
46.
LittleThomas H.DunnDanaDeenRebecca E. 2001. “A View from the Top: Gender Differences in Legislative Priorities among State Legislative Leaders.” Women & Politics22 (4): 29–50.
MeierKenneth J.FunkKendall D.2017. “Women and Public Administration in Comparative Perspective: The Case of Representation in Brazilian Local Governments.” Administration & Society49 (1): 121–42.
49.
OsbornTracyMendezJeanette Morehouse. 2010. “Speaking as Women: Women and Floor Speeches in the Senate.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy31 (1): 1–21.
50.
PhilipsAndrew Q.RutherfordAmandaWhittenGuy D.2016a. “Dynamic Pie: A Strategy for Modeling Trade-Offs in Compositional Variables over Time.” American Journal of Political Science60 (1): 268–83.
51.
PhilipsAndrew Q.RutherfordAmandaWhittenGuy D.2016b. “Dynsimpie: A Program to Examine Dynamic Compositional Dependent Variables.” Stata Journal16 (3): 662–77.
52.
PoggioneSarah. 2004. “Exploring Gender Differences in State Legislators’ Policy Preferences.” Political Research Quarterly57 (2): 305–14.
53.
PowerTimothy J.ZuccoCesar. 2009. “Estimating Ideology of Brazilian Legislative Parties, 1990–2005: A Research Communication.” Latin American Research Review44 (1): 218–46.
54.
PowerTimothy J.ZuccoCesar. 2012. “Elite Preferences in a Consolidating Democracy: The Brazilian Legislative Surveys, 1990–2009.” Latin American Politics and Society54 (4): 1–27.
55.
RehaviM. Marit. 2007. “Sex and Politics: Do Female Legislators Affect State Spending?” Unpublished Manuscript.
56.
ReingoldBeth. 1992. “Concepts of Representation among Female and Male State Legislators.” Legislative Studies Quarterly17 (4): 509–37.
57.
ReingoldBeth. 2000. Representing Women: Sex, Gender and Legislative Behavior in Arizona and California. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press.
58.
Reyes-HousholderCatherine. 2016. “Presidentas Rise: Consequences for Women in Cabinets?”Latin American Politics and Society58 (3): 3–25.
59.
RigonMassimilianoTanziGiulia. 2012. “Does Gender Matter for Public Spending? Empirical Evidence from Italian Municipalities.” Working Paper No. 862, Temi Di Discussione, Bank of Italy. Rome, Italy. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2057858
60.
SchildChristopher-Johannes. 2013. “Do Female Mayors Make a Difference? Evidence from Bavaria.” IWQW Discussion Paper Series No. 07/2013. Nuremberg, Germany
61.
Schwindt-BayerLeslie A.2010. Political Power and Women’s Representation in Latin America. New York: Oxford University Press.
62.
SmithAdrienne R.2014. “Cities Where Women Rule: Female Political Incorporation and the Allocation of Community Development Block Grant Funding.” Politics & Gender10 (3): 313–40.
63.
StiversCamilla. 2002. Gender Images in Public Administration: Legitimacy and the Administrative State. 2nd ed.Thousand Oaks: SAGE.
64.
SundströmAkselStockemerDaniel. 2015. “What Determines Women’s Political Representation at the Local Level? A Fine-Grained Analysis of the European Regions.” International Journal of Comparative Sociology56 (3–4): 254–74.
65.
SvalerydHelena. 2009. “Women’s Representation and Public Spending.” European Journal of Political Economy25 (2): 186–98.
66.
SwersMichele L.2002. The Difference Women Make: The Policy Impact of Women in Congress. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
67.
SwersMichele L.2014. “Unpacking Women’s Issues: Gender and Policymaking on Health Care, Education, and Women’s Health in the US Senate.” In Representation: The Case of Women, edited by Escobar-LemmonMaria C.Taylor-RobinsonMichelle M., 158–82. New York: Oxford University Press.
68.
Taylor-RobinsonMichelle M.HeathRoseanna M. 2003. “Do Women Legislators Have Different Policy Priorities than Their Male Colleagues? A Critical Case Test.” Women & Politics24 (4): 77–101.
69.
TomzMichaelWittenbergJasonKingGary. 2003. “Clarify: Software for Interpreting and Presenting Statistical Results.” Journal of Statistical Software8 (1): 1–30.
70.
VengroffRichardNyiriZsoltFugieroMelissa. 2003. “Electoral System and Gender Representation in Sub-National Legislatures: Is there a National—Sub-National Gender Gap?”Political Research Quarterly56 (2): 163–73.
71.
WamplerBrian. 2007. Participatory Budgeting in Brazil: Contestation, Cooperation, and Accountability. University Park: Penn State Press.
72.
WängnerudLenaSundellAnders. 2012. “Do Politics Matter? Women in Swedish Local Elected Assemblies 1970–2010 and Gender Equality in Outcomes.” European Political Science Review4 (1): 97–120.
73.
WildavskyAaron B.1986. Budgeting: A Comparative Theory of the Budgeting Process. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
74.
World Values Survey. 2015. World Value Survey 1981-2014 Longitudinal Aggregate v.20150418, 2015. Aggregate File Producer: JDSystems Data Archive, Madrid, Spain. World Values Survey Association. www.worldvaluessurvey.org.
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.
