Research on women’s political representation has repeatedly shown that female legislators represent women’s interest more strongly than their male colleagues. However, a growing body of literature shows that the parliamentary behavior of female members of parliament (MPs) and the relationship between descriptive and substantive representation of women is affected by a number of institutional variables. This paper contributes to this debate by analyzing the effect of the electoral incentive structure on the substantive representation of women. Drawing on the Competing Principals Theory, it is expected that female legislators more frequently act on behalf of women if their re-election does not depend on the representation of local interests in electoral districts. The empirical analysis uses the German mixed electoral system and analyzes the representation of women’s issues in oral and written parliamentary questions tabled in the German Bundestag between 2005 and 2013. The results of a hurdle regression model show that female MPs are more likely to concentrate on the representation of women’s interests if their re-election is secured and if they do not have to fight for additional local votes from their district.
AndréAudreyDepauwSam. 2013. “District Magnitude and Home Styles of Representation in European Democracies.” West European Politics36 (5): 986–1006.
2.
BäckHannaDebusMarcMüllerJochen. 2014. “Who Takes the Parliamentary Floor? The Role of Gender in Speech-making in the Swedish Riksdag.” Political Research Quarterly67 (3): 504–18.
3.
BailerStefanie. 2011. “People’s Voice or Information Pool? The Role of, and Reasons for, Parliamentary Questions in the Swiss Parliament.” Journal of Legislative Studies17 (3): 302–14.
4.
BailerStefanieOhmuraTamaki. 2018. “Exploring, Maintaining, and Disengaging: The Three Phases of a Legislator’s Life.” Legislative Studies Quarterly43 (3): 493–520.
5.
BarnesTiffany. 2016. Gendering Legislative Behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.
6.
BawnKathleenThiesMichael. 2003. “A Comparative Theory of Electoral Incentives: Representing the Unorganized Under PR, Plurality and Mixed-Member Electoral Systems.” Journal of Theoretical Politics15 (1): 5–32.
7.
BergqvistChristinaBjarnegårdElinZetterbergPär. 2018. “The Gendered Leeway: Male Privilege, Internal and External Mandates, and Gender-Equality Policy Change.” Politics, Groups, and Identities6 (4): 576–92.
8.
BernauerJulianMunzertSimon. 2014. “Loyal to the Game? Strategic Policy Representation in Mixed Electoral Systems.” Representation50 (1): 83–97.
9.
BirdKaren. 2005. “Gendering Parliamentary Questions.” British Journal of Politics and International Relations7 (3): 353–70.
10.
BrunsbachSandra. 2011. “Machen Frauen den Unterschied? Parlamentarierinnen als Repräsentantinnen frauenspezifischer Interessen im Deutschen Bundestag.” [“Do women make the difference? Female MPs as Representatives of Women-Specific Interests in the German Bundestag”] Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen42 (1): 3–24.
11.
CainBruceFerejohnJohnFiorinaMorris. 1987. The Personal Vote. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12.
CareyJohn. 2007. “Competing Principals, Political Institutions, and Party Unity in Legislative Voting.” American Journal of Political Science51 (1): 92–107.
13.
CareyJohnShugartMatthew. 1995. “Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: A Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas.” Electoral Studies14 (4): 417–39.
14.
CarrollSusan. 1994. Women as Candidates in American Politics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
15.
CaulMiki. 1999. “Women’s Representation in Parliament: The Role of Political Parties.” Party Politics5 (1): 79–98.
16.
CelisKaren. 2008. “Studying Women’s Substantive Representation in Legislatures: When Representative Acts, Contexts and Women’s Interests Become Important.” Representation44 (2): 111–23.
CelisKarenErzeelSilvia. 2015. “Beyond the Usual Suspects: Non-Left, Male and Non-Feminist MPs and the Substantive Representation of Women.” Government and Opposition50 (1): 45–64.
19.
ChildsSarahKrookMona. 2009. “Analysing Women’s Substantive Representation: From Critical Mass to Critical Actors.” Government and Opposition44 (2): 125–45.
20.
ClarkJennifer HayesCaroVeronica. 2013. “Multimember Districts and the Substantive Representation of Women: An Analysis of Legislative Cosponsorship Networks.” Politics & Gender9 (1): 1–30.
21.
CofféHilde. 2018. “MPs’ Representational Focus in MMP Systems. A Comparison Between Germany and New Zealand.” Representation54 (4): 367–89.
22.
CofféHildeReiserMarion. 2018. “Political Candidates’ Attitudes Towards Group Representation.” Journal of Legislative Studies24 (3): 272–97.
23.
CrispBrianEscobar-LemmonMariaJonesBradfordJonesMarkTaylor-RobinsonMichelle. 2004. “Vote-Seeking Incentives and Legislative Representation in Six Presidential Democracies.” Journal of Politics66 (3): 823–46.
24.
DodsonDebra. 2006. The Impact of Women in Congress. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
25.
DoviSuzanne. 2002. “Preferable Descriptive Representatives: Will Just Any Woman, Black, or Latino Do?” American Political Science Review96 (4): 729–43.
26.
FennoRichard. 1978. Home Style. Boston: Little, Brown.
FunkKendallPhilipsAndrew. 2019. “Representative Budgeting: Women Mayors and the Composition of Spending in Local Governments.” Political Research Quarterly72 (1): 19–33.
29.
GerrityJessicaOsbornTracyMendezJeanette Morehouse. 2007. “Women and Representation: A Different View of the District?” Politics & Gender3 (2): 179–200.
30.
HardinJamesHilbeJoseph. 2012. Generalized Linear Models and Extensions. College Station: Stata Press.
31.
HennlAnnika. 2014. “Intra-Party Dynamics in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: How Strategies of Candidate Selection Impact Parliamentary Behaviour.” Journal of Theoretical Politics26 (1): 93–116.
KlingemannHans-DieterWesselsBernhard. 2001. “The Political Consequences of Germany’s Mixed-Member System.” In Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds? edited by ShugartMatthewWattenbergMartin, 279–96. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
34.
KrookMona. 2018. “Electoral Systems and Women’s Representation.” In Oxford Handbook of Electoral Systems, edited by HerronErikPekkanenRobertShugartMatthew, 175–93. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
35.
Kürschners Volkshandbuch. 2009–2010. Deutscher Bundestag. Rheinbreitenbach: Neue Darmstädter Verlagsanstalt.
36.
ManowPhilip. 2013. “Mixed Rules, Different Roles? An Analysis of the Typical Pathways into the Bundestag and of MPs’ Parliamentary Behaviour.” Journal of Legislative Studies19 (3): 287–308.
37.
MansbridgeJane. 1999. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent Yes.” Journal of Politics61 (3): 628–57.
38.
MartinShane. 2011a. “Parliamentary Questions, the Behaviour of Legislators, and the Function of Legislatures: An Introduction.” Journal of Legislative Studies17 (3): 259–70.
39.
MartinShane. 2011b. “Using Parliamentary Questions to Measure Constituency Focus: An Application to the Irish Case.” Political Studies59 (2): 472–88.
40.
MullahyJohn. 1986. “Specification and Testing of some Modified Count Data Models.” Journal of Econometrics33:341–65.
41.
MüllerWolfgangStrømKaare. 1999. Policy, Office, or Votes?Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42.
OhmuraTamaki. 2014. “When Your Name Is on the List, It Is Time to Party: The Candidacy Divide in a Mixed-Member Proportional System.” Representation50 (1): 69–82.
43.
OlivellaSantiagoTavitsMargit. 2014. “Legislative Effects of Electoral Mandates.” British Journal of Political Science44 (2): 301–21.
44.
PhillipsAnne. 1995. The Politics of Presence. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
45.
PitkinHanna. 1967. The Concept of Representation. Berkeley: University of California Press.
46.
ReherStefanie. 2018. “Gender and Opinion–Policy Congruence in Europe.” European Political Science Review10 (4): 613–35.
47.
SaalfeldThomas. 2011. “Parliamentary Questions as Instruments of Substantive Representation: Visible Minorities in the UK House of Commons, 2005–10.” Journal of Legislative Studies17 (3): 271–89.
48.
SaalfeldThomasBischofDaniel. 2013. “Minority-Ethnic MPs and the Substantive Representation of Minority Interests in the House of Commons, 2005–2011.” Parliamentary Affairs66:305–28.
49.
Schwindt-BayerLeslie. 2010. Political Power and Women’s Representation in Latin America. New York: Oxford University Press.
50.
SiebererUlrich. 2006. “Party Unity in Parliamentary Democracies: A Comparative Analysis.” Journal of Legislative Studies12 (2): 150–78.
51.
SiebererUlrich. 2010. “Behavioral Consequences of Mixed Electoral Systems: Deviating Voting Behavior of District and List MPs in the German Bundestag.” Electoral Studies29 (3): 484–96.
52.
SiebererUlrich. 2015. “Using MP Statements to Explain Voting Behaviour in the German Bundestag: An Individual Level Test of the Competing Principals Theory.” Party Politics21 (2): 284–94.
StoffelMichaelSiebererUlrich. 2018. “Measuring Re-Election Prospects Across Electoral Systems: A General Approach Applied to Germany.” West European Politics41 (5): 1191–1207.
57.
StratmannThomasBaurMartin. 2002. “Plurality Rule, Proportional Representation, and the German Bundestag: How Incentives to Pork-Barrel Differ across Electoral Systems.” American Journal of Political Science46 (3): 506–14.
58.
SwersMichele. 2002. The Difference Women Make. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
59.
Taylor-RobinsonMichelle. 2014. “Gender and Legislatures.” In The Oxford Handbook of Legislative Studies, edited by MartinShaneSaalfeldThomasStrømKaare, 250–66. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
60.
ThamesFrank. 2005. “A House Divided: Party Strength and the Mandate divide in Hungary, Russia, and Ukraine.” Comparative Political Studies38 (3): 1–22.
61.
TremblayManon. 2003. “Women’s Representational Role in Australia and Canada: The Impact of Political Context.” Australian Journal of Political Science38 (2): 215–38.
62.
TremblayManon. 2006. “The Substantive Representation of Women and PR: Some Reflections on the Role of Surrogate Representation and Critical Mass.” Politics & Gender2:502–11.
63.
VoldenCraigWisemanAlanWittmerDana. 2018. “Women’s Issues and Their Fates in the US Congress.” Political Science Research and Methods6 (4): 679–96.
64.
WängnerudLena. 2009. “Women in Parliaments: Descriptive and Substantive Representation.” Annual Review of Political Science12 (1): 51–69.
65.
XydiasChristina. 2007. “Inviting More Women to the Party: Gender Quotas and Women’s Substantive Representation in Germany.” International Journal of Sociology37 (4): 52–66.
66.
XydiasChristina. 2013. “Mapping the Language of Women’s Interests: Sex and Party Affiliation in the Bundestag.” Political Studies61 (2): 319–40.
67.
XydiasChristina. 2014. “Women’s Rights in Germany: Generations and Gender Quotas.” Politics & Gender10 (1): 4–32.
68.
ZittelThomasGschwendThomas. 2008. “Individualised Constituency Campaigns in Mixed-Member Electoral Systems: Candidates in the 2005 German Elections.” West European Politics31 (5): 978–1003.
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.
