Cambridge University Press Southern Political Science Association

Southern Political Science Association
An Integrated Model of Women's Representation Author(s): Leslie A. Schwindt-Bayer and William Mishler Reviewed work(s): Source: The Journal of Politics, Vol. 67, No. 2 (May, 2005), pp. 407-428 Published by: Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Southern Political Science Association Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3449637 . Accessed: 11/01/2013 01:25
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
Cambridge University Press and Southern Political Science Association are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal of Politics.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded on Fri, 11 Jan 2013 01:25:16 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
An Integrated Model of Women'sRepresentation
Leslie A. Schwindt-Bayer
of Mississippi University William Mishler of Arizona University
The concept of representation, as developed in HannaPitkin'sseminal work, is a complex structure, whose multiple dimensions are hypothesized to be closely interconnected.Most empirical work, however, ignores the integratedcharacterof representationand examines its several dimensions in isolation. The picture of representationthat results is not so much incorrect as incomplete. This researchtests an integratedmodel of representation linking formal, descriptive,substantive,and symbolic representation. Data on the representation of women in 31 democraciesconfirms the interconnections among the several dimensions of representation. The structureof electoral systems exerts and symbolic representation. Descrippowerfulinfluenceson both women'sdescriptiverepresentation tive representation,in turn, increases legislatures' responsiveness to women's policy concerns and enhancesperceptionsof legitimacy.The effects of substantiverepresentation, however,are much less than theory anticipates.
The concept of representationis a rich brocade whose complex weave is not always appreciated.Hanna Pitkin's (1967) seminal treatmentidentifies four distinct, but interconnectedmeanings or dimensions of representationincluding: formal representation,referringto the institutionalrules and proceduresthrough which representativesare chosen; descriptive representation,referring to the compositional similarity between representativesand the represented;substantive representation or responsiveness, referring to the congruence between actions and the interestsof the represented;and symbolic reprerepresentatives' sentation, referringto the represented'sfeelings of being fairly and effectively represented.While there are importantdifferences among the four dimensions, Pitkin (1967, 10-11) maintainsthat they are properlyconceived as integralparts of a coherentwhole. Yet, despite the frequencyand approvalwith which Pitkin's work is cited, most empiricalwork on representation ignores her integratedconception. Scholars, typically, choose one or two aspects of representationwhile ignoringothersthatare not of interestor for which dataare lacking.This not only contributesto a "blind man's understandingof the elephant"but also fails to provide an adequateempirical test of a fundamentalaspect of Pitkin's conception: its integratedstructure.
THE JOURNAL OF POLITICS, Vol. 67, No. 2, May 2005, Pp. 407-428 ? 2005 Southern Political Science Association
408
Leslie A. Schwindt-Bayerand WilliamMishler
This research redresses this neglect by developing and testing an integrated model of Pitkin'sfour dimensions of representation using cross-nationaldata on the representation of women. Women provide an ideal focus for testing an integrated theory for three reasons. First, women are a large and easily identifiable group whose members possess many and varied political interests but also are widely perceived as sharing some common, identifiable "women's interests" has improvedmarkedly (Sapiro 1981).' Second,althoughwomen'srepresentation in recent years, women remainunderrepresented in most countriesaccording to many definitions and measures. Third, while many minority groups also have identifiableinterests and are widely underrepresented, it is much more difficult to comparethem systematicallybecause these groups are so varied;a group that is a minority in one country can be a majorityin anotherand absent altogether in a third.Women,however,constituteapproximately 50% of the populationvirtually everywhere. We begin this analysis by elaboratingPitkin's concept of representationand developing an integratedmodel of its several dimensions and their interrelationships. We proceed to operationalizethe model using data on the representation of women across a broad cross-section of democraticsystems. Structuralequation methods are used to test the validity of the multidimensionalconception of representationand to refine its structure.Finally, we use the results to discuss both the structureof representation, generally,and the dynamics of women'srepresentationin particular.
The Multidimensional Conceptof Representation

The fundamentalsof Pitkin'sconcept of representation are well known. Pitkin conceives of representationas having four primarydimensions. Formal Representationfocuses on the rules andproceduresregulatingthe selection andremoval of representatives. Variantsinclude accountabilitytheory, which refers to rules and proceduresallowing the represented ex post, who to sanctionrepresentatives, fail to act as the representeddesire, and authorizationtheory,which refers to the While ex ante, to provide mandatesto representatives. ability of the represented, the existence of free and fair elections are not a necessary condition for formal representation,in practice elections are considered critical and underlie most attemptsto operationalizethis dimension (see Powell 2000). refers to the extent to Descriptive representation,or "representativeness," which representatives "standfor" the represented.Typically,this means that the composition of representativeinstitutions should mirrorthe composition of the representedin importantrespects. Varieties include functional representation,
'The idea that women share distinctive political interests is controversial.Women are a diverse group with diverse interests that vary along lines of race, ethnicity, class, etc. Certainlyall women do not agree on exactly what women's interests are. Yet, in general terms, women are likely to have some interests that are distinguishablefrom those of men or those of other identity-basedgroups helping to make them suitable for this analysis.
An IntegratedModel of Women'sRepresentation
409
which focuses on the occupationalcorrespondencebetween representativesand and social representation, such which concerns social characteristics represented, as gender,race, ethnicity,and class (Norris and Franklin1997). Descriptiverepresentationarguablyis the most studiedof Pitkin'sfourdimensionspartlybecause the composition of the legislatureis highly visible and easily measured. Substantiverepresentationis defined as "acting in the interests of the represented in a mannerresponsive to them" (Pitkin 1967, 209). Although Eulau and Karps (1977) identify a variety of ways that representatives may act on behalf of the represented,the most common interpretation is that substantiverepresentation refers to policy responsivenessor the extent to which representativesenact laws and implementpolicies that are responsive to the needs or demandsof citizens.2 While Pitkin considers substantiverepresentation to be the most important dimension of representationand the heart of the integratedmodel, others question its priority.For example, Wahlke(1971) argues that policy responsiveness receives too much emphasis given evidence that citizens possess few coherent policy beliefs and that legislators are poorly informed about the policy preferencesof citizens except in exceptional cases. Nevertheless, policy responsiveness continuesto be consideredthe centralaspect of representation by numerous scholars,a varietyof whom have attemptedto measurepolicy responsiveness both to overall public interests (for example, Miller and Stokes 1963; Miller et al. 1999; Stimson, Mackuen, and Erikson 1995; Thomassen and Schmitt 1997) and to race- and gender-basedinterests (for example, Bullock 1995; Hero and Tolbert 1995; O'Regan 2000; Reingold 2000). "stand refers to the extent that representatives Finally,symbolic representation for" the representedwith an emphasis on symbols or symbolization.Pitkin provides the example of a flag as a symbol representinga nation. What matters is not the symbol itself, but "the symbol's power to evoke feelings or attitudes" is concernednot with who the repre(Pitkin 1967, 97). Symbolic representation sentativesare or what they do, but how they areperceived and evaluatedby those as the most realthey represent.Wahlke(1971) embracessymbolic representation istic standardgiven the constraintshe perceives on policy responsiveness (see also Andersonand Guillory 1997; Hibbing and Theiss-Morse 1999; Mishler and Rose 1997, 2001). While Pitkin's multifaceted conception is well known and widely cited, the connections among its dimensions are frequently ignored in practice. Even researchacknowledgingthe multidimensional and focusnatureof representation ing on more thanone dimensiontypically treatsthose dimensionsas separateand distinct (see, for example, Marsh and Norris 1997; Mishler and Mughan 1978). Pitkin argues against separatingthe dimensions on two grounds. First, she chal2 In addition to public policy, Eulau and Karps (1977) identify three other ways in which representatives can respond to constituents:service responsiveness,which refers to the provision of particularizedbenefitsto individualsor groups;allocation responsiveness,which refersto the generation of pork barrelbenefits for the constituency;and symbolic responsiveness,which refers to intangible gestures made in response to constituentinterests.
410
lenges the representative quality of institutionsthat manifest one or even several dimensions of representation but are substantiallylacking the others. She argues, for example, that a benevolent dictatorshipshould not be consideredrepresentative simply because the dictator adopts policies that provide for citizens' basic needs (1967, 230-35). Neither should a legislatureto be considered representative because it "looks like" the public nor because citizens express approvalfor it. To be representative, an institutionmust achieve some minimumon all dimensions of representation. Second, Pitkin argues that strong causal connections exist among the components of representation. Advocates of formal representation emphasize that free, fair, and open elections are importantnot only because they are necessary for democracy (Powell 2000; Schumpeter 1947) but also because they facilitate descriptive representation,encourage policy responsiveness, and enhance the public's supportfor representativeinstitutions.Similarly,descriptiverepresentation is considered importantfor promoting symbolic representationand policy responsiveness, while policy responsiveness is believed to be a principal contributorto symbolic representation(Mishler and Rose 1997). It is for both of these reasons that the concept of representation is consideredintegrated. An Integrated Model of Representation Figure 1 diagramsan integratedmodel showing hypothesizedlinkages among the fourprincipaldimensionsof representation. the Accordingto this framework, structure of the electoralsystem (formalrepresentation) is exogenous and directly influences descriptiverepresentation (link A in the model), substantiverepresentation (link B), and symbolic representation(link C).3The theory is that political systems with more open and competitive elections will elect representatives whose backgroundsmore closely resemble those of the represented.Such political systems also will produce more responsive policies which will increase citizens' confidence in representative also has institutions.Formalrepresentation indirecteffects on policy responsivenessthroughthe mediatingeffect of descriptive representation(compound link A-D) and on symbolic representationvia multiple paths (links A-E, B-F, and A-D-F). Figure 1 furtherhypothesizes that descriptive representationcontributes directly to substantiverepresentationby producingpolicies more responsiveto societal interests(link D). Descriptiverep3 In the long run, the assumptionthat formal representation is exogenous to descriptiverepresentation and policy responsivenessprobablycannot be sustained.As the composition of the legislature changes over time, it is entirely possible for representativesto enact legislation changing the electoral rules of the game. Indeed, the model as diagrammedis a static version of a more general, dynamic model in which virtually all of the hypothesizedlinkages could be conceived as reciprocal over time. Unfortunately,data limitations prevent the test of a dynamic model and necessitate the specificationof those recursivelinkages that are most plausible in the shortrun. Thus, electoral rules effectively are fixed and influenceboth who is elected and the policies they produce.In the same way, the percentageof women in a legislatureis more likely, in the short run, to affect the responsiveness of the legislatureto women's issues, even though in the long run the relationshipmay feed back.
1 FIGURE
411
An Integrated Model of Political Representation Policy Responsiveness
D
Formal Representation c Symbolic Representation
Descriptive Representation resentationenhances public confidence in representativeinstitutions (symbolic both directly(link E) and throughthe mediatinginfluenceof more representation) responsive policies (link D-F). Finally,policy responsivenessis hypothesizedto have direct effects on symbolic representation(link F) consistent with theories institutionsvaries in relationto the proholding thatpublic trustin representative duction of public policies that are congruentwith public interests. Relatively little empirical research examines representationas a whole, but there are several literatures, some quite extensive, that examine individual strands.
THE FORMAL-DESCRIPTIVE LINK. A substantial literature testifies to the impact of
electoral rules and procedureson descriptive representation(Powell 2000; Rae 1967; Taageperaand Shugart 1989, among many others).Among the most critical featuresin this regardis the numberof legislative seats in electoral districts and Shugart1989). Districtmagnitude (Duverger1954; Lijphart1994;Taagepera is important,in part,because it is a principaldeterminant of the effective number of parties in a political system.4This influencesboth the extent of electoral competition and the strength of minority parties, who are more likely to nominate women and minority candidates (Jones 1993; Mainwaringand Shugart 1997; Rule 1987; Taageperaand Shugart 1989). District magnitude also facilitates diversityin legislatures,since political parties are more likely to "risk"the nomination of nontraditional candidates(i.e., women and minorities) for the nth seat in multimemberdistrictsratherthan for the only seat in single member districts (Matlandand Brown 1992; Rule 1987). Empirically,extensive researchconfirms that electoral systems with greaterproportionality and higher districtmagnitudes elect larger percentages of women to legislatures when other factors are con(1994, 130-31) notes that the effect of districtmagnitudeon the numberof partiesvaries 4 Lijphart by type of electoral system. It encourages greaternumbersof parties in PR systems but discourages them in plurality-majority districtswith a disdistricts.Because there are very few plurality-majority trict magnitudegreaterthan 1 (and none in our study), we can largely ignore this theoreticalconcern in practice and treat districtmagnitudeas always having positive effects on the numberof parties.
412
trolled (Darcy, Welch, and Clark 1994; Duverger 1955; Matland and Studlar 1996; Norris 1985; Rule 1987; see, however,Welch and Studlar 1990).
THEFORMAL-SUBSTANTIVE LINK.The hypothesisthatformalelectoralrules influ-
ence policy responsivenessalso is widely supported(see, for example, Miller et al. 1999; Stokes 2001). Powell (2000) demonstrates,for example, that more proportional systems generally experience higher levels of policy congruence electoral systems, between voters and governmentsthan do more majoritarian and Miller et al. (1999) concurs.Less researchconnects electoralrules to the substantiverepresentation specifically of women. Still, given that the median citizen in most democraciesis female and that the interestsof women traditionallyhave it is reasonableto expect that women's interests should been underrepresented, benefit as electoral rules and procedurespush governmentpolicy in the direction of the median citizen.
THE FORMAL-SYMBOLIC LINK.The impact of electoral rules and procedures on
symbolic representationalso has been relatively neglected. Nevertheless, the instituavailableevidence sustainsthe hypothesis that supportfor representative tions varies with the extent of political competitionand choice providedby electoral systems (Andersonand Guillory 1997). Norris (1999) reports,for example, that public supportfor legislatures is significantlyhigher in multipartyand parliamentarysystems, andAndersonand Guillory (1997) demonstratethat support for democraticinstitutionsis higher in proportionalas comparedto majoritarian political systems. The usual hypothesis regardingwomen is that they should express less trust than men given that legislatures traditionallyare male bastions. Hibbing and Theiss-Morse(1995) report,however,thatAmericanwomen express greatertrust in Congress than do men, and Norris (1985) obtains similarresults cross-nationally. This raises questions about the utility of egocentric models of political behavior and recalls the continuing debate about egocentric versus sociotropic models of voting (see, e.g., Kinderand Kiewiet 1979; Lewis-Beck 1988). While belief that individualsoperate"selfishly" egocentricmodels reflectthe traditional and are motivatedlargely by individualself-interest, sociotropic models assume a more "enlightened"self-interestin which individualsrecognize that their personal fortunesdepend on the fortunes of the group. From a sociotropicperspective, individual interests are more likely to be evaluated in positive-sum terms. Thus, electoral rules increasing the representationof women in the legislature may be embracedby women egocentrically because of the expected impact of of women. However,they also may those rules on the descriptiverepresentation be valued sociotropicallyby men and women because those rules are conducive to more equal representation of all groups in the political system, including but not limited to women. Separatingthe potentialegocentric and sociotropic effects of formal representation on symbolic representationin this model involves distinguishing direct from indirect effects. To the extent that formal representationis importantego-
413
centrically,then its effects on symbolic representationshould vanish or at least be significantly attenuatedwhen descriptive representationand policy responsiveness to women's issues are controlled. Conversely,the sociotropic effect of formal representation can be measured simply as the direct effect of formal on that persists when descriptiveand policy representation symbolic representation are controlled.The difference between the egocentric and sociotropic effects of formal representation on legislative legitimacy also should be manifest in gender differences. If women's confidence in the legislatureis influencedby egocentric assessments of the representativeness or responsivenessof the system to women and their interests,then women's confidencein the system should be stronglyand while men's confidence positively affected by variationsin formal representation in the system should be either unaffected or negatively affected.
THE DESCRIPTIVE-SUBSTANTIVE LINK.One of the most widely studied hypothe-
ses regardingrepresentationholds that variations in descriptive representation have substantialeffects on policy responsiveness.John StuartMill arguedmore than a century ago that, "in the absence of its naturaldefenders, the interest of the omitted is always in danger of being overlooked; and when looked at, is seen with very different eyes from those of the persons whom it directly concerns"(1967, 22; chapter3). Pitkinmakes the same point reasoningthat it is only logical "to expect the composition [of a legislature]to determinethe activities" confirmsthe importanceof (1967, 63). The literatureon women's representation descriptive representationfor women's policy responsiveness. Several studies have found strong links between increasingthe percentageof female legislators and women'spolicy outputs(Bratton2002; Reingold 2000; Swers 2002; Thomas 1991), althoughthe effects appearto be limited to women's issue areas and often areobservableonly withinpolitical parties(Swers (2001) providesa good review). While much of the literatureassumes a linear relationshipbetween the proand the productionof women-orientedpolicies, portion of female representatives Kanter(1977) hypothesizes a thresholdeffect. She argues that there is likely to be only a modest relationshipbetween the number of women in the legislature and policy responsivenessuntil women's representation reaches a critical mass. Beyond thatthreshold,Kanterspeculates,women's interestswill begin to diffuse broadlyamong all membersof the assembly resultingin acceleratedresponsiveness to women's policy concerns. A recent study supportsthis hypothesis with on child care policy regardto the impact of women's descriptiverepresentation in Norway (Brattonand Ray 2002). To date, however, little empirical work has been produced in support for the threshold hypothesis, perhaps because of the small numberof legislatureswhere the proportionof female legislators is large enough to constitutea critical mass.
THE DESCRIPTIVE-SYMBOLIC LINK.Even where female legislators do not advo-
cate a distinctly"femaleagenda"or respondto women'spolicy concerns,a visible presence of women in the legislature may still enhance women's confidence in the legislativeprocess. The hypothesisis that constituentsare more likely to iden-
414
tify with the legislatureand to defer to its decisions to the extent that they perceive a significant percentage of "people like themselves" in the legislature (Mansbridge1999; Phillips 1995). For women, this means that increases in the proportionof female legislators should increase the legitimacy of the legislature as perceivedby female constituents.The evidence on this point is limitedbut generally supportiveof the expectation(Norris and Franklin1997). Again, different egocentric and sociotropic effects of descriptiverepresentation should be manifest in gender differences in support for the legislature.To the extent that men and women assess the legitimacy of the legislature egocentrically,then there ought to be significantdifferencesin the effects of descriptive representationon male and female confidence in the legislature. Conversely,to the extent that the effects of descriptiverepresentation are sociotropic,we would expect higher percentagesof women in the legislatureto have similar effects on both male and female confidence in the legislature.
THESUBSTANTIVE-SYMBOLIC LINK.For Pitkin and many others, substantive rep-
resentationor policy responsivenessis the vital core of whatrepresentation means and is the heartof the integratedmodel. Formaland descriptiverepresentation is consideredimportantin largepartbecause of theirhypothesizedeffects on policy responsiveness.Policy responsivenessalso is consideredkey to the legitimacy or of the legislature.This is consistent with both neo-instisymbolic representation tutional and rationalactor theories which hold that citizens' supportfor political institutionsdepends largely on citizen evaluationof an institution'sperformance (Jackmanand Miller 1996; Mishler and Rose 2001; Powell 2000). As this discussion demonstrates, there are numerousand complex causal connections hypothesizedin an extensive literature to exist among the severaldimensions of representation. As a result, attemptsto extractany one linkage from the network and examine it in isolation raise serious, though usually unrecognized problemsof model misspecification.For example, much of the work demonstratis mising a causal connectionbetween descriptiveand substantive representation specified because it fails to control for the hypothesized,antecedenteffects of formal representationon both descriptive and substantiverepresentation. This means thatthe apparent on substantiverepreeffects of descriptiverepresentation sentationmay be spurious,eitherwholly or in part.Similarly,studies showingthat substantiverepresentation are misspecified contributesto symbolic representation unless they control for both descriptiveand formalrepresentation. Properestimation of these relationshipsrequiresa fully specified, integratedmodel.
Measures and Methods

To test the integratedmodel we use aggregate data on the representationof women in the mid-1990s in 31 countries.5Countrieswere chosen based on data
SThecountries include: Argentina,Australia,Austria, Belgium, Britain, Bulgaria, Canada,Chile, Denmark,Estonia,Finland,France,Germany,Iceland,Ireland,Italy,Japan,Latvia,Lithuania,Nether-
415
availabilityand democraticstatus. The justification for the first of these is selfevident.While dataon formaland descriptiverepresentation are widely available, data on policy responsivenessand on public confidence in representative institutions are in short supply. Thus, we have constructed what is, in essence, an "opportunity sample"of countriesfor which we were able to assemble relatively data on all four dimensions of political representation.We also limit complete our analyses to countries that are considered "free" according to the Freedom House indices of civil andpolitical freedoms.6 While Pitkin(1967, 2-3) acknowlthat and are edges democracy representation not synonymous, she argues that and political representation democracyare closely linked. Formalrepresentative structures may exist in nondemocracies,but they are usually subsumedby authoritarian leaders and do not operate as functioning representativeinstitutions. Therefore, there is little reason to examine representationin nondemocratic states.7 Data used in the analysis consist of three measures of formal representation including district magnitude, parliamentaryversus presidential systems and single-memberdistrictversus proportionalrepresentation systems (the appendix provides descriptions,means, standarddeviations, and sources for all variables). is measuredsimply as the percentageof women in the Descriptiverepresentation lower house of the national legislature. Measuring policy representationproved more challenging both because the availablemeasures of this concept are highly subjective and because there is a checker-board patternof missing data for the differentmeasures.To compensate for the potential bias in any single measure, we employ four indicatorsmeasuring gender equality in political rights, gender equality in social rights, national maternityleave policy, and gender equality in marriageand divorce laws.8While these measures in no way exhaust the range of issues that might be considered
lands, Norway,Poland,Portugal,South Africa, South Korea, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Uruguay,and United States. 6 Specifically,we limit the analysis to countrieswith average scores between 1 and 2.5 on the separate, 7-point Freedom House scales of civil liberties and political rights; where lower scores indicate greaterfreedom (http://www.freedomhouse.org/ratings/index.htm). 7We experimentedwith the inclusion of a nearly equal numberof "unfree"countries in preliminary tests of the model. Unlike the clear patternreportedbelow for democraticregimes, virtuallyno significant relationshipswere found to exist among the different dimensions of representationin undemocraticsystems. Moreover,the inclusion of undemocraticregimes severely confounded the results and caused the model for democraticregimes effectively to collapse. The decision to focus only on democraticregimes is supportedboth by theory and evidence. 8Ideally a measureof policy responsivenessshould assess congruence between legislative outputs and the interests (needs or demands) of the represented.Unfortunately,cross-nationalmeasures of public opinion in specific policy areasare largelyunavailable,as arereliablemeasuresof public needs. Lacking cross-nationaldata on women's policy needs or demands, we make the heroic assumption that women share a numberof policy interestscross-nationallyand that we can measureresponsiveness by focusing solely on legislative outputson issues we assume to be especially salient to women. To compensatefor the lack of data on women'spolicy demands,we include a control variablemeasuring public attitudestowardwomen's roles in society as discussed in detail below.
416
women's issues, they do provide an indicationof policy responsivenesson some key issues of particular importance to many women. To measure symbolic responsiveness, we use aggregated World Values Survey (1995-97) data from a question about citizen confidence in the legislature. Separate measures of women's and men's confidence in the legislatureare calculatedas the percentage of each group in each country respondingthat they had "a great deal of confidence" or "quitea lot of confidence"in that country'slegislature.9 In additionto modeling the four dimensions of representation, it is important to control for exogenous factors that threatenthe validity of observed linkages. Because of the small numberof cases in our sample, however,we had to be economical in our choice of controls. Therefore,we experimentedwith several differentcandidatesincludingthe percentageof women in the workforce,per capita Gross Domestic Product, and a series of variables aggregated from the World Values Survey measuringpublic attitudestowardthe roles of women in society.10 The several controls were highly correlated,however,and the choice of controls had very little effect on the overall structureof the model. Thus, we rely on a single, composite variablereflecting culturalattitudestowardthe role of women in society (see Table 1 and the appendixfor details). We treatedthisfeminist attitudes variable as exogenous, hypothesizing that it is causally prior to the other dimensions of representationincluding the percentageof women in parliament, policy responsiveness to women's concerns, and women's confidence in parliament. Inclusion of this control is important for ensuring that any linkages observed among the components of representationare causal and not spurious artifactsof broaderculturalattitudesand values.
Model Estimation
Structural equationmodeling (SEM) proceduresare used to estimate the integrated model. These permit the simultaneous estimation of a complex causal model and of a series of measurement models for the principalconcepts or "latent variables" (in this case, feminist attitudes, formal representation,and policy responsiveness) that are measured with multiple indicators. The statistical package used for the analysis, AMOS (Arbuckle and Wothke 1995), calculates Full InformationMaximumLikelihood (FIML) estimates.Among otherbenefits,
9Because the legislatureis not the only representative institutionin some systems and is not the only policymakinginstitutionin others, we experimentedwith other measures of symbolic representation including measures of public confidence in "the government"and average public confidence across a range of various institutions. In fact, public confidence in different institutions is highly correlatedand the model results are the same regardlessof the variableused to measure symbolic representation. l?The number of possible influences on women's representationis virtually limitless. We would have liked, for example, to have measures of the strengthof women's movements in each country, women's education levels, and women's membershipin higher level areas of the workforce.Unfortunately,such data are in very short supply and could not be found in consistent cross-nationalform.
TABLE 1
417
and Measurement Modelsof Feminist Formal Attitudes, Representation, Substantive Representation

LatentVariables/Measures Feminist Attitudes University More Importantfor Men WomenNeed Children Women EarningMore a Problem Formal Representation District Magnitude PR vs. SMD Presidentialvs. Parliamentary Substantive Representation Weeks of MaternityLeave Women'sPolitical Equality Index Women'sSocial Equality Index MaritalEquality in Law Loading -1.00 -3.23* -.77* 1.00 .04* -.02 1.00 .04* .03* .04* StandardError Standardized Loading -.75 -.97 -.58 .67 .76 .23 .62 .79 .48 .49
.90 .31
.01 -.02
.02 .01 .02
Notes: Analyses are confirmatoryfactor analyses. *p < .05. N=31. See AppendixA for variablecoding and sources.
these providea superiormethod for handlingmissing datathan is typically available when OrdinaryLeast Squaresestimatorsare employed (Kline 1998). The first concern in the analysis is the validity of the measurementmodels for the latentconcepts. Consistentwith expectations,the model for feminist attitudes in Table 1 suggests thatthe severalmeasuresload stronglyon a single latentvariable. Countriesscoring high on one indicatorof feminist attitudesscore high on all of the others as well. All three indicatorsare statistically significant, and all are negatively signed so that positive scores indicate greatersocietal supportfor feminist values."1 The measurement model for women's policy responsiveness includes four variablesall of which load substantiallyon a single dimension.All of the loadings are statistically significant and their standardizedcoefficients range from .48, for a variable measuring women's social equality, to .79 for the variable measuringthe political equality of women. The mean loading for the four variables is .60, which is especially impressivegiven the small numberof cases, the
" While we label this dimension feminist values, we might also have labeled it modernism-traditionalism or something similar. Additional analyses, not shown, demonstratethat this variable is highly correlatedwith the percentageof women in the workforce,GDP per capita, and (negatively) infant mortality.Indeed, all three of these additionalvariableshave loadings greaterthan .40 on this latent variablewhen included together in the analysis. We include only feminist values here because they have the strongestloadings. They also have the strongestcausal connections to other variables in the model and thus provide the strongestcontrols on the representational linkages.
418

2 TABLE
Structural Equations Estimates of an Integrated Model of the Political Representation of Women

Variables Descriptive Representation R2= .52 ProportionalElectoral Systems Presidentialvs. Parliamentary Systems FeministAttitudes
Substantive Representation R2 = .83
Coefficient
StandardError
Standardized Coefficient
.72* 1.06 -82.7* -.82 -1.79 .56* -.09 .07* -.02 .002 -.002 -.36
.31 3.86 29.70 .52 3.15 .28 28.10 .01 .07 .002 .02 .56
.48 .05 -.54 -.86 -.12 .88 -.01 .38 -.07 .16 -.09 -.19
ProportionalElectoral Systems Presidentialvs. Parliamentary Systems Percentageof Female Legislators FeministAttitudes Symbolic Representation R2 = .27 ProportionalElectoral Systems Presidentialvs. Parliamentary Systems PercentageFemale Legislators Women'sPolicy Responsiveness FeministAttitudes
Notes: Estimatesare Full InformationMaximumLikelihood Estimates. *p < .05.

N= 31.
See AppendixA for variablecoding and sources.
subjective nature of these indicators, and the missing data in several of these measures. In contrastto feminist attitudesand women's policy concerns, the three measures of formal representation do not fit a single dimension. While the two indicators of electoral system proportionality(district magnitudeand PR vs. SMD) are closely related,the standardized loading of the variabledistinguishingpresidential and parliamentarysystems is very weak (only .23). Based on this, we revised the model to include two measuresof formalrepresentation: a latentvariable measuring electoral proportionalityand the observed variable distinguishing presidentialand parliamentary systems. Table 2 reportsinitial estimates of the fully specified, integratedmodel of the of women across 31 democraticcountries.The diagnospolitical representation tics at the bottom of the table demonstrate thatthe model fits the datafairlywell.12
'2The relative chi square statistic (cmin/df) is considerably less than 2.0, which, according to Carminesand McIver,demonstrates an "acceptablefit between the hypotheticalmodel and the sample data"(1981, 80). The RMSEA is .13, which is higher than the .05 level normallyrecommendedbut reasonablyclose given a small sample (Bollen 1989). The IncrementalFit Index (IFI) and Comparative Fit Index (CFI) are .79 and .70, respectively,indicating that the model representsa 70-79% improvementover the null model.
419
The estimated model representsa significant improvementover the null model in which all variables are assumed to be unrelated,and it closely approximates the fit of a "saturated model" in which all possible linkages are specified. More the estimated to one-half of the varimodel accountsfor one-quarter importantly, in ance each of the three endogenous dimensions of representation. Despite the model's overall "goodness of fit,"a numberof individuallinkages are weak or insignificant.Feminist attitudeshave strong and significant effects on the percentage of women serving in national legislatures, but they do not have significanteffects either on women's policy responsiveness or on women's perceptions of legislative legitimacy when other variables in the model are controlled. Similarly, formal representationhas important effects, consistent with theory, on the percentage of female legislators but not on substantive Given the large number of variables in the analysis and the representation.13 small sample size, statistical degrees of freedom are precious; even small changes in the model can significantly alter model estimates. Therefore, it is important to correct the model specification based on the initial results and to reestimate a properly specified, reduced form of the model using the extra degrees of freedom. The results, reported in Figure 2, confirm both that the overallfit of the model is improvedand multicollinearityamong the estimates is eliminated. the structureof the revised model largely confirms expectations Importantly, regarding the integrated nature of political representation,albeit with several important exceptionsto Pitkin'stheory.Consistentwith the hypothesisthatformal the revised model clearly contributesto descriptiverepresentation, representation demonstrates thatPR electoralsystems and those with higher districtmagnitudes elect significantly larger percentages of female legislators. The effect is strong (.56), positive and direct. This is the case, moreover,even after controlling for the strong, positive effects (.51) that feminist attitudes have on the election of female legislators. Also consistentwith the integratedmodel, the percentageof female legislators has a substantialand statisticallysignificanteffect (.42) on the responsivenessof legislatureson women's issues. This effect persists even when controls are introduced for public attitudestowardwomen (and, alternatively,for GDP per capita and the percentagewomen in the work force). Even in countrieswith comparable economies and similar attitudesabout women, legislaturesare more responsive to women's issues when there are more women in legislature.
13 Anotherproblemwith the model is multicollinearity(r = .91) in the parameter estimates for linkages A and B (i.e., those connecting proportionalelectoral systems with the percent women in the legislatureand women's policy responsiveness).The effect of this multicollinearityis to inflate considerablythe two parameters,making both appear larger than either one does when entered sepaand women'spolicy responsivenessis rately.Given that the linkage between electoralproportionality not significantat traditionallevels (p < .10 for a small sample) and remainsnonsignificantwhen the linkage between percentwomen and policy responsivenessis removed,we have deleted the electoral -* policy link from the revised model.
420

2 FIGURE
ReducedFormStructural of Women's Model Representation Equation

maternity social equality policy
politcal
district magnitude 94 quaelit PR 0 s tm sy~~ ~ setem PPOTC
4marital ui
" R2= 0.7 0.42 04
0.45
R2 = 0.28
Electoral
System 0.03
Feminist
ducate men
pay problem
need
0.56
0.51 Percent *Women
R2 = 0.56
Women's Confidence 0.13
,o by a
,,i
Attitudes
Diagnostics:
child
CMIN/DF = 1.58 RMSEA= 0.051 IFI= 0.960 CFI = 0.918
The proportionality of the electoral system also has substantial,albeit indirect, PR systems tend to elect more female effects on women'spolicy responsiveness.14 legislators whose greater numbers facilitate the enactment of more women's however,does not legislation, otherthings being equal. Electoralproportionality, the effects of formal rephave independenteffects on substantiverepresentation; resentationare fully mediatedthroughdescriptiverepresentation. Although electoral proportionalityencourages the election of a more diverse legislature, this diversity may impede the formationof a governing majority.Indeed,a substantial literature debatesthe characteristic strengthsand weaknesses of the two types of systems in this regard(Lijphart1994; Powell 2000). Consistentwith this suggestion, the simple correlationbetween electoral proportionalityand women's policy responsiveness is negative, although the correlation is weak and not significant. is provided Additional supportfor the integratedconception of representation by the observationthat formal representationhas a statistically significant and substantialeffect on women's confidence in the legislature(symbolic representation). Importantly, however, neither descriptive representation nor policy
coefficients in 14 The magnitudeof the indirecteffect is calculatedby multiplyingthe standardized the compound path. Thus, the indirect effect of the electoral system on policy responsiveness via is .57 x .42 = .24. descriptiverepresentation
421
responsiveness has appreciable effects in this regard.'"The failure of policy responsiveness to influence symbolic representationis especially problematic given Pitkin'semphasis on policy responsivenessas the centerpiece of the integratedmodel. The absence of direct links between descriptiveand substantiverepresentation on the one hand and symbolic representationon the other admits several possible explanations.First, it may result from the choice of policy areas included in the measure of women's policy responsiveness.The influence of policy responsiveness on women's confidence in the legislature may be greater for other women's issues such as abortionrights or domestic violence legislation. Second, while policy responsivenessmay be the central aspect of representationfrom a normativeperspective,it may be less importantempirically.Given the low levels of political knowledge characteristicof citizens in most democratic polities, many citizens simply may not have the knowledge to accuratelyjudge the policy responsiveness of the system. Third, even when citizens can assess the quality of policy responsiveness,it may be difficult for them to apportionresponsibility for policy responsiveness among the executive, legislature, bureaucracy,and courts. Lacking data on most of these matters,we can only speculate about the lack of relationshipbetween policy responsiveness and women's confidence in legislatures.
NONLINEAR EFFECTS. The absence of a substantialrelationshipbetween descriptive representation and symbolic representation (.13 in Figure 2) also may indicate model misspecification.As noted, the literatureanticipatesthe possibility of a nonlinearrelationshipbetween the percentage of women in a legislature and policy responsiveness (Kanter 1977). One possibility is that a critical mass of women must be elected to the legislaturebefore the power of women reaches a thresholdsufficient to affect legislation; anotherpossibility is the existence of a multiplier effect whereby the power of women increases exponentially with women's increasingpresence in the legislature.The logic of this argumentmight well be extendedto symbolic representation as well. Womenmay be more likely to accept the legislature as legitimate only after the percentageof female legislators crosses some critical threshold. To test these possibilities we estimatedseveral alternativespecificationsof the relationshipbetween the percentageof female legislatorsand both policy responsiveness and symbolic representation (Table 3). First, we created a crude test of the thresholdhypothesisusing a dummyvariablecoded "1" for those legislatures with more than the average (i.e., 15%)percentageof women in the legislaturel6
1 The parameterbetween substantiveand symbolic representation also is highly correlatedwith the parameterbetween descriptiveand symbolic representation such that the two cannot be included in the model simultaneously. 16There is no basis in theory or in previous research to predict what the specific percentage of women must be before a critical thresholdis reached.Thus we arbitrarily divided the 31 legislatures at the mean. Severalother,higherthresholds(the upperquartileand 85th percentile)were also tested with equally negligible results.
422

TABLE 3
The Effects on Policy Responsiveness and Symbolic Representation (Standardized Maximum Likelihood Estimates) of Different Specifications of the Percentage of Female Legislators
Variable/ Specification Simple LinearFunctionof % Women in Legislaturea ThresholdEffect of % Women (Legislatureswith over 15%Womenmembers) NaturalLog of % Women in Legislatureb Squared% Women in Legislaturec Notes: a: Y = a + bx (linear effect). b: Y = Log(x) (logarithmiceffect). c: Y = a + bX2 (quadraticeffect). See AppendixA for variablecoding and sources. Women'sPolicy Responsiveness .42 .17 .31 .54 Women'sConfidence in Legislature .13 .05 .02 .38
and "0" for all others.A second specificationtests the possibility that the impact of women follows a logarithmicfunction according to which the impact of the percentage of women accelerates to a threshold point and then decelerates (increases more slowly) above the threshold. A third specification uses the squaredpercentageof women in the legislature(Y = a + bx2).Similarto the logarithmic function, this assumes that the impact of women accelerates as their numbersgrow but without a thresholdor decelerationpoint. Given the small percentage of women in most legislatures,this allows for the possibility that women in most legislatureshave not yet reached a critical mass or tipping point. While neither of the first two alternative specifications (rows 2 and 3 of Table 3) provides significantimprovementover a simple linear function (row 1), the thirdspecification(row 4) works very well. It increasesthe impactof descriptive representation on policy responsivenessfrom .42 to .54, and it almost triples the impact on symbolic representationfrom .13 to .38. While this does not directly supportKanter'sspecific hypothesis regardinga critical mass or threshold effect, it does supportthe relatedbut more general argumentthat the impact of female legislators acceleratesas their numbersin the legislaturegrow. Indeed, descriptive representation, rather than substantive representation, of women. The emerges from this analysis as the keystone to the representation percentage of women in the legislature is a principal determinantof women's policy responsiveness and of women's confidence in the legislative process. also mediatesvirtuallyall of the impactof formalrepDescriptiverepresentation This is resentationon both policy responsiveness and symbolic representation. not to suggest that descriptiverepresentationis sufficient for ensuring political Pitkin'sargumentsfor the importanceof all four dimensions and representation.
423
for the normative primacy of substantive representationare compelling. The analysis does suggest, however, that descriptive representationis the glue that binds the several dimensions of representationtogether into something resembling a coherentwhole.
A final EGOCENTRIC OR SOCIOTROPIC ASSESSMENTSOF REPRESENTATION.
question concerns the extent to which perceptions of legislatures' legitimacy One way of hinge on egocentricversus sociotropicevaluationsof representation. assessing this is by comparingsurvey responses of men and women. Specifically, if assessments of representationare made on the basis of narrow self-interest, then men and women's confidence in the legislatureshould be affected differenand policy responsiveness. tially by variationsin both descriptiverepresentation Specifically,women should be more stronglyand positively affected thanmen by higher levels of women's representation. Conversely,if assessments of representation are based more on enlightened self-interest, then both men and women should recognize thattheirinterestsare significantlyintertwined,and they should be relatively equally affected by women's descriptive representationand policy responsiveness. To test this, we replicated the analysis in Figure 2 substituting men's for women's confidence in the legislature.The results in Table 4 are unambiguous. The effects of women's descriptiverepresentation and policy responsiveness on men's confidence in the legislature are virtually identical to their effects on women. Men do not express more confidence in legislatureswith fewer women or in contextswhere women'spolicy interestsare relativelyneglected.To the contrary,men and women respond quite similarly to variationsin the quantityand quality of women's representation,Men clearly respond sociotropically, interof women to be good, more generally, pretingwhat is good for the representation for society as a whole. While the absence of data on men's representation prevents a test of women's sociotropic evaluations,there is no reason to think that women are any more or less enlightenedthanmen. The fact thatwomen'sabsolute level of trust in the legislature is almost identical to men's17 despite decades, if evidence in this not centuries,of genderinequalityis strong,albeit circumstantial regard.
Women'sRepresentation as Universal Representation

Pitkin conceives of representationas a complex structure whose multiple dimensionsare closely integrated.Ouranalysis of women in 31 democraticcountries confirms Pitkin'sinsights regardingthe strong interconnectionsamong the dimensions of representation.It also supportsmany of the specific hypotheses
17 Men on average are 2.5% more likely to trust their legislaturethan are women. The largest gap across these countriesis in Australiawhere men are 11%more trustingof the legislature.Sweden is second with a 9% male edge. Womenare more trustingof the legislaturethen men in nine countries; the largest gap is in Switzerlandwhere women are 6% more likely to trust the legislature.
424

TABLE 4
Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects (Standardized Maximum Likelihood
of Formal, on and Substantive Estimates) Representation Descriptive, Men'sand Women's Representation Symbolic
Women'sConfidence in Legislature Direct FormalRepresentation Descriptive Representation(linear) Descriptive Representation(squared) Policy Responsiveness .45 .13 .28 -.10 Indirect .07 .00 .00 .00 Total .50 .13 .28 -.10 Men's Confidence in Legislature Direct .34 .28 .32 -.02 Indirect .16 .00 .00 .00 Total .50 .28 .32 -.02
Notes: Total = Direct + IndirectEffects. See AppendixA for variablecoding and sources.
about these interconnectionsgleaned both from Pitkin and from diverse empirical work. democracies,the integrated Although our findingsare limited to representative model provides strong evidence, consistent with theory, that formal representative structuresand processes exert powerfulinfluences on the extent of women's descriptive representation,policy responsiveness, and symbolic representation. The integratedmodel corroboratesprevious researchdemonstratingthat higher levels of descriptive representation increase legislatures' responsiveness to women'spolicy concerns and enhanceperceptionsof legitimacy.It also provides some of the strongest evidence, to date, supportingthe idea that the effects of on policy responsivenessand symbolic representation descriptiverepresentation are nonlinear and accelerate as the percentage of women in the legislature increases. While even a few women in a legislaturecan generate importantbenefits for women, real gains in policy responsiveness and political legitimacy appearto depend upon the achievementof a critical mass. Although the results of our analyses substantiallyvalidateboth Pitkin'stheory and previous empiricalresearch,two principalanomalies emerge. The first is the unexpected finding that women's policy responsivenesshas little or no influence on women's perceptionsof the legitimacy of the legislature.This is troublingnot only because it contradictsthe centralityof policy responsivenessin Pitkin'stheoretical frameworkbut also because it appearsantagonisticto rationalactor theories of political behavior.While we advanced several alternativehypotheses to account for the unexpected empirical results, including limited informationand problems of blame attribution, systematic assessments of these possibilities requiredata currentlyunavailable. Nevertheless,while citizens' lack of direct concern with policy responsiveness contradictstheory,it may pose fewerproblemsthanit seems. Both policy respon-
425
siveness and legislative legitimacy are otherwise securely tied into this causal web, especially through their connections to descriptive representation.This ensures that the two will be closely correlatedeven if they are not directly or may requireelaboration causally connected.Pitkin'sconceptionof representation structureis fundamental and refinementin specific empirical contexts, but its confirmed. A second apparentanomaly in the results is the observationthat men respond to the representation(or misrepresentation) of women almost identically as do women. Men's confidence in the legislatureis just as sensitive to the proportionality of the electoral system and to the proportionof women holding seats in the legislature. Far from underminingthe integratednature of women's representathe feminist argumentthat the promotion, this unexpectedfinding corroborates tion of women's rights inevitably advances the rights of men as well. In effect, women (and minorities, too, we presume) can be seen as the "miners'canaries" of political representation.Political systems that nurtureand protect the representationof less-advantagedgroups can be trustedby members of more advantaged groups to protect their interests as well. The quality of women's in this sense, is universal. representation,
AppendixA: VariableDefinitions,Means, and Standard Deviations

Mean Presidential vs. Parliamentary System Electoral System District Magnitude PR System Std
Coded "1" if presidentialsystem and "0" if system. parliamentary A country'smean numberof legislative seats per electoral district. Coded "l" if system employs some form of and "0" proportionalrepresentation
otherwise.a
.26
.44
7.60 .71
8.30 .46
Percent Women Women's Policies Maternitypolicy Political equality
Percentageof legislators (lower house) who are women.b Length of national maternityleave in weeks.d Index of Gender Equity in Political Rights: 1 = substantialinequality;2 = some inequality;3 = substantialequality of
rights.e
15.00
10.40
21.60 2.00
16.70 .35
Social equality
Maritalequality
Index of GenderEquity in Social Rights: 1 = substantialinequality;2 = some inequality; 3 = substantialequality of rights.e Equity of the sexes in marriageand divorce proceedings: 1 = substantialinequality; 2 = some inequality;3 = substantial equality of rights.e
1.90
.33
2.60
.50
426
A: continued Appendix
Mean Women's Confidence "... could you tell me how much confidence a great deal of you have in (Parliament): confidence, quite a lot of confidence, not very much confidence, or none at all?" Percentageof women responding"a great deal" or "quitea lot.'f "do you think that a woman has to have children... to be fulfilled..." 1 = yes;
0 = no.'
Std .13
.35
Feminist Attitudes Need Child
.50
.23
Pay Problem
Men Education
"If a woman earns more money than a man, it's almost certain to cause problems" 1 = StronglyAgree/Agree; 0 = Disagree/ StronglyDisagree.' "A universityeducation is more importantfor a boy than for a girl." 1 = StronglyAgree/ Agree; 0 = Disagree/StronglyDisagree.f
.44
.09
.20
.09
Sources: a. Beck, Thorsen,George Clarke,Alberto Groff, Philip Keefer,and PatrickWalsh.2001. "New Tools in Comparative PoliticalEconomy:The Databaseof PoliticalInstitutions." World Bank Economic Review 15 (1):165-176. b. IPU. 1995. Womenin Parliaments, 1945-1995: A WorldStatistical Survey, Reports and Documents, No. 23. Geneva: IPU. c. UN DevelopmentProgram.1997. TheHumanDevelopmentReport.New York:United Nations. d. UN Statistics Division. 2000. Table 5.C-Maternity leave benefits. http://unstats.un.org/unsd/demographic/ww2000/table5c.htm. e. Humana,Charles. 1992. World HumanRights Guide. 3rd ed. New York:Oxford University Press. f. WorldValues Survey, 1995-1997.
Acknowledgment
This is a revised version of a paperpresentedat the AnnualMeeting of the American Political Science Association, August 2002. Brian Crisp, SuzanneDovi, and BarbaraNorranderprovidedconstructivecriticism of earlierdrafts. ManuscriptsubmittedDecember 31, 2003 Final manuscriptreceived October 25, 2004
References
Anderson, ChristopherJ., and ChristineGuillory. 1997. "PoliticalInstitutionsand Satisfactionwith Democracy:A Cross-National Analysis of Consensus and Majoritarian Systems."AmericanPolitical Science Review 91(1): 1-16. Arbuckle, James L., and WernerWothke. 1995. Amos 4.0 User's Guide. Chicago: SPSS Inc. Bollen, KennethA. 1989. "A New IncrementalFit Index for General StructuralEquationModels." Sociological Methods and Research 17(3): 303-16.
427
Bratton, KathleenA. 2002. "The Effect of Legislative Diversity on Agenda Setting: Evidence from Six State Legislatures." AmericanPolitics Research 30(2): 115-42. Bratton, Kathleen A., and Leonard P. Ray. 2002. "Descriptive Representation,Policy Outcomes, and Municipal Day-Care Coverage in Norway."American Journal of Political Science 46(2): 428-37. Bullock, Charles S. III. 1995. "The Impact of Changing the Racial Composition of Congressional Districts on Legislators'Roll-Call Behavior." AmericanPolitics Quarterly23(2): 141-58. In Carmines,EdwardG., and John P. McIver. 1981. "AnalyzingModels with UnobservedVariables." Social Movements:CurrentIssues, eds. G.W Bohrnstedtand E.E Borgatta.Beverly Hills: Sage PublicationsInc., pp. 65-115. Elections, and Representation.2nd ed. Darcy, Robert, Susan Welch, and Janet Clark. 1994. Women, Lincoln: University of NebraskaPress. Duverger,Maurice. 1954. Political Parties. New York:Wiley. Paris:UNESCO. Duverger,Maurice. 1955. The Political Role of Women. Eulau, Heinz, and Paul D. Karps. 1977. "The Puzzle of Representation:Specifying Componentsof Responsiveness."Legislative Studies Quarterly2(3): 233-54. in the U.S. House Hero, Rodney,and CarolineTolbert.1995. "Latinosand SubstantiveRepresentation of Representatives: AmericanJournal of Political Science 93(3): Direct, Indirect,or Nonexistent?" 640-52. Hibbing, John R., and ElizabethTheiss-Morse. 1995. Congress as Public Enemy: Public Attitudes Towards AmericanPolitical Institutions.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. Jackman, Robert W., and Ross A. Miller. 1996. "A Renaissance of Political Culture?"American Journal of Political Science 40(3): 632-59. Jones, Mark P 1993. "The Political Consequences of Electoral Laws in Latin America and the Caribbean." Electoral Studies 12(1): 59-75. Kanter, Rosabeth M. 1977. "Some Effects of Proportionon Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and AmericanJournal of Sociology 82(5): 965-90. Response to TokenWomen." Kinder,Donald, and D. RoderickKiewiet. 1979. "Economic Discontent and Political Behavior:The Role of PersonalGrievancesand Collective Economic Judgmentsin CongressionalVoting." American Journal of Political Science 23(3): 495-527. Kline, Rex. 1998. Principles and Practices of StructuralEquation Modeling. New York:Guilford Press. Democracies.Ann Arbor: Lewis-Beck, Michael. 1988. Economics and Elections: TheMajor Western University of Michigan Press. Arend. 1994. Electoral Systemsand PartySystems:A Studyof27 Democracies, 1945-1990. Lijphart, New York:Oxford University Press. Mainwaring,Scott, and Matthew Soberg Shugart. 1997. "Conclusion:Presidentialismand the Party System." In Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin America, eds. S. Mainwaring and M.S. Shugart.New York:CambridgeUniversity Press, pp. 394-439. Mansbridge,Jane. 1999. "ShouldBlacks RepresentBlacks and Women RepresentWomen?A Contingent 'Yes.'"Journal of Politics 61(3): 628-57. in the EuropeanParliament." EuroMarsh,Michael, and PippaNorris. 1997. "PoliticalRepresentation pean Journal of Political Research 32(2): 153-64. Matland,RichardE., and DeborahDwight Brown. 1992. "DistrictMagnitude'sEffect on FemaleRepresentationin U.S. State Legislatures." Legislative Studies Quarterly17(4): 469-92. Matland,RichardE., and Donley T. Studlar.1996. "The Contagion of Women Candidatesin SMD and PR Electoral Systems: Canadaand Norway." Journal of Politics 58(3): 707-33. Mill, John Stuart. 1967[1861]. Considerationson RepresentativeGovernment.London: Longmans, Green and Co. Miller, WarrenE., Roy Pierce, JacquesThomassen, RichardHerrera,Soeren Holmberg,Peter Esaiasson, and BernhardWessels. 1999. Policy Representation in WesternDemocracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Miller, WarrenE., and Donald Stokes. 1963. "ConstituencyInfluencein Congress."AmericanPolitical Science Review 57 (March):45-56.
428
the Celtic Fringe:Devolutionand LegMishler,William, andAnthonyMughan. 1978. "Representing islative Behavior in Scotland and Wales."Legislative Studies Quarterly3(3): 377-408. Mishler, William, and Richard Rose. 1997. "Trust,Distrust and Skepticism: Popular Evaluations of Civil and Political Institutionsin Post-CommunistSocieties."Journal of Politics 59(2): 41851. Mishler,William, and RichardRose. 2001. "Whatare the Origins of Political Trust?Testing Institutional and CulturalTheories in Post-CommunistSocieties." ComparativePolitical Studies 34(1): 30-63. in WesternEurope."West Norris, Pippa. 1985. "Women'sLegislative Participation EuropeanPolitics 8(4): 90-101. Norris, Pippa. 1999. "Institutional Explanationsfor Political Support."In Critical Citizens: Global Support for Democratic Governance,ed. P. Norris. Oxford:Oxford UniversityPress, pp. 217-35. Norris, Pippa, and Mark Franklin. 1997. "Social Representation." European Journal of Political Research 32(2): 185-210. Nations. O'Regan,ValerieR. 2000. GenderMatters:FemalePolicymakers'Influencein Industrialized Westport,CT: Praeger. Phillips, Anne. 1995. The Politics of Presence. Oxford: ClarendonPress. Pitkin, Hanna. 1967. The Concept of Representation.Berkeley: University of CaliforniaPress. Powell, G. Bingham. 2000. Elections as Instrumentsof Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press. Rae, Douglas W. 1967. The Political Consequencesof Electoral Rules. New Haven:Yale University Press. Sex, Gender,and Legislative Behavior in Arizona and Reingold, Beth. 2000. RepresentingWomen: California.Chapel Hill: University of North CarolinaPress. Rule, Wilma. 1987. "ElectoralSystems, ContextualFactorsand Women'sOpportunityfor Election to Parliamentin Twenty-Three Democracies."Western Political Quarterly40(3): 477-98. The Problemof Political Representationof Sapiro,Virginia. 1981. "WhenAre InterestsInteresting? Women."AmericanPolitical Science Review 75(3): 701-16. Schumpeter,JosephA. 1947. Capitalism,Socialism, and Democracy. 2nd ed. New York:Harpers. Stimson, James A., Michael B. Mackuen, and Robert S. Erikson. 1995. "Dynamic Representation." AmericanPolitical Science Review 89(2): 543-65. Stokes, Susan C. 2001. Mandates and Democracy. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress. Swers, Michele L. 2001. "Researchon Women in Legislatures:What Have We Learned,Where are We Going?" Women & Politics 23(1-2): 167-85. Make: the Policy Impact of Womenin Congress. Swers, Michele L. 2002. The Diference Women Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Rein, and MatthewSoberg Shugart. 1989. Seats and Votes:TheEffects and Determinants Taagepera, of Electoral Systems.New Haven:Yale University Press. Thomas, Sue. 1991. "The Impactof Womenon State Legislative Policies."Journal of Politics 53(4): 958-76. Thomassen, Jacques, and Hermann Schmitt. 1997. "Policy Representation." European Journal of Political Research 32(2): 165-84. British Wahlke,John C. 1971. "Policy Demands and System Support:The Role of the Represented." Journal of Political Science 1 (July): 271-90. Welch, Susan, and Donley T. Studlar. 1990. "MultimemberDistricts and the Representationof Women." Journal of Politics 52(2): 391-412.
Leslie A. Schwindt-Bayer([email protected]) is assistant professor of political science, Universityof Mississippi, University,MS 38677-1848. William Mishler ([email protected]) is professorof political science, University of Arizona, Tucson,AZ 85721-0027.

Cambridge University Press Southern Political Science Association

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cambridge University Press Southern Political Science Association

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cambridge University Press Southern Political Science Association

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Southern Political Science Association

An Integrated Model of Women'sRepresentation

Leslie A. Schwindt-Bayerand WilliamMishler

The Multidimensional Conceptof Representation

Leslie A. Schwindt-Bayerand WilliamMishler

An Integrated Model of Political Representation Policy Responsiveness

Leslie A. Schwindt-Bayerand WilliamMishler

Leslie A. Schwindt-Bayerand WilliamMishler

Measures and Methods

Leslie A. Schwindt-Bayerand WilliamMishler

and Measurement Modelsof Feminist Formal Attitudes, Representation, Substantive Representation

.02 .01 .02

Leslie A. Schwindt-Bayerand WilliamMishler

Structural Equations Estimates of an Integrated Model of the Political Representation of Women

Notes: Estimatesare Full InformationMaximumLikelihood Estimates. *p < .05.

See AppendixA for variablecoding and sources.

Leslie A. Schwindt-Bayerand WilliamMishler

ReducedFormStructural of Women's Model Representation Equation

Women's Confidence 0.13

CMIN/DF = 1.58 RMSEA= 0.051 IFI= 0.960 CFI = 0.918

Leslie A. Schwindt-Bayerand WilliamMishler

Women'sRepresentation as Universal Representation

Leslie A. Schwindt-Bayerand WilliamMishler

Direct, Indirect, and Total Effects (Standardized Maximum Likelihood

AppendixA: VariableDefinitions,Means, and Standard Deviations

Percent Women Women's Policies Maternitypolicy Political equality

Leslie A. Schwindt-Bayerand WilliamMishler

Feminist Attitudes Need Child

Leslie A. Schwindt-Bayerand WilliamMishler

You might also like