Hostname: page-component-6bf8c574d5-mggfc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-28T15:19:55.188Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Critical Mass Theory Revisited: The Behavior and Success of Token Women in State Legislatures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2005

Kathleen A. Bratton
Kathleen A. Bratton
Affiliation:
Louisiana State University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Research on women and representation has argued that women who serve in “skewed” legislatures—that is, legislatures in which women make up less than 15% of the membership—avoid addressing women's interests and are marginalized by other legislators. I argue that women in such legislatures may actually be encouraged to develop legislative agendas that are distinct from those of their male colleagues, and that they may be as successful as their male counterparts. Analyzing data from three state legislatures in four years, I find that even in extremely skewed state legislatures, women are generally more active than men in sponsoring legislation that focuses on women's interests; indeed, in two of the three states, gender differences narrow as the legislature becomes more gender balanced. Second, I find that women are generally as successful as men in passing the legislation that they sponsor, and that in very homogeneous settings, they are sometimes more successful than men. Moreover, little evidence exists that they are less likely to be appointed to leadership positions. Finally, I find that increasing gender diversity within a legislature is accompanied by a greater overall focus on women's issues. I conclude that a “critical mass” is not necessary for substantive representation on the part of individual female state legislators, but that increased diversity may indeed bring about changes in policy outputs that reflect the interests of women.

Type
Research Article
Information
Politics & Gender , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , March 2005 , pp. 97 - 125
Copyright
© 2005 The Women and Politics Research Section of the American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Baer, Denise L. 1999. “Campaign Finance Reform and the Gender Gap in Campaign Finance Research.” Presented at the Brennan Center for Justice Conference on Money and the Politics of Inclusion, New York City, May 3.
Beckwith, Karen. 2002. “The Substantive Representation of Women: Newness, Numbers, and Models of Representation.” Paper presented at the 2002 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston.
Berry, William D., Evan J. Ringquist, Richard C. Fording, and Russell L. Hanson. 1998. “Measuring Citizen and Government Ideology in the American States, 1960–93.” American Journal of Political Science 42 (1): 327–48.Google Scholar
Bratton, Kathleen A., and Michelle Barnello. 2002. “Bridging the Gender Gap: The Sponsorship of Women's Interests in State Legislatures.” Paper presented at the Second Annual Conference on State Politics and Policy, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, May 24–25.
Bratton, Kathleen A. 2002. “The Effect of Legislative Diversity on Agenda Setting: Evidence from Six State Legislatures.” American Politics Research 30 (2): 115–42.Google Scholar
Bratton, Kathleen A., and Kerry L. Haynie. 1999. “Agenda Setting and Legislative Success in State Legislatures: The Effects of Gender and Race.” Journal of Politics 61 (3): 658–79.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Broughton, Sharon, and Sonia Palmieri. 1999. “Gendered Contributions to Parliamentary Debate; The Case of Euthanasia.” Australian Journal of Political Science 34 (1): 29–45.Google Scholar
Childs, Sarah. 2001. “‘Attitudinally Feminist’? The New Labour Women MPs and the Substantive Representation of Women.” Politics 21 (3): 178–85.Google Scholar
Considine, Mark, and Iva Ellen Deutchman. 1996. “Instituting Gender: State Legislators in Australia and the United States.” Women and Politics 16 (4): 1–19.Google Scholar
Crowley, Jocelyn E. 2004. “When Tokens Matter.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 24 (1): 109–36.Google Scholar
Dahlerup, Drude. 1988. “From a Small to a Large Minority: Women in Scandinavian Politics.” Scandinavian Political Studies 11 (2): 275–98.Google Scholar
Darcy, Robert, Susan Welch, and Janet Clark. 1987. Women, Elections, and Representation. White Plains, NY: Longman.
Diamond, Irene. 1977. Sex Roles in the State House. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Dolan, Kathleen. 2004. Voting for Women: How the Public Evaluates Women Candidates. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Dolan, Kathleen, and Lynne E. Ford. 1998. “Are All Women State Legislators Alike?” In Women and Elective Office, eds. Sue Thomas and Clyde Wilcox. New York: Oxford University Press.
Ellickson, Mark C. 1992. “Pathways to Legislative Success: A Path Analytic Study of the Missouri House of Representatives.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 17 (2): 285–302.Google Scholar
Gelb, Joyce, and Marian Palley. 1982. Women and Public Policies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Grey, Sandra. 2002. “Does Size Matter? Critical Mass and New Zealand's Women MPs.” Parliamentary Affairs 55 (1): 19–29.Google Scholar
Herring, Mary. 1990. “Legislative Responsiveness to Black Constituents in Three Deep South States.” Journal of Politics 52 (3): 740–58.Google Scholar
Hibbing, John R. 1991. Congressional Careers: Contours of Life in the U.S. House of Representatives. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Huddy, Leonie, and Nayda Terkildsen. 1993. “The Consequences of Gender Stereotypes for Women Candidates at Different Levels and Types of Office.” Political Research Quarterly 46 (3): 503–25.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, Gary C. 1992. The Politics of Congressional Elections. New York: HarperCollins.
Jaquette, Jane S. 1997. “Women in Power: From Tokenism to Critical Mass.” Foreign Policy 108 (Fall): 23–37.Google Scholar
Kanter, Rosabeth. 1977. “Some Effects of Proportions on Group Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and Responses to Token Women.” American Journal of Sociology 82 (5): 965–90.Google Scholar
Kanter, Rosabeth. 1993. Men and Women of the Corporation [1993 Edition]. New York: Basic Books.
Kathlene, Lyn. 1994. “Power and Influence in State Legislative Policymaking: The Interaction of Gender and Position in Committee Hearing Debates.” American Political Science Review 88 (3): 560–76.Google Scholar
Kelly, Rita Mae, Michelle Saint-Germain, and Jody D. Horn. 1991. “Female Public Officials: A Different Voice?” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 515 (1): 77–87.Google Scholar
King, Gary. 1988. “Statistical Models for Political Science Event Counts: Bias in Conventional Procedures and Evidence for the Exponential Poisson Regression Model.” American Journal of Political Science 32 (3): 838–63.Google Scholar
Mandel, Ruth. 1988. “The Political Woman.” In The American Woman, ed. Sara E. Rix. New York: W. W. Norton.
Mandel, Ruth, and Debra Dodson. 1992. “Do Women Officeholders Make a Difference?” In The American Woman, ed. Sara E. Rix. New York: W. W. Norton.
Moore, Michael K., and Sue Thomas. 1991. “Explaining Legislative Success in the U.S. Senate: The Role of the Majority and Minority Parties.” Western Political Quarterly 44 (4): 959–70.Google Scholar
Norris, Pippa. 1996. “Women Politicians: Transforming Westminster?” Parliamentary Affairs 49 (1): 89–102.Google Scholar
Poggione, Sarah. 2001. “Legislative Organization and the Policymaking Process: The Effect of Women State Legislators on Welfare Policy.” Paper presented at the 2001 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco.
Reingold, Beth. 1992. “Concepts of Representation Among Female and Male State Legislators.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 17 (4): 509–37.Google Scholar
Reingold, Beth. 2000. Representing Women: Sex, Gender, and Legislative Behavior in Arizona and California. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Rosenthal, Cindy Simon. 1998. When Women Lead: Integrative Leadership in State Legislatures. New York: Oxford University Press.
Saint-Germain, Michelle. 1989. “Does Their Difference Make A Difference? The Impact of Women on Public Policy in the Arizona Legislature.” Social Science Quarterly 70 (4): 956–68.Google Scholar
Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2002. “Political Parties and the Recruitment of Women to State Legislatures.” Journal of Politics 64 (3): 791–809.Google Scholar
Studlar, Donley, and Ian McAllister. 2002. “Does a Critical Mass Exist? A Comparative Analysis of Women's Legislative Representation Since 1950.” European Journal of Political Research 41 (2): 233–53.Google Scholar
Swers, Michele. 2001. “Understanding the Policy Impact of Electing Women: Evidence from Research on Congress and State Legislatures.” PS: Political Science and Politics 34 (2): 217–20.Google Scholar
Swers, Michele. 2002. The Difference Women Make: The Policy Impact of Women in Congress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Thomas, Sue. 1991. “The Impact of Women on State Legislative Policies.” Journal of Politics 53 (4): 958–76.Google Scholar
Thomas, Sue. 1994. How Women Legislate. New York: Oxford University Press.
Vega, Arturo, and Juanita M. Firestone. 1995. “The Effects of Gender on Congressional Behavior and the Substantive Representation of Women.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 20 (2): 213–22.Google Scholar
Weissert, Carol S. 1991. “Issue Salience and State Legislative Effectiveness.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 16 (4): 509–20.Google Scholar
Welch, Susan. 1985. “Are Women More Liberal Than Men in the U.S. Congress?” Legislative Studies Quarterly 10 (1): 125–34.Google Scholar
Wolbrecht, Christina. 2000. The Politics of Women's Rights: Parties, Positions, and Change. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Yoder, Janice D. 1991. “Rethinking Tokenism: Looking Beyond Numbers.” Gender and Society 5 (2): 178–92.Google Scholar