Coordination dilemmas and the valuation of women in the U.S. senate: Reconsidering the critical mass problem

Journal of Theoretical Politics

Volumn 23, Issue 2, 2011, Pages 188-214

  Kanthak, Kristin ^a   Krause, George A ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PITTSBURGH   (United States)

Author keywords

colleague valuation; coordination problems; critical mass; gender and descriptive representation; U.S. Senate

Indexed keywords

EID: 79955089048     PISSN: 09516298     EISSN: 14603667     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0951629811398688     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Beckwith K. (2007) Numbers and newness: the descriptive and substantive representation of women. Canadian Journal of Political Science 40(March): 27-49.
2. Bratton KA and Ray LP (2002) Descriptive representation, policy outcomes, and municipal day-care coverage in Norway. American Journal of Political Science 46(April): 428-437.
3. Burns N., Schlozman KL and Verba S. (2001) The Private Roots of Public Action: Gender, Equality, and Political Participation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4. Cann DM (2008) Sharing the Wealth: Member Contributions and the Exchange Theory of Party Influence in the U.S. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
5. Canon DT (1990) Actors, Athletes, and Astronauts: Political Amateurs in the United States Congress. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
6. Childs S. and Krook ML (2006) Should feminists give up on critical mass? A contingent yes. Politics & Gender 2(June): 522-530.
7. Childs S. and Krook ML (2008) Critical mass theory and women's political representation. Political Studies 56(October): 725-736.
8. Childs S. and Krook ML (2009) Analyzing women's substantive representation: from critical mass to critical actors. Government and Opposition 44(April): 125-145.
9. Cragg JG (1971) Some statistical models for limited dependent variables with application to the demand for durable goods. Econometrica 39(September): 829-844.
10. Currinder M. (2008) Money in the House: Campaign Funds and Congressional Party Politics. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
11. Dahlerup D. (1988) From a small to a large minority: women in Scandinavian politics. Scandinavian Political Studies 11(December): 275-297.
12. Dahlerup D. (2006) The story of the theory of critical mass. Politics & Gender 2(June): 511-522.
13. Frisch SA and Kelly SQ (2003) A place at the table: women's committee requests and women's committee assignments in the U.S. House. Women and Politics 25(3): 1-26.
14. Gibson JL (2008) Challenges to the impartiality of State Supreme Courts: legitimacy theory and 'new-style' judicial campaigns American Political Science Review 102(February): 59-75.
15. Glasgow G. (2002) The efficiency of Congressional Campaign Committee contributions in House elections. Party Politics 8(November): 657-672.
16. Gordon SC, Hafer C. and Landa D. (2007) Consumption or investment: on motivations for political giving. Journal of Politics 69(November): 1057-1072.
17. Greene WH (2003) Econometric Analysis, 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
18. Grey S. (2006) Numbers and beyond: the relevance of critical mass in gender research. Politics & Gender 2(June): 492-502.
19. Heath RM, Schwindt-Bayer LA and Taylor-Robinson MM (2005) Women on the sidelines: women's representation on committees in Latin American legislatures. American Journal of Political Science 49(April): 420-436.
20. Heberlig ES and Larson B. (2005) Redistributing campaign funds by U.S. House members: the spiraling costs of the permanent campaign. Legislative Studies Quarterly 30(November): 597-624.
21. Hedge DM, Button J. and Spear M. (1996) Accounting for the quality of black legislative life: the view from the States. American Journal of Political Science 40(February): 82-98.
22. Hero RE and Tolbert CJ (1995) Latinos and substantive representation in the U.S. House of Representatives: direct, indirect, or nonexistent? American Journal of Political Science 39(August): 640-652.
23. Kandori M., Mailath GJ and Rob R. (1993) Learning, mutation, and long-run equilibria in games Econometrica 61(January): 29-56.
24. Kanter RM (1977) Some effects of proportions on group life: skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology 82(March): 965-990.
25. Kanthak K. (2007) Crystal elephants and committee chairs: campaign contributions and leadership races in the U.S. House of Representatives. American Politics Research 35(May): 389-406.
26. Kanthak K. and Krause GA (2010a) Valuing diversity in political organizations: Gender and 'token' minorities in the U.S House of Representatives American Journal of Political Science 54(October): 839-854.
27. Kanthak K. and Krause GA (2010b) Diversity dilemmas: political parties, legislatures, and the organizational foundations of representation in America. University of Pittsburgh, typescript.
28. Kathlene L. (1994) Power and influence in State legislative policymaking: the interaction of gender and position in committee hearing debates. American Political Science Review 88(September): 560-576.
29. Keiser LR, Wilkins VM, Meier KJ and Holland CA (2002) Lipstick and logarithms: gender, institutional context, and representative bureaucracy. American Political Science Review 96(September): 553-564.
30. Krause GA and Douglas JW (2011) Organizational structure and the optimal design of policy making panels: evidence from consensus group commissions' revenue forecasts in the American States. University of Pittsburgh, typescript.
31. Lawless JL (2004) Politics of presence: women in the House and symbolic representation. Political Research Quarterly 53(March): 81-99.
32. Lawless J. and Fox R. (2005) It Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don't Run For Office. New York: Cambridge University Press.
33. Lawless JL and Pearson K. (2008) The primary reason for women's under-representation: re-evaluating the conventional wisdom. Journal of Politics 70(February): 67-82.
34. Laws JL (1975) The psychology of tokenism. Sex Roles 1(March): 51-67.
35. Marschall MJ and Ruhil AVS (2007) Substantive symbols: the attitudinal dimensions of black political incorporation in local government. American Journal of Political Science 51(January): 17-33.
36. Matland RE (1998) Women's representation in national legislatures: developed and developing countries. Legislative Studies Quarterly 23(February): 109-125.
37. Matthews DR (1959) The folkways of the United States Senate: conformity to group norms and legislative effectiveness. American Political Science Review 53(December): 1064-1089.
38. Mauss M. (1954) The Gift. New York: W.W. Norton.
39. McAllister I. and Studlar DT (2002) Does a critical mass exist? A comparative analysis of women's legislative representation since 1950. European Journal of Political Research 41(2): 233-253.
40. Meier KJ, Wrinkle RD and Polinard JL (1999) Representative bureaucracy and distributional equity: addressing the hard question. Journal of Politics 61(November): 1025-1039.
41. Page SE (2007) The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
42. Poole KT (1998) Estimating a basic space from a set of issue scales. American Journal of Political Science 42(July): 954-993.
43. Preuhs RR (2006) The conditional effects of minority descriptive representation: black legislators and policy influence in the American States. Journal of Politics 68(August): 585-599.
44. Reingold B. (1996) Conflict and cooperation: legislative strategies and concepts of power among female and male State legislators. Journal of Politics 58(May): 464-485.
45. Riker W. and Ordeshook P. (1968) A theory of the calculus of voting. American Political Science Review 62(March): 25-42.
46. Roberts BE (1990) A dead senator tells no lies: seniority and the distribution of federal benefits. American Journal of Political Science 34(February): 31-58.
47. Robson AJ (1990) Efficiency in evolutionary dames: Darwin, Nash, and the secret handshake. Journal of Theoretical Biology 144(June): 379-396.
48. Rosenthal CS (1998) When Women Lead. New York: Oxford University Press.
49. Saint-Germain M. (1989) Does their difference make a difference? The impact of women on public policy in the Arizona legislature. Social Science Quarterly 70(4): 956-968.
50. Samuelson L. (2002) Evolution and game theory. Journal of Economic Perspectives 16(Spring): 47-66.
51. Schelling TC (2007) The Strategy of Conflict. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
52. Schuessler AA (2000) A Logic of Expressive Choice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
53. Schwindt-Bayer LA and Mishler W. (2005) An integrated model of women's representation. Journal of Politics 67(May): 407-428.
54. Selden SC (1997) The Promise of Representative Bureaucracy: Diversity and Responsiveness in a Government Agency. Armonk, NY: ME Sharpe.
55. Thomas S. (1991) The impact of women on State legislative policies. Journal of Politics 53 (November): 958-976.
56. Uhlaner C. (1989) Rational goods and participation: incorporating sociability into a theory of rational action. Public Choice 62(September): 253-285.
57. United Nations Fourth World Conference on Women (1995) Platform for Action. New York: United Nations.
58. Weibull JW (1995) Evolutionary Game Theory. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
59. Weldon SL (2002) Beyond bodies: institutional sources of representation for women in democratic policymaking. Journal of Politics 64(November): 1153-1174.
60. Wilcox C. (1989) Share the wealth: contributions by Congressional incumbents to the campaigns of other candidates. American Politics Quarterly 17(October): 386-408.
61. Wilcox C. and Genest M. (1989) Member PACs as strategic actors. Polity 23(Spring): 461-470.
62. Wooldridge JM (2002) Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
63. Wooldridge JM (2003) Cluster-sample methods in applied econometrics. American Economic Review: Papers and Proceedings 93(May): 133-138.