Why is the descriptive (or numerical) representation of women in policy-making positions higher in some cities than in others? Despite a strong body of work on the descriptive representation of women in state government, research on the presence of women in municipal government is limited in empirical scope and theoretical development. This study is different. First, the authors employ an original data set of 239 cities with populations of 100,000 or more to update and extend the empirical reach of scholars' knowledge. Second, the authors develop and test hypotheses to explain how the urban political context affects women's descriptive representation. The analysis reveals that the election of women as council members and mayors are interdependent phenomena. The authors also find that political characteristics of local communities are consequential for predicting the presence of women as municipal policy makers-just as consequential as electoral structures and other institutional features.

Welfare policy in the American states has been shaped profoundly by race, ethnicity, and representation. Does gender matter as well? Focusing on state welfare reform in the mid-1990s, we test hypotheses derived from two alternative approaches to incorporating gender into the study of representation and welfare policymaking. An additive approach, which assumes gender and race/ethnicity are distinct and independent, suggests that female state legislators—regardless of race/ethnicity—will mitigate the more restrictive and punitive aspects of welfare reform, much like their African American and Latino counterparts do. In contrast, an intersectional approach, which highlights the overlapping and interdependent nature of gender and race/ethnicity, suggests that legislative women of color will have the strongest countervailing effect on state welfare reform—stronger than that of other women or men of color. Our empirical analyses suggest an intersectional approach yields a more accurate understanding of gender, race/ethnicity, and welfare politics in the states.

While individual women representatives in government have been found to behave differently than men, the causal connection between the increased presence of women in elected offices and the production of women-friendly policies is tenuous at best. This study leverages the variation in women's office holding, government structures, and policy outputs found in American cities to address that puzzle. It argues that when women obtain leadership positions in municipal government and when the positions they hold have greater power relative to other municipal positions, cities will be more likely to produce policy outputs that are often associated with women's interests and needs. Utilizing an original city-level dataset and modeling women's presence as mayors and policy outputs endogenously, the results reveal that empowered female executives in municipal governments influence expenditure decisions made as part of the federal Community Development Block Grant program. The findings suggest that political scientists should consider not only the presence of an underrepresented group, but also the relative amount of power that group has when assessing the effects on substantive representation. W hen and how are women represented in government policymaking? While women now hold more offices than they did 30 years ago,

No abstract

Punitive policy designs diminish felons as citizens. Scholars know much about the designs' influence on felons' political and civil rights. They know little of how policy influences felons' social rights. Examining the discretion of states to retain or reform federal bans on drug felons receiving cash and food assistance between 1997 and 2004, we explain the choices states make about extending social rights to "deviants." We draw from theories of neoinstitutional organization, group threat, and political incorporation. Multivariate analysis suggest that the severity of states' penal regimes and the degree to which felons and poor people threaten social order have the greatest influence on states' responses to the federal sanctions on drug felons. Our study informs understandings of why some states take a "punitive turn" while other states may counter convention, exercising discretion to reduce rather than increase their punitiveness toward felons specifically and lawbreaking generally.