All Male Panels? Representation and Democratic Legitimacy

Abstract

What does women's presence in political decision-making bodies signal to citizens? Do these signals differ based on the body's policy decisions? And do women and men respond to women's presence similarly? Though scholars have demonstrated the substantive and symbolic benefits of women's representation, little work has examined how women's presence affects citizens' perceptions of democratic legitimacy. We test the relationship between representation and legitimacy beliefs through survey experiments on a nationally representative sample of U.S. citizens. First, we find that women's equal presence legitimizes decisions that go against women's interests. We show suggestive evidence that this effect is particularly pronounced among men, who tend to hold less certain views on women's rights. Second, across decision outcomes and issue areas, women's equal presence legitimizes decision-making processes and confers institutional trust and acquiescence. These findings add new theoretical insights into how, when, and for whom inclusive representation increases perceptions of democratic legitimacy.experiences, suggests that women's presence can affect how citizens view policy decisions and the institutions and processes that guide them. The backlash against all-male panels thus raises a central question for the study of democratic politics: Does the inclusion of representatives from historically underrepresented groups (typically called descriptive representation) legitimize decisions and decisionmaking procedures in the eyes of the general public? Democratic theorists argue that legislative outcomes, processes, and institutions cannot be legitimate when certain social groups remain systematically excluded from elected office (Dovi 2007;Mansbridge 1999;Phillips 1995). Despite these strong normative expectations, most research on symbolic representation-that is, the link

Trends in Gender Representation at the American College of Surgeons Clinical Congress and the Academic Surgical Congress: A Mixed Picture of Progress

“…16 We analyzed the proportion of men-only panels in this study in light of the fact that this measure of gender representation has come under increasingly public scrutiny in industries beyond medical and scientific meetings. [17][18][19] An encouraging finding from our study is that the decrease in men-only panels, the so-called "manels," at the CC strongly corresponds with an associated increase in the proportion of women panelists; the correlation is also apparent at ASC meetings, though it did not reach statistical significance. Though it may seem intuitive that a decrease in men-only panels would be associated with an increase in women panelists, there are many ways in which to decrease men-only panels without truly increasing the proportion of women.…”

Where Are the Women? Descriptive Representation and COVID-19 in U.K. Daily Press Briefings

“…Such inequality in representation is a concern for the health of a democracy. Citizens may reflect these normative concerns; experimental evidence suggests that voters' perceived procedural legitimacy of a government decision increases when there is a gender balance among those deciding the outcome (Clayton, O'Brien, and Piscopo 2019).…”

When Should the Majority Rule? Experimental Evidence for Madisonian Judgments in Five Cultures

“…Moreover, this work builds on a broader literature in political science finding that people weigh minority interests when judging the legitimacy of voting. For example, participants judged that voting was less legitimate when it diminished women's rights compared to protecting them, and the decision was even less legitimate when women were not adequately represented among the voters (Clayton, O'Brien, and Piscopo, 2019). Similarly, both black and white participants judged a vote that favored white citizens to be less legitimate when fewer black citizens were among the voters (Hayes and Hibbing, 2017).…”