“…Studies on public institutions, using the number or percentage of women, as well as many times the incorrect label of “gender diversity” to refer to the participation level of women – which represents a bias rather than a diversity approach – have tried to show whether this greater presence of women may influence tax and spending policies, deficits, and levels of institutional indebtedness (Balaguer-Coll and Toneva, 2019; Cabaleiro-Casal and Buch-Gómez, 2020, 2021; Chattopadhyay and Duflo, 2004; Cuadrado-Ballesteros et al ., 2024; Park, 2014; Slegten et al ., 2019; Suzuki and Avellaneda, 2018). Supported by diverse arguments and theories that we will present later (Dohmen et al ., 2011; Krogstrup and Wälti, 2011), specific research has explored the effects of this greater presence of women in decision-making bodies on municipal indebtedness without conclusive results (Balaguer-Coll and Toneva, 2019; Cabaleiro-Casal and Buch-Gómez, 2021; Cuadrado-Ballesteros et al ., 2024; Suzuki and Avellaneda, 2018), which Cabaleiro and Buch (2023) justify in that the effects of gender on some derived variables could not be directly observed.…”