Explaining State Legislators' Casework and Public Resource Allocations

Ellickson, Mark C.; Whistler, Donald E.

doi:10.2307/449270

Cited by 16 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is possible that representational tradeoffs arise because of the resource constraints that all legislators face, and women may underperform men on constituency service due to their increased policy activity. Indeed, we know little about gender differences in service responsiveness even though legislators devote a significant amount of time and energy to constituent concerns (Ellickson and Whistler 2001; Fenno 1978; Freeman and Richardson 1996). Constituency service is also a key way in which representatives gain electoral support.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender Differences in Legislator Responsiveness

Thomsen¹,

Sanders²

2019

Perspect. polit.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A growing body of research shows that women legislators outperform their male counterparts in the legislative arena, but scholars have yet to examine whether this pattern emerges in non-policy aspects of representation. We conducted an audit study of 6,000 U.S. state legislators to analyze whether women outperform or underperform men on constituency service in light of the extra effort they spend on policy. We find that women are more likely to respond to constituent requests than men, even after accounting for their heightened level of policy activity. Female legislators are the most responsive in conservative districts, where women may see the barriers to their election as especially high. We then demonstrate that our findings are not a function of staff responsiveness, legislator ideology, or responsiveness to female constituents or gender issues. The results provide additional evidence that women perform better than their male counterparts across a range of representational activities.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender Differences in Legislator Responsiveness

Thomsen¹,

Sanders²

2019

Perspect. polit.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The average time spent by Canadian councillors falls into this range. As is the case here, Ellickson and Whistler (2001) found in their survey of U.S. state representatives that the most time was spent on policy work. This was followed by time on service work.…”

Section: Time Committed To Service Representationmentioning

confidence: 88%

Institutional- and Individual-Level Influences on Service Representation and Casework in Canadian Cities

Koop

2016

Urban Affairs Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Service representation-the extent to which elected officials act as ombudsmen and engage in casework to assist their constituents with problems-is a crucial aspect of contemporary democratic representation. The local level of government is a potentially fruitful location in which to explore the practice of service representation. Despite this, service representation in local governments is understudied. Using data from interviews with 52 sitting councillors and a survey of 589 sitting councillors in Canadian cities, this article explores both the commitment of councillors to service and influences on time committed to service. This research finds that service representation is an important but secondary role of Canadian councillors. Furthermore, councillors elected in wards commit more time to service than councillors elected at-large, and councillors with strong service role perceptions also commit more time to service.

show abstract

“…The following district characteristics had been found to affect at least one aspect of engagement and were controlled for: the districts' homogeneity, district magnitude, the districts' population, and the districts' education levels (Clausen, Holmberg, and deHaven-Smith, 1983;Halligan et al, 1988;Richardson and Freeman, 1995;Ellickson and Whistler, 2001). The following legislators' characteristics were controlled for: levels of ambition, length of service, electoral vulnerability, trusteedelegate role orientation, and district-state role orientation (Halligan et al, 1988;Ellickson and Whistler, 2001;Maestas, 2003;Richardson and Freeman, 1995). Additional controls included the professionalism of the legislature and the existence of term limit laws (Maestas, 2003;Ellickson and Whistler, 2001;Richardson and Freeman, 1995;Carey, Niemi, and Powell, 2000:Ch.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The following legislators' characteristics were controlled for: levels of ambition, length of service, electoral vulnerability, trusteedelegate role orientation, and district-state role orientation (Halligan et al, 1988;Ellickson and Whistler, 2001;Maestas, 2003;Richardson and Freeman, 1995). Additional controls included the professionalism of the legislature and the existence of term limit laws (Maestas, 2003;Ellickson and Whistler, 2001;Richardson and Freeman, 1995;Carey, Niemi, and Powell, 2000:Ch. 3;Niemi and Powell, 2003).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sex Differences in Constituent Engagement*

Herrick

2010

Social Science Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objectives. This article updates and expands the research on sex differences in legislators' relationships with constituents. Methods. A 2008 survey of legislators from 26 states is used to collect data on constituent-initiated contact, hours legislators spend keeping in touch with constituents or conducting casework, legislators' use of constituent information, and accuracy of legislators' perceptions of constituents. Results. The findings suggest that female legislators do not differ from male legislators in the time they spend contacting constituents or doing casework or in the accuracy of their perceptions of constituents. However, female legislators received more contact from constituents, and were more likely to attend meetings and use constituent-derived information. Conclusion. Although sex has small effects on the amount of contact legislators have with constituents, it does affect the way legislators contact their constituents. This is likely because engagement has become an important role for legislators. Thus, while legislators all have to be actively engaged, they have some flexibility in how they engage with constituents.Previous literature indicates that female policymakers have more contact with constituents and perform more casework than their male colleagues (Richardson and Freeman, 1995;Carey, Niemi, and Powell, 1998;Epstein, Niemi, and Powell, 2005;Thomas, 1992; Flammang, 1985:108). This article updates and expands on this literature. It uses recent data to examine whether the gender gap in legislators' engagement with constituents still exists. Much of the research examining sex differences in legislator-constituent engagement is somewhat dated and may no longer accurately describe sex differences. If sex effects are contextual, then as context changes, sex effects should change as well. Additionally, while research has explored whether male and female legislators differ in their constituent contact, there is no literature examining whether sex affects the accuracy of legislators' perceptions of their districts or if there are sex differences in the use of constituent-derived information. This article helps fill that void.

show abstract

Explaining State Legislators' Casework and Public Resource Allocations

Cited by 16 publications

References 0 publications

Gender Differences in Legislator Responsiveness

Gender Differences in Legislator Responsiveness

Institutional- and Individual-Level Influences on Service Representation and Casework in Canadian Cities

Sex Differences in Constituent Engagement*

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About