Stop, Collaborate, and Listen: Women's Collaboration in US State Legislatures

Abstract

Collaboration plays a key role in crafting good public policy. We use a novel data set of over 140,000 pieces of legislation considered in US state legislatures in 2015 to examine the factors associated with women's collaboration with each other. We articulate a theory that women's collaboration arises from opportunity structures, dictated by an interaction of individual and institutional characteristics. Examining the effect of a combination of characteristics, we find support for an interactive view of institutions, where women's caucuses accelerate collaboration in Democratic‐controlled bodies and as the share of women increases. Collaboration between women also continues in the face of increased polarization in the presence of a caucus, but not absent one. Our findings speak to the long‐term consequences of electing women to political office, the importance of institutions and organizations in shaping legislative behavior, and the institutionalization of gender in politics.

The Cosponsorship Patterns of Reserved Seat Legislators

“…I also show that they not only cooperate with each other but also approach non‐RS legislators frequently. These empirical patterns support the theory of institutionally disadvantaged legislators (Barnes 2016; Holman and Mahoney 2018; Wilson and Young 1997) rather than the theory of electoral incentives.…”

“…Regardless, there are at least four alternative arguments that could explain why RS legislators are more actively involved in bill cosponsorship that require some consideration. First, the above results might simply depict the effect of being a woman; hence they are not different from the findings of Barnes (2016) and Holman and Mahoney (2018). However, this is not the case because the disaggregate results of models 2 and 4 clearly suggest that the coefficient on RS religious minority legislators, 90% of whom are male, also points to a positive and statistically reliable effect.…”

“…If legislators have strong power and resources, perhaps because they lead the governing party or hold important committee positions, they have multiple channels to influence the legislative process without making their own bills. By contrast, their lack of formal and informal power necessitates that institutionally weak legislators—such as women, racial or ethnic minorities, and members of minority parties—rely on collaboration and bill initiation (Barnes 2016; Campbell 1982; Holman and Mahoney 2018; but see Rocca and Sanchez 2008). 3…”

Gender, legislative experience, and party affiliation: Examining the relationship between state legislator attributes and funding for higher education

“…Research has demonstrated that such policy prioritization leads women legislators to more often serve on committees relevant to women's policy concerns, as well as introduce, vote for, and steer legislation addressing such issues (Bratton & Haynie, 1999;Dodson, 2006;Frederick, 2010;MacDonald & O'Brien, 2011;Osborn, 2012;Saint-Germain, 1989;Swers, 2001;Thomas, 1991). Furthermore, research has shown that their common experiences foster a shared group identity that prompts collaboration among women policymakers to sponsor and achieve legislation pertaining to women's policy concerns (Bratton & Rouse, 2011;Dittmar et al, 2017;Gross & Shalizi, 2008;Holman & Mahoney, 2018;Swers, 2005).…”

“…On the other hand, several studies have failed to uncover evidence of a critical mass threshold (Bratton, 2002;Bratton, 2005;Reingold, 2000;Weldon, 2006), with some finding that the context in which they make their decisions and within-group differences among women are more important in conditioning and explaining women policymakers' effects on policy outputs than sheer numbers (Holman & Mahoney, 2018;Osborn & Kreitzer, 2014;Poggione, 2004b;Reingold & Smith, 2012). These findings have led some scholars to question the idea of critical mass, with many critics attributing the theory's shortcomings to its treatment of women as monolithic actors and consequent failure to account for how intergroup differences, as well as varying political and institutional factors, may lead to women to develop different policy preferences or solutions regarding women's policy concerns (Beckwith & Cowell-Meyers, 2007;Bratton, 2005;Cammisa & Reingold, 2004;Childs & Krook, 2006;Mansbridge, 1999;Osborn, 2014).…”