See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publicati.docx

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication
at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259575567
Descriptive Representation: Understanding the Impact of
Identity on
Substantive Representation of Group Interests
Chapter · January 2011
CITATIONS
0
READS
324
1 author:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on
these related projects:
The Politics of Millennials: Political Beliefs and Policy
Preferences of America's Most Diverse Generation View project
Stella M. Rouse
University of Maryland, College Park
18 PUBLICATIONS 133 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Stella M.
Rouse on 06 January 2014.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259575567_Descriptiv
e_Representation_Understanding_the_Impact_of_Identity_on_S
ubstantive_Representation_of_Group_Interests?enrichId=rgreq-
385db4c502d438272621d264163561f7-
XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI1OTU3NTU2NztBUzo
xMDY0NzAyMzQzOTQ2MzRAMTQwMjM5NTg5MTQxNg%3
D%3D&el=1_x_2&_esc=publicationCoverPdf
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259575567_Descriptiv
e_Representation_Understanding_the_Impact_of_Identity_on_S
ubstantive_Representation_of_Group_Interests?enrichId=rgreq-
385db4c502d438272621d264163561f7-
https://www.researchgate.net/project/The-Politics-of-
Millennials-Political-Beliefs-and-Policy-Preferences-of-
Americas-Most-Diverse-Generation?enrichId=rgreq-
385db4c502d438272621d264163561f7-
https://www.researchgate.net/?enrichId=rgreq-
385db4c502d438272621d264163561f7-
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Stella_Rouse?enrichId=rgr
eq-385db4c502d438272621d264163561f7-

eq-385db4c502d438272621d264163561f7-
https://www.researchgate.net/institution/University_of_Marylan
d_College_Park?enrichId=rgreq-
385db4c502d438272621d264163561f7-
eq-385db4c502d438272621d264163561f7-
eq-385db4c502d438272621d264163561f7-
978–0–19–955994–7 11-Schickler-Lee-c11-drv Schickler-Lee
(Typeset by SPi, Chennai) 239 of 894 October 8, 2010 12:55
OUP UNCORRECTED PROOF – PROOF, 8/10/2010, SPi
P A R T I V
...............................................................................................
.................
REPRESENTATION

A N D
R E S P O N S I V E N E S S
...............................................................................................
.................
C H A P T E R 1 1
...............................................................................................
.................
D E S C R I P T I V E
R E P R E S E N TAT I O N :
U N D E R S TA N D I N G
T H E I M PAC T O F
I D E N T I T Y O N
S U B S TA N T I V E
R E P R E S E N TAT I O N
O F G RO U P
I N T E R E S T S

...............................................................................................
.................
M I C H E L E L . S W E R S
STELLA M. ROUSE
WHEN Barack Obama took the oath of office as the nation’s
first African American
president in January 2009, he faced a very different Congress
from that of the previous
Democratic president, who presided over a Democratic House
and Senate. Since Bill
Clinton was elected president in 1992, Congress has
experienced dramatic change
242 M I C H E L E L . S W E R S & S T E L L A M . RO U S E
in the demographic makeup of its membership. While Congress
remains a largely
white male institution, the creation of majority–minority
districts in the early 1990s
resulted in the election of more African Americans and
Hispanics to Congress. The
1992 election, dubbed the ‘Year of the Woman’ by the national
media, saw a dramatic
increase in the number of women, particularly Democratic
women in Congress, and
this number has risen steadily over the years. The expansion of
female and minority

representation still continues, at a slow pace. The electoral
advantage enjoyed by
incumbents hinders the advancement of new groups into the
institution. Moreover,
to date, few minority legislators have been elected from
districts that do not contain a
high percentage of minority constituents. In fact, almost all of
the minority legislators
represent majority–minority districts (Lublin 1997; Clayton
2000). Further, studies of
political ambition demonstrate that women who have careers in
professions that often
lead to public office are less likely to express an interest in
running for office than their
male counterparts. Additionally, women are more likely to need
the encouragement
of party leaders or other opinion leaders before they decide to
run for office (Lawless
and Fox 2005). Research also shows that, once women are in
office, they are more
likely to be influenced by the effect of ‘career ceilings’ (i.e.
prolonged service in House
without attaining leadership positions) as a determinant of
whether or not they will
seek reelection (Lawless and Theriault 2005). Literature on the
congressional careers
of minorities is quite sparse. Examining the career decisions of
African Americans in
the House of Representatives, Gerber (1996) finds that African
American legislators
are significantly less likely than other Democrats to voluntarily
exit from House
service. He asserts that the long careers of African American
representatives bode well
for their ability to attain political power in spite of their
disproportionate numbers in

Congress.
Although women and minorities remain underrepresented in
Congress, individual
legislators have achieved the seniority and political clout
necessary to move into
leadership positions. Thus Nancy Pelosi (D–CA) became
Speaker of the House in
the 110th Congress and James Clyburn an African American
from South Carolina
serves as Majority Whip. Several minority and female members
have risen to chair
influential committees in the 111th Congress, including Charles
Rangel (D–NY) on
Ways and Means and John Conyers (D–MI) on Judiciary.
Silvestre Reyes (D–TX) in
the House and Dianne Feinstein (D–CA) in the Senate lead the
Select Committees on
Intelligence.
The increasing presence and political power of women and
minorities in Congress
has led scholars to investigate whether the election of
descriptive (women and minori-
ties) representatives enhances the substantive representation of
group interests. In
this essay we examine the theoretical expectations about the
importance of descrip-
tive representation and we evaluate the empirical evidence
concerning the impact
of gender, race, and ethnicity on the behavior of legislators.
Finally, we identify
important avenues for future research as the level of diversity in
Congress continues
to grow and more women and minorities enter the ranks of
committee and party

leadership.
D E S C R I P T I V E R E P R E S E N TAT I O N 243
T H E O R I E S O F R E P R E S E N T A T I O N A N D T H
E
L I N K B E T W E E N D E S C R I P T I V E A N D
S U B S T A N T I V E R E P R E S E N T A T I O N
...............................................................................................
..............................................
When the founders debated the Constitution, the quality of
representation provided
by the Congress was a major subject of debate. Anti-Federalists
believed that Congress
should be a microcosm reflecting society, while Federalists
contended that groups
have intertwined interests and the need to stand for frequent re-
election would keep
members loyal to all elements of their constituency (Storing
1981; Rossiter 1961).
Today the debate continues as theorists weigh the importance of
group representation
against the negative consequences of dividing citizens based on
demographic charac-
teristics. The concern is that members of social groups are
essentialized as having a
specific set of shared interests and views that can only be

represented by members of
the group (Mansbridge 1999; Dovi 2002; Phillips 1991, 1995,
1998; Williams 1998).
In her classic work on representation, Pitkin (1967) makes a
distinction between
descriptive representatives, those who “stand for” a particular
group because they
share characteristics with the group such as race or gender, and
substantive repre-
sentatives, who “act for” a group by providing representation of
the group’s interests.
Contemporary theorists debate whether the election of more
descriptive represen-
tatives is a necessary or a sufficient condition for achieving the
substantive repre-
sentation of the interests of minority groups in society.
Additionally, other scholars
argue that descriptive representation may be neither strictly
necessary nor sufficient
for ensuring group representation, but it may still be beneficial,
and thus it provides
advantages that enhance the representation of group interests.
Theorists who advocate for the election of descriptive
representatives identify a
number of potential benefits. One set of arguments revolves
around the enhancement
of the connection between constituents and their representatives
and the consequent
increase in trust in government felt by underrepresented groups.
The other major
group of arguments in favor of descriptive representation
focuses on the improve-
ment of the quality of deliberation among legislators and on the
impact on policy

outputs (Mansbridge 1999; Dovi 2002; Williams 1998; Phillips
1991, 1995, 1998; Griffin
and Newman 2008).
With regard to the relationship between legislators and their
constituents, theorists
argue that, in cases where there is a history of discrimination
and mistrust, the
election of a descriptive representative will improve
communication between the
minority group and government. As a result, constituents will
feel more trust in their
representatives and this will enhance the legitimacy of the
government in the eyes of
members of the underrepresented group. Moreover, the
descriptive representatives
will serve as role models for members of the underrepresented
group, providing
symbolic representation for group members and furthering a
belief in their ability
to rule in the eyes of both the minority and the majority
(Phillips 1991, 1995, 1998;
Mansbridge 1999; Dovi 2002).
Within the legislature, political theorists assert that the election
of descriptive
representatives will have important effects on the nature and

quality of deliberation
among legislators and the substantive representation of group
interests in the con-
tent of policy outputs. On the basis of a history of shared
experiences, descriptive
representatives will bring new issues to the congressional
agenda and will provide a
different perspective on more established debates by delineating
how those issues will
differentially impact members of the underrepresented group.
Descriptive represen-
tatives will be more likely to achieve inclusion of group
interests in policy outcomes
because of the moral authority they wield as members of the
group and because of
the vigorous advocacy they will bring to issues on the basis of
their shared life experi-
ences. The ability to bring divergent qualities to the
representative arena increases the
chances that a legislative body will achieve normative
legitimacy (Mansbridge 1999;
Williams 1998; Phillips 1991, 1995, 1998; Dovi 2002).
Of course a consensus does not exist on the relative costs and
benefits of seeking
to enhance descriptive representation. For example, Mansbridge
(1999) argues that
the benefits of descriptive representation vary by context;
therefore, a descriptive
representative is appropriate only under certain circumstances—
specifically, when
the benefits exceed the costs of such representation. In
Mansbridge’s view, the greatest
cost of descriptive representation is that it reinforces tendencies
toward “essential-
ism.” This is the idea that members of a group have an

“essential identity,” shared only
by members of that group. According to Mansbridge, the danger
of “essentialism”
is the assumption that members of a group are monolithic in
their interests and
that only those interests matter to the group. The empirical
research on descriptive
representation seeks to identify the conditions under which
social identity influences
legislative behavior.
D E S C R I P T I V E R E P R E S E N T A T I O N A N D T H
E
C O N S T I T U E N T – R E P R E S E N T A T I V E L I N K
...............................................................................................
..............................................
The expansion of representation resulting from the creation of
majority–minority
districts and the steady increase in the election of women and
minorities since the
early 1990s has allowed scholars systematically to test
assertions about the potential
impact of descriptive representation. Interviews with members
of Congress demon-
strate that minority and female members of Congress view
racial minorities and
women as a distinctive segment of their constituency; they feel
a special responsi-
bility to represent women and minority constituents, and they
describe themselves as
surrogate representatives of group members living outside their
districts who do not
have the benefit of a female or minority representative that
understands their unique

concerns (Reingold 1992; Carroll 2002; Hawkesworth 2003;
Dodson, Carroll, et al.
1995; Dodson 2006; Swain 1993; Tate 2003). For example, in
his qualitative study of
black representatives, Fenno (2003) notes how Louis Stokes (D–
OH) was well aware
that his constituency encompassed much more than his district
when he was first
elected to Congress in 1968. Stokes commented on the
significance of his election,
which, along with that of two other newly elected African-
American representatives,
brought the total to nine black House members at that time:
The thrust of our elections was that many black people around
America, who had formerly
been unrepresented, now felt that the nine black members of the
House owed them the
obligation of also affording them representation in the House. It
was in this context that each
of the nine of us realized that in addition to representing our
individual districts, we had
to assume the onerous burden of acting as a congressmen-at-
large for unrepresented people
around America. (Fenno 2003, 62)

This idea of surrogate representation led to the creation of the
Congressional Black
Caucus, of which Louis Stokes was a founding member.
Scholars have emphasized the
significance of group consciousness as the catalyst for the unity
felt by members of
the African-American community and the expectations they
have of any descriptive
representative (Dawson 1994; Tate 2003).
While the impact of descriptive representation on the
motivations of legislators is
clear, there is a limited number of studies that focus on whether
the social identity
of the representative influences the political views of their
constituents. This line
of research has produced mixed results. For example, on the one
hand, Brunell,
Anderson, and Cremona (2008) find that the election of a
descriptive representa-
tive improves the attitudes of African Americans voters toward
their legislator. The
authors also note that these voters’ perceptions about the
pervasiveness of African
Americans in Congress enhance their opinion of Congress as an
institution. On the
other hand, scholars like Gay (2002) argue that the ability of
blacks to identify racially
with their representatives has little effect on how well they feel
they are represented.
Instead, blacks place more value on the policy preferences and
policy responsiveness
of their legislators. However, Gay does find that African
American constituents are
more likely to contact an African American representative,
which may indicate at least

a greater comfort level with a descriptive representative. Griffin
and Flavin (2007)
show that racial disparities exist at the level of the
accountability placed on members
of Congress; these disparities are based, in part, on differences
between whites’ and
blacks’ expectations of their representatives. The authors note
that African Americans
tend to be very loyal to descriptive representatives and that this
loyalty is a disincentive
to obtain information about the activities of their legislators or
to be objective about
their legislative behavior. With respect to ethnicity, Barreto
(2007) finds that the
presence of Latino candidates, regardless of their ideology or
party affiliation, leads to
greater Latino mobilization and participation. He shows that co-
ethnicity serves as a
strong heuristic for voter preferences, indicating that
descriptive representation (i.e.
the identity of the legislator) is important to Latinos.
With regard to women, there is currently very little empirical
evidence that the
political views of female constituents are dramatically affected
by having a female rep-
resentative. Burns, Schlozman, and Verba (2001) do find that
the number of women

candidates within a state and the presence of a female statewide
officeholder improve
feelings of political efficacy among women. Lawless (2004)
found that women who
were represented by women offered more positive evaluations
of their representatives
in Congress. However, these differences did not translate into
increased feelings
of political efficacy and trust in government, nor did they lead
to increased levels
of political interest or participation. Scholars should further
investigate the impact
that electing minorities and women may have on constituent
opinion and political
efficacy, particularly given the competitive presidential
campaigns of Hillary Clinton
and Barack Obama—as well as the presence of the first credible
Hispanic presidential
candidate, Bill Richardson—during the 2008 presidential
election.
Furthermore, we should not expect descriptive representation to
take the same
forms and utilize the same mechanisms for all minority groups.
Mansbridge (1999)
points out that the history of mistrust and impaired
communication between the
majority and the minority has been the most severe on the issue
of race. Mansbridge
argues that African-Americans must rely on descriptive
representation in order to
maximize the proportional numbers needed to accomplish
important legislative
goals such as deliberative synergy (i.e. the principle that more

deliberation leads
to better information), critical mass, dispersion of influence,
and obtaining a wide
range of policy views. The inability of blacks to benefit from
these legislative qualities
is reflected in the fact that the race gap (differences in public
opinion and voting
behavior between African-Americans and whites) is the largest
political gap in voting,
larger than electoral gaps based on class or gender (Kaufmann,
Petrocik, and Shaw
2008). Therefore, the importance of descriptive representation
for constituent opin-
ion regarding trust in government and political efficacy may be
most pronounced for
racial minorities.
D E S C R I P T I V E R E P R E S E N T A T I O N A N D
S U B S T A N T I V E R E P R E S E N T A T I O N O F G R
O U P
I N T E R E S T S
...............................................................................................
..............................................
The vast majority of research on the impact of descriptive
representation focuses
on the question of whether electing descriptive representatives
has a policy impact.
Do these legislators bring issues of concern to their group to the
policy agenda? Do
they make these issues a priority and act as more vigorous
advocates for the interests
of their group? Do descriptive representatives bring different
perspectives to policy
debates and seek to illuminate the way proposals will impact

their communities?
To address these questions, researchers must first define what
we mean by group
interests. Efforts to delineate the policy impact of women
generally examine a set
of women’s issues related to the ever changing relationship
between the public and
the private sphere (Sapiro 1981; Diamond and Hartsock 1981;
Gelb and Palley 1996;
Mansbridge 1999). Women’s issues have been broadly defined
as issues concerning
women, children, and families. Studies focus on feminist issues
such as the expansion
of women’s rights in the home, the workplace, and the political
realm. Women’s issues
have also been defined so as to include the social welfare
policies that underlie the
gender gap and are traditionally considered to be women’s
interests, such as education
and health care (Thomas 1994, 1997; Reingold 2000; Swers
2002; Dodson 2006).
Race scholars point to civil rights, poverty, crime, and
unemployment as issues
disproportionately important to African Americans Whitby

1989; Kinder and Winter
2001; Whitby and Krause 2001; Tate 2003; Minta 2009). Haynie
(2001) notes the
homogeneity of African-Americans (on the basis of shared
culture, history, and
values) in comparison to the state of other groups, as a
characteristic that facilitates
the identification of policy priorities for blacks.
Researchers note that Latinos are a much more heterogeneous
group than African-
Americans. This heterogeneity has made it difficult to find a
distinct set of policy
issues to transcend the many sub-groups that fit under the label
‘Latino’ (Bratton
2006). Beyond immigration and bilingual education, there is no
consensus on which
issues reflect Latino interests. Voter surveys demonstrate that
Latinos prioritize issues
such as education, crime, and health (Martinez-Ebers, Fraga, et
al. 2000). These
policies reflect ‘cross-cutting’ issues that are important to
multiple groups; they
are not disproportionately identified with Latinos in the way in
which civil rights
concerns have been identified with African-Americans. Indeed,
there is a significant
void in the literature on how Latino interests are defined and
measured. Future
research should focus on isolating the interests of Latino sub-
groups rather than
relying on an aggregate label. The difficulty of isolating an
agreed upon set of group
interests further highlights the danger of essentializing a group
as sharing interests
on a limited number of issues and with a common point of view.

However, from
an empirical standpoint, if policy differences exist, they are
most likely to emerge
on issues that are viewed as policies with a disproportionate
impact on the minority
group.
More recent work has begun to address the issue of relative
group representation.
Griffin and Newman (2008) examine the political influence of
different groups in
relation to one another. In particular, the authors emphasize the
importance of look-
ing at relative representation and equality, as it pertains to
disparities in government
response to majority, white interests, and minority group
(African-Americans and
Latinos) demands. Griffin and Newman find “considerable
inequality” of represen-
tation in American politics, noting that congressional votes and
the content of legis-
lation is largely more in line with the preferences of white
Americans. However, the
authors caution about the difficulty in grasping the meaning of
political inequality.
They argue that the assessment of political equality changes
depending on what
standards are applied, but that under certain circumstances
tion does improve the relative representation of minorities,
which leads to political
parity.

V O T I N G B E H A V I O R A N D R E P R E S E N T A T I
O N
O F M I N O R I T Y I N T E R E S T S
...............................................................................................
..............................................
Voting is the most frequent and public method by which
members of Congress are
forced to take a stand on policy that can be evaluated by voters
in the next election.
If descriptive representatives vote differently from members of
the same party with
similar constituency characteristics, this would be a clear
indicator that these legis-
lators have distinctive preferences and these preferences have
potential consequences
for policy outcomes.
The significance of voting behavior is especially pronounced in
the literature
on race and ethnicity. One major debate in the minority
representation literature
surrounds the effectiveness of majority–minority districts as an
institutional tool
to enhance the representation of minority interests. The
argument for the creation
and continued existence of minority–majority districts is that
they provide minority
groups with the best opportunity to achieve both descriptive and

substantive repre-
sentation (Davidson and Grofman 1994; Lublin 1997). However,
some scholars argue
that an unintended consequence of creating majority–minority
districts has been the
dilution of minorities in other districts for the purpose of
concentrating them in
smaller areas (Swain 1993; Cameron, Epstein, and O’Halloran
1996). Thus, packing
minorities into single districts creates whiter and more
conservative surrounding
districts and significantly hurts the electoral prospects of white
Democrats in those
districts (Overby and Cosgrove 1996). In this respect, it is
argued that majority–
minority districts often promote descriptive representation at
the expense of the
broader substantive representation of minorities.
The creation of majority–minority districts was seen as a
contributing factor to the
election of a Republican majority in 1994 (Cameron, Epstein,
and O’Halloran 1996).
Scholars like Overby and Cosgrove (1996) argue that majority–
minority districts have
been a “mixed blessing”—allowing for the election of more
black representatives,
but at the same time diminishing the responsiveness of white
representatives to
the interests of African-Americans in districts that had lost
black constituents. This
triggered a debate over whether the interests of racial minorities
were better served by
electing minority representatives and by expanding the ranks of
conservative, Repub-
lican representatives or by spreading the minority population

across more districts,
to elect more ideologically compatible white Democrats.
Cameron, Epstein, and
O’Halloran (1996) found that, in non-Southern states, majority–
minority districts do
not enhance the substantive representation of African-
Americans; rather, black voters
should be maximized by being distributed equally across
districts, in order for as
many Democrats as possible to be elected (i.e. giving up
possible gains in descriptive
representation in order to increase the substantive
representation of group interests).
Cameron Epstein, and O’Halloran (1996) note, however, that in
the South it makes
more sense to have ‘concentrated’ black districts, yet not to the
point of creating
majority–minority districts. They argue for the construction of
southern districts
that approximate 47 percent black voters, which would
maximize black substantive
representation while still providing a minority presence in other
districts. Overall,
the authors conclude that a tradeoff exists between the
descriptive and the substantive
representation of minorities and that these tradeoffs vary

depending on regional and
electoral context.
Other scholars contest the claim that the creation of majority–
minority districts
has led to a decrease in the substantive representation of
minority voters. Shotts
(2003) argues that, after racial redistricting in the South in the
1980s and 1990s, there
was an increase in the election of legislators whose policy
preferences were to the left
rather than to the right of the median House member. To Shotts,
this implies that the
creation of majority–minority districts actually promoted liberal
policy outcomes,
despite a decline in the number of Democrats elected to
Congress. However, Lublin
and Voss (2003) dispute Shotts’ findings; they contend that he
fails to account for
the sharp rightward shift of the House median member after the
1994 Republican
takeover of Congress. Lublin and Voss argue that this omission
leads to an incomplete
and unrealistic account of the effects of majority–minority
districts in southern states,
where many moderate Democratic legislators were replaced by
strong conservative
Republicans. This debate over the actual consequences of racial
redistricting calls for
further research that considers, among other things, changes in
party polarization
and multiple shifts in congressional power.
The creation of majority–minority districts and the use of other
institutional tools
designed to maximize opportunities to elect minorities have

raised questions about
the link between descriptive and substantive representation.
Some scholars are strong
proponents of emphasizing substantive representation over
tion, in part due to the “side effects” ’ of majority–minority
districts, as discussed
above. In a study of African-American representation in
Congress, Swain (1993) finds
that party and not race is the strongest indicator of support for
black interest legisla-
tion. Therefore, in similar manner to the arguments posited by
Cameron, Epstein,
and O’Halloran (1996), Swain states that the best way for
African-Americans to
maximize substantive representation is to promote the election
of more Democrats,
regardless of race, rather than to focus on the narrow goal of
increasing the number
of blacks in Congress. However, in an analysis of DW–
NOMINATE scores, McCarty,
Poole, and Rosenthal (1997) argue that African-American
legislators are different
from other Democratic legislators, as these representatives
anchor the liberal end of
the ideological spectrum.
Other scholarship examines how well minority interests are
represented by legis-
lators elected form large minority districts. Gay (2007)
compares the responsiveness
of legislators from majority-white districts and legislators from
majority–minority
districts in California and finds that constituency preferences
are just as likely to
influence the policy positions of the former as they influence

the policy choices
of the latter. Gay concludes that, despite the usual criticisms of
majority–minority
districts—lack of electoral competition and low voter turnout—
legislators from these
districts do not eschew their role as representatives. Hutchings,
McClerking, and
Charles (2004) examine how and when black constituency size
(i.e. district racial
composition) affects a legislator’s support for black interests. In
particular, they look
at the stability of support across varying districts and different
legislative policies.
They find that in the South, where there is more racial division,
constituency size
is a less consistent indicator of support for black policies among
white Democrats
(e.g. some legislators in the South with over 30 percent black
constituents did not
support legislation in the interest of blacks), while in the North
the size of the black
population reduces across-district variation in support for black
interests among
white Democrats. Among Republican legislators, the authors
note that an increase in
the size of a black constituency influences support for black

legislation in the North,
but not in the South.
To date, there are few studies that examine the legislative
behavior of Latinos in
Congress; the existing research has found an inconsistent link
between descriptive
and substantive representation. In one of the earliest studies on
Latino representation,
Welch and Hibbing (1984) looked at the effect of Latino
constituencies and Latino
representatives on roll-call voting. They found that Latino
representatives and non-
Latino representatives with a large Latino constituency
exhibited a more liberal voting
record than their non-Latino counterparts. Conversely, in a
separate study conducted
on the voting records of members of Congress, Hero and Tolbert
(1995) maintain that
there is no link between the descriptive and substantive
representation of Latinos,
despite an increase in the Latino population in the 1980s.
Instead, they assert that
Latinos receive ‘indirect’ substantive representation through the
policy agenda of the
Democratic Party. Similarly, Santos and Huerta (2001) discern
no ethnic influence
on representation. Rather, they note that constituency (large
Latino districts) and
ideology are the strongest indicators of substantive
representation of Latino interests.
By contrast, using the same data as Hero and Tolbert (1995),
Kerr and Miller (1997)
arrive at a different conclusion. These scholars find not only
that Latino House mem-
bers exhibit a distinct voting behavior from non-Latino

members, but that Latino
legislators do indeed provide direct substantive representation
to Latinos.
In a more recent piece on the representation of Latinos in
Congress, Rocca,
Sanchez, and Uscinski (2008) examine the effects of a
representative’s personal
attributes on how she votes. They maintain that specific
descriptive characteristics of
Latino representatives (e.g. education gender, generational
status, nativity) influence
voting behavior. The authors note that differences in descriptive
attributes among
Latinos help illustrate that Latino legislators are not a
monolithic group and that a
better understanding of the descriptive–substantive link must
recognize within-group
differences in representation. The work of Rocca et al. is one of
the first to recognize
the heterogeneity of Latino legislators and how this translates
into distinctions in
voting behavior and policy preferences. Future work should
continue on this path of
recognizing Latino sub-group differences.
Studies that seek to determine if women legislators are
generally more liberal than
male legislators have had varying results, depending on the time
period and the mea-
sure of ideology utilized (Leader 1977; Frankovic 1977; Dolan
1997; Swers 1998, 2002;
Schwindt-Bayer and Corbetta 2004; Frederick 2009, 2010).
However, research does
indicate that women vote more liberally on bills related to
women’s issues, particularly

abortion (Dolan 1997; Swers 1998; Norton 1999; Tatalovich and
Schier 1993; Frederick,
2010). The largest differences occur among Republicans,
because taking a position in
favor of reproductive rights involves going against the stance of
the majority of the
Republican Party. However, the dwindling of the ranks of
moderate Republicans in
recent years may eliminate the gender differences found in
voting on abortion and
other women’s issues. Indeed, in an analysis of DW–
NOMINATE scores over time,
Frederick (2009) finds that the scores of Republican women
have converged with the
rest of the Republican caucus over time and that since the mid-
2000s,Republican
women tare not distinctively more liberal than their male
Republican colleagues.
The inconsistent results of the research on descriptive
representation and vot-
ing behavior may partially stem from the fact that scholars rely
mainly on interest
group scores from groups such as the American Association of
University Women
(Dolan 1997; Swers 1998; Frederick 2010), the Leadership

Conference on Civil Rights
(Cameron, Epstein and O’Halloran 1996; Swain 1993; Canon
1999), AFL–CIO Com-
mittee on Political Education (Swain 1993; Lublin 1997), the
Southwest Voter Research
Institute (Hero and Tolbert 1995; Kerr and Miller 1997), and the
National Hispanic
Leadership Agenda (Santos and Huerta 2001). The overall
utility of interest group
scores has been criticized on several fronts. First, many of the
issues upon which
the scores are based are not necessarily exclusive to one
particular group (i.e. issues
affect multiple groups similarly) and, second, these scores (and,
more broadly, overall
roll-call votes) measure only a binary vote choice (yea or nay)
instead of a policy
preference. The latter reason has lead scholars to look beyond
the roll-call stage of the
legislative process in order to assess quality of representation.
B E Y O N D V O T I N G B E H A V I O R : E X P L O R I N
G T H E
L I N K B E T W E E N D E S C R I P T I V E A N D
S U B S T A N T I V E R E P R E S E N T A T I O N
T H R O U G H O U T T H E L E G I S L A T I V E P R O C E
S S
...............................................................................................
..............................................
While roll-call voting is the most visible and parsimonious
legislative activity, its
usefulness as an indicator of the impact of descriptive
representation is quite limited.
Since roll-call votes occur at the end of the process, when the

choices and policy
options are already defined, we cannot determine through vote
analyses if descriptive
representatives are bringing new issues and different
perspectives to the congres-
sional agenda. In other words, roll-call voting is not the only
way, or necessarily
the best way to assess legislative effectiveness or the quality of
representation. Since
a large part of the potential impact of descriptive representation
is to improve the
deliberative process among legislators, we need measures that
allow us to examine
more closely whether descriptive representatives are more likely
to prioritize issues
related to group interests and whether they act as vigorous
advocates for those issues
with their colleagues, thereby translating descriptive
representation into substantive
representation. A broader approach to how minorities and
women are substantively
represented must include a more comprehensive examination of
legislative activity.
Recent studies look beyond roll-call votes, to examine earlier
stages of the legisla-

tive process and gauge whether descriptive representatives have
a distinctive influence
on the definition of policy alternatives and on the debate over
policy outcomes.
Utilizing surveys of legislators’ priorities and analyses of bill
sponsorship, research
on state legislatures demonstrated that women and minorities
have distinctive policy
priorities and are more likely to act as advocates for group
interests (Haynie 2001;
Bratton and Haynie 1999; Saint-Germain 1989; Thomas 1994;
Dodson and Carroll
1991; Reingold 2000; Poggione 2004; Bratton 2006). State
legislative studies have the
advantage of being able to compare the influence of race,
ethnicity, and gender in
settings with different political cultures and institutional
dynamics and varying levels
of minority group representation. However, because of the
complexity of gathering
data across multiple state legislatures, these studies do not
focus as much as they
should on the impact of internal institutional norms, constituent
influences, and the
political opportunity structure.
At the congressional level, scholars have tried to determine
whether the impact
of race, ethnicity, and gender on legislators’ policy activity
persists after one has
accounted for the major partisan, institutional, and constituency
factors that influ-
ence legislative behavior. The evidence for a distinctive impact
is most apparent at the
agenda-setting stage. Agenda-setting provides legislators with a
broad opportunity

to define problems and establish policy alternatives (Kingdon
2005; Baumgartner
and Jones 1993). For minorities, in particular, agenda-setting
allows the representa-
tives to exert individual rather than aggregate influence through
their sponsorship
and cosponsorship behavior. Therefore agenda-setting is the
stage of the legislative
process at which the link between descriptive and substantive
representation may be
most pronounced (Bratton and Haynie 1999; Swers 2002).
The literature on African American legislators indicates strong
links between
descriptive and substantive representation at the agenda-setting
stage and in commit-
tee deliberations. Thus, Canon (1999) finds that, in particular,
black representatives
who are willing to embrace and promote multiracial interests
not only sponsor more
legislation, but achieve greater success throughout the
legislative process. Canon
points out that blacks being elected from white majority
districts will always be the
exception rather than the rule. He argues that the creation of
black majority districts
should be embraced because they produce representatives who
promote the common
interests of multiple groups (what he refers to as the “politics of
commonality”) rather
than the intended purpose of majority–minority districts,
namely to produce repre-
sentatives who would push for interests primarily important to
African-American
(what Canon terms as the “politics of difference”). Canon refers
to the election of

these black legislators—those willing to embrace a “politics of
commonality” that
breaks down race barriers—as one of the “unintended
consequences” of increases in
minority descriptive representation. Haynie (2001) also argues
that having black faces
in state legislatures is crucial to achieving substantive
representation of black interests.
Through an examination of five state legislatures, Haynie finds
that policies impor-
tant to African-Americans are more likely to be introduced and
deliberated upon
when black representatives are present. Haynie makes a strong
connection between
the race of a representative and the quality of representation
African Americans
receive (see also Bratton and Haynie 1999). At the committee
stage, Gamble (2007)
finds that African Americans in the House of Representatives
are more likely than
their white counterparts to participate actively in committee
activities when black
interest policies are being considered. Similarly, Minta (2009)
notes that both African-
American and Latino legislators are more likely to participate in
oversight committee

hearings dealing with minority interests such as enforcement of
fair housing and
other civil rights laws. Moreover, these minority legislators are
more likely to focus
their questions on minority interests.
In contrast to the literature on African-Americans, there are few
studies on Latino
legislative behavior beyond roll-call voting. Comparing the
sponsorship activity of
Latino and non-Latino state legislators, Bratton (2006) finds
that Latino legislators
are more likely than non-Latino ones to sponsor ‘Latino
interest’ measures. In a study
of Latinos in legislative leadership positions, Preuhs (2005)
notes that these legis-
lators use their leadership positions to block legislation that
may negatively impact
Latinos.
Studies of gender and representation have also highlighted the
distinctive policy
impact of female representatives. In a comprehensive study of
gender differences in
legislative activities including sponsorship, cosponsorship, and
committee and floor
behavior, Swers (2002) found that women were more likely to
prioritize feminist
and social welfare issues, even after accounting for members’
party affiliation, con-
stituency characteristics, and institutional position, including
committee assignment
and membership in the majority or minority party (see also
Dodson 2006; Dodson
et al. 1995; Norton 1995, 2002). Wolbrecht (2000, 2002) notes
that women in Congress

play a key role in bringing previously ignored women’s
concerns to the national
agenda. In her longitudinal study of policymaking on women’s
issues, Wolbrecht
found that women, particularly Democratic women, were the
most likely to identify
new issues related to women’s rights and to bring new policy
solutions to the agenda.
Recent work by Gerrity, Osborn, et al. (2007) and by
MacDonald and O’Brien
(Forthcoming) holds constituency factors constant by comparing
members who serve
the same district over time. The authors found strong evidence
for agenda-setting
effects, as women introduced more bills related to women’s
issues than men repre-
senting the same district. However, Gerrity, Osborn, et al.
(2007) found no differences
in the frequency of floor speeches that members gave on
women’s issues.
As women continue to increase their numbers in Congress, there
will be more
opportunities to conduct studies of differences in policy
priorities and behavior
among members who represented the same district in Congress.
However, the fact
that the vast majority of African American and Hispanic
representatives represent
majority–minority districts and are replaced with other minority
legislators after they
leave Congress makes this technique less useful for studying the
effect of descriptive

representation among racial minorities. The numerous studies of
policy differences
at various stages in the legislative process demonstrate that
within the boundaries
of what a constituency will accept legislators have significant
latitude to decide which
policies to champion, thus highlighting the importance of social
identity and personal
background as an influence on legislative behavior.
Descriptive representatives and vigorous advocacy
for group interests
Case study and interview-based research demonstrate that
minorities and women
do act as vigorous advocates for the interests of their group. For
example, in his
descriptive account of the representation provided by four black
legislators, Fenno
(2003) notes the intensity by which black members of Congress
advocate for the
interests of the black community, particularly interests related
to civil rights, poverty,
and criminal justice. Fenno credits the strength of group
consciousness within the
black community for providing such policy consensus.
Similarly, Fraga, Lopez, et al.
(2007) discover in personal interviews that Latino state
legislators also exhibit a com-

mitment to the larger Latino community by supporting the
policy priorities of other
Latino legislators. These priorities include immigration,
education, and healthcare.
Although Latinos are much more heterogeneous than blacks in
their policy interests
and do not share a strong sense of group consciousness, the
work of Fraga, Lopez, et
al. demonstrates that Latino legislators are, nonetheless, willing
to act collectively for
the benefit of the broader Latino community.
With regard to women, Dodson (2006) found that women
members were pivotal
in placing issues such as domestic violence and women’s health
on the congressional
agenda. Women lobbied their male colleagues to adopt these
issues as priorities and
played pivotal roles in the efforts to move bills through the
legislative process on these
issues such as the Violence Against Women Act, or legislation
designed to increase
women’s health research and to create an Office of Women’s
Health within the
National Institutes of Health. (See also Swers 2002.) Studies of
welfare reform indicate
that Republican and Democratic women were instrumental in
getting enhanced child
support enforcement and greater childcare subsidies included in
the final bill. Women
of color were uniformly opposed to what they perceived as the
punitive nature of the
welfare reform and worked together to offer alternative
legislation (Dodson 2006;
Swers 2002; Hawkesworth 2003; Norton 2002; Johnson, Duerst-
Lahti, and Norton

2007).
Analyses of floor debate indicate that women are more likely to
speak about
women’s concerns and issues and they are more likely to invoke
their authority as
women and mothers (Shogan 2001; Cramer Walsh 2002; Levy,
Tien, and Aved 2002).
Additionally, in a study of the evolution of discourse on the
frequently debated topic
of abortion, Levy, Tien, and Aved (2001) find that female
legislators have influenced
the substance and style of their male colleagues’ floor speeches.
Understanding the
ways in which women and minorities have influenced the
legislative behavior of
majority group legislators constitutes an important area for
future research.
The greater levels and the intensity of activity on group-related
concerns found
in the research on descriptive representatives reflects both the
policy preferences of
legislators and the nature of the political opportunity structure
in the legislative
arena. Representatives are aided in their ability to build a

legislative niche on these
issues because of their perceived moral authority as members of
the minority group.
Furthermore, in an age of competitive elections and constant
media attention, party
leaders rely on women and minorities to champion the party’s
message on these issues
with the public, in an effort to boost the party’s image, and, in
the case of both gender
and ethnicity, to capitalize on the potential gap in voting, in
which various groups of
women and Latinos are seen as potential swing voting blocs
(Swers 2002; Dodson
2006; Norton 2002; Alvarez and Garcia Bedolla 2003).
T H E I M P O R T A N C E O F I N S T I T U T I O N A L
A N D P A R T I S A N D Y N A M I C S
...............................................................................................
..............................................
Empirical research has established that minorities and women
do provide substantive
representation of group interests in Congress. However, the
impact of race and gender
is not uniform across policy issues and the importance of
identity as an influence
on behavior is dependent on the nature of the political
opportunity structure and
on the legislator’s position within the institutional context.
With regard to issues,
the strongest gender effects are found on feminist or women’s
rights issues rather
than on social welfare issues. The ability and willingness of
members to champion
specific issues vary with changes in the political context. For

example, Swers (2002)
finds that women were more likely to sponsor social welfare
bills when they were in
the majority party and had access to the legislative agenda.
However, there were no
gender differences in sponsorship behavior on social welfare
issues when women were
in the minority. Moreover, moderate Republican women found it
easier to champion
feminist causes when they were in the minority party and were
only expected to bring
along their contingent of votes. As members of the majority,
these Republican women
risked alienating important party activists and in turn incurring
the animosity of
the party leaders and caucus members whom they relied on to
advance other policy
objectives and their own position within the institution (Swers
2002; Dodson 2006).
The changes in the strategic calculations that legislators make
on the basis of the
nature of the political environment argue for a continued focus
on the influence of
political context and institutional dynamics on the likelihood
that descriptive repre-
sentatives will pursue preferences on the basis of group
membership. Among women,
future work needs to focus more on the position of women
within the Democratic
and Republican caucuses. Party and ideology are two of the
most important guides

to congressional behavior. At the individual level, Democratic
women are generally
the most likely to bring women’s issues to the legislative
agenda and to spend political
capital to pursue their inclusion in public policy (Swers 2002;
Dodson 2006). Research
demonstrates that moderate Republican women are actively
engaged in pursuing leg-
islation related to women’s interests. Moderate Republican
women drive differences
in voting behavior on women’s issues, as these women are
taking positions that go
against the majority in their party (Dolan 1997; Swers 1998,
2002; Dodson 2006).
In recent years, the ranks of moderate Republican women and
moderate Republi-
cans more generally have dwindled. Frederick (2010) notes a
convergence in the DW–
NOMINATE scores among Republican men and women as
moderate Republican
women from the Northeast have left Congress and are replaced
by conservative
women who hail from the South and the West, the current
strongholds of the Repub-
lican Party (Frederick 2010; Elder 2008). Future research must
examine whether and
how conservative women engage women’s issues. Do they
perceive themselves as
champions of women’s interests and engage with those causes,

for instance women’s
health, which can fit within their ideology? Do they deny the
existence of women’s
issues, or do they engage with and champion these issues from a
conservative or anti-
feminist point of view? (See Swers and Larson (2005) for an
analysis of Republican
women’s views on gender identity and women’s issues.)
Beyond party affiliation and ideology, institutional factors such
as seniority, com-
mittee position, and a member’s relationship with and place
within leadership all
impact the ability of descriptive representatives to pursue group
interests. Minorities
and women who were elected in the early 1990s are now
achieving enough seniority
to gain access to more prestigious committees, such as
Appropriations and Ways and
Means, and to lay claim to subcommittee chairmanships and
some full committee
chairs. These changes call for new analyses of the impact of
minorities and women
on the agendas of congressional committees. Do subcommittees
chaired by women
and minorities hold more hearings on issues related to group
interests? Do they
draft more legislation on these issues? When committees
include greater numbers of
women and minorities, do these legislators join together to
advocate for the inclusion
of group interests in committee legislation?
Finally, the majority of research on descriptive representation
focuses on the House
of Representatives. Indeed, the increased representation for

small states, which was
built into the design of the Senate by the founding fathers, also
inhibits the repre-
sentation of racial and ethnic minorities and of minority group
interests. Because
more racial and ethnic minorities reside in large states including
California, Texas,
Illinois, and Florida than in small states like Montana and North
and South Dakota,
these minority groups have fewer opportunities to elect a
descriptive representative,
and their ability to translate their numbers into policy influence
across senators is
reduced (Dahl 1956; Lee and Oppenheimer 1999). Furthermore,
Griffin (2006) found
that, over time, there is an increasingly negative relationship
between a state’s voting
weight in the Senate and the size of a state’s African American
and Latino populations.
Looking at representation of group interests, Griffin notes that
there is no difference
in the overall voting behavior of small and large state senators.
However, in an analysis
of LCCR (Leadership Conference on Civil Rights) voting
scores, Griffin finds that
senators who hail from states with greater voting weight in the

Senate are more
likely to oppose the policy positions of the LCCR. Thus the
policy interests of racial
minorities are clearly disadvantaged by the structure of the
Senate (Griffin 2006).
While minorities continue to lag in their representation in the
Senate, a similar
proportion of women serves in the House and in the Senate.
Further examination of
descriptive representation in the Senate can shed light on how
the influence of social
identity varies with the nature of the institution. Thus the
enhanced media profile
of senators and the protection of minority rights provide
senators with more oppor-
tunities to influence a range of policies in comparison to the
opportunities House
members, who are more constrained by such factors as the
jurisdiction of their com-
mittees and the higher frequency of re-election. Scholars should
examine whether the
increased policy freedom enjoyed by senators leads women and
minorities to act as
more aggressive advocates for group interests. Alternatively,
the need for senators to
have policy proposals on all issues may diminish the distinctive
importance of social
identity (Swers 2007, 2008, forthcoming).
C R I T I C A L M A S S A N D I N S T I T U T I O N A L
I N F L U E N C E O N D E S C R I P T I V E
R E P R E S E N T A T I O N
...............................................................................................
..............................................

The behavior of individuals within an institution is strongly
conditioned by the
makeup of its membership. Research in the disciplines of
sociology and psychology
reveals how institutions establish behavioral norms and how the
relationship between
the majority and minority groups influences individual actions.
This work is quite
relevant to the study of politics, in particular with respect to
questions about insti-
tutional norms and their impact on individual legislative
behavior. Furthermore, the
insights from sociology and psychology highlight the need to
examine the impact
of the relative proportions of minority and majority group
members. Do individual
legislators exhibit a greater willingness to act on behalf of the
substantive interests
of the group when they constitute a larger proportion of the
membership in the
legislature? How does the presence of more minority group
members influence the
behavior of majority group members?
Race, gender, and institutional norms
With regard to institutional norms, scholars note that
institutions reflect the pref-
erences and norms of the dominant group. Therefore the
standard operating

procedures and accepted practices within Congress are both
raced and gendered
(Acker 1992; Kenney 1996; Duerst-Lahti 2002; Hawkesworth
2003; Rosenthal 1998,
2005). The need to adapt to and negotiate these standards sets
up additional hur-
dles for gaining acceptance within the institution. Anecdotal
and interview-based
evidence from state legislative and congressional research
indicates that women and
minorities do report feeling that they have to work harder to
prove themselves.
Moreover, female and minority members are more likely to
perceive the existence of
these separate standards than are their majority group
colleagues (Hawkesworth 2003;
Thomas 1994; Kenney 1996). For example, Swers (2007) finds
that staffers for female
members felt that Democratic women senators had to work
harder than ideologically
similar male colleagues to prove themselves on defense issues
to voters; and they
believed they were taken less seriously by Pentagon officials.
Additionally, an analysis
of appearances on Sunday talk shows demonstrated that women
needed to achieve
leadership positions on defense-related committees and within
the party before they
were asked to talk about defense issues on these shows. By
contrast, credentials did
not play as significant a role in the appearances by male
senators. While male senators

who led important committees dominated the Sunday talk
shows, other male senators
who had not achieved leadership positions on foreign policy
were also invited to speak
on defense issues.
Hawkesworth (2003) finds that minority women serving in the
Democratic con-
trolled 103rd Congress and the Republican controlled 104th
Congress felt marginal-
ized by white male and female colleagues. Regardless of
legislative setting or level
of seniority, these minority women believed that their policy
proposals were more
likely to be ignored and their knowledge discounted by majority
group members
(see also Hedge, Button, and Spear 1996 and Smooth 2008 for
evidence at the state
level). Uncovering the gender and race-based norms within
Congress is a very difficult
task. Future research on the subject must be careful to account
for other potential
explanations, particularly ideology and partisanship. Moreover,
it is very difficult to
develop systematic measures of norms that will move us beyond
subjective anecdotal
and interview accounts.
Critical mass and legislative behavior
Understanding how the composition of the legislature as a
whole influences the
decision-making of individual legislators is another important
question. Do legis-
lators respond to chamber diversity when making decisions
about policy interests
and legislative agendas? Research at the state level has long

focused on the impact of
numbers, investigating whether the achievement of a “critical
mass” makes it more
likely that minorities and women will feel they can champion
group interests without
being stigmatized or marginalized (Thomas 1994; Kathlene
2005).
The majority of research that has focused on the “critical mass”
debate is confined
to the gender and politics literature. Thus, more work needs to
be done on the
impact of numbers on the behavior of ethnic and racial
minorities. The critical
mass research was based initially on the work of Rosabeth Moss
Kanter (1977), who
argued that token women in male dominated organizations
(women who make up
less than 15 percent of the organizational membership) feel
pressure to conform,
which is manifested in ways such as downplaying gender
differences and work-related
accomplishments. Kanter noted that minorities in these
organizational settings try to
obfuscate group differences, in an attempt to blend into the
majority culture. Applied

to the political setting, particularly legislative institutions,
critical mass scholars have
argued that it is necessary for women to achieve a certain
percentage within a chamber
(approaching 15 percent) in order to observe gender differences
in the legislative
priorities placed on issues important to women (Saint Germain
1989; Thomas 1991,
1994).
Early research on state legislatures found some evidence to
support the idea that,
as the proportion of women in the legislature rose, legislative
activity on women’s
issues increased; however, there were no clear threshold effects
(Saint Germain 1989;
Thomas 1991, 1994). At the congressional level, MacDonald
and O’Brien (Forthcom-
ing) examined sponsorship of feminist and social welfare bills
from 1973 to 2002.
They found that congresswomen sponsored more feminist and
social welfare bills
as the proportion of women in the House increased. However,
other recent research
contradicts critical mass theory by finding that women are more
inclined to advocate
for group interests when they are underrepresented in the
legislature (Bratton 2005;
Crowley 2004).
As a result of these contradictory findings, scholars have begun
to question the
usefulness of the critical mass concept (e.g. Bratton 2005;
Childs and Krook 2006b;
Beckwith 2007; Grey 2006). Researchers note that there are
important differences

between women as political actors and women in other
institutional settings, such
as corporations. Most importantly, women legislators must be
responsive not only
to colleagues but also to voters. To achieve re-election,
legislators must develop a
legislative niche and a record to promote to voters. If voters
perceive women as more
qualified to handle women’s issues, then female legislators will
be more active on these
issues (Huddy and Terkildsen 1993; Dolan 2004; Crowley
2004). Moreover, status as
a minority within a legislature may yield more of the media
spotlight necessary to
gain attention to one’s proposals. Furthermore, as women
become a greater presence
within a legislative chamber, they may influence the behavior of
men. If men become
more willing to champion women’s issues as the level of
diversity within the chamber
rises, then differences between the two groups will be
minimized, as women approach
a critical mass (Bratton 2005).
Finally, critical mass theory’s focus on numbers ignores the
importance of insti-
tutional position and the level of power a member wields within
the institution.
Thus scholars suggest that, instead of focusing on critical mass
or on the need for
women to achieve a particular proportion of membership, it is
important to exam-
ine how members maximize their policy effectiveness and
individual power within
institutions (Grey 2006; Dahlerup 2006). Childs and Krook
(2006b, 524 ) argue that

the critical mass debate must be reframed from focusing on
when women matter to
“how the substantive representation of women occurs.” They
also point out that the
diversity of women, as individuals rather than as a group, can
provide a significant
amount of legislative impact. Therefore, the focus should be on
“critical actors” rather
than on “critical mass,” in order to understand policy
effectiveness (Childs and Krook
2006b, 528).
C R I T I C A L M A S S A N D I N S T I T U T I O N A L P O
W E R
I N C O N G R E S S
...............................................................................................
..............................................
Taking into account the criticisms of critical mass theory and
the findings from state
legislative research, we argue for a renewed focus on how
numbers combine with
institutional position to affect the ability of descriptive
representatives to influence
policy. If numbers matter, when and how do they matter? It is

likely that individual
legislators look for a legislative niche to distinguish themselves
to voters. Therefore
the probability that any one woman or minority legislator will
make these issues a
part of their legislative agenda may be stronger when there are
fewer members of the
group in Congress. However, to achieve policy outcomes,
legislators need to be able
to form coalitions to convince other members to adopt their
priorities. Thus we need
to investigate whether and how women and minorities try to
utilize their numbers to
leverage their influence within Congress as a whole and within
their party caucus.
The political culture of the Democratic Party emphasizes the
importance of diver-
sity (Evans 2005; Sanbonmatsu 2002; Wolbrecht 2000; Peters
and Rosenthal, 2010;
Rosenthal 2008). All of the African American members of
Congress and the vast
majority of the Hispanic members are Democrats. Since the
1992 election, the growth
in the number of women in Congress is almost entirely driven
by the election of
more Democratic women. Thus at the opening of the 111th
Congress there were
fifty-six Democratic women and only seventeen Republican
women serving in the
House of Representatives. Similarly, only four of the seventeen
women serving in the
U.S. Senate are Republicans (Center for the American Woman
and Politics 2009).
The concentration of women and minorities within the
Democratic Party means

that these groups have their greatest influence on policy when
Democrats are in the
majority and they have very little access to the agenda when
Republicans are in the
majority.
Scholars need to examine whether and how women and
minorities leverage their
numbers within the Democratic caucus to gain influence over
the direction of policy.
For example, scholars like Whitby (1989), Canon (1999), and
Fenno (2003) demon-
strate that African American legislators have long utilized the
Congressional Black
Caucus to pressure Democratic party leadership to adopt their
legislative priorities,
expand group membership on key committees, and move more
African American
representatives into leadership positions on committees.
Gertzog (2004) notes that
because of the need to be bipartisan, the Congressional Caucus
for Women’s Issues
never developed the power of the Congressional Black Caucus.
However, women have
used the caucus to craft legislation and build coalitions of
support for individual

legislator’s bills.
Within the Democratic caucus, women have leveraged their
numbers to demand
a seat at the party leadership table and more influential
committee seats. Indeed,
when Nancy Pelosi (D–CA) was elected minority whip in the
107th Congress and
later rose to the positions of party leader and Speaker in the
110th Congress, the
Democratic women were an important part of her coalition
(Rosenthal 2008; Peters
and Rosenthal, 2010; Swers and Larson 2005). In contrast to the
situation of the
Democrats, the smaller proportion of women in the Republican
caucus, combined
with a party culture that is less responsive to demands for
increased diversity, limits
the ability of Republican women to enhance their individual
power or work together
to advance group interests (Evans 2005; Swers and Larson
2005; Rosenthal 2008).
L E A D E R S H I P D I F F E R E N C E S I N S U B S T A N
C E
A N D S T Y L E
...............................................................................................
..............................................
The movement of more women and minorities into positions of
leadership in the
parties and committees offers an opportunity to examine
differences in the sub-
stance and style of leadership. Studies of gender differences in
leadership style in

state legislatures note that female committee chairs were more
likely to emphasize
consensus building, compromise and open dialogue, while male
chairs exhibit more
hierarchical and competitive leadership styles (Kathlene 1994;
Rosenthal 1998, 2005).
While state legislatures vary in their level of professionalization
and competitiveness,
Congress is a highly competitive and professionalized setting.
Therefore the norms
of the institution and the set of skills necessary to gain election
to Congress limit
the likelihood that there will be significant differences in
leadership style among men
and women. However, gender, race, and ethnicity may affect the
substance of rep-
resentatives’ leadership and their presentation of self. Thus
scholars should examine
whether female and minority chairs are more likely to include
issues related to group
concerns on the committee agenda and to include the differing
perspectives of group
members in committee deliberations on the range of issues
under a committee’s
jurisdiction. For example, one could examine whether female
and minority chairs
schedule more hearings on group-related interests and whether
they are more likely to
seek testimony at hearings from interest group advocates of
minority group interests
such as women’s organizations and civil rights groups.
At the level of party leadership, the advancement of Nancy
Pelosi (D–CA) to
Speaker of the House invites investigation of how gender
impacts her leadership style.

Early analyses describe her management style as that of a fierce
partisan, in the mold
of Newt Gingrich, rather than that of a consensus builder
(Peters and Rosenthal,
2010; Rosenthal 2008). However, gender has influenced
Pelosi’s decision-making.
Women make up a key portion of her coalition of support and
several Democratic
women, particularly those from California, are among her
closest advisors. Pelosi
has taken more direct control of the committee appointment
process than previous
party leaders, and she has used her influence to place a premium
on diversity in the
committee assignment process, seeking representation for
minorities, women, and
conservative Democrats. In her public statements and her
presentation of self, Pelosi
emphasizes her interest in women and children. She constantly
refers to herself as
a mother and grandmother and asserts that these roles guide her
political decision-
making. The presentation of herself as a mother and
grandmother also limits the
ability of Republicans to paint her as a San Francisco liberal
(Peters and Rosenthal,

2010; Rosenthal 2008; Swers and Larson 2005).
D I V E R S I T Y A N D I N T E R S E C T I O N A L I T Y
...............................................................................................
..............................................
As minorities and women expand their numbers in Congress, the
diversity of back-
grounds, ideologies, and experiences within these groups
expands. Future research
needs to focus more on the diversity of opinion within and
among minority groups
rather than simply exploring similarities and differences across
groups. The majority
of research on racial minorities examines African American
legislators. We need to
focus more in our studies on the impact of Latino
representatives and on how they
respond to the interests of Latino sub-groups. Scholarship to
date has shown that
Latinos vary in their opinions on a number of issues on the
basis of their national
origin, generational status, level of acculturation, and feelings
of group consciousness
(Sanchez 2006; Branton 2007; Rocca, Sanchez, and Skinks
2008). Future research
into both the descriptive and substantive representation of
Latinos needs to take into
account variations in these characteristics.
We also need to investigate the impact of intersectionality to
understand how
race, gender, and ethnic identities influence the decision-
making of, and interactions
among, representatives. Do legislators experience conflict
between the goals and

values of their varying identities? How do these overlapping
identities affect repre-
sentatives’ policy priorities and relationships within the
institution? At the state level,
Bratton, Haynie, and Reingold (2007) examine the agenda-
setting behavior of African
American women in the lower chambers of ten state
legislatures. The authors find that
African American women respond both to their gender and to
their racial identities;
African American women sponsor more legislation in the
interest of women and of
blacks than other groups do. The authors also note an
interesting ‘ “critical mass” ’
effect whereby African American women are less likely to
sponsor women’s interest
bills in chambers that have a high proportion of women (see
also Barrett 1995). Orey,
Smooth, et al. (2007), examining the one state legislature with
the highest proportion
of black representative (Mississippi), find that African
American women are more
likely than any other group to introduce progressive legislation,
including women’s
interest bills. Contrary to expectations, they also note that
legislation introduced by

African American women is no less likely to be defeated than
legislation passed by
white males.
Fraga, Lopez, et al. (2007) look at the increasing role of Latina
women in state
legislatures. Using elite level interviews, the authors look at
differences in policy
priorities, legislative behavior, and policy success between
Latinas and Latino men.
They conclude that, although there are a number of
representational similarities,
several differences between the two groups emerged. Latinas
place a greater emphasis
than Latino males on representing the interests of multiple
minority groups. As in
the findings of the gender and race literature, Latinas are more
likely than their
male counterparts to introduce and successfully pass legislation
dealing with a broad
Latino agenda.
At the congressional level, Hawkesworth (2003) finds that
African American and
Hispanic Democratic women were united in their opposition to
welfare reform and
used their floor time to speak against the stereotyping of
welfare mothers as irrespon-
sible, poor minority women. By contrast, minority men and
white women in the
Democratic Party split their votes on the welfare reform bill.
Thus minority women
felt a responsibility to advocate for the interests of poor
minority women. (See also
Garcia Bedolla, Tate, and Wong 2005.) Similarly, Dodson
(2006) finds that, when

Bill Clinton became president in 1992, abortion rights
supporters hoped to achieve
legislative victories after twelve years of Republican control of
the presidency. She
notes that white women focused their attention on the Freedom
of Choice Act, a bill
that would codify the right to abortion granted by Roe vWade.
By contrast, minority
women were more committed to overturning the Hyde
amendment, which prevents
federal Medicaid dollars from being used to fund abortions.
These minority women
placed a priority on facilitating access to abortion services for
their poor constituents
rather than on codifying the abstract right (Dodson 2006;
Dodson, Carroll et al. 1995).
More work needs to be done on how the overlapping identities
of race, gender, and/or
ethnicity influence members’ policy priorities and the type of
coalitions they build to
support their initiatives at the congressional level.
M O V I N G B E Y O N D R A C E A N D G E N D E R I S S
U E S
...............................................................................................
..............................................
The impact of descriptive representation on women’s issues and
civil rights con-
cerns has been clearly established. Scholars need to focus more
on the question
of whether women and minorities bring a different perspective
to issues outside
of what is traditionally considered gender and race issues.
Future research should

look at deliberation within committees to examine whether
women and minorities
advocate for the interests of their group by addressing how a
range of policies will
differentially impact the group. For example, in an analysis of
senators’ legislative
proposals on defense issues, Swers (2007, 2008) finds that
women are more likely
than their male partisan colleagues to focus on defense policies
related to benefits for
military personnel and veterans, such as health and education.
These policies reflect
the social welfare concerns that are traditionally associated with
women. Moreover,
women are also more likely to prioritize issues related to the
needs of women who
are serving in the military, from participation of women in
combat to shining a
spotlight on the incidence of sexual assault within the military
(Swers, forthcoming).
Additionally, Gamble (2007) shows that African American on
legislative commit-
tees are more engaged and involved in the deliberative process
when issues such as
discrimination and crime are considered. Further examination of
deliberation in
committees and on the floor could highlight how the different

perspective derived
from shared experiences as a female and/or as member of a
racial or ethnic minority
permeates legislative debates among members and impacts
policy outcomes.
C O N C L U S I O N
...............................................................................................
..............................................
The integration of women and minorities into Congress and the
state legislatures has
spurred a plethora of research on the substantive and symbolic
impact of electing
descriptive representatives. While controversy persists over the
need for and legit-
imacy of descriptive representation, the existing research does
provide important
insight into the influence of identity on legislative behavior.
Research on gender
and race (primarily on African Americans) indicates that the
social identity of the
legislator influences policy preferences and decision-making
about what policy pri-
orities to pursue and how much political capital to expend on
these initiatives.
Descriptive representatives have a particularly important impact
at the agenda-setting
stage, bringing new problems and policy solutions to the
legislative arena. Moreover,
descriptive representatives act as vigorous advocates for group
interests, expending
scarce resources of time, staff, and political capital in pursuit of
group goals.
Having established that social identity does shape legislative

behavior, scholars are
now trying to delineate the circumstances in which gender, race,
and ethnicity are
most likely to influence representatives’ decision-making.
Future research will con-
tinue to examine how identity interacts with institutional norms,
electoral incentives,
and the political opportunity structure to influence members’
policy choices and
legislative activities. As women and racial and ethnic minorities
continue to gain
seniority in Congress and enter the party leadership structure,
scholars will be able
to examine more closely how identity impacts leadership style
and whether these
members leverage their leadership positions to advance group
interests.
As the integration of women and minorities into Congress
continues, the number
of, and diversity among, minority group legislators will
continue to grow. It is esti-
mated that, by 2050, Latinos, already the largest minority group
in the U.S., will triple
in size and account for the majority of the country’s population
growth. By 2050,
Latinos will make up 29 percent of the U.S. population, a 15

percent increase from
2005. In comparison, non-Hispanic whites, who currently
account for 67 percent of
the population will make up only 47 percent; while Asian
Americans will increase
from 5 percent to 9 percent, and African American will remain
roughly the same at
about 13 percent (Pew Research Center 2008). The changing
dynamics of the U.S.
population will provide more opportunities to test theories
about the impact of
descriptive representation on the substantive representation of
group interests. Fur-
thermore, as more women and minorities are elected, there will
be greater ideological,
partisan, and regional diversity within minority groups and
more opportunities to
investigate the influence of overlapping identities of race,
ethnicity, and gender on
legislative behavior.
R E F E R E N C E S
ACKER, J. 1992. Gendered Institution: From Sex Roles to
Gendered Institutions. Contemporary
Sociology, 21: 565–9.
ALVAREZ, M., and GARCIA BEDOLLA, L. 2003. The
Foundations of Latino Voter Partisanship:
Evidence from the 2000 Election. Journal of Politics, 65: 31–49.
BARRETO, M. A. 2007. Si se puede! Latino Candidates and the
Mobilization of Latino Voters.
American Political Science Review, 101: 425–41.
BARRETT, E. 1995. The Policy Priorities of African American

Women in State Legislatures.
Legislative Studies Quarterly, 20: 223–47.
BAUMGARTNER, F. R., and JONES, B. D. 1993. Agendas and
Instability in American Politics.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
BECKWITH, K. 2007. Numbers and Newness: The Descriptive
and Substantive Representation
of Women. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 40: 27–49.
BRANTON, R. 2007. Latino Attitudes Toward Various Areas of
Public Policy: The Importance of
Acculturation. Political Research Quarterly, 60: 293–303.
BRATTON, K. A. 2002. The Effect of Legislative Diversity on
Agenda Setting: Evidence from Six
State Legislatures. American Politics Research, 30: 115–42.
. 2005. Critical Mass Theory Revisited: The Behavior and
Success of Token Women in
State Legislatures. Politics and Gender, 1: 97–125.
. 2006. The Behavior and Success of Latino Legislators:
Evidence from the States. Social
Science Quarterly, 87: 1136–57.
, and HAYNIE, K. L. 1999. Agenda-Setting and Legislative
Success in State Legislatures:
The Effects of Gender and Race. Journal of Politics, 61: 658–
79.
, , and REINGOLD, B. 2007. Agenda Setting and African
American Women in State
Legislatures. Journal of Women, Politics, and Policy, 28: 71–
96.

BRUNELL, T. L., ANDERSON, C. J., and CREMONA, R. K.
2008. Descriptive Representation,
District Demography, and Attitudes toward Congress Among
African Americans. Legislative
Studies Quarterly, 33: 223–44.
BURNS, N., LEHMAN SCHLOZMAN, K., and VERBA, S.
2001. The Private Roots of Public Action:
Gender, Equality, and Political Participation. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
CAMERON, C., EPSTEIN, D., and O’HALLORAN, S. 1996. Do
Majority–Minority Districts Maxi-
mize Substantive Black Representation in Congress? The
American Political Science Review,
90: 794–812.
CANON, D. T. 1999. Race, Redistricting and Representation:
The Unintended Consequences of
Black Majority Districts. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
CARROLL, S. 2002. Representing Women: Congresswomen’s
Perception of Their Representa-
tional Roles. Pp. 50–68 in Women Transforming Congress, ed.
C. S. Rosenthal. Norman:
University of Oklahoma Press.

CENTER FOR THE AMERICAN WOMAN AND POLITICS.
2009. Fact Sheet: Women in the U.S.
Congress 2009. New Brunswick: Center for American Women
and Politics, Rutgers, The
State University of New Jersey.
CHILDS, S., and KROOK, M. L. 2006a. Gender and Politics:
The State of the Art. Politics &
Gender, 26: 18–28.
, and . 2006b. Should Feminists Give Up on Critical Mass? A
Contingent Yes.
Politics & Gender, 2: 522–30.
CLAYTON, D. M. 2000. African Americans and the Politics of
Congressional Redistricting. New
York: Garland Publishing.
CRAMER WALSH, K. 2002. Resonating to Be Heard: Gendered
Debate on the Floor of the
House. Pp. 00–00 in Women Transforming Congress, ed. C. S.
Rosenthal. Norman: University
of Oklahoma Press.
CROWLEY, J. E. 2004. When Tokens Matter. Legislative
DAHL, R. 1956. A Preface to Democratic Theory. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
DAHLERUP, D. 2006. The Story of the Theory of Critical
Mass. Politics and Gender, 2: 511–22.
DAVIDSON, C, and GROFMAN, B., eds. 1994. Quiet
Revolution in the South: The Impact of the
Voting Rights Act 1965–1990. Princeton: Princeton University
Press.

DAWSON, M. 1994. Behind the Mule: Race and Class in
African American Voting. Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
DIAMOND, I., and HARTSOCK, N. 1981. Beyond Interests in
Politics: A Comment on Vir-
ginia Sapiro’s “When are Interests Interesting? The Problem of
Political Representation of
Women.” American Political Science Review, 75: 717–21.
DODSON, D. L. 2006. The Impact of Women in Congress. New
York: Oxford University Press.
, and CARROLL, S. 1991. Reshaping the Agenda: Women in
State Legislatures. New
Brunswick: Center for the American Woman and Politics,
Rutgers, The State University
of New Jersey.
, CARROLL, S. J., MANDEL, R. B., KLEEMAN, K. E.,
SCHREIBER, R., and LIEBOWITZ, D. 1995.
Voices, Views, Votes: The Impact of Women in the 103rd
Congress. New Brunswick: Center for
the American Woman and Politics, Rutgers, The State
University of New Jersey.
DOLAN, J. 1997. Support for Women’s Interests in the 103rd
Congress: The Distinct Impact of
Congressional Women. Women & Politics, 18: 81–94.
DOLAN, K. 2004. Voting for Women: How the Public Evaluates
Women Candidates. Boulder, CO:
Westview Press.
DOVI, S. 2002. Preferable Descriptive Representatives: Or Will

Just Any Women, Black, or
Latino Do? American Political Science Review, 96: 745–54.
DUERST-LAHTI, G. 2002. Knowing Congress as a Gendered
Institution: Manliness and the
Implications of Women in Congress. Pp. 20–49 in Women
Transforming Congress, ed.
C. S. Rosenthal. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press.
ELDER, L. 2008. Whither Republican Women: The Growing
Partisan Gap among Women in
Congress. The Forum, 6: Issue 1, Article 13.
EVANS, J. J. 2005. Women, Partisanship, and the Congress.
New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
FENNO, R. F. 2003. Going Home: Black Representatives and
Their Constituents. Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press.
FOX, R. L., and LAWLESS, J. L. 2005. To Run or Not to Run
for Office: Explaining Nascent
Political Ambition. American Journal of Political Science, 49:
642–59.
FRAGA, L. R., LOPEZ, L., MARTINEZ-EBERS, V., and
RAMIREZ, R. 2007. Gender and Ethnicity:

Patterns of Electoral Success and Legislative Advocacy among
Latina and Latino State
Officials in Four States. Journal of Women, Politics, and Policy,
28: 121–45.
FRANKOVIC, K. A. 1977. Sex and Voting in the U.S. House of
Representatives 1961 1975. American
Politics Quarterly, 5: 315–30.
FREDERICK, B. 2009. Are Female House Members still more
Liberal in a Polarized Era? The
Conditional Nature of the Relationship between Descriptive and
Substantive Representa-
tion. Congress and the Presidency, 36: 181–202.
. 2010. Gender and Patterns of Roll Call Voting in the U.S.
Senate. Congress and the
Presidency, 37: 103–24.
GAMBLE, K L. 2007. Black Political Representation: An
Examination of Legislative Activity
within U.S. House Committees. Legislative Studies Quarterly,
32: 421–46.
GARCIA BEDOLLA, L., TATE, K., and WONG, J. 2005.
Indelible Effects: The Impact of Women
if Color in the U.S. Congress. Pp. 152–75 in Women and
Elective Office: Past, Present, and
Future, 2nd edition., ed. S. Thomas and C. Wilcox. New York:
Oxford University Press.
GAY, C. 2002. Spirals of Trust? The Effect of Descriptive
Representation on the Relationship
Between Citizens and Their Government. American Journal of
Political Science, 46: 717–33.

. 2007. Legislating Without Constraints: The Effect of Minority
Districting on Legislators’
Responsiveness to Constituency Preferences. Journal of
Politics, 69: 442–56.
GELB, J., and LIEF PALLEY, M. 1996. Women and Public
Policies: Reassessing Gender Politics.
Charlotsville, VA: University Press of Virginia.
GERBER, A. 1996. African Americans’ Congressional Careers
and the Democratic House Dele-
gation.Journal of Politics, 58: 831–45.
GERRITY, J. C., OSBORN, T., and MOREHOUSE MENDEZ, J.
2007. Women and Representation: A
Different View of the District. Politics & Gender, 3: 179–200.
GERTZOG, I. N. 2004. Women and Power on Capitol Hill:
Reconstructing the Congressional
Women’s Caucus. Boulder: Lynn Rienner.
GREY, S. 2006. Numbers and Beyond: The Relevance of
Critical Mass in Gender Research.
Politics & Gender, 2: 492–502.
GRIFFIN, J. D. 2006. Senate Apportionment as a Source of
Political Inequality. Legislative
, and FLAVIN, P. 2007. Racial Differences in Information,
Expectations, and Accountabil-
ity. Journal of Politics, 69: 220–36.
, and NEWMAN, B. 2008. Minority Report: Evaluating Political
Equality in America.
Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

HAWKESWORTH, M. 2003. Congressional Enactments of
Race–Gender: Toward a Theory of
Raced–Gendered Institutions. American Political Science
Review, 97: 529–50.
HAYNIE, K. L. 2001. African American Legislators in the
American States. New York: Columbia
University Press.
HEDGE, D., BUTTON, J., and SPEAR, M. 1996. Accounting
for the Quality of Black Legislative
Life: The View From the States. American Journal of Political
Science, 40: 82–98.
HERO, R. E., and TOLBERT, C. 1995. Latinos and Substantive
Representation in the U.S. House
of Representatives: Direct, Indirect, or Nonexistent? American
Journal of Political Science, 39:
640–52.
HUDDY, L., and TERKILDSEN, N. 1993. The Consequences of
Gender Stereotypes for Women
Candidates at Different Levels and Types of Office. Political
Research Quarterly, 46: 503–25.
HUTCHINGS, V. L., MCCLERKING, H. K., and CHARLES, G.

U. 2004. Congressional Represen-
tation of Black Interests: Recognizing the Importance of
Stability. Journal of Politics, 66:
450–68.
JOHNSON, C. M., DUERST-LAHTI, G., and NORTON, N. H.
2007. Creating Gender: The Sexual
Politics of Welfare Policy. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.
KANTER, R. M. 1977. Some Effects of Proportions on Group
Life: Skewed Sex Ratios and
Responses to Token Women. American Journal of Sociology,
82: 965–90.
KATHLENE, L. 1994. Power and Influence of State Legislative
Policymaking: The Interaction of
Gender and Position in Committee Hearing Debates. American
Political Science Review, 88:
560–76.
. 2005. In a Different Voice: Women and the Policy Process. Pp.
213–29 in Women and
Elective Office: Past, Present, and Future, ed. S. Thomas and C.
Wilcox. New York: Oxford
University Press.
KAUFMANN, K. M., PETROCIK, J. R., and SHAW, D. R.
2008. Unconventional Wisdom: Facts and
Myths About American Voters. New York: Oxford University
Press.
KENNEY, S. J. 1996. New Research on Gendered Political
Institutions. Political Research Quar-
terly, 49: 445–66.
KERR, B., and MILLER, W. 1997. Latino Representation, It’s

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publicati.docx

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publicati.docx

Recommandé

Recommandé

Contenu connexe

Plus de jeffreye3

Plus de jeffreye3 (20)

Dernier

Dernier (20)

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publicati.docx