Advertisement

British Politics

, Volume 9, Issue 4, pp 430–449 | Cite as

The representation of women in politics, addressing the supply side: Public attitudes to job-sharing parliamentarians

  • Rosie Campbell
  • Philip Cowley
Original Article

Abstract

There is a substantial academic literature addressing the representation of women in British politics. The majority of recent work focuses on issues of demand (such as gender quotas) and issues affecting the supply of women candidates have been largely overlooked. However, more recently the use of job shares for MPs has been proposed as a possible solution to supply-side problems. This article tests what the British electorate’s reaction to such arrangements might be. It finds no great support for the introduction of job-sharing candidates but nor does it detect overwhelming opposition. Explaining the case for job sharing increases its support slightly but no argument has especially strong impact. The counterarguments have some impact but are also not very strong. When the various pro- and anti-arguments are made together, they appear largely to cancel each other out. Opposition is greatest among men, Conservative or UKIP voters, and those over 60. Support is greatest among women, Labour or Liberal Democrat voters, and younger respondents, especially those of an age most likely to be taking advantage of job shares themselves. When confronted with job-sharing candidates most of the public appear to make judgements on the basis of the candidates offered, rather than automatically rejecting job-share set-ups out of hand.

Keywords

gender representation women participation job-share MPs candidates 

References

  1. Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service (ACAS) (2004) Flexible working and work-life balance, ACAS, http://www.acas.org.uk/media/pdf/a/o/B20_1.pdf, accessed 18 August 2014.
  2. Bartels, L. (2002) The impact of candidate traits in American presidential elections. In: A. King (eds.) Leaders’ Personalities and the Outcomes of Democratic Elections. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Berrington, H. (1973) Backbench Opinion in the House of Commons 1945–55. Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
  4. Campbell, R., Childs, S. and Lovenduski, J. (2010) Do women need women MPs. British Journal of Political Science 40 (1): 171–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Campbell, R. and Cowley, P. (2013) What voters want: Reactions to candidate characteristics in a survey experiment. Political Studies, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-9248.12048/abstract.
  6. Celis, K., Childs, S., Krook, M. and Kantola, J. (2008) Rethinking women’s substantive representation. Representation 44 (2): 99–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Childs, S. (2008) Women and British Party Politics: Descriptive, Substantive and Symbolic Representation. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  8. Childs, S. and Lovenduski, J. (2013) Political representation. In: G. Waylen, K. Celis, J. Kantola and L. Weldon (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Gender and Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Cowley, P. (2013) Why not ask the audience? Understanding the public’s representational priorities. British Politics 8 (2): 138–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dahlerup, D. (2006) What are the effects of electoral gender quotas? Fukuoka, Japan: International Political Science Association.Google Scholar
  11. Evans, E. (2009) Women’s representation and the liberal democrats. Goldsmiths. PhD thesis, London: University of London, p. 293.Google Scholar
  12. Graham, G. (2013) MPs should job-share to bring more women into politics, women’s minister says, The Telegraph 19 February, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10923026/MPs-should-job-share-to-bring-more-women-into-politics-womens-minister-says.html.
  13. Grimmer, J. (2013) Appropriators not position takers: The distorting effects of electoral incentives on congressional representation. American Journal of Political Science 57 (3): 624–642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hainmueller, J., Hopkins, D.J. and Yamamoto, T. (2014) Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multi-dimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis 22 (1): 1–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Harman, H. and Mattinson, D. (2000) Winning for Women. Fabian Society.Google Scholar
  16. House of Commons (2010) Speaker’s Conference (on Parliamentary Representation), Final Report. London: House of Commons, HC 239-1.Google Scholar
  17. Inglehart, R. and Norris, P. (2003) Rising Tide: Gender Equality and Cultural Change Around the World. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Johns, R. and Shephard, M. (2008) Candidate image and electoral preference in Britain. British Politics 3 (3): 324–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Larimer, C.W. and Hannagan, R.J. (2010) Gender differences in follower behavior: An experimental study of reactions to ambitious decision makers. Politics and the Life Sciences 29 (2): 40–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lovenduski, J. (2005) Feminizing Politics. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  21. Lovenduski, J. and Norris, P. (2003) Westminster women: The politics of presence. Political Studies 51 (1): 84–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Martin, D. (2013) Let MPs have job-shares to bring more women into politics, say Lib Dems, Daily Mail 20 February, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2281464/Let-MPs-job-shares-bring-women-politics-say-Lib-Dems.html#ixzz36shQX5Eb.
  23. McDermot, M. (1998) Race and gender cues in low-information elections. Political Research Quarterly 51 (4): 895–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller, A., Wattenberg, M. and Malanchuk, O. (1966) Schematic assessments of presidential candidates. American Political Science Review 80 (2): 521–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Miller, W. and Shanks, M.J. (1996) The New American Voter. Cambridge, UK: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Norris, P. and Lovenduski, J. (1995) Political Recruitment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Peterson, D. (2005) Heterogeneity and certainty in candidate evaluations. Political Behavior 27 (1): 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rosenberg, S. and McCafferty, P. (1987) The image and the vote manipulating voters preferences. The Public Opinion Quarterly 51 (1): 31–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Shepherd-Robinson, L. and Lovenduski, J. (2002) Women and Candidate Selection in British Political Parties. London: Fawcett.Google Scholar
  30. The Telegraph (2013) Georgia Graham MPs should job-share to bring more women into politics, women’s minister says, 19 February, http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10923026/MPs-should-job-share-to-bring-more-women-into-politics-womens-minister-says.html.
  31. Tolleson, R. (1992) Gender Consciousness and Politics. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  32. Wintour, P. (2013) Lib Dems draw up job-share plans to boost number of women MPs, The Guardian 18 February, http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/feb/18/lib-dems-job-share-mps.
  33. Wolleston, S. (2013) How David Cameron can get more women into politics, http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/feb/24/david-cameron-women-politics-mps, accessed 24 February 2013.

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Birkbeck, University of LondonBloomsburyUK
  2. 2.School of Politics and International Relations, University of NottinghamNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations