Skip to main content

The impact of a STEM background on MPs’ legislative behaviour

Abstract

It is widely accepted that an MP’s background influences their legislative behaviour. Yet, little attention has been paid to the impact of an MP’s occupational and educational background, especially with regards to having a STEM background (Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths). Therefore, the current study investigates the effect of having a STEM educational and/or occupational background on both the likelihood of MPs proposing a STEM Private Member’s Bill (PMB) and the proportion of PMB proposals an MP dedicates to STEM bills. Focussing on the 2015–2017 UK Parliament, we find that having a STEM background does not affect the likelihood of proposing a STEM PMB (or not) but combining an educational and occupational STEM background significantly increases the proportion of an MP’s PMB proposals dedicated to STEM bills. This effect is stronger for the co-sponsors of PMBs than for the primary presenters. We also find that having a STEM educational background matters more strongly for women than for men, and that the level of education in an MP’s constituency also affects the link between having a STEM background and the proportion of submitted STEM PMBs. Our findings highlight the substantive consequences of having a diverse parliament, also in terms of educational and occupational backgrounds.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    Explorative descriptive analyses revealed that women are as likely as men to have a STEM background. There is also no link between the MP’s likelihood of having a STEM background and the educational level of their constituency. MPs with a STEM background are thus not more likely to be MP in a constituency characterised by higher levels of education than MPs with no STEM background.

References

  1. Action. 2020. Mission [online]. 314 Action. https://314action.org/mission-1. Accessed 11 Mar 2020.

  2. Adamic, L.A., X. Wei, J. Yang, S. Gerrish, K.K. Nam, and G.S. Clarkson. 2010. Individual focus and knowledge contribution. First Monday 15 (3): 1–10.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Allen, P. 2018. The political class: Why it matters who our politicians are. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Asiedu, E., C. Branstette, N. Gaekwad-Babulal, and N. Malokele. 2018. The effect of women’s representation in parliament and the passing of gender sensitive policies. In ASSA Annual Meeting (Philadelphia, 5–7 January). https://www.aeaweb.org/conference. Accessed 16 Dec 2019.

  5. Aydemir, N., and R. Vliegenthart. 2021. Tracing roots of group representation among MPs with immigrant backgrounds: A content analysis on parliamentary questions in the Netherlands. Ethnicities. https://doi.org/10.1177/14687968211005187.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Baker, C. 2018. Spreadsheets: City and town classification of constituencies, local authorities and output areas [online]. House of Commons Library. https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8322/. Accessed 07 Dec 2020.

  7. Bego, K., J. Pilkington, and C. Goujon. 2017. Only 9% of GE2017 contenders have a STEM degree: Why this is a problem [online]. Nesta. https://www.nesta.org.uk/blog/only-9-of-ge2017-contenders-have-a-stem-degree-why-this-is-a-problem/. Accessed 16 Jan 2021.

  8. Besley, T.J., R. Pande, and V. Rao. 2005. Political selection and the quality of government: Evidence from South India, 5201. London: Centre for Economic Policy Research (CEPR), Discussion Paper No.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Bowler, S. 2010. Private members’ bills in the UK parliament: Is there an ‘electoral connection’? The Journal of Legislative Studies 16 (4): 476–494.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Boyd, I.L. 2019. Scientists and politics? Science 366 (6463): 281.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Bräuninger, T., and M. Debus. 2009. Legislative agenda-setting in parliamentary democracies. European Journal of Political Research 48 (6): 804–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Brazier, A., and R. Fox. 2010. Enhancing the backbench MP’s role as a legislator: The case for urgent reform of private members bills. Parliamentary Affairs 63 (1): 201–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Broockman, D.E. 2013. Black politicians are more intrinsically motivated to advance blacks’ interests: A field experiment manipulating political incentives. American Journal of Political Science 57 (3): 521–536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Burden, B.C. 2007. Personal roots of representation. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  15. Cairney, P., and K. Oliver. 2017. Evidence-based policymaking is not like evidence-based medicine, so how far should you go to bridge the divide between evidence and policy? Health Research Policy and Systems 15 (1): 35–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Campaign for Science and Engineering (CaSE). 2020. New MPs with a STEMM background [online]. CaSE. http://www.sciencecampaign.org.uk/news-media/case-comment/new-mps-with-a-stemm-background.html. Accessed 11 Mar 2020.

  17. Carnes, N. 2012. Does the numerical underrepresentation of the working class in Congress matter? Legislative Studies Quarterly 37 (1): 5–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Carnes, N., and N. Lupu. 2016. What good is a college degree? Education and leader quality reconsidered. The Journal of Politics 78 (1): 35–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Cowley, P., and M. Stuart. 2010. Party rules, OK: Voting in the house of commons on the human fertilisation and embryology bill. Parliamentary Affairs 63 (1): 173–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Dreher, A., M.J. Lamla, S.M. Lein, and F. Somogyi. 2009. The impact of political leaders’ profession and education on reforms. Journal of Comparative Economics 37 (1): 169–193.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Erikson, J., and C. Josefsson. 2019. Does higher education matter for MPs in their parliamentary work? Evidence from the Swedish Parliament. Representation 55 (1): 65–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Gascoigne, T. 2007. Science meets Parliament. In Communicating European research, ed. M. Claessens, 43–51. Dordrecht: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Gaxie, D., and L. Godmer. 2007. Cultural capital and political selection: Educational backgrounds of parliamentarians. In Democratic representation in Europe: Diversity, change, and convergence, ed. M. Cotta and H. Best, 106–135. London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Gelpi, C., and P.D. Feaver. 2002. Speak softly and carry a big stick? Veterans in the political elite and the American use of force. American Political Science Review 96 (4): 779–793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gilligan, T.W., and K. Krehbiel. 1997. Specialization decisions within committee. The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 13 (2): 366–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Goodwin, M. 2014. Political science? Does scientific training predict UK MPs voting behaviour? Parliamentary Affairs 68 (2): 371–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Grey, S. 2006. Numbers and beyond: The relevance of critical mass in gender research. Politics & Gender 2 (4): 492–502.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Grose, C.R. 2005. Disentangling constituency and legislator effects in legislative representation: Black legislators or black districts? Social Science Quarterly 86 (2): 427–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Hansen, E.R., N. Carnes, and V. Gray. 2019. What happens when insurers make insurance laws? State legislative agendas and the occupational makeup of government. State Politics & Policy Quarterly 19 (2): 155–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Helfer, L. 2016. Media effects on politicians: An individual-level political agenda-setting experiment. The International Journal of Press/politics 21 (2): 233–252.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Heppell, T., A. Crines, and D. Jeffery. 2017. The United Kingdom referendum on European Union membership: The voting of conservative parliamentarians. JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 55 (4): 762–778.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Henderson, M. 2012. The Geek Manifesto. London: Transworld Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Higher Education Statistics Authority (HESA). 2020a. The higher education classification of subjects (HECoS) [online]. HESA. https://www.hesa.ac.uk/innovation/hecos. Accessed 11 Mar 2020.

  34. Higher Education Statistics Authority (HESA). 2020b. What do HE students study? [online]. HESA. https://www.hesa.ac.uk/data-and-analysis/students/what-study. Accessed 10 Mar 2020.

  35. Hong, L., and S.E. Page. 2004. Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high-ability problem solvers. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 101 (46): 16385–16389.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Howarth, D.R. 2013. Reaching the Cabinet: A British cursus honorum? [online]. SSRN. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2221921. Accessed 15 April 2020.

  37. Jewell, M.E. 2015. Representation in state legislatures. Lexington, KY: University Press of Kentucky.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Kessler, D., and K. Krehbiel. 1996. Dynamics of cosponsorship. American Political Science Review 90: 555–566.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Kettell, S. 2010. Rites of passage: Discursive strategies in the 2008 human fertilisation and embryology bill debate. Political Studies 58: 789–808.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Kim, A.Y., G.M. Sinatra, and V. Seyranian. 2018. Developing a STEM identity among young women: A social identity perspective. Review of Educational Research 88 (4): 589–625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Lamprinakou, C., M. Morucci, R. Campbell, and J. van Heerde-Hudson. 2017. All change in the house? The profile of candidates and MPs in the 2015 British general election. Parliamentary Affairs 70 (2): 207–232.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Ledgerwood, E. 2020. MPs on the subject of STEMM: What can oral history tell us? Parliamentary History 39 (2): 331–349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Matter, U., and A. Stutzer. 2015. The role of lawyer-legislators in shaping the law: Evidence from voting on tort reforms. The Journal of Law and Economics 58 (2): 357–384.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Mattson, I. 1995. Private members’ initiatives and amendments. In Parliaments and majority rule in Western Europe, ed. H. Döring, 448–487. New York: St Martin’s Press.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Mayhew, D.R. 1974. Congress: The electoral connection. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  46. Mellors, C. 1978. The British MP: A socio-economic study of the House of Commons. Farnborough: Saxon House.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Mellors-Bourne, R., H. Connor, and C. Jackson. 2011. STEM graduates in non-STEM jobs. BIS research paper number 30. London: Department for Business, Innovation and Skills.

  48. Minta, M.D. 2011. Oversight: Representing the Interests of Blacks and Latinos in Congress. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  49. Mügge, L.M., Daphne J. van der Pas, and M. van de Wardt. 2019. Representing their own? Ethnic minority women in the Dutch Parliament. West European Politics 42 (4): 705–727.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. ONS. 2015. Visualising your constituency [online]. ONS. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/housing/articles/visualisingyourconstituency/2015-03-26. Accessed 10 May 2021.

  51. Padilla, A., and I. Gibson. 2000. Science moves to centre stage. Nature 403 (6768): 357–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Plumb, A. 2013. Research note: A comparison of free vote patterns in Westminster-style parliaments. Commonwealth & Comparative Politics 51 (2): 254–266.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Plumb, A., and D. Marsh. 2013. Beyond party discipline: UK Parliamentary voting on fox hunting. British Politics 8 (3): 313–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Reeher, G. 1996. Narratives of justice: Legislators’ beliefs about distributive fairness. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  55. Rettie, L. 2019. MPs and their degrees: Here's where and what our UK politicians studied [online]. https://studee.com/media/mps-and-their-degrees-media/. Accessed 16 Jan 2021.

  56. Saalfeld, T. 2011. Parliamentary questions as instruments of substantive representation: Visible minorities in the UK House of Commons, 2005–10. The Journal of Legislative Studies 17 (3): 271–289.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Schiller, W.J. 1995. Senators as political entrepreneurs: Using bill sponsorship to shape legislative agendas. American Journal of Political Science 39: 186–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Smooth, W. 2011. Standing for women? Which women? The substantive representation of women’s interests and the research imperative of intersectionality. Politics & Gender 7 (3): 436–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Snow, C.P. 2012. The two cultures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  60. Starr, C.R. 2018. “I’m Not a Science Nerd!” STEM stereotypes, identity, and motivation among undergraduate women. Psychology of Women Quarterly 42 (4): 489–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Tremblay, M. 1998. Do female MPs substantively represent women? A study of legislative behaviour in Canada’s 35th Parliament. Canadian Journal of Political Science/revue Canadienne De Science Politique 31 (3): 435–465.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Wängnerud, L., and A. Sundell. 2012. Do politics matter? Women in Swedish local elected assemblies 1970–2010 and gender equality in outcomes. European Political Science Review 4 (1): 97–120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Williams, B.D., and I.H. Indridason. 2018. Luck of the draw? Private members’ bills and the electoral connection. Political Science Research and Methods 6 (02): 211–227.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Witko, C., and S. Friedman. 2008. Business backgrounds and congressional behavior. Congress & the Presidency: A Journal of Capital Studies 35 (1): 71–86.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hilde Coffé.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables 6, 7, 8, and 9.

Table 6 Categories of STEM degrees according to CAH 1.3.2
Table 7 Descriptive information for all MPs included in the analyses (N: 447)
Table 8 Logit regression analysis for likelihood of presenting (not co-sponsoring) a STEM PMB (left panel) and OLS regression analyses for the proportion of presented (not co-sponsored) STEM PMBs (right panel)
Table 9 Logit regression analysis for likelihood of co-sponsoring (not presenting) a STEM PMB (left panel) and OLS regression analyses for the proportion of co-sponsored (not presented) STEM PMBs (right panel)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Myers, J., Coffé, H. The impact of a STEM background on MPs’ legislative behaviour. Br Polit (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41293-021-00188-2

Download citation

Keywords

  • Legislative behaviour
  • Members of Parliament
  • United Kingdom
  • STEM
  • Private Member's Bill