Do Immigrant-origin British MPs Substantively Represent the Objective Interests of Immigrant-origin Citizens? An Analysis of Parliamentary written Questions from 2010-15

It is often stated, both in academic as well as in non-academic discourse, that societal groups which are descriptively under-represented in political office, such as women and immigrant-origin citizens, are better represented by elected officials with whom they share similar characteristics and backgrounds. This is based on the presumption that “descriptive representatives” will be more likely to articulate, understand and ultimately represent the wishes, concerns and interests of an under-represented group within a legislative assembly (Manin, 1997; Mansbridge, 1999, 2003, 2011; Rehfeld, 2011). Using a database containing all 191,500 parliamentary written questions tabled by MPs over the course of the 2010-15 British Parliament, this paper will assess how MPs have substantively represented the objective interests of immigrant-origin individuals in relation to different policy areas (crime, health, employment, discrimination and family). While the main objective of this paper is to explore the link between descriptive and substantive representation, it will also address how other factors may influence how MPs substantively represent citizens of immigrant-origin. Specifically, it will investigate whether or not immigrant-origin MPs who belong to an “identifiable” or “visible” minority (due to their ethnicity or their surname) differ from so-called “invisible” minority immigrant-origin MPs (whose foreign ancestry may not be immediately clear) in the types of written questions they submit in Parliament.