Stands for Me or Acts for Me? Trade-offs between Women’s Symbolic and Substantive Representation

On the election of the far-right leader Giorgia Meloni, as the first woman Prime Minister of Italy in 2022, former US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton commented, “every time a woman is elected to head of state or government, that is a step forward.” Her remark spurred considerable public debate, with many questioning whether shared gender alone ought to inspire support. Clinton’s comment highlights the distinction between what democratic theorist Hanna Pitkin (1972) calls “symbolic representation,” standing as a symbol for a group and evoking feelings of being fairly represented, and “substantive representation”, acting in the group-based interests or preferences of those represented. While empirical studies often reveal gender affinity effects (for example, women prefer to vote for women; see Schwarz and Coppock 2022), the mechanisms driving such effects are underexplored. In this study, we seek to unpack the black box of gender affinity: is shared identity in itself (symbolic representation) the primary driver, or is shared identity primarily a proxy for policy congruence (substantive representation)? And, for which policies might policy congruence take priority over shared identity? To answer these questions, our experimental study uses a combination of novel choice-based survey questions on specific policy proposals and conjoint paired-profiles. This two-stage approach allows us to understand (gendered) issue salience and preferences of voters and the interaction of this with shared identity. Our paper sheds new light on when women vote for women. Interrogating these trade-offs that citizens from underrepresented groups make in their electoral choices has implications for how to improve the quality of representative democracy for historically marginalized groups. In addition to exploring how women respond to women candidates with and without policy congruence, our project also investigates how men respond. Women candidates supporting feminist policies or ‘women’s issues’ could reduce support for women candidates amongst men and even result in a backlash. As the policy agenda continues to be shaped by, and for, the male perspective (Persson et al 2023) these are vital contributions to a more diverse and representative democracy.