The missing causal link between descriptive and substantive representation.

This paper aims to examine and discuss the causal relationship between descriptive and substantive representation. To accomplish this, our empirical analysis is divided into three distinct stages. Initially, we present empirical evidence illustrating gender-based disparities in budgetary preferences, drawing upon three survey experiments conducted among local councilors in Denmark in 2021, 2017, and 2013. Subsequently, we assess the causal effect of women’s representation on agenda-setting. Finally, we investigate the influence of women’s representation on policy output, as measured by public budgeting, and its subsequent impact on policy outcome, as measured by actual expenditure. We exploit a regression discontinuity design to estimate the effects of women’s representation. Our findings indicate the existence of gendered variations in preferences. However, these preferences do not distinctly translate into agenda-setting, policy output (budgets), or policy outcomes (actual expenditure). In the paper, we discuss if this should be seen as a methodological shortcoming or a finding which has substantial implications for how we should thinks about substantive representation. If it is a methodological shortcoming it would have implications for not just this paper but also for a larger set of studies in the field. However, a method aiming at causal identification such as RDD designs comes with a theory installed and as such a zero finding indicates that there is no link between descriptive and substantial representation. If this is the case, we need to rethink why descriptive representation matter.