This book provides an important contribution to the emerging literature on the impact of women legislators, particularly women in Congress. Following in the tradition of Sue Thomas (How Women Legislate, 1994), Cindy Simon Rosenthal (Women Transforming Congress, 2002), and Michelle Swers (The Difference Women Make, 2002), Debra Dodson explores the relationship between descriptive and substantive representation of women. Using a modified garbage can model (Michael Cohen, James G. March, and Johan P. Olson, “A Garbage Can Model of Organizational Choice,” Administrative Science Quarterly 17 [1972]: 1–25) as her theoretical framework (p 32–33), Dodson argues that this relationship will be probabilistic rather than deterministic. Her study asks the question: What factors mediate the relationship between the presence of more women in Congress and enactment of policies supporting women's issues?
Dodson takes advantage of the “natural quasi-experiment” (p. 4) created by the transition from the 103d Congress following the election “year of the woman,” 1992, to the 104th Congress following the election year of the “angry white man,” 1994. As she points out, it is unusual to have two Congresses so radically different in leadership and ideological tenor in such close proximity. Thus, they constitute an ideal “laboratory” in which to investigate the impact of institutional and contextual factors on the relationship between descriptive and substantive representation (p. 85).
Dodson further argues that one reason previous research has resulted in inconsistent findings is “the failure to capture the texture of the process” (p. 25). Thus, her study is primarily qualitative. Three in-depth legislative case studies constitute the core of her study. The subjects of these case studies—reproductive rights, women's health, and health care generally—are well chosen since they provide a basis for comparison among different types of women's issues. Interviews with women members of Congress across three points in time allow Dodson to track the impact of partisan and institutional changes on their objectives and their behavior. These data are supplemented with interviews with lobbyists and congressional staff and with quantitative analysis of interest-group voting indices.
Across the three case studies, the relationship between descriptive and substantive representation proved to be a complex one. While a clear relationship emerged, it was neither linear nor deterministic. Although nearly all of the female members of Congress interviewed for the study expressed a desire to represent women, as well as to represent their districts, this desire was not always reflected in their behavior. Not surprisingly, there was disagreement among women members of Congress over what constitutes representing women. This was particularly true for the 104th Congress, which included several conservative Republican women members. Among the three issues studied, only women's health received nearly uniform support.
Secondly, women in Congress were often subject to competing institutional and partisan pressures. For example, especially during the early days of the 104th Congress, moderate Republican women were under pressure from their party leadership to follow party discipline. These representatives needed to weigh a complex set of incentives. Their choices would influence their future effectiveness across a range of issues.
Finally, as relatively new members of Congress, women often lacked the advantages of institutional power. In both 103d and 104th Congresses, women were less likely to be represented in leadership and to serve on key committees. As a result, they were often not in a position to advocate effectively for women's issues. Thus, even during the 103d Congress, when their party held the majority, Democratic women were thwarted in their ability to enact legislation favorable to women because they rarely held insider status. The Republican leadership of the 104th Congress was more open to integrating women into positions of institutional power. However, this integration was not an unmitigated victory for those seeking increased substantive representation of women since it brought with it increased pressure to follow party discipline.
One particularly intriguing finding involved the impact of the electoral gender gap. Throughout the period under study, the gender gap served as a resource that women members in Congress could use to persuade others, particularly the predominantly male leadership of their parties, of the importance of supporting women's issues.
The study also suggests that for partisan legislative bodies like the U.S. Congress, Rosabeth Moss Kanter's concept of critical mass (Men and Women of the Corporation, 1977) may need to be refined. Dodson notes that in the area of reproductive rights, women legislators moved from a critical mass in the 103d Congress to tokens in the 104th. While their numerical strength remained constant, their access to institution power changed dramatically due to the shift in party control and to an increase in conservative, pro-life women legislators (pp. 148–49).
In short, Dodson provides an important contribution to the emerging picture of the impact of women in public office. Her study nicely complements Michelle Swers's book. While both studies focus on the 103d and 104th Congresses, they provide distinct snapshots. These works in combination demonstrate the importance of studying women's impact from a variety of perspectives using a variety of methods.
