gender differences in campaign strategies...abstract this paper explores whether there is such a...
TRANSCRIPT
Gender Differences in Campaign Strategies:
Lessons from the Nordic Countries
Elin Bjarnegård
Uppsala University
Hilde Coffé
Victoria University of Wellington
Pär Zetterberg
Uppsala University
Paper prepared for the European Conference on Gender and Politics (ECPG) in
Uppsala, Sweden, June 11-13, 2015.
Preliminary draft.
Please do not cite or circulate without the permission of the authors.
1
Abstract This paper explores whether there is such a thing as a typical male and a typical
female political campaign strategy and, if so, what they entail and how the possible
gender differences in campaigning can be explained. Our study focuses on four
Nordic countries (Finland, Sweden, Norway and Denmark) and draws on the 2005-
2013 Comparative Candidates Survey (CCS). Our multivariate Logit and Ordinary
Least Squares (OLS) regression analyses reveal that male political candidates are
significantly more likely to canvas and to give interviews in local and national media
compared with female candidates. The gender differences in the presence in the media
are especially strong among right-wing candidates. Right-wing male candidates are
also substantially more likely to campaign locally compared with their female
counterparts. Finally, our analyses reveal that, while campaigning, male candidates
focus substantially more on the economy compared to female candidates. We nuance
this finding by showing that this is especially the case in parties that can easily be
placed on a single left-right dimension. Female candidates are, in their turn, more
likely to emphasize non-economic issues, including communication with the
constituency and providing services and help to people with practical problems. The
paper contributes to the existing literature on gender and representation by exploring
the ‘difference’ of men’s campaign issues and strategies in a gender-progressive
context.
2
Introduction
Political campaigns play a major role in political life by influencing electoral support
for political candidates and thus electoral outcomes (Hillygus and Jackman 2003).
Hence, the gender dynamics within political campaigning, and the subsequent levels
of male and female parliamentary representation merit the attention of the academic
community. Some studies (e.g., Dabelko & Herrnson 1997; Hernson, Lay and Stokes
2005; Larson 2001) have shown that candidates’ gender relates to the issues they
address during their campaigns. For example, female candidates are more likely than
male candidates to campaign on so-called women’s issues such as poverty, healthcare,
education, child-welfare and family issues (Larson 2001; Dabelko and Herrnson
1997). Most of this research, however, relies on U.S. data and typically scrutinizes the
difference of female politicians to the ‘male norm.’ Furthermore, little, if anything, is
known about the extent to which male and female candidates use different strategies
during their campaigns.
This paper aims to fill this gap and explores gendered campaign strategies in a gender
equal political setting: the Nordic countries. In these countries, a fairly gender equal
parliament in terms of the number of women is the norm, rather than an unattainable
ideal (ranging between 39.1 percent (Denmark) and 44.7 percent (Sweden)).
Moreover, women have been present in Nordic politics for a long time. Hence, the
Nordic allow us to test whether there is a discernible difference between how male
and female candidates run their campaigns, even in a seemingly gender equal context.
In testing the extent to which women and men campaign differently in Nordic
countries, we look both at the issue focus while campaigning (including the economy
and providing services and help to people with practical problems) and at various
3
ways of campaigning (such as canvassing, interviews in media, visiting local events,
appointments with companies, and debates with competing candidates.
To answer our research questions, we draw on the 2005-2013 Comparative
Candidates Survey (CCS) and focus on almost 3,000 candidates in the four Nordic
countries Sweden, Finland, Norway and Denmark. Before turning to a description of
our data, we first introduce some relevant theories.
Gender and Campaign Behavior
Within the field of gender and political representation, the issue of gender differences
in legislator behavior has been extensively researched (see e.g. Childs 2004;
Franceschet et al. 2012; Swers 2001; Thomas 1991). Research from a various
countries has shown that female Members of Parliament (MPs) prioritize different
issues and use their representative role differently than their male colleagues. For
instance, women in the legislature tend to speak more on “feminine issues” than men
(e.g. Bäck et al. 2014); they author more bills related to gender equality issues than
men (e.g. Franceschet and Piscopo 2008; Kerevel and Atkeson 2013); and they focus
more on constituency work than their male counterparts (e.g. Thomas 1991). As a
consequence of these differences, research has shown that women have commonly
been able to have an impact on policy agendas and, to a somewhat smaller extent, also
on policy adoption. As more women have been represented in Parliament, a broader
range of issues have been subject to political decision making and new laws have
been enacted.
4
Significantly less attention has, however, been put on potential gender differences
among candidates during election campaigns. Yet, analyzing such differences is
campaigning is important. First, campaigns influence electoral support for political
candidates and thus electoral outcomes (Hillygus and Jackman 2003), which in turn
affect the composition of Parliament and thus the levels of female parliamentary
representation. Second, during campaigns mandates are created: it is a stage where
politicians have the opportunity of choosing how to present themselves, how to
communicate with – and relate to – voters, and which issues to emphasize (Arbour
2013).
Empirical research on gendered campaign behavior has mostly focused on the issues
candidates address while campaigning. More specifically, research commonly shows
that male candidates tend to give more priority to economic issues than female
candidates, whereas women, in their turn, pay more attention to social issues (e.g.
health care, family issues, etc.) than men (e.g. Kahn and Gordon 1997; Larson 2001;
Windett 2014). These differences have been mainly explained using theories of
gender issue ownership. Politicians respond to the fact that voters use gender to assess
a candidate’s policy positions and potential performance, and voters are likely to
perceive female candidates as more competent than male candidates on issues such as
“compassion issues” (e.g. income redistribution, service provision) and men as more
competent than women on, for instance, economic issues and “force and violence
issues” such as defense (Herrnson et al. 2003). Moreover, gender socialization and
life experience may make women more interested in typically “feminine” issues and
men more likely to be interested in typically “masculine” issues (see e.g. Heath et al.
2005).
5
Less is known about the extent to which male and female candidates use different
communication strategies during their campaigns. Theories of contextual politics
suggest that negative campaigning violates traditional female stereotypes and that
female candidates should be less likely than men to attack opponents on most issues
(Herrnson and Lucas 2006). Other research, focusing on candidates’ media
participation, has identified generally small differences in male and female
candidates’ use of websites (Carlsson 2007). Finally, looking at the way candidates
are presented in television advertisements, the similarities tend to outweigh the
differences between male and female candidates (Sapiro et al. 2011; Panagopoulos
2004).
In the analysis below, we examine both issue priorities and communication strategies.
Based on previous research, we would expect to find substantial differences in issue
priorities, but perhaps less so for communication strategies. However, we move
beyond a focus on the US that has dominated previous research (see also Lee 2007)
and analyze campaign behavior in four of the five Nordic countries (Finland, Sweden,
Denmark, and Norway). Analyzing campaign behavior in the context of a relatively
gender equal representation such as the Nordic countries is important as it improves
our understanding of whether an increased gender equality in representation cements
typical male and female behavior among political candidates, or whether women’s
descriptive and substantive representation instead institutionalizes new issues and new
behavior to the extent that male and female politicians behave fairly similarly (and
pursue both traditionally ‘male’ and ‘female’ issues) during campaigns (see also Lee
2007). In other words, analyzing gender and campaign behavior in a context of
6
relatively gender equal representation, our expectations could go in different
directions.
Our study also adds to previous research by investigating both the campaigning of
male and female candidates. Indeed, most previous research on gender and campaign
behavior focused exclusively on female candidates and their policy issues and
character traits. Although men have been part of empirical analyses, emphasis has
been on the way in which women differ from men. However, in order to investigate
gender differences in campaign behavior, it is important to acknowledge that men too
are gendered beings. Thus, rather than mainly treating men as the invisible norm
(Collinson and Hearn 2001), it is important to investigate more generally to what
extent women and men differ from one another. This is especially important given the
growing levels of female representation. As a consequence, a relevant question is to
what extent male candidates still differ from women candidates, also when gender
inequalities in legislative representation are (almost) broken.
Finally, we build on those who call for an analysis in which other identities are
analyzed in conjunction with gender differences (Dolan 2005; Lee 2007). The perhaps
most important identity for campaign behavior is party identity (see e.g. Dolan 2005).
Campaign strategies and agendas are (to a varying extent) filtered by political parties
in virtually any representative democracy: candidates represent a specific party’s
politics, program, strategies, and goals. As women and men sometimes self-select into
specific parties, and thus are more likely to represent certain political parties than
others, an observed difference between men and women may in fact be the result of
differences in issue preferences and communication strategies between political
7
parties. To disentangle the effects, we examine the impact of gender on campaign
behavior in the light of the candidate party (see also Dolan 2005). In addition, we test
for the possibility that campaign behavior is gendered in some party contexts but not
in others by paying attention to the potential interaction between sex and party. For
instance, as left-wing parties are generally likely to have a higher proportion of
female MPs and be more progressive in gender equality issues than right-wing
parties, campaigning might be more gendered in right-wing parties than in left-wing
parties. To rephrase, we test the proposition that right-wing male and female
candidates differ more strongly in their ways of campaigning than their left-wing
counterparts.
Data and Measurements
To answer our research questions and explore whether men campaign differently than
women, we rely on the Comparative Candidate Survey (CSS).1 The CSS is a cross-
national collaboration of standardized surveys with a fairly strong focus on campaign
issues, which makes it suitable for our purposes, and possible to identify researchable
questions. Over twenty Western countries participate in the CSS in some way, but the
data are not comparable across all countries and questions. Therefore, a careful case
selection within the CSS has to be made depending on which questions one is
interested in.
Our study includes four Nordic countries: Denmark (2011), Finland (2011), Norway
(2009) and Sweden (2010). The total sample size is 4,038 respondents before deleting
1 See the project’s website for more information: http://www.comparativecandidates.org/
8
missing information on the independent variables included in our analyses (see
below). After deleting respondents with missing information, the sample size is 3,032
respondents, allowing us to run multivariate analyses with between 2,814 and 2,946
respondents (depending on the dependent variable). There are at least two reasons that
make it relevant to focus on these four Nordic countries. First, they all have a long
history of relatively gender equal parliaments. For instance, already in the early
1990s, there were more than 30 percent women in each of these countries’
parliaments. As a consequence, the Nordic countries early on occupied the top four
positions (in a global comparison) in terms of women’s political representation (IPU
1997). Thus, by focusing on the Nordic countries, we are able to test the proposition
that long-term gender equality in parliament leads to a low level of gendered
campaign behavior. In that regard, the analysis can be seen as a critical and
conservative test of the suggestion about gendered campaign behavior. Second, the
countries are similar in both cultural (e.g. Protestantism) and institutional ways, for
instance with respect to electoral system (proportional representation with somewhat
open lists) and party system (along mostly a single left-right dimension). These shared
features make it possible to roughly control for a number of contextual factors already
at the outset. Nevertheless, we do include country dummies in our models to filter out
the effects of any country-specific factor. For instance, the incentives for politicians to
cultivate a personal vote somewhat vary across the four countries (c.f. Carey and
Shugart 1995): Finland stands out as having the most open lists. Such institutional
features may very well have an impact on the extent to which there is intra-party
variation in campaign behavior.
9
Dependent Variables
Below, we focus both on the ways in which candidates campaign and on the policies
they focus on while campaigning. Four measures of ways of campaigning are
distinguished: local, media and debate, canvassing, and Public Relations. Our
measure of local campaigning includes five campaign activities (Cronbach’s
Alpha=.70): (1) meeting local party members, (2) visiting local events in business,
sports and culture (3) appointments with companies in constituency, (4) appointments
with associations and clubs in constituency, (5) organizing and joining large rallies in
the constituency. Our measure of media and debate campaigning relies on four items
(Cronbach’s Alpha=.68): (1) local and regional newspaper interviews, (2) local and
regional radio and TV interviews, (3) national radio and TV interviews, and (4)
debating with competing candidates in public.2 Our measure of canvassing relies on
one item referring to door-knocking. All items measuring canvassing, local and media
campaigning were measured through a six-point scale: (1) no time, (2) 1-5 hours, (3)
5-10 hours, (4) 10-15 hours, (5) 15-20 hours, and (6) more than 20 hours.3 They refer
to the hours per week candidates spent personally on the various campaign activities
during the final month of the campaign. Since our main interest lies in whether
candidates do an activity or not, rather than the time they spent on particular
activities, and to keep similarity with the other items measuring the Public Relations
way of campaigning (see below) we recoded all items in dichotomous variables,
measuring whether the candidate had (1) done the activity or (0) not. Our measure of
Public Relations campaigning combines four ways of campaigning (Cronbach’s
2 The survey does include a question about the importance of national newspaper interviews, but unfortunately this question was not asked in the Danish sample and could thus not be included in our analyses. Results are however similar. 3 The scale was however different in some countries. In Sweden, there was no category 5 and category 4 referred to 10-20 hours. In Norway, category 4 referred to 11-20 hours and category 5 to more than 20 hours.
10
Alpha=.82): (1) personal campaign posters, (2) personal ads in the local press, (3)
personal flyers, and (4) personal website. The individual items were measured by
asking political candidates whether (1) they had used those means or (0) not.
Two measures of policy items candidates focus on when campaigning are
distinguished: one measuring an economic issue, the other measuring what we refer to
as non-economic issues. To measure the focus on an economic issue we use one item
asking candidates to what extent they emphasized taking care of the economic well-
being of the constituency in their campaign. The scale measuring the emphasis on
non-economic issues uses three items asking (Cronbach’s Alpha=.73): (1) providing
services and help to people with practical problems in the constituency, (2)
advocating the policy demands of the voters in the constituency, and (3) openness to
the voters in the constituency and communicating with them extensively. Answering
categories for all items ranged between (1) very much and (5) not at all, but have been
recoded in such a way that a higher value refers to greater emphasis.
Independent Variables
The main focus of the analysis, gender, is a dichotomous variable with the value 0 for
female and 1 for male. Further, education is measured as a dichotomous variable
indicating whether the individual has attained a university degree. Age is represented
by three categories: younger than 46, between 46 and 55, and older than 55.4 We also
include a variable indicating the size of town where the candidate is living. Three
categories are distinguished: rural, town, and (suburb of a) city. The latter category is
4 Those three categories were the original categories in the Swedish survey. The year of birth, asked in all other countries, has been recoded to these three categories.
11
the reference category in the analyses below. In addition, we add a variable measuring
whether the candidate (1) lives in the constituency or (0) not.5
Besides these socio-economic background characteristics, we also include various
political background characteristics. A first political background characteristic
indicates the candidate’s party affiliation. The parties were categorized in five groups:
center-left, center-right, nationalist/populist, green and other. A detailed overview of
the different parties included in each category is provided in Table A the Appendix.
The center-left is the reference group in the analysis below. We also include a
variable measuring whether the candidate was (1) candidate in the previous election
or (0) not. Furthermore, we include a measure indicating the candidate’s evaluation of
his/her chance to win the mandate. The original variable has been recoded into three
categories: (1) candidate thought (s)he could not or hardly win, (2) candidate thought
it was an open race, and (3) candidate thought (s)he could not or hardly lose. The
latter category is the reference category in the analyses below. A final variable
referring to the candidate’s political background measures whether (s)he (1) had a
personal campaign team or (0) not. We also control for the countries as a broad
measure of country-level differences. Denmark will be the country of reference in the
analyses below.
Table 1 provides descriptive information for all variables included in our analyses
broken down by gender.
5 We also explored the effect of a variable measuring whether the candidate lived in the constituency or not. As this did not have a major impact and did not influence our overall findings, it is not included in the analyses below. Furthermore, we tested the impact of marital status and employment status. Since these characteristics only had a minor effect on campaigning and did not influence the major conclusions of our study, they are not included in the final analyses presented below.
12
[Insert Table 1 About Here]
As can be seen in Table 1, men are substantially more likely than women to give
media interviews and to canvas. They are, however, equally likely to campaign
locally by visiting local events, organizations and business, and to set up a PR
campaign by developing personal campaign posters, flyers and websites. Looking at
the issues candidates emphasize during their campaigns, this descriptive analysis
reveals that male candidates focus considerably more on economic issues than female
candidates do. Women, in their turn, are more likely to emphasize non-economic
issues, including providing services and help to people with practical problems in the
constituency, and advocating the policy demands of the voters in the constituency.
Results
Having described bivariate links between gender and campaigning, we now turn to a
more critical test through multivariate Binary Logistic Regression analyses (for
canvassing, which is a dichotomous variable) and Ordinary Least Squares analyses
(for all other variables, which are continuous variables). We start by looking at the
different ways in which male and female candidates campaign. As stressed in the
theory section, there is little previous research that guide our expectations regarding
this issue. Table 2 presents multivariate analyses for the four different ways of
campaigning explored in the current study: local campaigning, media interviews,
canvassing, and public relations.
[Insert Table 2 About Here]
13
There are no statistically significant gender differences in the extent to which public
relations – using personal campaign posters, personal ads or flyers or building a
personal website – are used in the campaign. Reflecting the results found in the
descriptive analyses, gender differences in the extent to which male and female
candidates give interviews in the media and go from door-to-door are robust and
significant. Both these campaign strategies are used significantly more by male
candidates. It is worth noting that while media appearance might partly be an effect of
gender bias in the media sector – male candidates may be invited for interviews more
often than female candidates (c.f. Niven and Zilber 2001) – the decision to canvas
from door-to-door lies with the candidate him/herself to a much greater extent. While
no significant (p=.12) gender difference was found for local campaigning in the
bivariate analysis presented in Table 1, a minor (p<.10) positive effect of being a male
candidate occurs once socio-economic and political characteristics of the candidates
are controlled for. In other words, once those characteristics are controlled for, men
are slightly more likely to be involved in local campaign activities, such as meeting
local party members and visiting local businesses, companies and associations.
Additional analyses (not reported here) revealed that this is mainly driven by having a
personal campaign team which positively relates to campaigning locally. In other
words, if women and men were as likely to have a campaign team, men would be
slightly more likely to campaign locally than women.
We next turn to the issues that candidates focus on while campaigning. Table 3
introduces two analyses, one on economic issues and the other on non-economic
issues such as practical help to constituents and advocating the policy demands of the
voters. Earlier research on less gender equal political contexts (ADD REF) has led us
14
to expect that male candidates will focus more on economic issues than female
candidates.
[Insert Table 3 About Here]
Table 3 tells us that even in a fairly gender equal political context such as the Nordic
countries, male candidates tend to focus significantly more on economy than female
candidates. This economic focus seems to be at the expense of other, non-economic,
issues, as male candidates tend to focus significantly less on non-economic campaign
issues than female candidates do. In other words, this analysis seems to suggest that
rather than changing the agendas of male politicians, gender equality in politics has –
at least to some extent – cemented the different issues that men and women
emphasize in their campaigns.
Having described the main models, we now move on to investigating gender
interactions with party affiliation. These models allow us to explore to what extent
gender differences in campaigning are similar among the different party families.
[Insert Table 4 About Here]
Table 4 shows that the interaction between male and center-right party is positive and
significant for local campaigning and for campaigning in the media. This means that
there is a gender gap in these campaign activities particularly in center-right parties:
men in these parties use local campaign strategies and media strategies significantly
more than their female party colleagues. Thus, when it comes to local campaigning,
15
the interaction analysis reveals gender differences that were barely visible in Table 2.
The reason is that the differences are restricted to a set of political parties (i.e. center-
right parties), whereas in other parties no such gender gap exist. A closer look at the
gender gap in local campaigning within center-right parties reveals that it is mainly
caused by center-right women’s relatively low levels of engagement in local
campaigning (relatively men and women in other parties) rather than center-right
men’s exceptionally high levels. The same qualification can be made about the
findings concerning gendered media use: They are primarily a result of female center-
right candidates’ give fewer interviews than both male center-right candidates and
candidates from other parties (male or female).6
Table 5 present analyses exploring interactions between gender and party family
affiliation for the emphasis on economic and non-economic issues.
[Insert Table 5 About Here]
The introduction of interaction variables in Table 5 nuances somewhat the gendered
results relating to issues priorities (as presented in Table 3 above). Perhaps most
importantly, the relationship between male candidates and a focus on economic issues
does not operate equally in all types of political parties. In green parties, for instance,
there is no significant gender difference. In these parties, male and female candidates
are as likely – or unlikely - to focus on economic issues. A similar pattern is found
6 There is also a significant interaction between being a male candidate and being affiliated with an ‘other’ party for canvassing. This finding, however, is quite difficult to interpret theoretically, due to the different characteristics of the parties included in the ‘other party’ group.
16
also within ‘other parties’ as well as within populist parties, albeit at a lower level of
significance (p<.1). Thus, the direct relationship in Table 3 appears to be driven
mainly by the types of parties that were built around – and thus can easily be placed
on – a single left-right dimension. It is mainly in these parties that male candidates
focus substantially more on economic issues than female candidates.
Table 5 also reveals that there is a minor negative interaction effect (p<.1) of having a
green affiliation and being male when looking at non-economic issues. More
specifically, not only do green parties emphasize these issues to a lesser extent than
other parties (b=-0.36); among their candidates male candidates focus less on them
than their female party colleagues (b=-0.24). Thus, the negative relationship between
being a male candidate and focusing on non-economic issues seems to be particularly
large among green parties.
To illustrate the interaction effects, Table 6 introduces the margins for the main
significant interaction effects.
[Insert Table 6 About Here]
As can be seen from Table 6, the difference between center-right male and female
candidates related to local and media campaigning is larger than the difference
between male and female center-left candidates. The results also show that center-
right female candidates score lower on local and media campaigning than their center-
left counterparts. The interaction models presented in Table 5 revealed that the effect
of being male on the likelihood to focus on economic issues was significantly more
17
negative among the green candidates than among center-left candidates. The margins
confirm that the gender difference in focusing on economic issues is larger among
green candidates than among center-left candidates. They further reveal that female
green candidates are overall more likely to focus on economic issues than their male
counterparts. While higher than among their male counterparts, green female
candidates’ focus on economic issues is still lower than among both male and female
center-left candidates.
Conclusion
The aim of our study was to explore to what extent male and female political
candidates campaign differently, both in the issues that they focus on and in the ways
they campaign. In line with previous studies (see e.g. Dabelko and Herrnson 1997;
Larson 2001; Windett 2014), our analyses focusing on four Nordic countries
(Denmark, Sweden, Norway and Finland) revealed that men give more attention to
economic issues, even in a context with relatively gender equal political institutions
and culture. Interestingly, this finding is not valid for all types of parties, but mainly
for those parties that were built around – and can easily be placed on – a single left-
right dimension (center-left and center-right parties, respectively). Furthermore, men
were found to put less emphasis on non-economic issues such as advocating policy
demands from constituents and providing services and help to people with practical
problems in the constituency, than women do. This finding was particularly valid for
green parties. Hence, there are topics that men focus less on, even when these issues
have been prominent in the political sphere for decades. In other words, men seem to
emphasize on the economy at the expense of other issues. They do not focus on more
issues but rather on different issues.
18
Next to a different focus in their campaign, our multivariate analyses also revealed
that male and female political candidates campaign in different ways . Men seem to
canvass more and to be more likely to appear in the media and engage more in
debates with their political challengers. Moreover, male candidates’ greater likelihood
to be present in the media and in public debates is not common among all parties.
Analyses including interaction effects indeed revealed that the likelihood of men
being more likely to engage with the media and in public debates is substantially
stronger among center-right parties than among other parties. Center-right male
candidates are also more likely to campaign locally than their female counterparts,
whereas such gender difference does not occur among other parties.
By systematically investigating to what extent and how male and female candidates
campaign differently, both related to the topics that they focus on and their
communication strategies, we believe that our study add some interesting insights to
the literature on gender and representation. In particular, it shows that even in the
context of relatively egalitarian countries gendered campaigning remains prevalent,
both in the issues candidates focus on and in the way they candidate.
As always, however, various questions remain unanswered. For instance, we make no
comparisons to other contexts and it is therefore difficult to determine whether the
differences are substantial as compared to other contexts. Are gendered differences
less pronounced in political campaigns in the Nordic countries than elsewhere? This,
we do not know. Also, we do not know whether male candidates’ greater likelihood to
be appear in media and engage in public debates has to do with a preferred
19
communication style among male candidates or with a media bias that gives male
candidates greater opportunity to give interviews and engage in public debates. We
also know very little about the way in which male politicians themselves look at their
role ‘as men’ and in relation to female politicians. Analyses of the powerful and
privileged are often done from a distance (see Gilding 2010; Madrid 2013) and more
qualitative work is needed.
20
Table 1 Means/Proportions for All Variables (Standard Deviations in Parentheses)
Men Women Range
a Mean/ Prop.
St. Dev.
Mean/ Prop.
St. Dev.
Signb N
Dependent Var. Local 0-1 .65 (.31) .64 (.30) NS 2,814 Media 0-1 .50 (.31) .46 (.31) ** 2,845 Canvassing 0/1 31.16% 27.65% ** 2,946 Public Relations 0-1 .46 (.39) .43 (.40) NS 2,905 Economic Issues 1-5 3.23 (1.20) 3.07 (1.22) ** 2,901 Non-Econ. Issues 1-5 3.36 (.96) 3.47 (.87) *** 2,871 Independent Var.
University 0/1 54.80% 64.20% *** 3,032 Age (ref.: older than 55)
Younger than 46 0/1 39.01% 42.96% * 3,032 46-55 0/1 26.97% 27.14% NS 3,032 Size of Town (ref.: (Suburb of) City)
Rural 0/1 34.07% 39.81% * 3,032 Town 0/1 34.01% 31.24% NS 3,032 Party Affiliation (ref.: Center-left)
Center-right 0/1 46.39% 45.95% NS 3,032 Populist/Nationalist 0/1 10.73% 8.10% * 3,032 Green 0/1 7.04% 8.10% NS 3,032 Other 0/1 5.57% 3.70% NS 3,032 Candidate Previous Elections
0/1
23.40%
17.15%
***
3,032
Likelihood to Win (ref.: Not or Hardly Loose)
Not or Hardly Win 0/1 74.79% 78.05% NS 3,032 Open Race 0/1 16.24% 13.53% NS 3,032 Personal Campaign Team
0/1
28.85%
26.59%
NS
3,032
Source: Comparative Candidate Survey, Denmark (2011), Finland (2011), Norway (2009) and Sweden (2010) a 0/1 indicates dichotomous variable, 0-1 indicates continuous variable. b Gender difference, Significance tests conducted through OLS and Logit regression analyses controlling for countries. NS: Not Significant; ~ p<.10; * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001.
21
Table 2 OLS Regression Analyses for Ways of Campaigning – Binary Logistic Regression Analyses for Canvassing
Local Media Canvassing Public Relations Coeff. St. Error Coeff. St. Error Coeff. St. Error Coeff. St. Error Male .02 ~ .01 .04 *** .01 .30 ** .09 .00 .01 University -.01 .01 .01 .01 -.22 * .09 .01 .01 Age (ref.: older than 55) Younger than 46 -.02 .01 .03 * .01 .25 * .11 .01 .01 46-55 .04 ** .01 .03 * .01 .23 * .12 .01 .01 Size of Town (ref.: (Suburb of) City)
Rural .02 .01 .01 .01 -.34 ** .11 .00 .01 Town .04 ** .01 .03 ~ .01 -.19 .11 .02 ~ .01 Party Affiliation (ref.: Center-left)
Center-right -.04 ** .01 -.06 *** .01 -.48 *** .10 .08 *** .01 Populist/Nationalist -.07 *** .02 -.02 .02 -1.52 *** .21 .07 *** .02 Green -.08 *** .02 -.09 *** .02 .50 ** .18 -.03 .02 Other -.14 *** .03 -.08 ** .03 -.68 ~ .40 -.08 ** .03 Candidate Previous Elections .01 .01 .05 ** .01 -.10 .11 .03 ~ .01 Likelihood to Win (ref.: Not or Hardly Loose)
Not or Hardly Win -.13 *** .02 -.15 *** .02 -.23 .17 -.18 *** .02 Open Race -.01 .02 -.07 ** .02 .22 .20 -.04 ~ .02 Personal Campaign Team .16 *** .02 .15 *** .02 .60 *** .14 .31 *** .02 Country (ref.: Denmark) Finland -.08 ** .02 -.21 *** .03 -2.81 *** .22 -.10 *** .02 Sweden .18 *** .02 -.10 *** .03 .06 .18 -.22 *** .02 Norway .10 *** .02 -.13 *** .03 .28 .18 -.44 *** .02 Constant .64 *** .03 .68 *** .04 -.18 .27 .68 *** .03 Adjusted/Pseudo R-Squared
.16
.11
.15
.44
N 2,814 2,845 2,946 2,905 Source: Comparative Candidate Survey, Denmark (2011), Finland (2011), Norway (2009) and Sweden (2010) ~ p<.10; * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001
22
Table 3 OLS Regression Analyses for Issue Focus During Campaign
Economic Issues Non-Economic Issues Coeff. St. Error Coeff. St. error
Male .13 ** .04 -.15 *** .03 University -.03 .05 -.14 *** .03 Age (ref.: older than 55) Younger than 46 -.14 ** .05 -.15 *** .04 46-55 .00 .06 -.11 * .04 Size of Town (ref.: (Suburb of) City) Rural .25 *** .05 .08 * .04 Town .14 ** .05 .03 .04 Party Affiliation (ref.: Center-left) Center-right .06 .05 -.10 ** .04 Populist/Nationalist .09 .08 .12 * .06 Green -.52 *** .09 -.49 *** .07 Other -.35 ** .11 -.20 .09 Candidate Previous Elections .05 .05 -.01 .04 Likelihood to Win (ref.: Not or Hardly Loose)
Not or Hardly Win -.32 *** .08 -.28 *** .06 Open Race -.04 .09 -.02 .07 Personal Campaign Team .20 ** .06 .23 *** .05 Country (ref.: Denmark) Finland .17 ~ .10 .19 * .07 Sweden -.33 ** .10 -.00 .08 Norway .07 .10 .26 ** .07 Constant 3.27 *** .14 3.73 *** .11 Adjusted/Pseudo R-Squared
.10
.10
N 2,901 2,871 Source: Comparative Candidate Survey, Denmark (2011), Finland (2011), Norway (2009) and Sweden (2010) ~ p<.10; * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001.
23
Table 4 Interaction Models, OLS Regression Analyses for Ways of Campaigning – Binary Logistic Regression Analyses for Canvassing
Local Media Canvassing Public Relations Coeff. St. Error Coeff. St. Error Coeff. St. Error Coeff. St. Error Male -.02 .01 .01 .02 .07 .15 .00 .02 Party Affiliation (ref.: Center-left)
Center-right -.08 *** .02 -.10 *** .02 -.65 *** .15 .08 *** .02 Populist/Nationalist -.07 * .03 .02 .03 -1.79 *** .36 .10 ** .03 Green -.09 ** .03 -.09 ** .03 .31 .27 -.01 .03 Other -.11 * .04 -.07 .05 -1.97 * .77 -.09 ~ .05 Male*Center-right
.08
**
.02
.08
**
.03
.30
.20
.00
.03
Male*Populist/Nationalist .01 .04 -.05 .04 .44 .44 -.04 .04 Male*Green .00 .04 .01 .05 .35 .35 -.03 .04 Male*Other -.05 .05 -.01 .06 2.08 * .89 .01 .06 Constant .66 *** .03 .69 *** .04 -.18 .27 .68 *** .04 Adjusted/Pseudo R-Squared
.16
.11
.16
.44
N 2,814 2,845 2,946 2,905 Source: Comparative Candidate Survey, Denmark (2011), Finland (2011), Norway (2009) and Sweden (2010) ~ p<.10; * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001. All Models Control for Age, Education, Size of Town, Candidate Last Election, Chance of Winning, Personal Campaign Team, and Country.
24
Table 5 Interaction Models, OLS Regression Analyses for Issue Focus During Campaign Economic Issues Non-Economic Issues
Coeff. St. Error Coeff. St. Error Male .18 * .08 -.13 * .06 Party Affiliation (ref.: Center Left)
Center Right .03 .08 -.12 * .06 Populist/Nationalist .27 * .13 .16 .10 Green -.28 * .13 -.36 *** .10 Other -.10 .18 -.17 .14 Male*Center-right
.06
.10
.03
.08
Male*Populist/Nationalist -.29 ~ .16 -.06 .13 Male*Green -.43 * .18 -.24 ~ .13 Male*Other -.39 ~ .22 -.05 .17 Constant 3.24 *** .14 3.72 *** .11 Adjusted/Pseudo R-Squared
.10
.10
N 2,901 2,871 Source: Comparative Candidate Survey, Denmark (2011), Finland (2011), Norway (2009) and Sweden (2010) ~ p<.10; * p<.05; ** p<.01; *** p<.001. All Models Control for Age, Education, Size of Town, Candidate Last Election, Chance of Winning, Personal Campaign Team, and Country.
25
Table 6 Margins for the Main Significant Interaction Effects (Confidence Intervals Between Brackets)
Local Media Economic Issues Male Center-left .66 .52 3.16 Female Center-left .69 .53 3.07 Male Center-right .65 .49 Female Center-right .59 .41 Male Green 2.56 Female Green 2.83
Source: Comparative Candidate Survey, Denmark (2011), Finland (2011), Norway (2009) and Sweden (2010)
26
Appendix
Table A Categorization Political Parties
Party Category
Finland
Sweden
Denmark
Norway
Center-right
National Coalition Party
Center Party
Christian Democrats
Center Party
Center Party of Finland Liberal Party Liberal Alliance Christian Democratic Party Christian Democrats in Finland Christian Democrats Liberals Venstre, Liberal Party Swedish Peoples Party in Finland Conservatives Conservative People’s Party Høyre, Conservative Party Center-left
Social Democratic Party
Social Democrats
Red/Green Alliance
Socialist Left Party
Left Alliance The Left Party Socialist People’s Party Labour Party Communist Party of Finland Social Democrats Workers Party Social Liberals Communist Workers Party Populist/Nationalist
Finns Party
Sweden Democrats
Danish People’s Party
Progress Party
Change 2011 Green
Green League
Green Party
Other
Pirate Party of Finland
Feminist Party
Liberty Party – Future of Finland Independence Seniors Party For the Poor “Other Party”
27
References
Arbour, Brian K. 2013. "Candidate Reputations and Issue Agendas." American Politics Research 41 (6):1022-51.
Bäck, Hanna, Marc Debus, and Jochen Müller. 2014. "Who Takes the Parliamentary Floor? The Role of Gender in Speech-making in the Swedish Riksdag." Political Research Quarterly 67 (3):504-18.
Carey, John M, and Matthew Soberg Shugart. 1995. "Incentives to Cultivate a Personal Vote: a Rank Ordering of Electoral Formulas." Electoral Studies 14 (4):417-39.
Childs, Sarah. 2004. New Labour's Women MPs: Women Representing Women: Routledge. Collinson, David L, and Jeff Hearn. 2001. "Naming men as men: Implications for work,
organization, and management." In The Sociology of Masculinity, ed. F. Barrett and S. Whitehead. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Dabelko, Kirsten La Cour, and Paul S Herrnson. 1997. "Women's and Men's Campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives." Political Research Quarterly 50 (1):121-35.
Dolan, Kathleen. 2005. "Do Women Candidates Play to Gender Stereotypes? Do Men Candidates Play to Women? Candidate Sex and Issues Priorities on Campaign Websites." Political Research Quarterly 58 (1):31-44.
Franceschet, Susan, Mona Lena Krook, and Jennifer M Piscopo, eds. 2012. The Impact of Gender Quotas New York: Oxford University Press.
Franceschet, Susan, and Jennifer M. Piscopo. 2008. "Gender Quotas and Women's Substantive Representation: Lessons from Argentina." Politics & Gender 4 (3):393-425.
Gilding, Michael. 2010. "Motives of the Rich and Powerful in Doing Interviews with Social Scientists." International Sociology 25:755-77.
Heath, Roseanna Michelle, Leslie A. Schwindt-Bayer, and Michelle M. Taylor-Robinson. 2005. "Women on the Sidelines: Women's Representation on Committees in Latin American Legislatures." American Journal of Political Science 49 (2):420-36.
Herrnson, Paul S, J Celeste Lay, and Atiya Kai Stokes. 2003. "Women Running "as Women": Candidate Gender, Campaign Issues, and Voter-Targeting Strategies." Journal of Politics 65 (1):244-55.
Herrnson, Paul S, and Jennifer C. Lucas. 2006. "The Fairer Sex? Gender and Negative Campaigning in U.S. Elections." American Politics Research 34 (1):69-94.
IPU. Women in National Parliaments: Situation as of 1 January. http://www.ipu.org/wmn-e/arc/classif010197.htm, Accessed on March 15, 2015 1997 [cited.
Kahn, Kim Fridkin, and Ann Gordon. 1997. "How Women Campaign for the U.S. Senate: Substance and Strategy." In Women, Media, and Politics, ed. P. Norris. New York: Oxford University Press.
Kerevel, Yann P, and Lonna Rae Atkeson. 2013. "Explaining the Marginalization of Women in Legislative Institutions." Journal of Politics 75 (4):980-92.
Larson, Stephanie Greco. 2001. ""Running as Women"? A Comparison of Female and Male Pennsylvania Assembly Candidates' Campaign Brochures." Women & Politics 22 (2):107-24.
Lee, Francis L F. 2007. "Gender Differences in Campaign Materials and Politicians' Professional Orientations: The Case of a Hong Kong Election." Sex Roles 57 (11-12):865-78.
28
Madrid, Sebastián. 2013. "Getting into the Lives of Ruling-Class Men: Conceptual Problems, Methodological Solutions." In Men, masculinities and methodologies, ed. B. Pini and B. Pease. Houndmills, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Niven, David, and Jeremy Zilber. 2001. "Hod Does She Have Time for Kids and Congress? Views on Gender and Media Coverage from House Offices." Women & Politics 23 (1-2):147-65.
Swers, Michelle. 2001. The Difference Women Make: The Policy Impact of Women in Congress. London: University of Chicago Press.
Thomas, Sue. 1991. "The Impact of Women on State Legislative Policies." Journal of Politics 53 (4):958-76.
Windett, Jason Harold. 2014. "Gendered Campaign Strategies in U.S. Elections." American Politics Research 42 (4):628-55.
29