Suchergebnisse

How do female municipal leaders influence policymaking in American cities? Can gender determine who gets a say in local politics or what programs cities fund? These are some of the questions raised and answered in Mirya Holman's provocative Women in Politics in the American City. This book provides the first comprehensive evaluation of the influence of gender on the behavior of mayors and city council members in the United States. Holman considers the effects of gender in local, urban politics and analyzes how a leader's gender does-and does not-influence policy preferences, processes, behavio

Women are underrepresented in most elected and appointed positions in local government in the United States. This essay details what we know about women's representation in cities and counties, with a discussion of the factors associated with women's higher or lower levels of representation. The effects of women's lack of parity are then discussed including policy attitudes, the policy process, and policy outcomes. In sum, this essay organizes knowledge on women in local government, identifies gaps in what we know, and promotes future investigations to expand our knowledge of gender politics, local politics and governance, and public policy.

Politicians and leaders use metaphors and frames in political communication to provide citizens with meaning, persuade, and promote emotional reactions. At the same time, a large body of scholarship documents the propensity for female leaders to "speak in a different voice" when in political office. Research to date on policy metaphors, however, rarely compares male and female leaders' use of metaphors or evaluates the use of these metaphors in local politics. Using State of the City addresses from 16 cities to evaluate the connection between policy agendas, metaphors, and mayoral gender, I find that male and female leaders emphasize similar issues in their speeches, but use different frames to present these issues, with female leaders using more nurturing framing than do male leaders. In addition, while both male and female mayors emphasize economic development as the central issue in their speeches, female mayors use more inclusive framing in these discussions.

AbstractRisk aversion dampens political participation and heightens religiosity, with concentrated effects among women. Yet, little is known about how intersecting identities moderate these psychological correlates of religiosity and political engagement. In this paper, we theorize that the risk-religion-politics relationship is gendered and racialized. Using a nationally representative survey, we show that political participation is more strongly correlated with risk for Black women than for any other race-gender group. For religiosity, however, we find little evidence that risk is related to religiosity among Black women, while highly correlated with white women's religious engagement. For men—whether Black or white—risk exhibits a modest, positive relationship with their religiosity. Our results speak to the importance of considering intersectionality and race-gender identities in evaluations of religious and political activities in the United States.

Collaboration plays a key role in crafting good public policy. We use a novel data set of over 140,000 pieces of legislation considered in US state legislatures in 2015 to examine the factors associated with women's collaboration with each other. We articulate a theory that women's collaboration arises from opportunity structures, dictated by an interaction of individual and institutional characteristics. Examining the effect of a combination of characteristics, we find support for an interactive view of institutions, where women's caucuses accelerate collaboration in Democratic‐controlled bodies and as the share of women increases. Collaboration between women also continues in the face of increased polarization in the presence of a caucus, but not absent one. Our findings speak to the long‐term consequences of electing women to political office, the importance of institutions and organizations in shaping legislative behavior, and the institutionalization of gender in politics.

"Gender and Religiosity in the United States" published on by Oxford University Press.

Abstract
The Catholic Church often plays a policy and mobilization role in American politics. We assess the degree to which the Catholic Church hierarchy — including national and state conferences of bishops — can provide uniform information to parishioners about political participation. Using a textual analysis of information distributed to parishioners in Florida in the 2012 election, we evaluate how much political information is conveyed to parishioners, the sources of this information, and the factors associated with higher or lower levels of information. While we find that most parishes provided information related to the election, there is wide diversity in the types and sources of information. And, while the Catholic hierarchy attempted to provide messaging about the importance of political participation, not all parishes complied with these efforts. Our findings are consistent with the ideas that the local community and hierarchical structure combine to shape the behavior of the parishes.

The Venezuela—Iran alliance had the power to stir up controversy and generate worry within the U.S. Despite differences in type of government, economic system, religion, and culture, both countries established a successful strategic coalition. How can we account for the formation of this strong partnership that provoked adoration and revulsion in equal measure? How did Chavez and Ahmadinejad benefit from their strategic cooperation? In addressing those two questions, my research examines the ideological and the economic factors that brought both countries together. It posits that the relationship between Venezuela and Iran was the manifestation of the joint efforts toward a common enemy, the "American empire." My research focuses on the economic solidarity and political discourses as sources to promote their common anti-U.S. sentiment, sustain their popularity, and prevail in power. It is important to explain how despite domestic and foreign opposition against Chavez and Ahmadinejad, both leaders prevailed as heads of state throughout all these years. As such, by evaluating their past activities and opaque maneuvers, it is possible to understand how they were able to bypass international sanctions, consolidate their power, suppress political opponents, and forge regional and foreign partnerships.

The Venezuela—Iran alliance had the power to stir up controversy and generate worry within the U.S. Despite differences in type of government, economic system, religion, and culture, both countries established a successful strategic coalition. How can we account for the formation of this strong partnership that provoked adoration and revulsion in equal measure? How did Chavez and Ahmadinejad benefit from their strategic cooperation? In addressing those two questions, my research examines the ideological and the economic factors that brought both countries together. It posits that the relationship between Venezuela and Iran was the manifestation of the joint efforts toward a common enemy, the "American empire." My research focuses on the economic solidarity and political discourses as sources to promote their common anti-U.S. sentiment, sustain their popularity, and prevail in power. It is important to explain how despite domestic and foreign opposition against Chavez and Ahmadinejad, both leaders prevailed as heads of state throughout all these years. As such, by evaluating their past activities and opaque maneuvers, it is possible to understand how they were able to bypass international sanctions, consolidate their power, suppress political opponents, and forge regional and foreign partnerships.

An increasing number of U.S. sheriffs claim that they will not enforce gun safety policies from state and federal governments in their counties. As locally elected law enforcement with a unique institutional position and significant powers, sheriffs play a key role in local policy implementation. To better understand cooperation (or the lack thereof) between levels of government, we look at these sheriffs' contentious relationships over firearm regulation. We argue that sheriffs mobilized to resist state and federal gun safety policies through right-wing extremist efforts, tracing the involvement of sheriffs in gun policy over time. Using two surveys of sheriffs (conducted in 2012 and 2021), we show that sheriffs' preferences against gun safety measures relate to right-wing extremist attitudes, even with controls for political and demographic factors. We demonstrate relationships between sheriffs' right-wing extremism and an expressed reluctance to support or enforce a wide set of gun safety policies.