Content area
Full text
Do men and women differ in their decisionmaking calculus for higher office? To answer this question, we use a survey of state legislators (SLs) in 1998 to examine the conditions under which male and female SLs seek a position in the U.S. House of Representatives. We consider three ways in which gender may influence ambition and the decision to run-indirectly, directly, and interactively-and we find evidence of all three effects. Female state legislators are less ambitious than males for a U.S. House seat, a difference that largely stems from gender disparities in child-care responsibilities. However, despite their lower ambition, female SLs are just as likely as their male counterparts to seek a congressional position. This apparent puzzle is solved by the finding that the expected benefit of office mediates the relationship between ambition and the likelihood of running. Female SLs are much more responsive to the expected benefit of office than are males, offsetting their diminished ambition level. The sense of a woman is reflected in female state legislators' increased sensitivity to the strategic considerations surrounding a congressional candidacy. Because men and women respond differently to the intersection of ambition and opportunity, gender constitutes an important, yet often neglected, explanatory variable in the decision-to-run calculus.
Traditional progressive ambition studies have made significant contributions to our understanding of how potential candidates weigh the costs, benefits, and risks of a bid for higher office (Abramson, Aldrich, and Rohde 1987; Black 1972; Brace 1984; Rohde 1979; Schlesinger 1966). One of the pioneering scholars in the field of political ambition is Schlesinger (1966), who was the first to posit office-seeking as a goal-oriented behavior that responds to the political opportunity structure. Later scholars have recast Schlesinger's original formulation into a more explicitly rational choice framework. For instance, Black (1972) demonstrated that office-holders evaluate career alternatives to maximize the expected utility of office by expressing the decision to run as a function of the benefits of office discounted by the likelihood of attaining office, and the costs required to run a campaign.
Although traditional studies of candidate emergence have illuminated our understanding about the conditions under which considerations such as costs and risks affect the decision to run for office, they are not without their shortcomings. For example, most...