Slate has a fascinating article up about women in politics. It looks at a study on the impact of female leadership on village councils in India. Guess what? Villages with more women in power have more and higher quality public services. There’s more:
They were also less corrupt — villagers with female-headed councils were 25 percent less likely to report having to pay bribes to access basic services like getting ration cards or receiving medical attention.But female leaders didn’t get much recognition:
India’s female pradhans were remarkably unappreciated for their efforts. Despite the objective upgrades in village amenities, both men and women living in villages headed by women expressed lower satisfaction with public services.
I like this piece because it explains not just the results of the study, but its design, and the reasoning behind that design. There are even a couple intelligent criticisms in the comment section. For example, were these women resented because they were put in power partly by an affirmative action program?
Digg
Facebook
del.icio.us
three comments
That's interesting, but I wonder if it's also a little essentialising - is it a jump to say that these villages were better run just because they were run by women? Were there other reasons why they ran better? And should we not dismiss that people living in the villages expressed lower satisfaction?
I know it seems like I'm being a jerk, but assuming that a woman will be a good ruler simply because she is a woman is similar to assuming that a woman will be bad ruler simply because she's a woman - hello Hilary Clinton! I just don't think gender should be the primary way we determine whether or not someone is a good leader.
Posted by Thea
December 2, 2007, 4:34 PM
I have read that women owned businesses are less likely to fall into bankruptcy then male owned businesses, and that employees in women owned businesses report greater job satisfaction and better working relationships with owners. So, maybe there is something to the notion that women have a tendency to be more compassionate community leaders as well.
Posted by John
December 2, 2007, 7:29 PM
Thea, that's why the design of the study is important. They found a natural experiment, where an affirmative action program to ensure female leadership was going to be implemented in a random sample of villages. If the sample was taken correctly, the only major difference between the villages should be that they had women in charge.
Posted by Allison
December 3, 2007, 12:32 PM
Leave a comment
This blog post is older than 90 days old. All comments submitted regarding this post will be automatically held for review by the editors before posting. Your comment will not appear on the site until it has been approved.
Our comment policy
Shameless prides itself on the diversity of opinions expressed by our writers, and we encourage and appreciate different points of view. Our intention at Shameless is to foster community and to maintain a safe and positive blogging environment; we do not consider it our duty to give a voice to anybody with an opinion.
Discussion on this site is moderated. We will delete comments that:
(We get to decide what's discriminatory, hateful, attacking, or inflammatory).
In some cases, we will cap off comments on a discussion when we feel they are spiralling out of control and fostering an unwelcoming space for bloggers and readers. Comments will be closed by the Web Editor, unless the post is by the Web Editor, in which case the Editor in Chief will close them.
If your comments repeatedly make the same point, they may be deleted. This also applies to comments made by multiple members of the same organization.
Your comments should be about the topic of the post, not its writer—although we certainly encourage praise for our writers, if you want to say something nice.