Female leaders and violence

Adam Nossiter had a recent article in the NY Times entitled “Woman Chosen to Lead Central African Republic Out of Mayhem.”  The piece details the ascension of Catherine Samba-Panza as interim president of the Central African Republic.  What was most interesting to me about the article was the emphasis on gender and what that might mean for the future of the CAR.  Here are some examples:

“Female spectators broke into joyful shouts, cheers and trilling. The consensus, in the chamber and on the street, was that men had inexorably led the country into a spiral of vicious violence, and that the only hope was for a woman to lead it out.”

“Everything we have been through has been the fault of men,” said Marie-Louise Yakemba, who heads a civil-society organization. “We think that with a woman, there is at least a ray of hope.”

“Our country is at the brink of implosion,” Ms. Samba-Panza acknowledged to the assembly on Monday. “The situation is catastrophic. More than ever, the country needs someone who can bring it together.” She pointed to her “sensibility as a woman” as the crucial ingredient that could lead to peace.”

“’As a woman, she can understand the sufferings of the people, and as a mother, she will not tolerate all of this bloodletting,’ said Annette Ouango, a member of a Central African women’s group.”

“’The men have done nothing but fight,’ said Judicaelle Mabongo, an 18-year-old student in downtown Bangui. ‘The men, they are fighting. But they are only destroying the country. This woman, she might be able to change things.'”

This got me thinking about the relationship between female leadership, violence, and economic development. Is it true that women leaders are associated with less violence and more development?  Or have there just been too few women to make a fair comparison? I turned to one of my favorite colleagues at OU, Dan Hicks, who has written a lot on gender and economics (click here to see his research).

Dan has a paper (co-authored with Joan Hamory Hicks and Beatriz Maldonado) called “Female Legislators and Foreign Aid.”  Here is what they found:

Research has shown that increased female representation in government can alter the scale and scope of national expenditure because of differences in median preferences between men and women. We investigate whether changes in the gender composition of national legislatures in donor countries impact the level and pattern of foreign aid. We show that as donors elect more female legislators, they increase aid both in total and as a percentage of GDP. These increased flows occur predominately through bilateral aid and reflect a redistribution of aid towards developing countries and for humanitarian purposes in particular. While the election of women to political offices is potentially correlated with the preferences of the electorate, we present evidence that female representatives exert a causal influence on aid through the inclusion of fixed effects and a series of quasi-experimental checks.

As to the questions of gender and violence, he pointed me to these two papers:

Mary Caprioli and Mark Boyer “Gender, Violence, and International Crisis“, Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2001, vol. 45, no. 4, 503-518.

Women work for peace, and men wage war—cooperative women, conflictual men. These images pervade conventional wisdom about the efficacy of women in leadership roles and decision-making environments, but imagery is not always grounded in reality. Feminist international relations literature is examined to understand how domestic gender equality may help predict a state’s international crisis behavior. The authors use the record of female leaders as primary decision makers during international crises and then test the relationship between domestic gender equality and a state’s use of violence internationally. The International Crisis Behavior (ICB) data set and multinomial logistic regression are used to test the level of violence exhibited during international crises by states with varying levels of domestic gender equality. Results show that the severity of violence in crisis decreases as domestic gender equality increases.

and Erick Melander’s Gender Equality and Intrastate Armed ConflictInternational Studies Quarterly 49(4), 2005, 695-714.

In this article, I examine to what extent gender equality is associated with lower levels of intrastate armed conflict. I use three measures of gender equality: (1) a dichotomous indicator of whether the highest leader of a state is a woman; (2) the percentage of women in parliament; and (3) the female-to-male higher education attainment ratio. I argue that the first two measures in particular capture the extent to which women hold positions that allow them to influence matters of war and peace within a state. I further argue that all three measures, but especially the last two, capture how women are valued relative to men in a society, that is, the relative degree of subordination of women. Whereas female state leadership has no statistically significant effect, more equal societies, measured either in terms of female representation in parliament or the ratio of female-to-male higher education attainment, are associated with lower levels of intrastate armed conflict. The pacifying impact of gender equality is not only statistically significant in the presence of a comprehensive set of controls but also is strong in substantive terms.

So the answer to whether female leaders lead to less violence, the evidence seems to be mixed.  It is interesting though to see that more gender-equal societies tend to have less conflict.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s