Quotas have increased women’s representation in politics, yet their capabilities are routinely questioned. This paper examines how these concerns shape the experiences of women politicians in their attempts to coordinate with the bureaucracy. Drawing on an original survey of elected officials in India, I find that women politicians report receiving significantly less assistance from bureaucrats with policy implementation compared to their male counterparts. Using data from a conjoint experiment with bureaucrats, I show that this gender gap is partially driven by bureaucrats’ negative perceptions of women’s effectiveness as policy implementers. Qualitative interviews and survey data further reveal that women face unique mobility constraints and restrictive social norms, which jointly hinder their ability to build critical networks that can help them overcome bureaucratic discretion. This paper offers one of the first theoretical and empirical accounts for the differential treatment women politicians encounter from bureaucrats, which can undermine their capacity to govern.
AfridiF.IversenV.SharanM. (2017). Women political leaders, corruption, and learning: Evidence from a large public program in India. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 66(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1086/693679
2.
AllportG. W. (1979). The nature of prejudice (Unabridged) (25th anniversary ed.). Addison-Wesley Pub. Company.
3.
AndersenS.BulteE.GneezyU.ListJ. A. (2008). Do women supply more public goods than men? Preliminary experimental evidence from matrilineal and patriarchal societies. The American Economic Review, 98(2), 376–381. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.98.2.376
4.
ArrowK. (1973). The theory of discrimination. In AshenfelterOrleyReesAlbert (Eds.), Discrimination in Labor Markets (pp. 3–33). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
5.
AuerbachA. M.SinghS.ThachilT. (2025). Who knows how to govern? Procedural knowledge in India’s small-town councils. American Political Science Review, 119(2), 708–726. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055424000297
6.
BaldwinK. (2019). Elected MPs, traditional chiefs, and local public goods: Evidence on the role of leaders in co-production from rural Zambia. Comparative Political Studies, 52(12), 1925–1956. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414018774372
7.
BanR.RaoV. (2008). Tokenism or agency? The impact of women’s reservations on village democracies in South India. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 56(3), 501–530. https://doi.org/10.1086/533551
8.
BardhanP. K.MookherjeeD.TorradoM. P. (2010). Impact of political reservations in West Bengal local governments on anti-poverty targeting. Journal of Globalization and Development, 1(1), 5. https://doi.org/10.2202/1948-1837.1025
9.
BarnesT. (2016). Gendering legislative behavior. Cambridge University Press.
10.
BaskaranT.BhalotraS.MinB.UppalY. (2024). Women legislators and economic performance. Journal of Economic Growth, 29(2), 151–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10887-023-09236-6
BeamanL.ChattopadhyayR.DufloE.PandeR.TopalovaP. (2009). Powerful women: Does exposure reduce bias?Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(4), 1497–1540. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2009.124.4.1497
13.
BeamanL.DufloE.PandeR.TopalovaP. (2007). Women politicians, gender bias, and policy-making in rural India (tech rep.). Technical report UNICEF.
14.
BeckerG. S. (1957). The theory of discrimination. University of Chicago Press.
15.
BenbabaaliD. (2016). From the peasant armed struggle to the Telangana State: Changes and continuities in a South Indian region’s uprisings. Contemporary South Asia, 24(2), 184–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/09584935.2016.1195340
16.
BesleyT.FolkeO.PerssonT.RickneJ. (2017). Gender quotas and the crisis of the mediocre man: Theory and evidence from Sweden. The American Economic Review, 107(8), 2204–2242. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20160080
17.
BhavnaniR. (2009). Do electoral quotas work after they are withdrawn? Evidence from a natural experiment in India. American Political Science Review, 103(1), 23–35. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055409090029
18.
BohrenJ. A.HaggagK.ImasA.PopeD. G. (2023). Inaccurate statistical discrimination: An identification problem. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 107(3), 1–45. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_01367
19.
BrehmJ. O.GatesS. (1999). Working, shirking, and sabotage: Bureaucratic response to a democratic public. University of Michigan Press.
20.
BroockmanD. E.SkovronC. (2018). Bias in perceptions of public opinion among political elites. American Political Science Review, 112(3), 542–563. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055418000011
21.
BruléR. (2020). Women, power, and property: The paradox of gender equality laws in India. Cambridge University Press.
22.
BruléR.TóthA. (2022). Is representation in two dimensions better than one? The political economy of gender & caste in contemporary India. SSRN.
23.
BussellJ. (2019). Clients and constituents: Political responsiveness in patronage democracies. Oxford University Press.
24.
CarliL. L.EaglyA. H. (2001). Gender, hierarchy, and leadership: An introduction. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 629–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00232
ChauchardS. (2014). Can descriptive representation change beliefs about a stigmatized group? Evidence from rural India. American Political Science Review, 108(2), 403–422. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055414000033
27.
ChaudhuriA.IversenV.JenseniusF. R.MaitraP. (2022). Time in office and the changing gender gap in dishonesty: Evidence from local politics in India. American Journal of Political Science.
28.
ChhibberP. (2002). Why are some women politically active? The household, public space, and political participation in India. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 43(3-5), 409–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/002071520204300310
29.
ClaytonA. (2014). Electoral gender quotas and attitudes toward traditional leaders: A policy experiment in Lesotho. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 33(4), 1007–1026. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21789
30.
ClaytonA. (2015). Women’s political engagement under quota-mandated female representation: Evidence from a randomized policy experiment. Comparative Political Studies, 48(3), 333–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414014548104
31.
ClaytonA. (2018). Do gender quotas really reduce bias? Evidence from a policy experiment in Southern Africa. Journal of Experimental Political Science, 5(3), 182–194. https://doi.org/10.1017/xps.2018.8
Clots-FiguerasI. (2012). Are female leaders good for education? Evidence from India. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 4(1), 212–244. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.4.1.212
35.
CofféH.Theiss-MorseE. (2016). The effect of political candidates’ occupational background on voters’ perceptions of and support for candidates. Political Science, 68(1), 55–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032318716640611
36.
CruzC.TolentinoC. (2019). Gender, social recognition, and political influence. Working Paper.
37.
DasguptaA.KapurD. (2020). The political economy of bureaucratic overload: Evidence from rural development officials in India. American Political Science Review, 114(4), 1316–1334. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055420000477
38.
FiskeS. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In GilbertD.FiskeS. T.GardnerL. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1-2, pp. 357–411). McGraw-Hill.
39.
FranceschetS.PiscopoJ. M. (2014). Sustaining gendered practices? Power, parties, and elite political networks in Argentina. Comparative Political Studies, 47(1), 85–110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010414013489379
40.
GailmardS.PattyJ. W. (2007). Slackers and zealots: Civil service, policy discretion, and bureaucratic expertise. American Journal of Political Science, 51(4), 873–889. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00286.x
41.
Garcia-HernandezA.GrossmanG.MichelitchK. (2020). Networks and the size of the gender gap in politician performance across job duties. Working Paper.
42.
GottliebJ.GrossmanG.RobinsonA. L. (2018). Do men and women have different policy preferences in Africa? Determinants and implications of gender gaps in policy prioritization. British Journal of Political Science, 48(3), 611–636. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0007123416000053
43.
GoyalT. (2024). Representation from below: How women’s grassroots party activism promotes equal political participation. American Political Science Review, 118(3), 1415–1430. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055423000953
44.
GulzarS.PasqualeB. J. (2017). Politicians, bureaucrats, and development: Evidence from India. American Political Science Review, 111(1), 162–183. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055416000502
45.
GuptaP.ChhibberP. (2022). Bureaucratic connections and local development: A study of Palwal district in India. Regional & Federal Studies.
46.
HainmuellerJ.HopkinsD. J.YamamotoT. (2014). Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis, 22(1), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpt024
47.
HughesM. M. (2011). Intersectionality, quotas, and minority women’s political representation worldwide. American Political Science Review, 105(3), 604–620. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055411000293
48.
JadhavK. R. (2010). Backwardisation of Telangana. Economic and Political Weekly, 45(13), 15–20.
49.
JenseniusF. R. (2019). India: A contradictory record. In FranceschetS.KrookM. L.TanN. (Eds.), The Palgrave handbook of women’s political rights (pp. 673–688). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
50.
JohnsonC. (2003). Decentralisation in India: Poverty, politics and Panchayati Raj. Overseas Development Institute.
51.
KhanS. (2021). Count me out: Gendered preference expression in Pakistan. Working paper.
52.
KoenigA. M.EaglyA. H.MitchellA. A.RistikariT. (2011). Are leader stereotypes masculine? A meta-analysis of three research paradigms. Psychological Bulletin, 137(4), 616–642. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023557
53.
KrookM. L.O’BrienD. Z. (2012). All the president’s men? The appointment of female cabinet ministers worldwide. The Journal of Politics, 74(3), 840–855. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0022381612000382
54.
LeeperT. J.HoboltS. B.TilleyJ. (2020). Measuring subgroup preferences in conjoint experiments. Political Analysis, 28(2), 207–221. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2019.30
55.
LGD. (2020). LGD - Local Government Directory, Government of India.
56.
Maria HolliA.LuhtakallioE.RaevaaraE. (2006). Quota trouble: Talking about gender quotas in Finnish local politics. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 8(2), 169–193. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616740600612822
57.
MeierP. (2008). A gender gap not closed by quotas: The renegotiation of the public sphere. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 10(3), 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616740802185650
58.
O’BrienD. Z.MendezM.PetersonJ. C.ShinJ. (2015). Letting down the ladder or shutting the door: Female prime ministers, party leaders, and cabinet ministers. Politics and Gender, 11(4), 689–717. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1743923x15000410
59.
PawarU. (2009). The weave of my life: A Dalit woman’s memoirs. Columbia University Press.
60.
PrillamanS. A. (2023). The patriarchal political order: The making and unraveling of the gendered participation gap in India. Cambridge University Press.
61.
PurohitB. (2026). Replication data for: Bureaucratic discretion against female politicians. Harvard Dataverse, V1.
62.
RafflerP. (2022). Does political oversight of the bureaucracy increase accountability? Field experimental evidence from a dominant party regime. American Political Science Review, 116(4), 1443–1459. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055422000181
63.
SanbonmatsuK. (2006). Do parties know that “women win”? Party leader beliefs about women’s electoral chances. Politics and Gender, 2(4), 431–450. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1743923x06060132
64.
ShayoM.ZussmanA. (2011). Judicial ingroup bias in the shadow of terrorism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(3), 1447–1484. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjr022
65.
SloughT. (2022). Squeaky wheels and inequality in bureaucratic service provision. Working Paper, New York University.
66.
TingM. M. (2003). A strategic theory of bureaucratic redundancy. American Journal of Political Science, 47(2), 274–292. https://doi.org/10.2307/3186138
67.
TurnbullB. (2021). Quotas as opportunities and obstacles: Revisiting gender quotas in India. Politics and Gender, 17(2), 324–348. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1743923x19000722
68.
VignithaB.DebnathA.AdityaP.SaiT. K.CharagS.SaiT. (2024). Women’s empowerment in India: State-wise insights from the National Family Health Survey 5. Cureus, 16(7), Article e65509. https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.65509
WhiteA. R.NathanN. L.FallerJ. K. (2015). What do I need to vote? Bureaucratic discretion and discrimination by local election officials. American Political Science Review, 109(1), 129–142. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0003055414000562
71.
WolbrechtC.CampbellD. E. (2007). Leading by example: Female members of parliament as political role models. American Journal of Political Science, 51(4), 921–939. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2007.00289.x
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
