Who Enters Politics and Why?

Literature Cited

1. Anzia SF, Berry CR. 2011. The Jackie (and Jill) Robinson effect: Why do congresswomen outperform congressmen?. Am. J. Political Sci. 55:478–93
   [Google Scholar]
2. Arora A. 2020. Election by community consensus: effects on political selection and governance. Rev. Econ. Stat. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00970
   [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
3. Ashworth S. 2012. Electoral accountability: recent theoretical and empirical work. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 15:183–201
   [Google Scholar]
4. Auerbach AM, Thachil T. 2019. How patrons select brokers: efficacy and loyalty in urban Indian machines Work. Pap., Sch. Int. Serv., American Univ. Washington, DC:
5. Avis E, Ferraz C, Finan F, Varjão C 2017. Money and politics: the effects of campaign spending limits on political competition and incumbency advantage NBER Work. Pap. 23508
6. Bandiera A. 2020. The effect of rents on selection and behavior: evidence from illegal gold mining in Peru Work. Pap., Inst. Tecnol. Autón. México, Mexico City DF Mexico:
7. Beath A, Christia F, Egorov G, Enikolopov R. 2016. Electoral rules and political selection: theory and evidence from a field experiment in Afghanistan. Rev. Econ. Stud. 83:932–68
   [Google Scholar]
8. Benabou R, Tirole J. 2003. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Rev. Econ. Stud. 70:489–520
   [Google Scholar]
9. Bernhard R, Holman M, Shames S, Teele DL. 2019. Beyond ambition. Politics Groups Identities 7:815–16
   [Google Scholar]
10. Besley T. 2005. Political selection. J. Econ. Perspect. 19:43–60
    [Google Scholar]
11. Besley T, Coate S. 1997. An economic model of representative democracy. Q. J. Econ. 112:85–114
    [Google Scholar]
12. Besley T, Folke O, Persson T, Rickne J. 2017. Gender quotas and the crisis of the mediocre man: theory and evidence from Sweden. Am. Econ. Rev. 107:2204–42
    [Google Scholar]
13. Besley T, Reynal-Querol M. 2011. Do democracies select more educated leaders?. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 105:552–66
    [Google Scholar]
14. Bhavnani RR. 2009. Do electoral quotas work after they are withdrawn? Evidence from a natural experiment in India. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 103:23–35
    [Google Scholar]
15. Bhavnani RR. 2017. Do the effects of temporary ethnic group quotas persist? Evidence from India. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 9:105–23
    [Google Scholar]
16. Bhusal B, Callen M, Gulzar S, Pande R, Artiz Prillaman S, Singhania D 2019. Does revolution work? Evidence on changes to political representation and to policy outcomes from Nepal's people's war Work. Pap., Cent. Eff. Glob. Action, Univ. Calif., Berkeley, CA
17. Black GS. 1972. A theory of political ambition: career choices and the role of structural incentives. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 66:144–59
    [Google Scholar]
18. Bonica A. 2020. Why are there so many lawyers in Congress?. Legis. Stud. Q. 45:253–89
    [Google Scholar]
19. Broockman DE. 2013. Black politicians are more intrinsically motivated to advance blacks’ interests: a field experiment manipulating political incentives. Am. J. Political Sci. 57:521–36
    [Google Scholar]
20. Broockman DE. 2014. Mobilizing candidates: political actors strategically shape the candidate pool with personal appeals. J. Exp. Political Sci. 1:104–19
    [Google Scholar]
21. Bueno NS, Dunning T. 2017. Race, resources, and representation: evidence from Brazilian politicians. World Politics 69:327–65
    [Google Scholar]
22. Bussell J. 2019. Clients and Constituents: Political Responsiveness in Patronage Democracies New York: Oxford Univ. Press
23. Butler DM, Preece JR. 2016. Recruitment and perceptions of gender bias in party leader support. Political Res. Q. 69:842–51
    [Google Scholar]
24. Carnes N. 2013. White-Collar Government: The Hidden Role of Class in Economic Policy Making Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
25. Carnes N, Hansen ER. 2016. Does paying politicians more promote economic diversity in legislatures?. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 110:699–716
    [Google Scholar]
26. Carnes N, Lupu N. 2015. Rethinking the comparative perspective on class and representation: evidence from Latin America. Am. J. Political Sci. 59:1–18
    [Google Scholar]
27. Carnes N, Lupu N. 2016a. Do voters dislike working-class candidates? Voter biases and the descriptive underrepresentation of the working class. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 110:832–44
    [Google Scholar]
28. Carnes N, Lupu N. 2016b. What good is a college degree? Education and leader quality reconsidered. J. Politics 78:35–49
    [Google Scholar]
29. Carreri M. 2021. Can good politicians compensate for bad institutions? Evidence from an original survey of Italian mayors. J. Politics. In press
    [Google Scholar]
30. Carreri M, Payson J. 2020. The unequal effects of political selection: evidence from U.S. mayors and city managers SSRN Work. Pap. 3745662
31. Caselli F, Morelli M. 2004. Bad politicians. J. Public Econ. 88:759–82
    [Google Scholar]
32. Casey K, Kamara AB, Meriggi N. 2019. An experiment in candidate selection NBER Work. Pap. 26160
33. Chandra K. 2016. Democratic Dynasties: State, Party and Family in Contemporary Indian Politics Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
34. Cirone A, Cox GW, Fiva JH. 2020. Seniority-based nominations and political careers. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 115:234–51
    [Google Scholar]
35. Cohen M, Karol D, Noel H, Zaller J. 2009. The Party Decides: Presidential Nominations Before and After Reform Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
36. Conroy M, Green J. 2020. It takes a motive: communal and agentic articulated interest and candidate emergence. Political Res. Q. 73:1065912920933668
    [Google Scholar]
37. Coppock A. 2019. Avoiding post-treatment bias in audit experiments. J. Exp. Political Sci. 6:1–4
    [Google Scholar]
38. Crowder-Meyer M. 2018. Baker, bus driver, babysitter, candidate? Revealing the gendered development of political ambition among ordinary Americans. Political Behav 42:359–84
    [Google Scholar]
39. Cruz C, Labonne J, Querubin P. 2017. Politician family networks and electoral outcomes: evidence from the Philippines. Am. Econ. Rev. 107:3006–37
    [Google Scholar]
40. Dahlgaard JO, Tue Pedersen R 2019. Must voters choose between political competence and descriptive representation? Work. Pap., Copenhagen Bus. Sch., Frederiksberg, Denmark
41. Dal Bó E, Dal Bó P, Snyder J 2009. Political dynasties. Rev. Econ. Stud. 76:115–42
    [Google Scholar]
42. Dal Bó E, Finan F. 2018. Progress and perspectives in the study of political selection. Annu. Rev. Econ. 10:541–75
    [Google Scholar]
43. Dal Bó E, Finan F, Folke O, Persson T, Rickne J. 2017. Who becomes a politician?. Q. J. Econ. 132:1877–914
    [Google Scholar]
44. Dancygier RM, Lindgren KO, Oskarsson S, Vernby K et al. 2015. Why are immigrants underrepresented in politics? Evidence from Sweden. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 109:703–24
    [Google Scholar]
45. Dar A. 2018. Parachuters versus climbers: economic consequences of barriers to political entry in a democracy. Work. Pap., North East Univ. Dev. Consort., Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY
46. Dynes A, Hassell H, Miles M, Preece J. 2019. Personality and gendered selection processes in the political pipeline. Politics Gender https://doi.org/10.1017/S1743923X19000461
    [Crossref] [Google Scholar]
47. Eggers AC, Hainmueller J. 2009. MPs for sale? Returns to office in postwar British politics. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 103:513–33
    [Google Scholar]
48. Fearon JD. 1999. Electoral accountability and the control of politicians: selecting good types versus sanctioning poor performance. Democr. Account. Represent. 55:61
    [Google Scholar]
49. Fisman R, Schulz F, Vig V. 2014. The private returns to public office. J. Political Econ. 122:806–62
    [Google Scholar]
50. Fiva JH, Halse AH, Smith DM. 2020. Local representation and voter mobilization in closed-list proportional representation systems. Q. J. Political Sci. In press
    [Google Scholar]
51. Fowler LL, McClure RD. 1990. Political Ambition: Who Decides to Run for Congress New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
52. Fox RL, Lawless JL. 2004. Entering the arena? Gender and the decision to run for office. Am. J. Political Sci. 48:264–80
    [Google Scholar]
53. Fox RL, Lawless JL. 2010. If only they'd ask: gender, recruitment, and political ambition. J. Politics 72:310–26
    [Google Scholar]
54. Franceschet S, Piscopo JM. 2008. Gender quotas and women's substantive representation: lessons from Argentina. Politics Gender 4:393–425
    [Google Scholar]
55. Galasso V, Nannicini T. 2011. Competing on good politicians. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 105:79–99
    [Google Scholar]
56. George SE, Ponattu D. 2019. Like father, like son? The effect of political dynasties on economic development. Work. Pap., Harvard Univ., Cambridge, MA
57. Goyal T. 2020. Local female representation as a pathway to power: a natural experiment in India SSRN Work. Pap. 3590118
58. Grimmer J, Messing S, Westwood SJ. 2012. How words and money cultivate a personal vote: the effect of legislator credit claiming on constituent credit allocation. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 106:703–19
    [Google Scholar]
59. Grossman G. 2014. Do selection rules affect leader responsiveness? Evidence from rural Uganda. Q. J. Political Sci. 9:1–44
    [Google Scholar]
60. Grossman G, Hanlon WW. 2014. Do better monitoring institutions increase leadership quality in community organizations? Evidence from Uganda. Am. J. Political Sci. 58:669–86
    [Google Scholar]
61. Grossman G, Michelitch K, Prato C. 2020. The effect of sustained transparency on electoral accountability. Work. Pap., Dep. Political Science, Univ. Pa., Philadelphia, PA
62. Gulzar S, Haas N, Pasquale BJ. 2020. Does political affirmative action work, and for whom? Theory and evidence on India's scheduled areas. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 114:1230–46
    [Google Scholar]
63. Gulzar S, Hai Z, Paudel BK 2021a. Information, candidate selection, and the quality of representation: evidence from Nepal. J. Politics. In press
    [Google Scholar]
64. Gulzar S, Khan MY. 2018. Barriers to political entry: experimental evidence from local government elections in Pakistan Work. Pap., Dep. Political Sci., Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA
65. Gulzar S, Khan MY. 2020. Social motivation, political candidacy, and performance? Experimental evidence from Pakistan Work. Pap., Dep. Political Sci., Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA
66. Gulzar S, Pasquale BJ. 2017. Politicians, bureaucrats, and development: evidence from India. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 111:162–83
    [Google Scholar]
67. Gulzar S, Rueda MR, Ruiz NA. 2021b. Do campaign contribution limits curb the influence of money in politics?. Am. J. Political Sci. In press
    [Google Scholar]
68. Hall AB. 2018. Who Wants to Run? How the Devaluing of Political Office Drives Polarization Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
69. Hassell HJ. 2017. The Party's Primary: Control of Congressional Nominations Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
70. Iyer L. 2019. Getting more women into politics: evidence from elections in India. VOX CEPR Policy Portal. https://voxeu.org/article/getting-more-women-politics-evidence-india
    [Google Scholar]
71. Kanthak K, Woon J. 2015. Women don't run? Election aversion and candidate entry. Am. J. Political Sci. 59:595–612
    [Google Scholar]
72. Karpowitz CF, Monson JQ, Preece JR. 2017. How to elect more women: gender and candidate success in a field experiment. Am. J. Political Sci. 61:927–43
    [Google Scholar]
73. Kjekshus H. 1975. The Elected Elite: A Socio-Economic Profile of Candidates in Tanzania's Parliamentary Election, 1970 Uppsala: Nordiska Afrikainst
74. Lasswell HD. 1986. Psychopathology and Politics Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
75. Lawless JL. 2012. Becoming a Candidate: Political Ambition and the Decision to Run for Office New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
76. Lawless JL. 2015. Female candidates and legislators. Annu. Rev. Political Sci. 18:349–66
    [Google Scholar]
77. Lawless JL, Fox RL. 2005. It Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don't Run for Office New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
78. Lawless JL, Fox RL. 2010. It Still Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don't Run for Office New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
79. Lundin M, Nordstrom-Skans O, Zetterberg P 2016. Leadership experiences within civil organizations and candidacy in public elections: causal evidence from a quasi-experimental approach. Political Behav 38:433–54
    [Google Scholar]
80. Mattozzi A, Merlo A. 2008. Political careers or career politicians?. J. Public Econ. 92:597–608
    [Google Scholar]
81. McClean CT. 2019. Does it matter that politicians are older than their constituents? Yes Work. Pap., Prog. U.S.-Japan Relat., Harvard Univ., Cambridge, MA
82. Norris P. 1997. Passages to Power: Legislative Recruitment in Advanced Democracies Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
83. O'Brien DZ, Rickne J 2016. Gender quotas and women's political leadership. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 110:112–26
    [Google Scholar]
84. Osborne MJ, Slivinski A. 1996. A model of political competition with citizen-candidates. Q. J. Econ. 111:65–96
    [Google Scholar]
85. Parthasarathy R, Rao V, Palaniswamy N. 2019. Deliberative democracy in an unequal world: a text-as-data study of South India's village assemblies. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 113:623–40
    [Google Scholar]
86. Pitkin HF. 1967. The Concept of Representation Berkeley/Los Angeles: Univ. Calif. Press
87. Preece JR, Stoddard OB. 2015. Does the message matter? A field experiment on political party recruitment. J. Exp. Political Sci. 2:26–35
    [Google Scholar]
88. Preece JR, Stoddard OB, Fisher R. 2016. Run, Jane, run! Gendered responses to political party recruitment. Political Behav 38:561–77
    [Google Scholar]
89. Querubin P. 2016. Family and politics: dynastic incumbency advantage in the Philippines. Q. J. Political Sci. 11:151–81
    [Google Scholar]
90. Rahat G, Hazan RY. 2001. Candidate selection methods: an analytical framework. Party Politics 7:297–322
    [Google Scholar]
91. Ravanilla N. 2020. Mitigating adverse political selection: experimental evidence from a leadership training for aspiring politicians in the Philippines Work. Pap., Univ. Calif. San Diego Sch. Glob. Policy Strategy, San Diego, CA
92. Rule W. 1987. Electoral systems, contextual factors and women's opportunity for election to parliament in twenty-three democracies. West. Political Q. 40:477–98
    [Google Scholar]
93. Schlesinger JA. 1966. Ambition and Politics: Political Careers in the United States Chicago: Rand NcNally
94. Shames SL, Bernhard RI, Holman MR, Teele DL. 2020. Good Reasons to Run: Women and Political Candidacy Philadelphia: Temple Univ. Press
95. Shaukat M. 2019. Too close to call: electoral competition and politician behavior in India Work. Pap., Dep. Econ., Mass. Inst. Technol., Cambridge, MA
96. Smith DM. 2018. Dynasties and Democracy: The Inherited Incumbency Advantage in Japan Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
97. Smith DM, Tsutsumi H. 2016. Candidate selection methods and policy cohesion in parties: the impact of open recruitment in Japan. Party Politics 22:339–53
    [Google Scholar]
98. Szakonyi D. 2021. Private sector policymaking: business background and politicians’ behavior in office. J. Politics. In press
    [Google Scholar]
99. Thompson DM, Feigenbaum JJ, Hall AB, Yoder J. 2019. Who becomes a member of Congress? Evidence from de-anonymized census data NBER Work. Pap. 26156
100. Thomsen DM. 2017. Opting Out of Congress: Partisan Polarization and the Decline of Moderate Candidates Cambridge, UK: Cambridge Univ. Press
101. Truex R. 2014. The returns to office in a “rubber stamp” parliament. Am. Political Sci. Rev. 108:235–51
     [Google Scholar]
102. Volden C, Wiseman AE. 2014. Legislative Effectiveness in the United States Congress: The Lawmakers New York: Cambridge Univ. Press
103. Weghorst K. 2021. Activist Origins of Political Ambition: Opposition Candidacy in Electoral Authoritarian Regimes New York: Cambridge Univ. Press In press