COMMENTARY ON POLITICAL PARTICIPATION : It’s ‘Year of the Woman,’ and Good News for Family Values : Female officials give higher priority to the problems of air quality, population growth, child care, reproductive rights and the impact of development than do their male counterparts.

With record numbers of women running for local, state and national offices, the media have dubbed 1992 “The Year of the Woman.” For myriad reasons, more women have entered the arena of electoral politics this year than ever before in American history. With more women running, it’s a good bet more women will win election to public office as a result.

What difference, if any, will more women in public office make for American politics? Feminist scholarship on the role of women in politics has long maintained that women and men manifest different political voices and behaviors. Embedded in this viewpoint is the proposition that a greater number of women serving in elected office will fundamentally transform the content and direction of public policy and substantially alter the character of American politics.

Yet, validation of this proposition remains largely a matter of speculation, especially since women are woefully under-represented in national, state and local offices. Women comprise only 2% of the Senate, 6% of the House of Representatives, 18% of state legislatures and executive offices, and roughly 20% of local offices.

To answer this question, among others, we conducted a survey of all elected officials in Orange County cities (with a response rate of 60%). In Orange County, four out of 31 cities have a female majority on their city council, while eight cities have no women on their city councils at all. Nevertheless, the overall percentage of women holding local elected office in Orange County at 27% is well above the national average; making the county an appropriate venue from which to explore the differences between women and men in public office.

When it comes to identifying the most serious problems confronting Orange County, female officials give higher priority than do males to air quality, population growth, child care and the impact of development.

Not surprisingly, female elected officials are also dramatically more concerned about reproductive rights than are male officials. Conversely, women officeholders are less concerned about crime, health care and AIDS than are the men at City Hall. On some key issues, however, there are no substantial gender differences in priorities. Elected officials of both sexes were equally concerned about the problems of traffic, housing availability, the quality of public schools, and drug abuse facing the county.

The sex difference in policy priorities is strong validation of the “different voice” thesis. Equally significant is the question of how well the priorities of local elected officials, by sex, match those of the public at large. We answer this question by comparing the results of our survey with the results of the 1991 Orange County Annual Survey, which similarly asked the public to prioritize policy problems.

This comparison reveals that the priorities of women in elected office are closer to those of the general public on a number of key issues. Specifically, female officials and the public care less about the problems of crime and AIDS than do male officials, while female officials share a greater concern with the public for the problems of foreign immigration, child care and growth.

At the risk of overgeneralizing, women in public office, at least in Orange County, may better represent the public than do men.

There are also important differences in the campaign behavior of female and male officeholders. First, the sources of campaign contributions differ. Men tended to receive more money from corporations, developers and organized political groups, while women raised more campaign funds from individual contributions of $100 or less.

Second, women spent slightly more money on their last campaign than did men. Thus, it cost men less to win elected office in terms of money and fund-raising energy, while women spent more to win office and worked harder for it.

Third, female candidates were more likely to use a professional political consultant in their campaign, perhaps signifying the difficulty inherent in challenging the heretofore male-dominated arena of electoral politics.

Fourth, there are also differences in how female and male candidates account for their electoral success. Men attributed victory to traditional door-to-door campaigning, while women believed their involvement in community service was the key to victory.

If more women are elected to public office in 1992, what will be the impact on American public policy and politics?

Assuming the attitudes and behavior of female elected officials in Orange County are indicative of female officeholders elsewhere, then city councils and legislatures with larger numbers of women will be more attentive to family issues, environmental quality, the pace and consequences of development, and reproductive rights.

If Americans want to restore “traditional family values,” they would be well-advised to elect more women to public office.

Though it remains more difficult for women to raise the funds necessary to run for office, the policy and political agenda women voice is compelling and long overdue. Our survey of local elected officials in Orange County shows that women not only speak with a different voice, but also speak across the sex divide for the public at large.

This may be reason enough for voters of both sexes to elect an unprecedented number of women to public office in November, making 1993 a better year for women and for political representation in America.