If Women Ruled the World, Part II

(Part I is here)

Will a female president wield her power differently than a male one?

It's of course impossible to know with great certainty, but the rise of female legislators in states around the country since the 1970's -- and their impact on how tax dollars are spent -- provides some clues.

During the past four decades, the percentage of women in state legislatures has quintupled, and, as of this year, Vermont is the most 'gender-equal' state with 37.8 percent of its state senate and house seats occupied by women while South Carolina is the least equal with only 8.8 percent.

(The percentage of women in statewide offices is about the same as in state legislatures at 23.5 percent, but the representation of women in Congress is lower at 16.1 percent.)

As voters, women give higher priorities to issues related to children, families, and healthcare. Has this translated into different budget priorities once women are in elected positions? The evidence thus far says yes.

One 1994 study of 12 state legislatures found that women spend more time on bills related to family issues. A 1998 study found that the enforcement of child-support policies increased with the number of women legislators. And in 2000, another study found that the proportion of women in state legislatures was a good predictor of stronger workers compensation policies.

In a new study by M. Marit Rehavi of Berkeley looks for a link between female members who were elected to state Houses across the country between 1977 and 2001 and any effects this might have had on the composition of state budgets.

Rehavi finds no relationship between the percentage of women in state Houses and total spending and -- surprisingly -- education spending.

Expenditures on health were the only budget category that increased as the relative power of women grew: Rehavi found that as much as 15 percent of the increase in health spending between 1977 and 2001 could be attributed to the larger role of women in deciding state policy. On the other hand, states were women were influential slowed their spending on prisons.

Interestingly, the results applied to both Democratic and Republican women, suggesting that there indeed is a "woman" effect.

But, put in larger perspective, the 15 percent growth in healthcare spending and the slowing of correctional spending are small parts of the overall budgetary pie, so it's hard to make the case that female and male preferences are all that different. Still, this might be due to the fact that women are not the majority in any state and don't yet have the ability to wield power at will.

What does this mean for a Hillary Clinton presidency? The results don't say anything about foreign policy, but the studies' findings do suggest that distributional issues are more important to female policymakers. And while Clinton's opponent, Barack Obama, has been labeled as the more liberal of the two, the ascendance of either candidate to the presidency will mean it's time to feed the Beast again.