UNRAVELLING (FINANCIAL) BARRIERS FACED BY WOMEN IN POLITICS

Kaitlin Senk and Hilde Coffé

University of Bath^[1]

INTRODUCTION

Women’s descriptive representation in politics has increased during the last few decades in the UK, yet women continue to be underrepresented and struggle for parity across all levels of politics. Additionally, elected women representatives are mainly white, highly educated and upper class (as are men representatives). The underrepresentation of women, and especially women of lower class and ethnic minority groups, has important consequences, both substantively (policy interests and making) and symbolically (citizens’ political attitudes towards political institutions and democracy, and their political engagement). One explanation for women’s representation has been a lack of financial resources though empirical research has revealed mixed results. Murray et al. 2023, for example, argue that lack of funding is a significant barrier that women face in putting themselves forward as candidates (see also Lawless and Fox 2010). Others - often focusing on the US - argue that women are capable of accumulating as much wealth as men, and in some cases even surpass them (Adams and Schreiber 2016; Anastasopoulos 2016; Burrell 2005; Hogan 2007; Thompson et al. 1998; Werner, 1997). Others have still shown that women may need to seek support from a broader array of alternative contributors, such as women's political action committees (PACs) and organisations (Burrell 2005; Burrell 2006).

Several questions related to the link between campaign finance and gender thus remain unanswered. Understanding this connection is, however, crucial to addressing women's continued underrepresentation, as adequate financial resources are likely to motivate women to run for office and may also impact their chances of securing a seat. Research has indeed confirmed a link between financial support and the likelihood of winning an election (Ferguson et al. 2016; Schuster 2020; Speck and Mancuso 2014).

This short report presents a first analysis of the Electoral Commission data from the 2019 parliamentary elections. The Electoral Commission data include 2,184 men and 1,124 women candidates. We ask: To what extent do campaign spending patterns and received donations differ between women and men candidates, and what impact do campaign spending and received donations have on women’s and men’s electoral success? We also explore differences between political parties.

Campaign spending is calculated as the total amount of spending that a candidate reports to the Electoral Commission, divided by the spending limit for a given constituency. This accounts for the fact that individuals in more rural, thinly populated counties will, on average, spend more than those campaigning in more densely populated boroughs (Fouirnaies 2021; Rossiter et al. 1999). We also include donations greater than £50 as a proportion of the candidate’s spending limit.

GENDER AND CAMPAIGN SPENDING

We find that women spend significantly more (about 3.8%) of their campaign spending limits when compared with men. On average, women spend about 38.8% of their campaign spending limits while men spend 35%. Additionally, women receive significantly more campaign donations as a proportion of their campaign spending limits when compared to men (5.6%). On average, women receive £5,219 in campaign donations while men receive £4,462.

However, differences between men and women in spending patterns and campaign donations received exist across political parties. While women, in general, spend a higher proportion of their campaign spending limits than men, this is not true for Conservative candidates where women spend around 11% less of their campaign spending limit than men from the same party. Labour women tend to spend about 4.6% more of their campaign spending limit than men from the same party, while women from the Liberal Democratic party spend 8.3% of their campaign spending limit more than men. All these gender differences are statistically significant at p<.05 (except for Labour, where the gender difference is only marginally significant (p<.10)). Independent women candidates spend the same proportion of their campaign spending limit as independent men candidates.

In terms of campaign donations, Conservative women receive significantly fewer campaign donations than Conservative men candidates (about 14% less as a proportion of their campaign spending limits). Conservative women receive, on average, £7,617 in campaign donations while men receive £9,604. On the other hand, Liberal Democrat women receive significantly more donations than Liberal Democrat men (about 16.5% more as a proportion of their campaign spending limit). Liberal Democrat women receive, on average, £6,982 in campaign donations while men from the same party receive, on average, £4,714. Women and men from the Labour party tend to receive equitable amounts of campaign donations, with no real gender differences emerging (£6,797 and £6,439 respectively). Independent women receive a higher amount of campaign donations compared with men  (£2,023 and  £1,156 respectively).^[2] 

Sign. *p<.05; ^ p<.1

Figure 1:         Mean Campaign Spending (Percentage) by Gender and Party

Sign. *p<.05

Figure 2:         Mean Campaign Donations (in GBP) by Gender and Party

CAMPAIGN SPENDING, DONATIONS AND ELECTION OUTCOMES

While women spend more on their campaigns and receive more donations than men, do these gender differences have an impact on election outcomes? To measure whether a candidate wins an election, we determine which candidate receives the highest vote share in the current election, in accordance with the first past the post electoral system used in the United Kingdom.

In addition to campaign spending and donations, some of the analyses explaining election outcomes introduced below also include measures of the safety of the candidate’s district seat, and the candidate’s political party affiliation and incumbency status, as these factors also determine a candidate’s election outcome. To measure whether a candidate is running in a safe seat, we look at the election results from the previous year and determine 1) which party won the district in the previous year and 2) by what margin was that seat won (i.e.: difference between the top candidate’s vote share and the first runner up vote share). A district is considered safe if the candidate running in that district is from the same party that won the district in a  previous election by greater than 10% of the vote share. Candidates from parties that did not win the same district in the previous election or candidates that are from parties that came within 10% of the vote share of runner up candidate in the same district are considered to be from marginal seats (Zittel and Gschwend 2008; Hazan and Rahat 2010). Overall, we find a significant difference in the likelihood of Conservative women and men to run in a safe district (31% compared with 43%). Such gender difference does not exist within the Labour party, where women and men both had about 31% chance of running in a safe district in the 2019 elections. Incumbency refers to whether a candidate was serving as an MP at the beginning of the election campaign. Overall, we find a significant difference in the likelihood of Conservative women and men to run as incumbents (27% and 48% respectively). We do not find such a difference between men and women in the Labour party where men had a 34% chance of running as an incumbent and women had a 31% chance. To measure political party affiliation, we distinguish the three main parties represented in parliament: Labour, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrats. Additionally, due to their unique status and lack of party support (including financial support) independent candidates are classified as a separate group. All other candidates are grouped under the category ‘other parties.’

The Impact of Campaign Spending and Donations on Women’s and Men’s Likelihood of Winning Elections

To examine how campaign spending and received donations influence gender differences in the likelihood of winning elections, we begin by assessing the overall effect of gender on election outcomes. Figure 3 shows that there were no significant gender differences in the likelihood of winning a seat in the 2019 election, except for the Conservative Party. In this election, Conservative women were significantly less likely to win compared to their male counterparts.

Figure 3:         The Effect of Gender on Winning by Party (no controls)

To what extent can the gender gap in the likelihood of winning within the Conservative Party be attributed to differences in campaign spending or donations, as well as incumbency status and seat safety? Figure 4 includes one figure that focuses solely on campaign spending and another that incorporates both incumbency status and seat safety. These figures enable us to examine whether the size of the gender gap (shown in Figure 3) changes when these factors (and gender differences therein) are taken into account.

Figure 4:         The Effect of Gender on Winning by Party (controlling for Campaign Spending (Left Panel) and for Campaign Spending, Safety of Seat and Incumbency Status (Right Panel))

The left panel of Figure 4, which only accounts for campaign spending, shows an overlap in the likelihood of winning between Conservative women and men. This suggests that women’s lower levels of spending and donations partly explain why Conservative women were less likely to win their seats in the 2019 elections. Conservative women’s higher likelihood of being newcomers and campaigning in unsafe seats compared with their men counterparts further contributes to their lower levels of success. The right panel of Figure 4 demonstrates an almost complete overlap in the likelihood of winning between women and men, indicating no significant difference in winning likelihood when campaign spending, seat safety, and incumbency status are taken into account.

Figure 5:         The Effect of Gender on Winning by Party (controlling for Campaign Spending (Left Panel) and for Campaign Spending, Safety of Seat and Incumbency Status (Right Panel))

A similar pattern is observed with donations. Once we account for the donations received, the gender gap in the likelihood of winning within the Conservative Party disappears. In other words, gender differences in the donations received can explain why men Conservative candidates were more likely to win the 2019 elections compared with their women counterparts.

Gender Differences in The Impact of Campaign Spending and Donations on Winning Elections

For both men and women, campaign spending and donations have a significant and positive impact on the probability of winning the election. Figure 6 shows the relationship between campaign spending and winning the election for women and men, accounting for gender differences in party, incumbency, and safety of seat. Figure 6 shows that if candidates move from spending around 40% of their spending limit to spending the full amount of their spending limit, they increase their chances of winning the election to 32% and 21% for men and women respectively. These differences are not statistically significant. Analyses did also reveal no statistically significant differences between women and men from the same party (and independent candidates) or across parties. Hence, campaign spending is equally important to the electoral outcomes of men and women across all parties.

Figure 6:         The Effect of Campaign Spending on Winning by Gender

Campaign donations also have a significant and positive impact on winning elections for men and women candidates. Figure 7 examines the relationship between donations and winning the election for women and men accounting for differences in party, incumbency, and seat safety. An increase in receiving 30% of the campaign spending limit in donations to receiving 100% of the campaign spending limit in donations, increases the chance of winning the election by 6% for women and by 7% for men. Similar to campaign spending, this gender difference is not statistically significant. Differences between women and men across parties and from the same party (including independent candidates) are also not statistically different. Campaign donations thus have the same effect on the likelihood of winning for women and men.

Figure 7:         The Effect of Campaign Donations on Winning by Gender

CONCLUSION

The data from the 2019 UK election indicate that campaign spending and campaign donations are crucial to the electoral success of men and women candidates across parties. Candidates who spend a greater portion of their spending limit on their campaigns and those who receive a greater amount of campaign donations, were more likely to win in 2019. However, while campaign spending and donations are equally important to the electoral success of men and women, inequities arise across parties that may disadvantage Conservative women specifically.

We find that Conservative women tend to raise fewer campaign donations when compared with Conservative men while also spending a smaller portion of their campaign spending limits on their campaigns. These differences partly explain why conservative women were less likely to win elections compared with their men counterparts. Conservative women are further disadvantaged by (1) being placed in more vulnerable districts by the party when compared with men candidates from the same party, and (2) being less likely to be incumbents when compared to men of the same party, and  candidates in vulnerable district seats and new candidates tend to benefit the most from campaign spending and donations (see Figures A1-A4 in the appendix). For candidates who are newcomers or running in vulnerable districts, the ability to allocate a larger proportion of their spending limit to their campaigns and raise higher campaign donations has a particularly positive impact on their electoral prospects. This holds similarly for both women and men.

While gender differences in raising campaign donations and spending are not present in parties other than the Conservatives, it may be important for political parties and civil society organisations to target campaign funding efforts to women running in vulnerable seats and women running for Parliament for the first time, which often may be one in the same. Political parties may have greater autonomy over where they place candidates with regard to district vulnerability and political newcomers tend to be placed in vulnerable districts when running for the first time. However, by targeting campaign funding towards new women candidates and women in vulnerable districts, the benefits of greater campaign funding may help to offset some of the disadvantages that may be compounded by being a first-time candidate and running in a more vulnerable district. By strategically targeting new women and those in marginal seats, these women may be able to run better funded campaigns that might make them more electorally competitive in spite of their status as new candidates and the district circumstances they face.

Since the data are based on only one election, future research should examine additional election years to confirm the gender patterns identified here. The 2019 election was a snap election due to the impasse over Brexit with a relatively short campaign period, which may have affected the financial aspects and overall costs of the campaign. In addition, the official data from the Electoral Commission provide only part of the picture on gender and campaign finance, and more detailed information is essential to fully understand the dynamics of financial resources and gender at play. In particular, a critical distinction needs to be made between campaign finance, which is reported to the Electoral Commission, and personal finance. While campaign finance covers public donations, party contributions, and other traceable sources of funding, personal finance refers to the private financial resources that candidates use to support themselves during their campaigns. This personal funding plays a vital role in allowing candidates to sustain themselves over the course of an election campaign (Murray 2023). It often determines their ability to take time off work, cover living expenses,  travel for campaign events, as well as afford clothing and hairstyling. Although these latter expenses may appear trivial, they are crucial for upholding the polished image voters and the media anticipate—particularly for women politicians, who typically experience greater scrutiny over their appearance compared with men. For women, and in particular those from marginalised backgrounds, accessing sufficient personal funds can present an additional barrier to the challenges they already face—such as gendered abuse and societal expectations that make it harder for women to balance politics with family life (e.g. Teele et al. 2018; Krook 2017). This financial barrier further limits women’s ability to engage in the electoral process, and starts as early as the pre-selection stage. Securing party approval can entail significant costs (such as £110 plus £250 within the Conservative Party), and the barrier persists through the constituency selection process and the actual election campaign (Ballington and Kahane 2014; Murray 2023). Moreover, it requires not only financial resources but also time, which women often have in shorter supply. Overall, this underscores the need for a broader understanding of financial dynamics in elections, as personal wealth and financial security can directly influence who can afford to run for office.

ElectHer, a multi-partisan organization dedicated to inspiring, supporting, and equipping women of all backgrounds to run for political office in Britain, has made significant strides in this area. Through their FundHer campaign, they have provided crucial assistance to women, particularly those from underrepresented backgrounds or with unique experiences, by covering personal costs associated with running for office. These expenses range from childcare and clothing, such as coats and shoes, to disability-related costs and more. Women2Win also provides fundraising, in addition to development, mentoring and training opportunities for women conservative candidates.

REFERENCES

Adams, B. E., & Schreiber, R. (2011). Gender, Campaign Finance, and Electoral Success in Municipal Elections. Journal of Urban Affairs, 33(1), 83–97.

Anastasopoulos, L. (2016). Estimating the gender penalty in House of Representative elections using a regression discontinuity design. Electoral Studies, 43, 150-157.

Ballington, J. & Kahane, M. (2014). Women in politics: Financing for gender equality. In E. Falguera, S. Jones & M. Ohman (Eds.), Funding of political parties and elections campaigns: A handbook on political finance (pp. 301-343). Stockholm: International IDEA.

Burrell, B. (2005). Campaign financing: Women’s experience in the modern era. In S. Thomas & C. Wilcox (Eds.), Women and elective office: Past, present and future (pp. 26–40). New York: Oxford University Press.

Burrell, B. (2006). Political parties and women’s organizations: Bringing women into the electoral arena. InS. J. Carroll & R. L. Fox (Eds.), Gender and elections (pp. 143–168). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ferguson, T., Jorgensen, P., & Chen, J. (2016). How Money Drives US Congressional Elections.” Institute for New Economic Thinking Working Paper Series No. 48. Rochester. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2817705.

Hogan, R. (2007). The effects of candidate gender on campaign spending in state legislative elections. Social Science Quarterly, 88(5), 1092–1105.

Krook, M.L. (2017). Violence Against Women in Politics. Journal of Democracy 28(1): 74–88.

Lawless, J.L., & Fox, R.L. (2010). It Still Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Murray, R. (2023). It’s a rich man’s world: How class and glass ceilings intersect for UK parliamentary candidates. International Political Science Review, 44(1), 13-26.

Schuster, S.S. (2020). Does campaign spending affect election outcomes? New evidence from transaction-level disbursement data. Journal of Politics, 82(4), 1502-1515.

Speck, B.W., & Mancuso, W.P. (2014). A study on the impact of campaign finance, political capital and gender on electoral performance. Brazilian Political Science Review, 8(1), 34-57.

Teele, D., Kalla, J., & Rosenbluth, F. (2018) The Ties that Double Bind: Social roles and women’s underrepresentation in politics. American Political Science Review 112(3): 525–541.

Thompson, J.A., Moncrief, G.F., & Hamm, K.E. (1998). Gender, candidate attributes, and campaign contributions. In T. Joel & G.F. Moncrief (Eds.), Campaign finance in state legislative elections (pp. 117–138). Washington, DC: CQ Press.

Werner, B.L. (1997). Financing the campaigns of women candidates and their opponents: Evidence from three states, 1982–1990. Women and Politics, 18(1), 81–97.

Table A1: Descriptive Information for All Variables by Gender (Percentages)

Sign. *p<.05

Figure A1: The Effect of Campaign Spending on Likelihood of Winning the Election by Gender (Safe Seats (Top Panel) and Unsafe Seats (Bottom Panel))

​​Figure A2:         The Effect of Campaign Donation on Likelihood of Winning the Election by Gender (Safe Seats (Top Panel) and Unsafe Seats (Bottom Panel))

Figure A3: The Effect of Campaign Spending on Likelihood of Winning the Election by Gender (Incumbents (Top Panel) and Newcomers (Bottom Panel))

​​Figure A4: The Effect of Campaign Donation on Likelihood of Winning the Election by Gender (Incumbents (Top Panel) and Newcomers (Bottom Panel))