Abstract
History's societies vary on numerous dimensions, but appear relatively homogenous in how they distribute socioeconomic status across sexes. This homogeneity begs the question of whether forces that are robust to formal and informal institutions influence sex differences in status. We address this question by empirically evaluating evolutionary models of hierarchical attainment where sex-differences in risk-taking play an axiomatic role. These models imply that (1) winner-take-all games favor males, but (2) successful females maintain greater skill on average. We find support for these implications in how the sex-composition of national legislatures differs across electoral mechanisms (i.e., majoritarian chambers employ a significantly greater proportion of males) and how US Representatives' re-election prospects differ by sex (i.e., females enjoy significantly longer durations). These results cannot easily be dismissed as artifacts of endogeneity bias, and alternative models can (at best) rationalize our cross-sectional or time series results, but not both.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
