Ein interessanter Artikel behandelt die Änderungen an Staat und Verwaltung nach dem Wahlrecht für Frauen:
This paper examines the growth of government during this century as a result of giving women the right to vote. Using cross-sectional time-series data for 1870 to 1940, we examine state government expenditures and revenue as well as voting by U.S. House and Senate state delegations and the passage of a wide range of different state laws. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue and more liberal voting patterns for federal representatives, and these effects continued growing over time as more women took advantage of the franchise. Contrary to many recent suggestions, the gender gap is not something that has arisen since the 1970s, and it helps explain why American government started growing when it did.
Eine Grafik stellt den Effekt ganz gut dar:
Wie man recht deutlich sieht sanken die Staatsausgaben vor der Einführung des Wahlrechts, mit dessen Einführung stiegen sie sehr steil an.
Aus der Studie:
Giving women the right to vote significantly changed American politics from the very beginning. Despite claims to the contrary, the gender gap is not something that has arisen since the 1970s. Suffrage coincided with immediate increases in state government expenditures and revenue, and these effects continued growing as more women took advantage of the franchise. Similar changes occurred at the federal level as female suffrage led to more liberal voting records for the state’s U.S. House and Senate delegations. In the Senate, suffrage changed voting behavior by an amount equal to almost 20 percent of the difference between Republican and Democratic senators. Suffrage also coincided with changes in the probability that prohibition would be enacted and changes in divorce laws. We were also able to deal with questions of causality by taking advantage of the fact that while some states voluntarily adopted suffrage, others where compelled to do so by the Nineteenth Amendment. The conclusion was that suffrage dramatically changed government in both cases. Accordingly, the effects of suffrage we estimate are not reflecting some other factor present in only states that adopted suffrage. Not all women immediately took advantage of the right to vote. About half of the ultimate percentage of women who eventually voted in elections appeared to have started voting immediately after suffrage was granted, and most of those women were in the 45–64- year-old age group.
More work remains to be done on why women vote so differently, but our initial work provides scant evidence that it is due to selfinterest arising from their employment by government. The only evidence that we found indicated that the gender gap in part arises from women’s fear that they are being left to raise children on their own (Lott and Kenny 1997). If this result is true, the continued breakdown of the family and higher divorce rates imply growing political conflicts between the sexes.Claims that the gender gap has arisen as men have left the Democratic party and that the ‘‘modern’’ gender gap has arisen only since the 1970s can now be put in a different perspective (Stark 1996, p.78). Combining these claims with our work implies that the gender gap disappeared during the 1960s and 1970s as men moved toward women and became more liberal, but that it reappeared again when men moved back to their original position relative to women.
Anmerkungen dazu von Judgybitch, auf deren Blog ich die Studie fand:
Within 4 years of giving women the vote, government spending crossed its previous peak, and within 11 years, women voted for candidates who doubled state expenditures. And this trend is going nowhere but up. Women are now demanding free tampons, free birth control, free college tuition. Paid for by the state men. Women are rapacious consumers of state resources, and appear to have no defined limits.
Women will vote for entitlements until the state collapses, if permitted to do so.
I haven’t parsed Lott and Kenny’s data very closely, but I do not doubt there are some correlation/causation metrics that could be argued. Or one might argue that expanding state benefits is a net positive. Or argue that women might rein in demands at a certain critical point, being that women are more risk averse than men, and have no interest in seeing the state collapse.
Es ist sicherlich genau zu untersuchen, wie viel tatsächlich auf den direkten Einfluss von Frauen zurück ging und wie viel einfach geänderten Zeiten, die eben auch zu einer Liberalisierung des Wahlrechts zu tun hatte. Auch die andere Position der Frau an sich kann vieles in der Gesellschaft verändert haben.
Es passt jedenfalls gut zu der These von Warren Farrell, dass der Staat in modernen Zeiten immer mehr zum Ersatzversorger für Frauen geworden ist und dabei den Mann indirekt ersetzt hat.