Climate Shocks, Gender, and Incumbency Punishment

Abstract

Do voters punish women incumbents more harshly than men during environmental disasters? Crises can exacerbate gender biases that lead voters to prefer masculine leadership, and these biases may make voters evaluate female incumbents’ performances during climate-related disasters more harshly. We test this argument in the context of South Africa, focusing on droughts – a salient crisis that informs voters about incumbents’ competence through their response. We complement a vignette experiment on incumbent gender and drought response with real-world geo-located data on drought onset, disaster declarations, and electoral results. We find consistent evidence that women incumbents receive greater electoral benefits than men when they provide drought relief, yet they receive a greater punishment when they fail to secure relief. Exploration of mechanisms highlights perceptions of male leaders’ involvement in stealing drought relief funds. These findings have implications for women’s representation, especially considering climate change where droughts are becoming more common and severe.