Could a Woman Have Gone to China? Evidence of a Gendered Peace Premium

• In Event: Demonstrations of Reputation and Commitment in Foreign Policy

Abstract

An old adage holds that "only Nixon could go to China." In other words, hawkish leaders face lower domestic barriers to pursuing conciliation with foreign enemies than dovish leaders. The reason being that hawkish leaders are not predisposed to pursuing peace, and thus doing so signals that the policy is more likely to be in the national interest. Is it similarly more difficult for female leaders to pursue peace than male leaders? We argue that female leaders do indeed face greater domestic barriers to pursuing peace. Since female leaders are perceived by the public as weaker than male leaders, they have political incentives to adopt more belligerent foreign policies in order to prove their toughness and competence. Additionally, by acting according to "type" and proposing peace, conciliatory policies by female leaders will be perceived as less in the national interest than the same policy pursued by a male leader. To isolate the effects of a leader’s gender on public evaluations of peace proposals, we adopt an experimental approach and find evidence for our argument. Overall, this project holds critical implications for whether increased female officeholding around the globe will lead to less belligerent foreign policies and more peace––as many prominent scholars and policymakers expect––or the reverse.

Authors

• Joshua Schwartz, Harvard Kennedy School

• Christopher William Blair, University of Pennsylvania