In Women in Politics in the American City, Mirya Holman asks a valuable question: “Is it important that women hold [local] office?” (2). Holman approaches this question with an impressively broad collection of data along multiple dimensions of potential impact, combined with a thoughtful consideration of both what we consider to be women's issues and how we might best understand the representation of historically excluded groups in government. Contrary to much of the existing scholarship about the constraints on local government, Holman finds strong support indicating that electing women matters, not only for their policy preferences and government spending decisions, but for the nature of democratic participation in the city.

Taken as a whole, Holman's argument is compelling. She marshals an impressive array of data to her cause, including surveys of elected representatives in 100 cities (reinforced by a previously conducted general survey of 300 cities), surveys of community activists, case studies of eight cities transitioning from male to female leaders, and coding of budgets and city council meetings in nearly all 100 cities in her sample. The scope of data collected allows Holman to investigate a number of secondary questions, from variation in policy preferences to actual council deliberation and budget allocations, to the extent of public comment and participation where women have been elected. Her data—particularly her measures of actual spending, discussion topics, and participation in council meetings—tell a consistent story that political priorities and political life are different in cities with female elected officials.

Holman outlines five specific policy areas under the umbrella of “women's urban issues”: children, education, affordable housing, social welfare, and domestic violence (8). These came to be understood as women's issues because either they disproportionately impact women or they became subjects of government policy as a result of women's advocacy. Holman contrasts urban women's issues to three other policy areas: development, general government, and quality of life. Her justification for this classification is persuasive; however, given its centrality across all levels of her analysis, more discussion of the empirical validity of aggregate measures of the concept would be helpful. Since all initial data were collected at a fine-grained level of detail, it would be good to see distributions within both the general categories and more specific policy topics. Do the issue areas she aggregates as “urban women's issues” really fit together as a cohesive area of concern? It would be interesting, for example, to know whether the oft-repeated contrast between women's issues, on the one hand, and development issues on the other is really coming down to a contrast between business-oriented economic development and redistributional policy preferences, such as investments in public housing or poverty reduction (which are only a subset of her broader concept of women's issues).

Throughout the book, Holman regularly engages Paul Peterson's widely cited argument that the unique constraints on urban policy making require that development and business concerns dominate the political agenda.Footnote ¹ Instead, Holman's evidence demonstrates variability in cities' priorities, implying the possibility of active representation of diffuse interests other than business in city affairs. Holman emphasizes the importance of “preferable descriptive representation,” where elected officials feel a responsibility to represent a self-identified group, rather than simple descriptive representation, or simply shared gender identity. She observes that, in general, men and women have similar preferences across issue areas but that when female elected officials have close ties to women's organizations or feel obligated to represent women, they will report stronger support for urban women's issues. This is an important finding in her data, with implications that would benefit from more extended exploration and discussion. For example, as defined, preferable descriptive representatives must share the identity of the group they represent. Her survey, however, also allowed men to express a commitment to women's issues—16% of men report a responsibility to represent women's groups, and 28% think women should have “more power in government and politics” (38). Further study of men's effectiveness as issue advocates may also make an interesting contribution to evolving ideas of what it means to be an “ally” in contemporary struggles for gender justice.

Finally, while Holman initially argued that the concept of preferable descriptive representation (rather than simple descriptive representation) is the most important explanation for variation in policy, this important distinction drops away in later chapters. Instead, her analysis demonstrates a significant impact on policy discussions and budget priorities as a result of the presence of female mayors and council members, regardless of their standing as preferable representatives. This is a surprising result after her early analysis showing that women in general are no more likely to support women's issues. Suggesting that women alter local politics by their very presence, Holman draws on existing research about women's leadership styles to state that women generally have a more open and responsive approach to governance (or are at least seen to be more open or responsive), increasing the breadth and frequency of constituent communication and demands. As Holman describes it, this greater engagement and scope of perceived obligation to constituents is likely to emerge whenever women are elected, regardless of their personal sense of responsibility to women as a group. These unique dynamics are introduced but not fully explored and present exciting areas for further research.

The biggest contribution of the book is its comprehensive data collection on a variety of measures, helping the reader adjudicate prior competing claims about the importance of electing women to office. Holman navigates the tricky balance of effectively presenting complex data and technical analysis to a broader audience, a very worthwhile effort. Occasionally, however, the effort to keep the discussion concise and the text approachable means that details of data and methods, necessary for interested readers with topical expertise to fully evaluate the work, have been omitted. For those following along with the technical material, shifting units of analysis and ambiguous measurements disrupt the discussion, leaving readers unclear on the specific interpretation of results presented. Data appendices help to some degree; however, the analysis could be strengthened by including greater detail of measurement of variables and model specification.

Finally, Holman uses matching to ensure that cities with male and female mayors are similar on poverty and basic demographic measures. This is an appropriate approach, but the variables used are not fully adequate to ensure that cities are similar in ways that matter. There may be distinct city characteristics, such as the structure of local government (significantly more cities with female mayors had a council-manager structure of government) or dominant party preferences in the public that may explain both the tendency to elect women and the observed political outcomes. While causality cannot be fully identified here empirically, in discussing her results, Holman suggests several plausible explanations for why electing women could produce these effects that lay the groundwork for future research directly examining causality.

Buttressed by qualitative evidence from case studies and interviews, Holman's argument is ultimately compelling. Politics is different in cities where women are elected. A bold and empirically rich work, Women in Politics in the American City provides a foundation for further investigation into how gender and representation play out in the unique context of urban political life.