When Tokens MatterTokens, or low levels of minority or female representatives in state legislatures, have been studied with respect to their perceptions of self-efficacy and political attitudes but not with respect to their actual influence on the passage of public policy. This paper uses state-level data from the child support program between the years 1976-84 to measure the influence of women tokens on the policy process. Using ordered probit models, I explore policy adoption under three configurations: (1) a test of the independent impact of tokens, (2) a dynamic test of the differential impact of tokens and nontokens to analyze potential backlash effects and the potential diffusion of policy preferences, and (3) an interactive test on the potential for tokens to form coalitions. My analysis strongly suggests that tokens make a policy difference independently and to a greater extent than when they are on the cusp of becoming nontokens, but I found less support for the idea that tokens successfully form coalitions to achieve specific policy goals.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org..

Whether or not mothers, who often struggle with balancing work and parenting responsibilities, perceive that they face career harm in exchange for control over flexible work options at their jobs is an unanswered question. Using 2009 original data from a random-digit-dial telephone survey of 441 mothers located across the United States, this study focuses on how control over two latent variables measuring flexibility, flexible work arrangements (such as scheduling and place of work) and time-off options, influences mothers' career harm perceptions in a total of three work domains: (1) wages/earnings, (2) raises or promotions, and (3) job evaluations. We find perceptions of career harm among only one-fifth of mothers; in addition, control over timeoff options reduced perceived career damage related to parenting duties. Mothers may have less to fear than previously hypothesized about the potential sacrifices they have to make when they have significant control over certain flexibility options.Over 20 years ago, Felice N. Schwartz sparked a controversial debate over the role of women in the modern workforce. Because of their motherhood responsibilities, women, according to Schwartz (1989), needed a two-tiered system of employment. For those without children, women could be treated exactly like men in terms of hiring and promotion. But for those women with children, a career track that was less intensive, with flexibility options for employment, was much more suitable. Schwartz noted, however, that opting into such a "mommy track" was not cost free and that women who elected to take advantage of this option should expect slower wage growth and other, more limited employment opportunities, trade-offs that she labeled as "appropriate" given mothers' competing family obligations (Schwartz 1989:73). 1 In many ways, Schwartz was simply acknowledging that mothers do not conform to the highly gendered ideal worker imagery that functions to reproduce gender inequality in American society (Williams 2000;Williams and Cohen Cooper 2004). In this ideal worker world, certain categories of professional workers should always be available to their employers, 24 hours per day, seven days per week (Acker 1990;Cha 2010). This means that ideal workers should have no distractions related to familial and caregiving responsibilities. 2 Because mothers take on the majority of the child care-related tasks within American households (Bianchi, Robinson, and Milkie 2006),

No abstract