Inclusive or exclusive? Candidate selection methods do not affect descriptive representation

Michal Grahn & Sandra Håkansson

West European Politics2025https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2025.2504296article
AJG 3ABDC B
Weight
0.66

What the paper says

Candidate selection practices are often highlighted as a key factor in explaining the political underrepresentation of marginalised groups, such as women, ethnic minorities, or youth. Conventional wisdom holds that exclusive candidate selection methods, such as selection committees, tend to yield more descriptively representative outcomes than inclusive methods, such as primaries. However, these conclusions are often drawn from cross-sectional comparisons between parties with different selection methods. This article leverages an original conjoint experiment in Sweden to compare the demand for different candidate profiles, including women, youth, and immigrants, among party members (N = 6400) and selection committee members (N = 1300) under two modes of candidate selection: primaries and selection committees. The findings reveal strikingly similar preferences for underrepresented candidate profiles across both groups and selection modes. These results suggest that, within a favourable institutional framework, both inclusive and exclusive selection procedures can be equally effective in promoting descriptive representation.

23 citations

Open paper page →

Cite this paper

https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2025.2504296

Or copy a formatted citation

@article{michal2025,
  title        = {{Inclusive or exclusive? Candidate selection methods do not affect descriptive representation}},
  author       = {Michal Grahn & Sandra Håkansson},
  journal      = {West European Politics},
  year         = {2025},
  doi          = {https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2025.2504296},
}

Paste directly into BibTeX, Zotero, or your reference manager.

Flag this paper

Inclusive or exclusive? Candidate selection methods do not affect descriptive representation

Flags are reviewed by the Arbiter methodology team within 5 business days.


Evidence weight

0.66

Balanced mode · F 0.40 / M 0.15 / V 0.05 / R 0.40

F · citation impact0.72 × 0.4 = 0.29
M · momentum1.00 × 0.15 = 0.15
V · venue signal0.50 × 0.05 = 0.03
R · text relevance †0.50 × 0.4 = 0.20

† Text relevance is estimated at 0.50 on the detail page — for your query’s actual relevance score, open this paper from a search result.