Share
Voters often hear that a candidate’s prior experience makes them better qualified to serve, but a new study from Loyola researchers shows that not all political or professional experience translates into effectiveness in office.
“You’d think that someone who was a lobbyist or a bureaucrat might be more effective at the job than someone who never worked close to the action, but our findings showed that only work experience as a lawyer predicted being more effective,” said a lead researcher on the study, Eric Hansen, associate professor of American politics in Loyola University Chicago’s Department of Political Science.
What did the research consider?
Researchers looked at thousands of state legislators and found that only certain types of experience seem to help lawmakers get more of their sponsored bills signed into law.
For example, former lawyers and legislators who previously served in the state house were more effective when they entered the state senate. But people who had been mayors, school board members, or held other local offices weren’t any more effective than political newcomers.
“We were surprised that having an occupational background in government or politics didn’t seem to help lawmakers be more effective,” Hansen said.
What should voters do with this information?
The findings can help the public discern which kinds of experience prepare candidates to govern well.
Politicians aren’t always equipped for the job just because they’ve held another elected office before. Direct experience—like legal knowledge for lawmakers or management skills for executives—better predicts effectiveness than prior political roles.
“Voters should look for information about experience when deciding between primary candidates, who often agree on most issues but differ in background,” Hansen said.
Contact the researcher:
Eric Hansen
Associate Professor of American Politics, Graduate Program Director for Political Science
