Slate picked up on a fascinating study by two economists who used changes in the Indian political system to examine the effect of gender on the quality of governance. They found that women did better -- but they were appreciated less.

Rural Indians are learning firsthand what it's like to live under female leadership as a result of a 1991 law that restricted one-third of village council elections to female candidates. The villagers' experiences are analyzed by economists Esther Duflo and Petia Topalova in a recent unpublished study. Using opinion surveys and data on local "public goods"—like schools, roads, and water pumps—Duflo and Topalova find that the villages headed by women invested in more services that benefited the entire community than did those with gender-neutral elections, nearly all of which were won by men. But as the opinion polls showed, for all their effectiveness, the women's governance was literally a thankless effort, with the new leaders getting lower approval ratings than their male counterparts.

Ray Fisman, writing for Slate, extrapolates what this might mean if Hillary Clinton were elected as president. The "competent but unlikable" tag that Clinton seems to carry holds up with this and other studies examining how women are viewed when they occupy positions of authority. Even if Clinton does a great job, Fisman wonders whether voters would recognize her accomplishments.