Modelling the Gender Pay Gap性别工资差距模型.pptVIP

Modelling the Gender Pay Gap By Wendy Olsen and Sylvia Walby (Part of a 3-part project on Modelling Gendered Pay and Productivity, EOC 2003-5) Publication .ukWorking Paper No. 17 For the report that was dated 2002, by the same authors, using similar techniques with 2000 data, see: http://www2.umist.ac.uk/management/ewerc/equalpay/walbyolsenreport.pdf Introduction Re-thinking the dichotomy between human capital and discrimination Regression was used. Then fixed effects modelling, And decomposition of the pay gap’s causes. Critique of Oaxaca Using simulation to do decomposition What accounts for the gender wage gap? Human capital and discrimination are not mutually exclusive Re-thinking the dichotomy Human capital theory is re-estimated Part-time work is associated with no rise in wage Interruptions are associated with lower wages What is the place of institutions? Re-interpretation of the coefficients: One interpretation focuses on the variables Other interpretations are suffused with theory, E.g. the ‘labour market rigidities’ interpretation And the EOC’s ‘discrimination and other factors’ interpretation – which is misleading The Human Capital Results Oaxaca Operationalises the dichotomy between human capital and discrimination Poor grasp of institutional causes of gender wage gap (Juhn, Pierce Murphy extension) Estimates of discrimination unstable and arbitrary, depending on choice of comparator: men, women, all. (ORansom; Neumann) Inclusion of 3rd term to represent ‘average’ improves but does not eliminate problems Separate regressions omit ‘gender’ despite its significance and considerable effect. Equations Traditional Oaxaca two-term equation: Men’s wage rate relative to women’s wage rate = human-capital effect + a residual discrimination effect. The full decomposition of the wage gap equation is offered by: ln wm – ln wf = (Xm - Xf) ?m + (?m - ?f)Xf (Eq. 2) where the Xis refer to the mean for men and women of each variable. The ?i are the slope coef