Gender Differences in Pay: Francine D. Blau and Lawrence M. Kahn

Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 14, Number 4 —Fall 2000 —Pages 75–99
Gender Differences in Pay
Francine D. Blau and Lawrence M. Kahn
O ver the past 25 years, the gender pay gap has narrowed dramatically and
women have increasingly entered traditionally male occupations. These
two labor market outcomes are closely linked, since considerable re-
search suggests that predominantly female occupations pay less, even controlling
for measured personal characteristics of workers and a variety of characteristics of
occupations, although the interpretation of such results remains in some dispute.1
In this article, we describe these important gains, analyze their sources, and point
to some significant remaining gender differences. We also assess where American
women stand relative to women in other countries and conclude with some
thoughts about future prospects for the gender pay gap.
Overview of Gender Differences and Trends
Earnings
Gender earnings disparities in the United States have shown considerable
recent convergence. Figure 1 shows the trends in the female-male earnings ratio for
1
See, for example, Sorensen (1990). A recent study by MacPherson and Hirsch (1995) using a 1973–93
panel of data from the Current Population Survey finds that the negative wage effect of percent female
in the occupation is reduced by at least two-thirds when occupational characteristics are included and
longitudinal wage change models are estimated to control for unobserved fixed effects.
y Francine D. Blau is Frances Perkins Professor of Industrial Relations and Professor of

Labor Economics, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, and Research Associate, National
Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts. Lawrence M. Kahn is Professor of
Labor Economics and Collective Bargaining, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.
76 Journal of Economic Perspectives
Figure 1
Female-to-Male Earnings Ratios of Full-Time Workers, 1955–1999
Source: Bureau of the Census, Population Reports, Series P-60, various issues; Employment and Earnings,
various issues; and Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics websites. Annual earnings are for
year-round, full-time workers.
annual earnings of year-round, full-time workers and for usual weekly earnings of
full-time workers. These measures can be thought of as adjusting for the fact that
women as a group tend to work fewer weeks per year and hours per week than men.
(Government data are not available for wage rates over this entire period.) The
data indicate that the gender ratio was roughly constant at about 60 percent from
the late 1950s to about 1980. Indeed, as Fuchs (1971, p. 9) pointed out, this
longstanding ratio had a biblical antecedent in Leviticus (27:1– 4), where it is
decreed that a woman is worth 30 shekels of silver and a man 50 shekels. The
gender earnings ratio began to increase in the late 1970s or early 1980s. Conver-
gence has been substantial: between 1978 and 1999 the weekly earnings of women
full-time workers increased from 61 percent to 76.5 percent of men’s earnings.
However, the ratio appears to have plateaued in the mid-1990s.2
This increase in the gender earnings ratio could represent either the entry
of new cohorts into the labor market, each one better prepared and possibly
2
Of course, money wages are an incomplete indicator of total compensation, which would take into
account not only nonwage benefits but also compensating differentials for job amenities. This issue is far
from trivial. Differing job amenities may be especially important, given the likelihood of substantial
differences in occupational preferences between men and women. Complex issues are also raised with
respect to nonwage benefits since, in some instances, married workers may be covered under their
spouses’ plans, thus reducing their demand for these benefits. Unfortunately, the relevant data and
prior research needed for an investigation of these issues are considerably sparser than one would like,
and a full consideration of these issues would take us well beyond the scope of this paper.
Francine D. Blau and Lawrence M. Kahn 77
encountering less discrimination than previous ones, or an upward progression

over time in the gender ratio within given cohorts, or some combination of the
two. Table 1 sheds light on this question by presenting gender ratios for hourly
wages of full-time workers, disaggregated by age, from the 1979, 1989 and 1999
Annual Demographic Files of the Current Population Survey. These years span
the period of greatest convergence in the gender pay gap. Since wages are
calculated by dividing last year’s annual wage and salary income by annual hours
(that is, usual hours per week multiplied by weeks worked), this yields data on
wages for the previous calendar year.3 We focus on full-time workers to identify
a more homogeneous group of men and women workers and so that our
computation of the gender pay gap is not affected by any hourly wage penalty
for part-time work.
In any given year, looking down the columns of Panel A in Table 1, the gender
wage ratio tends to decline with age. But over time, looking across the rows in the same
panel, the gender wage ratio has increased for almost every age group. These “between
cohort” changes, which are calculated in Panel B, indicate that each new cohort of
women is indeed faring better than previous ones. Gains for the two youngest cohorts
were heavily concentrated in the 1980s (and, to a lesser extent, in the 1970s prior to our
sample period; see Blau, 1998). Increases for women 35–54 were more evenly spread
over the 1980s and 1990s, whereas substantial gains for women over 54 did not appear
until the 1990s. Over the whole 20-year period, cumulative increases in the ratio were
quite comparable for all groups under 55, ranging from 11.7 percentage points for the
18 –24 age group to 17.2 percentage points for 35– 44 year-olds.
Since the Current Population Survey, from which these data are drawn, is
nationally representative, some indication of changes over time within cohorts
can be gained by comparing the gender ratio among, for example, men and
women aged 25–34 in 1978 to the ratio among men and women aged 35– 44
in 1988.4 These changes may be seen by looking diagonally across entries in
Panel A of Table 1 and have been computed as the “within-cohort” changes in
Panel B. Note that in calculating the within-cohort changes, the ratio for the
youngest age group, those 18 –24, is compared to the ratio for those aged 28 –34
ten years later (a group not shown in Panel A). For both periods, the within-
3
The sample for each year includes full-time wage and salary workers aged 18 – 64 who participated in
the labor force at least 27 weeks. Those earning less than $2.70 or more than $241.50 in 1998 dollars,
using the GDP Implicit Price Deflator for Personal Consumption Expenditures, are excluded, as are
individuals with allocated wage and salary income. Results were not sensitive to these sample exclusions.
Top-coded values of wage and salary income were evaluated at 1.45 times the top-coded value. All wages
are weighted using the CPS sampling weights. Here and in what follows, means and associated ratios are
computed based on geometric means which may differ somewhat from arithmetic means in placing less
emphasis on extreme values.
4
These comparisons will be affected by self-selection into employment of men and women in each year.
Given the larger changes in female labor force participation, this issue likely to be a greater problem for
women. In addition, it is well-known that one cannot simultaneously identify age, period and cohort
effects. For example, an increase in the wage ratio for successive cohorts, rather than a cohort effect,
could simply reflect a difference in economic conditions between the two time periods.
Table 1
Female/Male Hourly Wage Ratios of Full-Time
Workers by Age, 1978 –98
Wage Ratios 1978 1988 1998
18–24 0.824 0.930 0.942

25–34 0.703 0.828 0.850
35–44 0.589 0.687 0.761
45–54 0.582 0.647 0.716
55–64 0.623 0.610 0.693
Changes 1978–88 1988–98
Between cohorts
18–24 0.105 0.012
25–34 0.125 0.023
35–44 0.098 0.074
45–54 0.066 0.068
55–64 ⫺0.012 0.082
Within cohorts
18–24 ⫺0.024 ⫺0.092
25–34 ⫺0.016 ⫺0.067
35–44 0.058 0.029
45–54 0.029 0.045
Notes: Gender ratios are computed as exp(ln Wf ⫺ ln Wm), where ln

Wf and ln Wm are female and male average log wages.
Source: Authors’ tabulations from the Current Population Surveys.
cohort changes for women in the two younger age groups are negative, indi-
cating that women under 35 lost ground relative to men as they aged. The
declines were relatively small in the 1980s but more substantial in the 1990s.
Women in the older two age groups experienced within-cohort increases in
their wages relative to men’s, further closing the gender gap as they aged. Over
the whole 1978 –98 period, the cohort that was 18 –24 years old in 1978 expe-
rienced a 6.9 percentage point fall in the gender earnings ratio; in contrast, the
cohorts that were 25–34 and 35– 44 years old in 1978 saw 1.3 and 10.4 percent-
age point gains, respectively, over the next 20 years.
Thus, while the narrowing of the gender gap has primarily been associated
with the entry of new cohorts, each faring better than their predecessors, within-
cohort earnings growth has also played a role for older women. These results
suggest some caution in assessing women’s gains in the labor market by focusing on
the relatively small gender gap among younger cohorts in recent years (for exam-
ple, Furchtgott-Roth and Stolba, 1999, p. xvii). The relatively high wage ratios of
younger women tend to decline as they age, likely reflecting the greater tendency
of women to drop out of the labor force for family reasons and also perhaps the
greater barriers to their advancement at higher levels of the job hierarchy, an issue
we will discuss further below.
Gender Differences in Pay 79
Occupations
For many decades, one of the most salient features of women’s status in the
labor market was their tendency to work in a fairly small number of relatively
low-paying, predominantly female jobs.5 Women were especially concentrated in
administrative support (including clerical) and service occupations. In the early
1970s, 53 percent of women workers were in such jobs, compared to only 15
percent of men. At that time, less than one in five managers were women, and
women in professional positions were frequently employed in traditionally female
professions, like nurse, pre-kindergarten and kindergarten teacher, elementary
school teacher, dietitian, or librarian, which also tend to be relatively low-paying
compared to predominantly male professional occupations. Women were also
underrepresented in blue-collar jobs, including higher-paying precision produc-
tion and craft occupations.
All this began to change in the 1970s and, although many of the broad outlines
of these occupational differences between men and women remain, the disparities
have been much reduced. Women are now less concentrated in administrative
support and service occupations, with 41 percent holding such jobs in 1999
compared to (still) 15 percent of men. Women are now 45 percent of those in
managerial jobs. Indeed, significant numbers of women have moved into a variety
of traditionally male jobs throughout the occupational spectrum. A particularly
dramatic example of desegregation can be seen in the jobs of female college
graduates. Almost half of women who graduated college in 1960 became teachers,
while in 1990, less than 10 percent did so (Flyer and Rosen, 1994, p. 28).
The degree of segregation by sex across the hundreds of detailed occupations
listed by the Bureau of the Census is often summarized by the Index of Segregation,
which gives the percentage of women (or men) who would have to change jobs for
the occupational distribution of the two groups to be the same.6 After remaining at
about two-thirds for each Census year since 1900, this index fell from 67.7 in 1970
to 59.3 in 1980 and 52.0 in 1990 (Blau, Simpson and Anderson, 1998; Blau, Ferber
and Winkler, 1998). The principal cause of the reduction was the movement of
women into predominantly male jobs, although changes in the mix of occupations
toward occupations that had been more integrated by gender also played a role
(Blau, Simpson and Anderson, 1998).
Some indication of trends over the 1990s may be obtained using Current
Population Survey data based on a somewhat different set of occupations and
workers. The Index of Segregation computed from this source decreased from 56.4
in 1990 to 53.9 in 1997 ( Jacobs, 1999), yielding an annual decrease of .4 percent-
age points over the 1990s, compared to .8 and .6 percentage points in the 1970s and
5
The following data are taken from Blau, Ferber and Winkler (1998) and the U.S. Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) website 具www.bls.gov典.
6
The index of segregation is calculated as 1⁄2 ⌺i 兩mi ⫺ fi 兩 where mi ⫽ the percentage of all male workers
employed in occupation i and fi ⫽ the percentage of all female workers employed in occupation i.
1980s, respectively. Thus, the long-term reduction in occupational segregation by

sex appears to have continued into the 1990s, but at a slower pace.
While one can find examples of significant changes in sex composition in all
types of jobs, women have had considerably greater success in entering previously
male white-collar and service occupations than blue-collar categories. There has
also been a tendency for some jobs to switch from predominantly male to predom-
inantly female as women enter them. For example, between 1970 and 1990, women
increased their share of typesetters and compositors from 17 to 70 percent; of
insurance adjusters, examiners, and investigators from 30 to 71 percent; and of
public relations specialists from 27 to 59 percent (Blau, Simpson and Anderson,
1998).
An additional qualification is that calculations like these, based on aggregate
national data from the Census or the Current Population Survey, are likely to
understate the full extent of employment segregation of women because employ-
ers’ job categories are far more detailed than those used by the Census. Thus, some
Census listings probably combine individual job categories that are predominantly
male with some that are predominantly female, producing apparently integrated
occupations. Moreover, even in occupations where both sexes are substantially
represented, women are often concentrated in lower-paying industries and firms
(Blau, 1977, Groshen, 1991; Bayard, Hellerstein, Neumark and Troske, 1999).
Explaining the Gender Pay Gap and Occupational Segregation
Traditionally, economic analyses of the gender pay gap and occupational

segregation have focused on what might be termed gender-specific factors—that is,
gender differences in either qualifications or labor market treatment of similarly
qualified individuals. More recently, following on the work of Juhn, Murphy and
Pierce (1991) on trends in race differentials, some advances have been made by
considering the gender pay gap and other demographic pay differentials in the
context of the overall structure of wages. Wage structure is the array of prices
determined for labor market skills and the rewards to employment in particular
sectors.
Gender differences in qualifications have primarily been analyzed within the
human capital model (Mincer and Polachek, 1974). Given the traditional division
of labor by gender in the family, women tend to accumulate less labor market
experience than men. Further, because women anticipate shorter and more dis-
continuous work lives, they have lower incentives to invest in market-oriented
formal education and on-the-job training, and their resulting smaller human
capital investments will lower their earnings relative to those of men. The longer
hours that women spend on housework may also decrease the effort they put into
their market jobs compared to men, controlling for hours worked, and hence also
reduce their productivity and wages (Becker, 1985).
To the extent that women choose occupations for which on-the-job training is
less important, gender differences in occupations would also be expected. Women

may especially avoid jobs requiring large investments in skills which are unique to
a particular enterprise, because the returns to such investments are reaped only as
long as one remains with that employer. At the same time, employers may be
reluctant to hire women for such jobs because the firm bears some of the costs of
such firm-specific training and fears not getting a full return on that investment.
Labor market discrimination may also affect women’s wages and occupations.
Discrimination can arise in a variety of ways. In Becker’s (1957) model, discrimi-
nation is due to the discriminatory tastes of employers, co-workers, or customers.
Alternatively, in models of “statistical discrimination,” differences in the treatment
of men and women arise from average differences between the two groups in the
expected value of productivity (or in the reliability with which productivity may be
predicted), which lead employers to discriminate on the basis of that average (for
example, Aigner and Cain, 1977). Finally, discriminatory exclusion of women from
“male” jobs can result in an excess supply of labor in “female” occupations,
depressing wages there for otherwise equally productive workers, as in Bergmann’s
(1974) “overcrowding” model.
Wage structure is a factor not directly related to gender which may nonetheless
influence the size of the gender gap in pay. Although it has only been recognized
recently, the human capital model and models of discrimination potentially imply
an important role for wage structure in explaining the gender gap. If, as the human
capital model suggests, women have less experience than men, on average, the
higher the return to experience received by workers, regardless of sex, the larger
will be the gender gap in pay. Similarly, if women tend to work in different
occupations and industries than men, perhaps due to discrimination or other
factors, the higher the premium received by workers, both male and female, for
working in the male sector, the larger will be the gender pay gap.
Evidence on Human Capital, Discrimination, and the Gender Pay Gap

The typical approach to analyzing the sources of the gender pay gap is to estimate
wage regressions specifying the relationship between wages and productivity-related
characteristics for men and women. The gender pay gap may then be statistically
decomposed into two components: one due to gender differences in measured char-
acteristics, and the other “unexplained” and potentially due to discrimination. Such
empirical studies provide evidence consistent with both human capital differences and
labor market discrimination in explaining the gender pay gap.
But any approach which relies on a statistical residual will be open to question
as to whether all the necessary independent variables were included in the regres-
sion. For example, even if measured human capital characteristics can explain only
a portion of the wage gap between men and women, it is possible that unmeasured
group differences in qualifications may explain part of the residual. If men are
more highly endowed with respect to these omitted variables then we would
overestimate discrimination. Alternatively, if some of the factors controlled for in
such regressions—like occupation and tenure with the employer—themselves re-
flect the impact of discrimination, then discrimination will be underestimated.

Moreover, if women face barriers to entry into certain occupations, they may have
higher unmeasured productivity than men in the same jobs. This factor would also
suggest an underestimate of discrimination if we controlled for occupation.
Using the residual from a regression to estimate the effects of discrimination
will also run into trouble if feedback effects are important. Even small initial
discriminatory differences in wages may cumulate to large ones as men and women
make decisions about human capital investments and time allocation in the market
and the home on the basis of these wage differentials.
Results of such studies may nonetheless be instructive. Representative findings
from analyses of this type may be illustrated by results from Blau and Kahn (1997).
Using data from the Panel Study of Income Dynamics, which contains information
on actual labor market experience for a large, nationally representative sample, we
found a wage differential between male and female full-time workers in 1988 of
27.6 percent. We first considered the difference after taking education, labor
market experience, and race into account (the “human capital specification”) and
then additionally controlled for occupation, industry and unionism.
In the human capital specification, gender differences in the explanatory
variables accounted for 33 percent of the total gender gap. While gender differ-
ences in educational attainment were small, the gender gap in full-time work
experience was substantial— 4.6 years on average—and accounted for virtually all
of the explained portion of the gender gap in this specification. When occupation,
industry and unionism were also taken into account, the explained portion of the
gap rose to 62 percent of the total gender gap, suggesting that a considerable
portion of the gap (62–33⫽29 percent) was due to wage differences between men
and women with similar human capital working in different industries or occupa-
tions or in union vs. nonunion jobs. Putting these results in terms of the gender
wage ratio, we found that the unadjusted ratio was 72.4 percent. Adjusting for
human capital variables only increased the ratio to 80.5 percent; and adjusting for
all variables raised the ratio to 88.2 percent.
While the unexplained gender gap was considerably smaller when all variables
were taken into account (38 percent of the total gender gap) than when only
human capital variables were considered (67 percent of the total gender gap), a
substantial portion of the pay gap remained unexplained and potentially due to
discrimination in both specifications. Also, as we suggested above, including con-
trols for occupation, industry, and union status may be questionable to the extent
that they may be influenced by discrimination.
Nonetheless, the residual gap, however measured, may well reflect factors
apart from discrimination. One that has received particular attention recently is the
impact of children on women’s wages, since evidence of a negative effect of
children on wages has been obtained, even in analyses which control for labor
market experience (Waldfogel, 1998). The reason may be that, in the past, having
a child often meant that a woman withdrew from the labor force for a substantial
period, breaking her tie to her employer and forgoing the returns to any firm-
specific training she might have acquired, as well as any rewards for having made
an especially good job match.
Some recent studies on discrimination have taken different approaches to the
question, thus avoiding some of the problems of traditional analyses. First, two
studies have applied traditional econometric techniques to especially homoge-
neous groups and employed extensive controls for qualifications, thus minimizing
the effect of gender differences in unmeasured characteristics. Wood, Corcoran
and Courant (1993) studied graduates of the University of Michigan Law School
classes of 1972–75, 15 years after graduation. The gap in pay between women and
men was relatively small at the outset of their careers, but 15 years later, women
graduates earned only 60 percent as much as men. Some of this difference
reflected choices which workers had made, including the propensity of women
lawyers to work shorter hours. But even controlling for current hours worked, as
well as an extensive list of worker qualifications and other covariates, including
family status, race, location, grades while in law school, and detailed work history
data, such as years practiced law, months of part-time work, and type and size of
employer, a male earnings advantage of 13 percent remained. In a similar vein,
Weinberger (1998) examined wage differences among recent college graduates in
1985. Her controls included narrowly defined college major, college grade point
average, and specific educational institution attended. She found an unexplained
pay gap of 10 to 15 percent between men and women.
A second set of studies used an experimental approach. Neumark (1996)
analyzed the results of a hiring “audit” in which male and female pseudo-job
seekers were given similar résumés and sent to apply for jobs waiting on tables at the
same set of Philadelphia restaurants. In high-priced restaurants, a female appli-
cant’s probability of getting an interview was 40 percentage points lower than a
male’s and her probability of getting an offer was 50 percentage points lower. A
second study examined the impact of the adoption of “blind” auditions by sym-
phony orchestras in which a screen is used to conceal the identity of the candidate
(Goldin and Rouse, 2000). The screen substantially increased the probability that
a woman would advance out of preliminary rounds and be the winner in the final
round. The switch to blind auditions was found to explain between 25 and 46 per-
cent of the increase in the percentage female in the top five symphony orchestras
in the United States, from less than 5 percent of all musicians in 1970 to 25 percent
today.
Third, several recent studies have examined predictions of Becker’s (1957)
discrimination model. Becker and others have pointed out that competitive forces
should reduce or eliminate discrimination in the long run because the least
discriminatory firms, which hire more lower-priced female labor, would have lower
costs of production and should drive the more discriminatory firms out of business.
For this reason, Becker suggested that discrimination would be more severe in firms
or sectors that are shielded to some extent from competitive pressures. Consistent
with this reasoning, Hellerstein, Neumark and Troske (1997) found that, among
plants with high levels of product market power, those employing relatively more
women were more profitable. In a similar vein, Black and Strahan (1999) report
that, with the deregulation of the banking industry beginning in the mid-1970s, the
gender pay gap in banking declined.
Finally, additional evidence on discrimination comes from court cases. A
number of employment practices which explicitly discriminated against women
used to be quite prevalent, including marriage bars restricting the employment of
married women (Goldin, 1990), and the intentional segregation of men and
women into separate job categories with associated separate and lower pay scales
for women (for example, Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 416 F.2d 711 [7th Cir.
1969]; IUE v. Westinghouse Electric Co., 631 F.2d 1094 [3rd Cir. 1980]). While
many such overt practices have receded, recent court cases suggest that employ-
ment practices still exist which produce discriminatory outcomes for women.
For example, in 1994, Lucky Stores, a major grocery chain, agreed to a
settlement of $107 million after Judge Marilyn Hall Patel found that “sex discrim-
ination was the standard operating procedure at Lucky with respect to placement,
promotion, movement to full-time positions, and the allocation of additional
hours” (Stender v. Lucky Stores, Inc. 803 F. Supp. 259; [N.D. Cal. 1992]; King,
1997). In 2000, the U.S. Information Agency agreed to pay $508 million to settle a
case in which the Voice of America rejected women who applied for high-paying
positions in the communications field. A lawyer representing the plaintiffs said that
the women were told things like, “These jobs are only for men,” or “We’re looking
for a male voice” (Federal Human Resources Week, 2000). A final example is the 1990
case against Price Waterhouse, a major accounting firm, in which the only woman
considered for a partnership was denied, even though, of the 88 candidates for
partner, she had brought in the most business. Her colleagues criticized her for
being “overbearing, ‘macho’ and abrasive and said she would have a better chance
of making partner if she would wear makeup and jewelry, and walk, talk and dress
‘more femininely.’” The Court found that Price Waterhouse maintained a partner-
ship evaluation system that “permitted negative sexually stereotyped comments to
influence partnership selection” (Bureau of National Affairs, 1990; Lewin, 1990).
Analyzing the Trends in the Gender Pay Gap

The narrowing of the gender gap in recent years has taken place in an environ-
ment of sharply rising wage inequality. This raises a paradox. Women continue to have
less experience than men, on average, and continue to be located in lower-paying
occupations and industries. As the rewards to higher skills and the wage premia for
employment in occupations and industries where men are more heavily represented
have risen, women should have been increasingly disadvantaged (Blau and Kahn,
1997). How can we explain the decrease in the gender pay gap in the face of overall
shifts in labor market prices that should have worked against women as a group?
To answer this question, we summarize results from Blau and Kahn (1997),
where we made use of decomposition techniques developed by Juhn, Murphy and
Pierce (1991). The study analyzed women’s wage gains over the 1980s, which, as
noted in Figure 1 and Table 1, was a period of exceptionally rapid closing of the
gender wage gap. We found that rising inequality and higher rewards to skills did
indeed retard wage convergence during this period but this was more than offset by
improvements in gender-specific factors. First, the gender gap in full-time experi-
ence fell from 7.5 to 4.6 years over this period (see also O’Neill and Polachek,
1993). Second, the relative proportion of women employed as professionals and
managers rose, while their relative representation in clerical and service jobs fell.
Third, the declining unionization rate had a larger negative impact on male than
female workers, since union membership declined more for men than women.
Fourth, also working to reduce the gender pay gap was a decrease in the size of the
unexplained gender gap.
The decline in the unexplained gender wage gap that occurred over the 1980s
may reflect either an upgrading of women’s unmeasured labor market skills, a
decline in labor market discrimination against women, or a combination of the two.
Both interpretations are credible during this period.
Since women improved their relative level of measured skills, as shown by the
narrowing of the gap in full-time job experience, it is plausible that they also
enhanced their relative level of unmeasured skills. For example, women’s increas-
ing labor force attachment may have encouraged them to acquire more on-the-job
training. Evidence also indicates that gender differences in college major, which
have been strongly related to the gender wage gap among college graduates
(Brown and Corcoran, 1997), decreased over the 1970s and 1980s (Blau, Ferber
and Winkler, 1998). For this reason, the marketability of women’s education has
probably improved. The male-female difference in SAT math scores has also been
declining, falling from 46 points in 1977 to 35 points in 1996 (Blau, 1998), which
could be another sign of improved quality of women’s education.
The argument that discrimination against women declined in the 1980s may
seem less credible than that the unmeasured human capital characteristics of
women improved, since the federal government scaled back its antidiscrimination
enforcement effort during the 1980s (Leonard, 1989). However, as women in-
creased their commitment to the labor force and improved their job skills, the
rationale for statistical discrimination against them diminished; thus, it is plausible
that this type of discrimination declined. Also, in the presence of feedback effects,
employers’ revised views can generate further increases in women’s earnings by
raising their returns to investments in job qualifications and skills. To the extent
that such qualifications are not fully controlled for in the wage regression used to
decompose the change in the gender wage gap, this may also help to explain the
decline in the “unexplained” gap. Another possible reason for a decline in discrim-
ination against women is that changes in social attitudes have made such discrim-
inatory tastes increasingly unpalatable.
Finally, the underlying labor market demand shifts which widened wage
inequality over the 1980s may have favored women relative to men in certain ways,
and thus contributed to a decrease in the unexplained gender gap. The impact of
technological change included within-industry demand shifts that favored white
collar workers in general (Berman, Bound and Griliches, 1994). Given the tradi-
tional male predominance in blue-collar jobs, this shift might be expected to

benefit women relative to men, possibly offsetting the large increase in female
supply that occurred during this time (Blau and Kahn, 1997). In addition, in-
creased computer use favors women both because they are more likely than men to
use computers at work and because computers restructure work in ways that
deemphasize physical strength (Krueger, 1993; Weinberg, 2000).
The narrowing of the gender pay gap decelerated over the 1990s, as shown in
Figure 1. It will not be possible to do for this period the type of detailed decomposition
reported above for the 1980s for a few more years, since data on actual labor market
experience are crucial and the Panel Study of Income Dynamics (final release) data,
which are unique in having this information for a nationally representative cross-
section of individuals, are not yet available past 1993 (with 1992 wage information).
However, using data from the Current Population Surveys, we can shed some
light on the relative importance of gender-specific factors versus wage structure in
explaining changes in the gender pay gap in the 1990s compared to the 1980s. The
trends in the CPS data summarized in Table 2 mirror those noted from various
sources. The gender wage ratio rose in both the 1980s and the 1990s, but rose more
rapidly in the 1980s. The narrowing of the gender gap was accompanied by
substantial real wage growth for women in comparison to little change in real wages
for men. The data also show rising wage inequality over the period for both men
and women, as measured by the standard deviation of the log of wages, but
inequality rose faster in the 1980s than in the 1990s. Table 2 also shows that the
trends in the gender ratio estimated using fixed-weight averages—that is, holding
the relative size of age and education groups at their 1979 levels—are quite similar
to those for the actual ratio.7 This result suggests that the more rapid closing of the
gender gap in the 1980s cannot be explained by a change in the composition of the
male and female labor forces along these dimensions.
Table 2 also indicates that women’s wages moved steadily up the distribution
of male wages over this period, from an average percentile of 26.0 in 1979 to 38.5
in 1999.8 The fact that the pace of this upward movement was higher in the 1980s
than the 1990s suggests that changes in gender-specific factors were more favorable
for women in the 1980s than in the 1990s.
How much would the gender-specific changes have decreased the gender pay
gap if the overall distribution of wages had not become more unequal over this
time? The last row of Table 2 shows what the gender ratio would have been in each
year if male wage inequality had remained at its 1978 levels. These ratios are
computed by giving a man or woman at, say, the 25th percentile of the male wage
7
The age groups were 18 –24, 25–34, 35– 44, 45–54 and 55– 65; the education groups were less than 12
years, 12 years, 13–15 years, and 16 or more years.
8
These rankings are obtained by first finding each individual woman’s percentile in the male wage
distribution in each year and then finding the female mean of these percentiles. As in our descriptive
statistics on wages, we use the CPS sampling weights in forming the percentiles of the male wage
distribution.
Table 2
Impact of Widening Wage Inequality on Trends in the Female-Male Wage Ratio
of Full-Time Workers, 1978 –98 (1998 dollars)
Change
1978 1988 1998 1978–88 1988–98 1978–98
Males
Wage $14.06 $14.21 $14.96 $0.15 $0.75 $0.89
Ln (wage) 2.643 2.654 2.705 0.010 0.051 0.062
(Std dev of ln wage) (0.527) (0.594) (0.609) 0.067 0.015 0.082
Females
Wage $9.21 $10.52 $11.70 $1.31 $1.18 $2.49
Ln (wage) 2.220 2.354 2.460 0.133 0.106 0.239
(Std dev of ln wage) (0.436) (0.511) (0.547) 0.075 0.036 0.111
Mean female percentile in male 26.02 34.76 38.48 8.74 3.71 12.46
distribution
Gender Ratio
Actual 0.655 0.741 0.782 0.086 0.042 0.127
Fixed Weight Average 0.655 0.726 0.763 0.071 0.037 0.108
(1978 Base)
Fixed Distribution 0.655 0.766 0.807 0.111 0.041 0.152
(1978 Base)
Notes: See Table 1 for the definition of the gender wage ratios.
Source: Authors’ tabulations from the Current Population Surveys.
distribution in 1988 (or 1998) a wage equal to a male at the 25th percentile of the
male wage distribution in 1978. The results indicate that, as expected, the gender
ratio would have increased faster over the 1978 –98 period had wage inequality not
risen. Specifically, under a constant wage structure, the gender pay ratio would have
risen by 15.2 percentage points, a modestly higher rate of convergence than the
actual increase of 12.7 percentage points. However, the disparity between the two
subperiods is actually greater for the measure which holds the distribution of wages
constant, meaning that trends in wage inequality do not help to explain women’s
smaller gains in the 1990s.9 Putting this somewhat differently, gender-specific
factors are more than sufficient to account for the difference in convergence
between the two periods. This suggests that improvements in women’s qualifica-
tions must have been greater and/or the decline in discrimination against women
must have been larger in the 1980s than in the 1990s.
Could differential shifts in the supply of female workers between these two
periods help to explain the slower convergence in the 1990s? It has been pointed
out, for example, that recent welfare reforms and other government policies
spurred an increase in employment among single mothers (for example, Meyer
9
Results were similar when the 1988 or 1998 male wage distributions were used to evaluate the current
year percentiles.
and Rosenbaum, 1999). Yet, despite these increases, female labor force participa-
tion overall increased considerably more slowly over the 1990s than over the 1980s,
both absolutely and relative to the male rate (Costa, 2000, Figure 1; BLS website
具http://www.bls.gov典). Thus, rising female labor supply does not appear to be a
plausible explanation for the difference in wage convergence in the two decades.
The growth in participation among single heads of households, who tend on
average to be less well-educated than other women, could also have slowed wage
convergence by shifting the composition of the female labor force toward low wage
women. But as we saw in Table 2, when trends in the gender ratio were estimated
using fixed-weight averages—that is, controlling for age and education—the dif-
ference between the rate of convergence in the 1980s and 1990s remains.
Our identification of the relative importance of gender-specific factors and
wage structure in explaining wage convergence of men and women in the 1980s
and 1990s is based on some assumptions which, although not unreasonable, should
be noted. This approach is based on two complementary assumptions: 1) In each
year, gender-specific factors, including differences in qualifications and the impact
of labor market discrimination, determine the percentile ranking of women in the
male wage distribution; and 2) Overall wage structure, as measured by the magni-
tude of male wage inequality, determines the wage penalty associated with women’s
lower position in the wage distribution.
This framework assumes that male wage inequality is determined by forces
outside the gender pay gap and is a useful indicator of the price of skills affecting
both men and women. Consistent with this approach is evidence that widening
wage inequality in the 1980s and 1990s was importantly affected by economy-wide
forces, including technological change, international trade, the decline in union-
ism, and the falling real value of the minimum wage (Katz and Autor, 1999).
Furthermore, rises in wage inequality during this period were similar for men and
women. These factors suggest that the decomposition in the last row of Table 2 is
reasonable. However, we caution the reader that, under some circumstances, the
gender pay gap could influence male inequality. For example, Fortin and Lemieux
(1998) present a model in which a falling gender pay gap causes rising male wage
inequality, as women displace men in a fixed job hierarchy.10
Sources of Gender Differences in Occupations

There is considerable evidence to support the belief that gender differences in
preferences play some role in gender differences in occupations (Gunderson,
10
The presence of discrimination can also complicate the interpretation of this decomposition (Juhn,
Murphy and Pierce, 1991; Blau and Kahn, 1996b, 1997; Suen, 1997). In particular, Suen suggests a
model in which discrimination takes the form of a fixed deduction from every woman’s pay, say
20 percent. This may produce a mechanical positive relationship between male wage inequality and the
average female percentile: anything that increases male inequality will push more men below the
average woman. However, Table 2 shows that the gender pay ratio increased as the mean female
percentile rose, suggesting that the increase in the female percentile is not simply an artifact of widening
male inequality, but rather contains information about women’s relative qualifications and treatment.
1989). The claim that discrimination is also important is more controversial. It is

not an easy matter to distinguish between the two empirically and, of course, both
preferences and discrimination may contribute to observed differences.
Some persuasive evidence of the importance of discrimination comes from
descriptions of institutional barriers that have historically excluded women from
particular pursuits or impeded their upward progression (Reskin and Hartmann,
1986). In addition many studies, although not all, have found that women are less
likely to be promoted, all else equal (see, for example, Cobb-Clark and Dunlop,
1999; McCue, 1996; Hersch and Viscusi, 1996). It has also been found that a major
portion of the gender difference in on-the-job training remains unexplained, even
after gender differences in predicted turnover probability and other variables are
taken into account, suggesting that discrimination may play a role in this respect as
well (Royalty, 1996).11 Such studies of promotion and training are certainly sug-
gestive of discrimination, but they suffer from the standard problems of this type of
exercise discussed in connection with decompositions of the gender pay gap.
Is there a glass ceiling impeding women’s occupational advancement, as some
have alleged? Disparities at the upper levels of many professions are easy to
document. In academia, for example, women constituted 44.7 percent of assistant
professors in 1994 –95, compared to 31.2 percent of associate and 16.2 percent of
full professors (Blau, Ferber and Winkler, 1998). In business, a federal Glass Ceiling
Commission (1995) found that women comprise only 3 to 5 percent of senior
managers in Fortune 1000 companies.
While the disparities are obvious, the reasons behind them are harder to pin
down. Such disparities may be due in whole or part to the more recent entry of
women into these fields and the time it takes to move up the ladder. Data in each
case do suggest some female gains over time. For example, women’s share of
associate professors in 1995 (31.2 percent) was considerably higher than their 1985
level (23.3 percent) and nearly equal to their share of assistant professors a decade
earlier (35.8 percent). However, the female share of full professors in the mid-
1990s, at 16.2 percent, although higher than the 11.6 percent of full professors who
were women in the mid-1980s, was still considerably below the 23.2 percent of
associate professors who were women in 1985 (Blau, Ferber and Winkler, 1998).
Despite recent changes, some evidence suggests that discrimination plays a
role in academia. A recent study of faculty promotion in the economics profession
found that, controlling for quality of Ph.D. training, publishing productivity, major
field of specialization, current placement in a distinguished department, age and
post-Ph.D. experience, female economists were still significantly less likely to be
promoted from assistant to associate and from associate to full professor—although
there was also some evidence that women’s promotion opportunities from associate
to full professor improved in the 1980s (McDowell, Singell and Ziliak, 1999). In a
similar vein, a recent report on faculty at MIT finds evidence of differential
11
For a review of evidence that women have traditionally received less on-the-job training than men, see
Barron, Black and Loewenstein (1993).
treatment of senior women and points out that it may encompass not simply
differences in salary but also in space, awards, resources and responses to outside
offers, “with women receiving less despite professional accomplishments equal to
those of their male colleagues” (MIT, 1999, p. 4).
Even in occupations where good data exist on the availability of women in the
lower ranks, as in academia, it is difficult to determine whether the degree of
movement of women through the ranks is sufficient to confirm or disprove notions
that women face special barriers. It is still harder in other areas where such data do
not exist and where norms regarding the speed of upward movement are less well-
defined.
However, a recent study of executives does highlight the substantial impact on
pay of gender differences in level of the job hierarchy and firm, although it does
not shed light on the causes of such differences. For a sample of the five highest-
paid top executives among a large group of firms, Bertrand and Hallock (1999)
found that the 2.5 percent of the executives who were women earned 45 percent
less than their male counterparts. Three-quarters of this gap was due to the fact that
women managed smaller companies and were less likely to be the CEO, chair or
president of their company. Only 20 percent was attributable to female executives
being younger and having less seniority. Female executives made some gains over
the 1992–97 sample period: the fraction of women in these top-level jobs rose from
1.29 to 3.39 percent; their relative compensation increased from 52 to 73 percent;
and their representation at larger corporations rose. There was, however, no
increase in women’s representation in the top occupations of CEO, chair, vice-
chair, or president.
The role of occupational upgrading in narrowing the gender pay gap, as well
as the evidence that the glass ceiling may be showing some hairline cracks, raises
the question of why occupational differences between men and women have
declined. Both the human capital and the discrimination models potentially pro-
vide viable explanations.12 On the one hand, it may be that as women anticipated
remaining in the labor force for longer periods it became profitable for them to
invest in the larger amount of career-oriented formal education and on-the-job
training often required in traditionally male occupations. On the other hand,
women may have entered these areas in response to declining barriers to their
participation. Furthermore, the rise in women’s acquisition of career-oriented
formal education may reflect not only changes in women’s preferences and their
response to greater market opportunities, but also changes in the admission
practices of educational institutions, with the passage of Title IX in 1972 banning
sex discrimination in education and other social pressures. The increase in wom-
12
England (1982) provides the strongest critique of the human capital explanation for occupational
segregation. Some particularly interesting recent evidence implicitly supporting the human capital
model is MacPherson and Hirsch’s (1995) finding of a substantial effect of skills in explaining the lower
pay in predominantly female jobs. Their estimates are among the higher ones; for a review of past
evidence, see Sorensen (1990).
en’s representation in professional schools has been truly remarkable. Between

1966 and 1993, women’s share of degrees rose from 6.7 to 37.7 percent in
medicine, 3.8 to 42.5 percent in law, 3.2 to 34.6 percent in business, and 1.1 to 33.9
percent in dentistry (Blau, Ferber and Winkler, 1998). While it is likely that both
changes in women’s behavior and changes in the amount of discrimination they
faced played a role in women’s occupational shifts, we are not aware of any research
unraveling this complex causation.
The U.S. Gender Pay Gap in International Perspective
How does the pay gap faced by U.S. women compare to that faced by women
in other countries? Table 3 shows female/male weekly earnings ratios of full-time
workers for the United States and a number of other advanced countries over the
1979 –98 period, based on unpublished OECD tabulations from nationally repre-
sentative microdata sets. In 1979 – 81, the U.S. gender pay ratio was 62.5 percent,
nearly 9 percentage points below the 71.2 percent average for the other countries
listed here. However, the U.S. gender pay ratio increased at a faster rate in the
1980s and 1990s than it did elsewhere. By 1994 –98, it was 76.3 percent, only
marginally below the non-U.S. average of 77.8 percent. Nonetheless, the gender
earnings ratio was higher in eight out of 16 other countries than it was in the
United States, often considerably so. How do we explain why U.S. women do not
rank higher relative to their counterparts in other advanced countries? What
accounts for the faster narrowing of the gender gap in the United States?
There seems little reason to believe that U.S. women are either less well-
qualified relative to men than women in other countries where the gender pay gap
is considerably smaller or that U.S. women encounter more discrimination than
women in those other countries. While data on actual labor market experience are
not generally available, some indirect indicators suggest that U.S. women tend to be
relatively more committed to the labor force than women in many of the other
countries. Female labor force participation rates are relatively high in the United
States, as is the share of employed women working full time. Occupational segre-
gation by sex tends to be lower in the United States than elsewhere, suggesting that
U.S. women have greater labor force attachment and job skills and/or encounter
less discrimination in gaining access to traditionally male jobs (Blau and Kahn,
1996b; OECD, 1999).
Nor does it appear that gender-specific policies account for the relatively
modest U.S. gender pay ratio. Virtually all OECD and European Community
countries had passed equal pay and equal opportunity laws by the mid-1980s, but
the United States implemented its antidiscrimination legislation before most other
countries (Blau and Kahn, 1996b). By international standards, the United States
does have a relatively weak entitlement to family leave, consisting of an unpaid
13-week mandated period, which was only introduced in 1993. In contrast, most
OECD countries have a much longer period of leave, and this leave is usually paid
Table 3
Female/Male Ratios, Median Weekly Earnings of Full-Time Workers
Change 1979–81
Country 1979–81 1989–90 1994–98 to 1994–98
Australia 0.800 0.814 0.868 0.068

Austria 0.649 0.674 0.692 0.043
Belgium na 0.840 0.901 na
Canada 0.633 0.663 0.698 0.065
Finland 0.734 0.764 0.799 0.065
France (net earnings) 0.799 0.847 0.899 0.100
Germany (west) 0.717 0.737 0.755 0.038
Ireland na na 0.745 na
Italy na 0.805 0.833 na
Japan 0.587 0.590 0.636 0.049
Netherlands na 0.750 0.769 na
New Zealand 0.734 0.759 0.814 0.080
Spain na na 0.711 na
Sweden 0.838 0.788 0.835 ⫺0.003
Switzerland na 0.736 0.752 na
United Kingdom 0.626 0.677 0.749 0.123
United States 0.625 0.706 0.763 0.138
Non-US Average
1979–81 sample 0.712 0.731 0.774 0.063
full sample 0.712 0.746 0.778 0.067
Notes: The years covered for each country are as follows: Australia: 1979, 1989, 1998; Austria: 1980, 1989,
1994; Belgium: 1989, 1995; Canada: 1981, average of 1988 and 1990, 1994; France: 1979, 1989, 1996;
W. Germany: 1984, 1989, 1995; Italy: 1989, 1996; Japan: 1979, 1989, 1997; Netherlands: 1990, 1995; New
Zealand: average of 1988 and 1990, 1997; Sweden: average of 1978 and 1980, 1989, 1996; Switzerland:
1991, 1996; United Kingdom: 1979, 1989, 1998; United States: 1979, 1989, 1996.
Source: Authors’ calculations from unpublished OECD data.
(Ruhm, 1998). Some research on the impact of parental leave has found a positive
effect of short leave entitlements on women’s relative wages, although extended
leaves have been found to have the opposite effect (Ruhm, 1998; Waldfogel, 1998).
Child care is another important area of public policy which particularly affects
women, but one which is more difficult to summarize across a large set of countries.
Some available evidence suggests that, as of the mid-1980s, the United States had a
smaller share of young children in publicly funded child care than many other
OECD countries, but provided relatively generous tax relief for child care expenses
(Gornick, Myers and Ross, 1997).
Since gender-specific factors appear unlikely to account for the mediocre
ranking of the U.S. gender earnings ratio, what about more general characteristics
of the wage structure? Wage inequality is much higher in the United States than
elsewhere. This reflects higher skill prices and sectoral differentials in the United
States, although a more dispersed distribution of productivity characteristics also
plays a role (Blau and Kahn, 1996a, 1999a, 2000).
Institutional factors appear to be important in explaining higher U.S. skill
prices and sectoral differentials. More heavily unionized economies in which

collective bargaining takes place at more centralized levels have lower overall wage
dispersion, all else equal (Blau and Kahn, 1999a). Among the OECD nations, the
United States stands at an extreme with an especially low rate of collective bargain-
ing coverage, pay setting which is often determined at the plant level even within
the union sector, and an absence of formal or informal mechanisms to extend
union-negotiated pay rates to nonunion workers. Further, minimum wages are
lower relative to the median in the United States than in most other western
countries (OECD, 1998).
A significant portion of the male-female pay gap in the United States is
associated with interindustry or interfirm wage differentials that result from its
relatively decentralized-pay setting institutions (Blau, 1977; Groshen, 1991; Bayard,
Hellerstein, Neumark and Troske, 1999). Thus, centralized systems which reduce
the extent of wage variation across industries and firms are likely to lower the
gender differential, all else equal. Moreover, in all countries the female wage
distribution lies below the male distribution. Thus, wage institutions that con-
sciously raise minimum pay levels, regardless of gender, will tend to lower male-
female wage differentials. Of course, these kinds of interventions may also produce
labor market problems like unemployment and inefficiencies in allocating labor.13
Table 4 presents some descriptive information that allows an initial determi-
nation of the relative strength of gender-specific factors and overall wage structure
in explaining international gender pay gaps. It is based on our calculations using
International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) microdata and presents information
on the United States and five major countries for 1985– 86 and for 1993–94. (These
countries are a subset of those included in the ISSP for which data are available in
both the 1980s and 1990s. Our findings were similar, however, when we considered
the full set of countries.) These two periods allow us to observe how the changing
economic environment of the 1980s and 1990s affected women in the United States
compared to those elsewhere. Earnings are corrected for differences in weekly
hours worked.14
Our results for the ranking of the U.S. gender wage ratio compared to the
non-U.S. average are qualitatively similar to Table 3. We again find that the U.S
ratio lagged behind the other countries substantially in the mid-1980s (top panel,
middle column). By 1993–94, however, the United States had closed much of this
gap (bottom panel, middle column). The average female percentiles presented in
the first column of the table are of interest as an indicator of gender-specific factors.
In 1985– 86, the wages of U.S. women ranked at the 31.9 percentile of the male
wage distribution, virtually the same ranking as the average for the other countries.
By 1993–94, the percentile ranking of the wages of U.S. women, 36.9, was consid-
erably higher than the non-U.S. average ranking of 32.0. The percentile rankings
13
See Blau and Kahn (1999a) for a summary of the evidence on many of the issues concerning labor
market flexibility.
14
For details on the wage data in the ISSP, see Blau and Kahn (1999b).
Table 4
Female Wages Relative to the Male Distribution, Actual and Wage Distribution-
Corrected Gender Wage Ratios, 1985– 86 and 1993–94
Average Female Female/Male Wage

Percentile in Male Actual Female/Male Ratio at U.S. Male
1985–86 Wage Distribution Wage Ratio Wage Distribution
Australia 33.4 0.716 0.555

W. Germany 28.4 0.702 0.536
Britain 25.8 0.660 0.471
Austria 31.0 0.718 0.515
Italy 40.5 0.808 0.672
Non-U.S. Average 31.8 0.721 0.550
United States 31.9 0.637 0.637
1993–94
Australia 34.7 0.773 0.667

W. Germany 21.5 0.693 0.368
Britain 35.1 0.782 0.689
Austria 33.3 0.797 0.605
Italy 35.2 0.795 0.622
Non-U.S. Average 32.0 0.768 0.590
United States 36.9 0.729 0.729
Notes: The years covered for each country are as follows: Australia (1986, 1994); West Germany
(1985– 86, 1993); Britain (1985– 86; 1993–94); USA (1985– 86; 1993–94); Austria (1985– 86, 1994); Italy
(1986, 1993–94). Earnings are corrected for weekly hours differences. See Blau and Kahn (1999b) for
details.
Source: Authors’ calculations from International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) microdata.
suggest that relative qualifications and treatment of U.S. women were similar to
women in the other countries in the mid-1980s and actually favored U.S. women by
the mid-1990s.
Although the percentile rankings are suggestive, to determine the relative
strength of gender-specific factors and wage structure we need to ascertain the wage
consequences of women’s placement in the male wage distribution. The hypothet-
ical gender pay ratios shown in the last column of Table 4 enable us to do that. They
show what the gender pay ratio would be if men and women in each country had
their own relative position in the wage distribution, but overall wage inequality was at
U.S. levels. So, for example, a man or woman at the 25th percentile of the male wage
distribution in Australia would receive a wage equal to a male at the 25th percentile
of the U.S. male wage distribution in the same period. For these hypothetical wage
ratios, we find that the U.S. gender ratio is higher than the non-U.S. average of the
distribution-corrected ratios in both periods: 8.7 percentage points higher in
1985– 86 and 13.9 percentage points higher in 1993–94. We conclude that, com-
pared to women in the other countries, U.S. women are better qualified relative to
men and/or encounter less discrimination. The mediocre ranking of the U.S.
gender ratio in the face of these favorable gender-specific factors is a consequence
of the higher level of wage inequality in the United States, which places a much
higher penalty on being below average in the wage distribution.
The effect of wage structure can also be seen by comparing the hypothetical
gender gap for each country shown in the third column of Table 4 —where workers
are evaluated at their actual percentile in the wage distribution of their own country
but the distribution itself is shifted to reflect the U.S. level of wage inequality—to
its actual gender pay gap as shown in the middle column of the table. In every case,
the gender pay ratio would be higher using own country wage distributions, usually
substantially so. On average, the more compressed wage distributions in these
countries increased the gender wage ratio from 55 percent to 72.1 percent in the
1980s (top panel, sixth row) and from 59 percent to 76.8 percent in the 1990s
(bottom panel, penultimate row).
Table 4 also suggests in several ways that the relative qualifications or treatment of
U.S. women compared to women in other countries improved between the 1980s and
1990s. First, the average female percentile in the male wage distribution rose from 31.9
to 36.9 in the United States, but the average for the other countries was relatively stable
(as shown in column 1). Second, the gender pay ratio evaluated at the U.S. male wage
distribution rose by 9.2 percentage points in the United States, in comparison to a
smaller average rise of 4 percentage points in the other countries (as shown in
column 3). Finally, the effect of the higher level of U.S. wage inequality was fairly stable:
if the other countries had the U.S. male wage structure, the non-U.S. average gender
gap would have been increased by 17.1 percentage points in 1985– 86 and 17.8
percentage points in 1993–94 (comparing columns 2 and 3).15
Why did changes in gender-specific factors favor U.S. women relative to those
in other countries during this period? The reasons may be much the same as the
factors considered above as to why the gender pay gap in the United States
narrowed over time. The relative qualifications and experience of American
women may have improved faster than those of women in other countries. Also, if
women’s labor force attachment increased more in the United States than else-
where, the associated reductions in statistical discrimination against women could
well have also been larger.
The data in Table 4 suggest a determining role for wage structure in raising the
U.S. gender pay gap relative to that in other countries. However, it is possible to test
this relationship more directly, as we did in a recent paper (Blau and Kahn, 1999b).
15
As noted above, one possible objection to the type of decomposition used in Table 4 is that, under
certain assumptions, there could be a mechanical positive correlation between male wage inequality and
the average female percentile (Suen, 1997). But across our full set of countries in the ISSP, there was
in fact little statistical relationship between the average female percentile in the male distribution and
the standard deviation of the log of male wages, providing evidence against such a mechanical
relationship (Blau and Kahn, 1999b). Another possible objection to the decompositions is that they
assume that the entire difference in male inequality across countries is due to labor market prices and
rents rather than population heterogeneity. However, in other work (Blau and Kahn, 1996a, 2000), we
found that higher U.S. prices are in fact an important reason for higher male wage inequality in the
United States, though population heterogeneity also plays a role.
Using microdata for each country and year from the 1985–94 ISSP data (100
country-year observations in all), we found strong evidence that higher inequality
of male wages (controlling for the distribution of male productivity characteristics)
and higher female labor supply had large, statistically significant, positive effects on
the gender pay gap. The differences in inequality of male wages were quantitatively
more important than female labor supply in explaining differences across countries
in the size of the gap. Based on these regression estimates, the contribution of
higher wage inequality and higher female labor supply in the United States to the
larger U.S. gender pay gap can be estimated. We found that both helped to explain
the higher U.S. gap, with wage inequality being considerably more important.
Interestingly, these variables were more than sufficient to account for the higher
U.S. gender pay gap, suggesting that unmeasured factors, perhaps higher female
qualifications or less discrimination, favored U.S. women.16
Conclusion
Our analysis suggests important roles for both gender-specific factors, includ-
ing gender differences in qualifications and labor market treatment, as well as
overall wage structure, the prices the labor market sets for skills and employment
in particular sectors, in influencing the size of the gender pay gap. What do these
factors imply about the future of the gender wage gap in the United States?
The narrowing in the U.S. gender pay gap decelerated in the 1990s and
gender-specific factors seem to be the source of this slowing convergence. Without
a more detailed analysis of the trends in the pay gap over this period than currently
available data permit, it is not possible to know which particular gender-specific
factors account for this. It is also difficult to say whether this represents merely a
pause in the continued closing of the gender pay gap or a more long-term stalling
of this trend. With respect to wage structure, there appears to have been a
deceleration in the trend towards rising inequality over the 1990s. To the extent
this continues, a major factor retarding convergence in the gender gap will be
diminished.
Taking these factors together, it seems plausible that the gender pay gap will
continue to decline at least modestly in the next few years. But it seems unlikely to
vanish. Women continue to confront discrimination in the labor market, although
its extent seems to be decreasing. In addition, at least some of the remaining pay
gap is surely tied to the gender division of labor in the home, both directly through
16
It could be argued that the gender pay gap itself could affect male wage inequality and female net
supply. On the former effect, see Fortin and Lemieux (1998) discussed above. Recognizing that the
explanatory variables may be endogenous, we estimated reduced form models in which male wage
inequality and female net supply were replaced by institutional variables such as collective bargaining
coverage. We found that more highly unionized countries had much smaller gender pay gaps, all else
equal, an effect that is consistent with the estimated positive effect of wage inequality on the gender pay
gap.
its effect on women’s labor force attachment and indirectly through its impact on
the strength of statistical discrimination against women. Women still retain primary
responsibility for housework and child care in most American families. However,
this pattern has been changing as families respond to rising labor market oppor-
tunities for women that increase the opportunity cost of such arrangements.
Further, policies that facilitate the integration of work and family responsibilities,
both voluntary and government-mandated, have become increasingly prevalent in
recent years. Employers are likely to continue to expand such policies as they
respond to the shifting composition of the work force and a desire to retain
employees in whom they have made substantial investments. In the longer run, the
increasing availability of such policies will make it easier for women to combine
work and family, and also for men to take on a greater share of household tasks.
y This paper was written while the authors were Visiting Scholars at the Russell Sage
Foundation. We gratefully acknowledge this support. We appreciate the helpful comments of
Dora Costa, Marianne Ferber, and Jane Waldfogel, and are especially indebted to the editors
of this journal, Alan Krueger, Bradford De Long, and Timothy Taylor for their constructive
and detailed input. Thanks are also due to Abhijay Prakash for excellent research assistance.
References
Aigner, Dennis and Glen Cain. 1977. “Statisti- 1994. “Changes in the Demand of Skilled Labor
cal Theories of Discrimination in Labor Mar- Within U.S. Manufacturing Industries: Evidence
kets.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review. 30:2, From the Annual Survey of Manufactures.” Quar-
pp. 175– 87. terly Journal of Economics. 109:2, pp. 367–97.
Barron, John M., Dan A. Black and Mark A. Bertrand, Marianne and Kevin F. Hallock.
Lowenstein. 1993. “Gender Differences in Train- 1999. “Gender Compensation Differentials
ing, Capital and Wages.” Journal of Human Re- Among U.S. High-Level Executives.” Working
sources. 28:2, pp. 342– 64. Paper, Princeton and University of Illinois.
Bayard, Kimberly, Judith Hellerstein, David Black, Sandra E. and Philip E. Strahan. 1999.
Neumark and Kenneth Troske. 1999. “New Evi- “Rent-Sharing and Discrimination: The Effects
dence on Sex Segregation and Sex Difference in of Deregulation on the Labor Market.” Working
Wages From Matched Employee-Employer Paper.
Data.” NBER Working Paper No. 7003. Blau, Francine D. 1977. Equal Pay in the Office.
Becker, Gary S. 1957. The Economics of Discrim- Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
ination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Blau, Francine D. 1998. “Trends in the Well-
Becker, Gary S. 1985. “Human Capital, Effort, Being of American Women, 1970 –1995.” Journal
and the Sexual Division Labor.” Journal of Labor of Economic Literature. 36:1, pp. 112– 65.
Economics. 3:1 Supp., pp. S33–S58. Blau, Francine D., Marianne A. Ferber and Anne
Bergmann, Barbara. 1974. “Occupational Seg- E. Winkler. 1998. The Economics of Women, Men, and
regation, Wages, and Profits When Employers Work. 3rd ed. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Discriminate by Race or Sex.” Eastern Economic Blau, Francine D. and Lawrence M. Kahn.
Journal. 1:1–2, pp. 103–10. 1996a. “International Differences in Male
Berman, Eli, John Bound and Zvi Griliches. Wage Inequality: Institutions Versus Market
Forces.” Journal of Political Economy. 104:4, pp. Economic Progress of Women in America. Washing-
791– 837. ton, D.C.: The AEI Press.
Blau, Francine D. and Lawrence M. Kahn. Glass Ceiling Commission. 1995. “A Solid In-
1996b. “Wage Structure and Gender Earnings vestment: Making Full Use of the Nation’s Hu-
Differentials: an International Comparison.” Eco- man Capital.” Recommendations of the Glass
nomica. 63, Supp., pp. S29 –S62. Ceiling Commission, Washington D.C.
Blau, Francine D. and Lawrence M. Kahn. Goldin, Claudia. 1990. Understanding the Gen-
1997. “Swimming Upstream: Trends in the Gen- der Gap: An Economic History of American Women.
der Wage Differential in the 1980s.” Journal of Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990.
Labor Economics. 15:1 pt. 1, pp. 1– 42. Goldin, Claudia and Cecilia Rouse. 2000. “Or-
Blau, Francine D. and Lawrence M. Kahn. chestrating Impartiality: The Impact of ‘Blind’
1999a. “Institutions and Laws in the Labor Mar- Auditions on Female Musicians.” American Eco-
ket,” in Handbook of Labor Economics, vol. 3A, nomic Review. September, 90:4, pp. 715– 41.
Orley C. Ashenfelter and David Card, eds. Am- Gornick, Janet C., Marcia K. Meyers and
sterdam: Elsevier, pp. 1399 –1461. Katherin E. Ross. 1997. “Supporting the Employ-
Blau, Francine D. and Lawrence M. Kahn. ment of Mothers: Policy Variation Across Four-
1999b. “Understanding International Differ- teen Welfare States.” Journal of European Social
ences in the Gender Pay Gap.” Working Paper, Policy. 7:1, pp. 45–70.
Cornell University. Groshen, Erica L. 1991. “The Structure of the
Blau, Francine D. and Lawrence M. Kahn. Female/Male Wage Differential: Is It Who You
2000. “Do Cognitive Test Scores Explain Higher Are, What You Do, or Where You Work?” Journal
U.S. Wage Inequality?” Working Paper, Cornell of Human Resources. 26:3, pp. 457–72.
University. Gunderson, Morley. 1989. “Male-Female
Blau, Francine D., Patricia Simpson and De- Wage Differentials and Policy Responses.” Jour-
borah Anderson. 1998. “Continuing Progress? nal of Economic Literature. 27:1, pp. 46 –72.
Trends in Occupational Segregation in the Hellerstein, Judith K., David Neumark and
United States Over the 1970s and 1980s.” Femi- Kenneth Troske. 1997. “Market Forces and Sex
nist Economics. 4:3, pp. 29 –71. Discrimination.” National Bureau of Economic
Brown, Charles and Mary Corcoran. 1997. Research Working Paper 6321.
“Sex-Based Differences in School Content and Hersch, Joni and W. K. Viscusi. 1996. “Gender
the Male/Female Wage Gap.” Journal of Labor Differences in Promotions and Wages.” Indus-
Economics. 15:3, pp. 431– 65. trial Relations. 35:4, pp. 461–72.
Bureau of National Affairs (BNA). Daily Labor Jacobs, Jerry A. 1999. “The Sex Segregation of
Report, no. 235, December 6, 1990, pp. A11–A13 Occupations: Prospects for the 21st Century,” in
and F1–F10. Gary N. Powell, ed. Handbook of Gender in Orga-
Cobb-Clark, Deborah A. and Yvonne Dunlop. nizations, Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications,
1999. “The Role of Gender in Job Promotions.” pp. 125– 41.
Monthly Labor Review. 122:12, pp. 32–38. Juhn, Chinhui, Kevin M. Murphy and Brooks
England, Paula. 1982. “The Failure of Human Pierce. 1991. “Accounting for the Slowdown in
Capital Theory to Explain Occupational Sex Black-White Wage Convergence,” in Marvin
Segregation.” Journal of Human Resources. 17:3, Kosters, ed. Workers and Their Wages. Washington,
pp. 358 –70. D.C.: AEI Press, pp. 107– 43.
Flyer, Frederick and Sherwin Rosen. 1994. Katz, Lawrence F. and David H. Autor. 1999.
“The New Economics of Teachers and Educa- “Changes in the Wage Structure and Earnings
tion.” National Bureau of Economic Research Inequality,” in Orley C. Ashenfelter and David
Working Paper No. 4828, August. Card, eds. Handbook of Labor Economics, vol. 3A.
Federal Human Resources Week (FEDHR), Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 1463–555.
6:47, April 5, 2000. King, Ronette. 1997. “Women Taking Action
Fortin, Nicole M. and Thomas Lemieux. 1998. Against Many Companies.” The Times-Picayune,
“Rank Regressions, Wage Distributions, and the April 27.
Gender Gap.” Journal of Human Resources. 33:3, Krueger, Alan B. 1993. “How Computers Have
pp. 610 – 43. Changed the Wage Structure: Evidence from
Fuchs, Victor. 1971. “Differences in Hourly Microdata, 1984 –1989.” Quarterly Journal of Eco-
Earnings Between Men and Women.” Monthly nomics. 108:1, pp. 33– 60.
Labor Review. 94:5, pp. 9 –15. Lewin, Tamar. 1990. “Partnership Awarded to
Furchtgott-Roth, Diana and Christine Stolba. Woman in Sex Bias Case.” The New York Times,
1999. Women’s Figures: an Illustrated Guide to the May 16, 1990, pp. A1, A12.
Leonard, Jonathan. 1989. “Women and Affir- Reskin, Barbara F. and Heidi I. Hartmann,
mative Action.” Journal of Economic Perspectives. eds. 1986. Women’s Work, Men’s Work: Sex Segrega-
Winter, 3:1, pp. 61–75. tion on the Job. Washington D.C.: National Acad-
MacPherson, David A. and Barry T. Hirsch. emy Press.
1995. “Wages and Gender Composition: Why Do Royalty, Anne B. 1996. “The Effects of Job
Women’s Jobs Pay Less?” Journal of Labor Econom- Turnover on the Training of Men and Women.”
ics. 13:3, pp. 426 –71. Industrial and Labor Relations Review. 49:3, pp.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. 1999. 506 –21.
“A Study on the Status of Women Faculty in Ruhm, Christopher J. 1998. “The Economic
Science at MIT.” Consequences of Parental Leave Mandates: Les-
McCue, Kristin. 1996. “Promotions and Wage sons From Europe.” Quarterly Journal of Econom-
Growth.” Journal of Labor Economics. 14:2, pp. ics. 113:1, pp. 285–317.
175–209. Sorenson, Elaine. 1990. “The Crowding Hy-
McDowell, John M., Larry D. Singell Jr. and pothesis and Comparable Worth Issue.” Journal
James P. Ziliak. 1999. “Cracks in the Glass Ceil- of Human Resources. 25:1, pp. 55– 89.
ing: Gender and Promotion in the Economics Suen, Wing. 1997. “Decomposing Wage Re-
Profession.” American Economic Review. 89:2, pp. siduals: Unmeasured Skill or Statistical Arti-
392–96. fact?” Journal of Labor Economics. 15:3, pt. 1, pp.
Meyer, Bruce D. and Dan T. Rosenbaum. 555– 66.
1999. “Welfare, the Earned Income Tax Credit, Waldfogel, Jane. 1998. “Understanding the
and the Labor Supply of Single Mothers.” NBER ‘Family Gap’ in Pay for Women with Children.”
Working Paper No. 7363. Journal of Economic Perspectives. Winter, 12:1, pp.
Mincer, Jacob and Solomon Polachek. 1974. 157–70.
“Family Investments in Human Capital: Earnings Weinberg, Bruce. 2000. “Computer Use and
of Women.” Journal of Political Economy. 82:2 pt. the Demand for Female Workers.” Industrial and
2, pp. S76 –S108. Labor Relations Review. 53:2, pp. 290 –308.
Neumark, David M. 1996. “Sex Discrimination Weinberger, Catherine J. 1998. “Race and
in Restaurant Hiring: an Audit Study.” Quarterly Gender Wage Gaps in the Market for Recent
Journal of Economics. 111:3, pp. 915– 41. College Graduates.” Industrial Relations. 37:1, pp.
O’Neill, June and Solomon Polachek. 1993. 67– 84.
“Why the Gender Gap in Wages Narrowed in the Wood, Robert G., Mary E. Corcoran and Paul
1980s.” Journal of Labor Economics. 11:1 pt. 1, pp. Courant. 1993. “Pay Differences Among the
205–28. Highly Paid: The Male-Female Earnings Gap in
OECD. 1998. Employment Outlook. Paris: OECD. Lawyers’ Salaries.” Journal of Labor Economics.
OECD. 1999. Employment Outlook. Paris: OECD. 11:3, pp. 417– 41.
This article has been cited by:
1. Joshua Landon, Joseph Gastwirth. 2022. Graphical Measures Summarizing the Inequality of Income
of Two Groups. Statistics and Public Policy 9:1, 20-25. [Crossref]
2. Tsuyoshi Nihonsugi, Toshiko Tanaka, Masahiko Haruno. 2022. Gender differences in guilt aversion
in Korea and the United Kingdom. Scientific Reports 12:1. . [Crossref]
3. Ishan Ghosh, Mario Larch, Irina Murtazashvili, Yoto V. Yotov. 2022. Negative Trade Shocks and
Gender Inequality: Evidence from the USA. Economica 89:355, 564-591. [Crossref]
4. Yang Zhao, Xiaohui Chen. 2022. The relationship between the withdrawal of the digital economy's
innovators, government interventions, the marketization level and market size based on big data.
Journal of Enterprise Information Management 35:4/5, 1202-1232. [Crossref]
5. Merike Kukk, Jaanika Meriküll, Tairi Rõõm. 2022. THE GENDER WEALTH GAP IN EUROPE:
APPLICATION OF MACHINE LEARNING TO PREDICT INDIVIDUAL‐LEVEL WEALTH.
Review of Income and Wealth 191. . [Crossref]
6. Nathan Barrymore, Cristian L. Dezső, Benjamin C. King. 2022. Gender and competitiveness when
earning for others: Experimental evidence and implications for sponsorship. Strategic Management
Journal 43:5, 905-934. [Crossref]
7. Ariane Agunsoye, Jerome Monne, Janette Rutterford, Dimitris P. Sotiropoulos. 2022. How gender,
marital status, and gender norms affect savings goals. Kyklos 75:2, 157-183. [Crossref]
8. Alica Ida Bonk, Laure Simon. 2022. From He-Cession to She-Stimulus? The labor market impact of
fiscal policy across gender. SERIEs 13:1-2, 309-334. [Crossref]
9. Thomas Schmid, Daniel Urban. 2022. Female Directors and Firm Value: New Evidence from
Directors’ Deaths. Management Science 86. . [Crossref]
10. Frida Linehagen. 2022. Collective agreement as investment in women in the Swedish Armed Forces
A critical discourse analysis. Journal of Gender Studies 31:3, 364-376. [Crossref]
11. Marek Kwiek, Wojciech Roszka. 2022. Are female scientists less inclined to publish alone? The gender
solo research gap. Scientometrics 127:4, 1697-1735. [Crossref]
12. Helga Wagner, Sylvia Frühwirth-Schnatter, Liana Jacobi. 2022. Factor-augmented Bayesian treatment
effects models for panel outcomes. Econometrics and Statistics 8. . [Crossref]
13. Nuria Rodríguez-Planas, Anna Sanz-de-Galdeano, Anastasia Terskaya. 2022. Gender norms in high
school: Impacts on risky behaviors from adolescence to adulthood. Journal of Economic Behavior &
Organization 196, 429-456. [Crossref]
14. Mustafa Kamal, Paul Blacklow. 2022. Attitudes and personality in the Australian gender wage gap.
Applied Economics 49, 1-18. [Crossref]
15. Esha Chatterjee, Reeve D. Vanneman. 2022. Women's Low Employment Rates in India: Cultural and
Structural Explanations. Population and Development Review 48. . [Crossref]
16. Paul A. Gompers, Vladimir Mukharlyamov, Emily Weisburst, Yuhai Xuan. 2022. Gender Gaps in
Venture Capital Performance. Journal of Financial and Quantitative Analysis 57:2, 485-513. [Crossref]
17. Aparajita Dasgupta, Anisha Sharma. 2022. Preferences or expectations: understanding the gender gap
in major choice. Oxford Economic Papers 11. . [Crossref]
18. Miguel Rodriguez, Ramón Barthelemy, Melinda McCormick. 2022. Critical race and feminist
standpoint theories in physics education research: A historical review and potential applications.
Physical Review Physics Education Research 18:1. . [Crossref]
19. Milan Zafirovski. 2022. Some dilemmas of economic democracy: Indicators and empirical analysis.
Economic and Industrial Democracy 43:1, 252-302. [Crossref]
20. Beyda Çineli. 2022. Who Manages the Money at Home? Multilevel Analysis of Couples’ Money
Management Across 34 Countries. Gender & Society 36:1, 32-62. [Crossref]
21. M. Khaksari, N. Sabet, Z. Soltani, H. Bashiri. 2022. Gender-related response of body systems in
COVID-19 affects outcome. Russian Journal of Infection and Immunity 11:6, 1020-1036. [Crossref]
22. Kailing Shen. Gender Discrimination 1-23. [Crossref]
23. Anna Laura Baraldi, Giovanni Immordino, Marco Stimolo. 2022. Mafia wears out women in power:
Evidence from italian municipalities. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 193, 213-236.
[Crossref]
24. Cristian Ramírez, Jorge Tarziján, Marcos Singer. 2022. The effect of within-firm vertical pay disparity
in occupational safety. Safety Science 145, 105497. [Crossref]
25. Matthew Guinibert, Angelique Nairn. If S/He Be Worthy 538-559. [Crossref]
26. José Ignacio Gimenez-Nadal, José Alberto Molina, Almudena Sevilla. Temporal Flexibility, Breaks at
Work, and the Motherhood Wage Gap 83-105. [Crossref]
27. Swarnodeep Homroy, Shibashish Mukherjee. 2021. The role of employer learning and regulatory
interventions in mitigating executive gender pay gap. Journal of Corporate Finance 71, 101857.
[Crossref]
28. Ana P. Fernandes, Priscila Ferreira. 2021. Executives’ gender pay gap and financing constraints. Journal
of Economic Behavior & Organization 192, 381-404. [Crossref]
29. Conor Lennon. 2021. G.I. Jane Goes to College? Female Educational Attainment, Earnings, and the
Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944. The Journal of Economic History 81:4, 1223-1253. [Crossref]
30. Stefani Milovanska-Farrington. 2021. The Effect of COVID-19 as an Economic Shock on the Gender
and Ethnic Gap in Labour Market Outcomes. Studies in Microeconomics 9:2, 227-255. [Crossref]
31. Gustavo A. Marrero, Juan Gabriel Rodríguez, Roy van der Weide. Does Race and Gender Inequality
Impact Income Growth? 2, . [Crossref]
32. Ezgi Kaya. 2021. Gender wage gap trends in Europe: The role of occupational skill prices. International
Labour Review 113. . [Crossref]
33. Shoukat Ali, Ramiz ur Rehman, Wang Yuan, Muhammad Ishfaq Ahmad, Rizwan Ali. 2021. Does
foreign institutional ownership mediate the nexus between board diversity and the risk of financial
distress? A case of an emerging economy of China. Eurasian Business Review 20. . [Crossref]
34. Ewa Cukrowska-Torzewska. 2021. Gender gap in reservation wages and the choice of education field.
Applied Economics Letters 34, 1-5. [Crossref]
35. David Pettinicchio, Michelle Lee Maroto. 2021. Combating Inequality: The Between- and Within-
Group Effects of Unionization on Earnings for People with Different Disabilities. The Sociological
Quarterly 62:4, 763-787. [Crossref]
36. Elisa R. Birch, Alison C. Preston. 2021. The Evolving Wage Structure of Young Adults in Australia:
2001 to 2019. Economic Record 97:318, 365-386. [Crossref]
37. Kris Hardies, Clive Lennox, Bing Li. 2021. Gender Discrimination? Evidence from the Belgian Public
Accounting Profession*. Contemporary Accounting Research 38:3, 1509-1541. [Crossref]
38. Michael Danquah, Abdul Malik Iddrisu, Ernest Owusu Boakye, Solomon Owusu. 2021. Do gender
wage differences within households influence women's empowerment and welfare? Evidence from
Ghana. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 188, 916-932. [Crossref]
39. Traci Sitzmann, Elizabeth M. Campbell. 2021. The Hidden Cost of Prayer: Religiosity and the Gender
Wage Gap. Academy of Management Journal 64:4, 1016-1048. [Crossref]
40. Marcela Perticará, Mauricio Tejada. 2021. Sources of gender wage gaps for skilled workers in Latin
American countries. The Journal of Economic Inequality 125. . [Crossref]
41. Maria Laura Di Tommaso, Anna Maccagnan, Silvia Mendolia. 2021. Going Beyond Test Scores:
The Gender Gap in Italian Children’s Mathematical Capability. Feminist Economics 27:3, 161-187.
[Crossref]
42. Rita Pető, Balázs Reizer. 2021. Gender differences in the skill content of jobs. Journal of Population
Economics 34:3, 825-864. [Crossref]
43. Peter T. Calcagno, Meg M. Montgomery. 2021. The gender wage gap: an analysis of US congressional
staff members. Public Choice 188:1-2, 183-201. [Crossref]
44. John Corbit, Katie Lamirato, Katherine McAuliffe. 2021. Children in the United States and Peru Pay
to Correct Gender‐Based Inequality. Child Development 92:4, 1291-1308. [Crossref]
45. Francis Vergunst, Richard E. Tremblay, Frank Vitaro, Daniel Nagin, Jungwee Park, Yann Algan,
Elizabeth Beasley, Sylvana M. Côté. 2021. Behaviors in kindergarten are associated with trajectories
of long-term welfare receipt: A 30-year population-based study. Development and Psychopathology 14,
1-11. [Crossref]
46. Heidi H. Liu. 2021. Masked Evaluations: The Role of Gender Homophily. The Journal of Legal Studies
50:2, 303-330. [Crossref]
47. Matthew Caulfield. 2021. Pay Secrecy, Discrimination, and Autonomy. Journal of Business Ethics 171:2,
399-420. [Crossref]
48. Jaanika Meriküll, Merike Kukk, Tairi Rõõm. 2021. What explains the gender gap in wealth? Evidence
from administrative data. Review of Economics of the Household 19:2, 501-547. [Crossref]
49. Stefan Schmid, Sebastian Baldermann. 2021. CEOs’ International Work Experience and
Compensation. Management International Review 61:3, 313-364. [Crossref]
50. Thang T. Vo, Truong Thiet Ha. 2021. Decomposition of gender bias in enterprise employment:
Insights from Vietnam. Economic Analysis and Policy 70, 182-194. [Crossref]
51. Hildegunn E. Stokke. 2021. The gender wage gap and the early‐career effect: the role of actual
experience and education level. LABOUR 35:2, 135-162. [Crossref]
52. Susannah B Lerman, Liba Pejchar, Lauryn Benedict, Kristen M Covino, Janis L Dickinson, Jean E
Fantle-Lepczyk, Amanda D Rodewald, Carol Vleck. 2021. Juggling parenthood and ornithology: A full
lifecycle approach to supporting mothers through the American Ornithological Society. Ornithological
Applications 123:2. . [Crossref]
53. Getinet Astatike Haile. 2021. Men, women and unions. Industrial Relations Journal 52:3, 201-217.
[Crossref]
54. David Carroll, Jaai Parasnis, Massimiliano Tani. 2021. Why do women become teachers while men
don’t?. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 21:2, 793-823. [Crossref]
55. Diego Emilio Linthon-Delgado, Lizethe Berenice Méndez-Heras. 2021. Descomposición de la brecha
salarial de género en el Ecuador. Revista Mexicana de Economía y Finanzas 17:1, 1-25. [Crossref]
56. Victor N. Rudakov, Ilya A. Prakhov. 2021. Gender differences in pay among university faculty in
Russia. Higher Education Quarterly 75:2, 278-301. [Crossref]
57. Clément Carbonnier. 2021. Imposition jointe des revenus et emploi des femmes mariées :
estimation à partir du cas français. Revue économique Vol. 72:2, 215-244. [Crossref]
58. Justin Barnette, Kennedy Odongo, C. Lockwood Reynolds. 2021. Changes Over Time in the Cost of
Job Loss for Young Men and Women. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 21:1, 335-378.
[Crossref]
59. Meltem Ince-Yenilmez. Women Entrepreneurship for Bridging Economic Gaps 323-336. [Crossref]
60. Edward Smith, Jillian Chown, Kevin Gaughan. 2021. Better in the Shadows? Public Attention, Media
Coverage, and Market Reactions to Female CEO Announcements. Sociological Science 8, 119-149.
[Crossref]
61. Aneesh Raghunandan, Shivaram Rajgopal. 2021. Mandatory Gender Pay Gap Disclosure in the UK:
Did Inequity Fall and Do these Disclosures Affect Firm Value?. SSRN Electronic Journal 2. . [Crossref]
62. Lyudmila Vladislavovna Klimenko, Oxana Yuryevna Posukhova. 2021. Gender peculiarities of
professional identity in medical dynasties. Социодинамика :9, 27-38. [Crossref]
63. Matthew Guinibert, Angelique Nairn. If S/He Be Worthy 190-218. [Crossref]
64. Tiffani M. Williams, Gregory C. Wolniak. Unpacking the “Female Advantage” in the Career and
Economic Impacts of College 5-28. [Crossref]
65. Hailing Xu, Feng Yuan, Tingting Xie. Intelligent Study on the Opening and Selecting Course
Management Model of URP System Based on Individual Preference 1-5. [Crossref]
66. Mark Granberg, Niklas Ottosson, Ali Ahmed. 2020. Do ethnicity and sex of employers affect
applicants’ job interest? An experimental exploration. Journal for Labour Market Research 54:1. .
[Crossref]
67. Francesca Greselin, Alina Jȩdrzejczak. 2020. Analyzing the Gender Gap in Poland and Italy, and by
Regions. International Advances in Economic Research 26:4, 433-447. [Crossref]
68. Carolina Castagnetti, Luisa Rosti, Marina Töpfer. 2020. Discriminate me — If you can! The
disappearance of the gender pay gap among public‐contest selected employees in Italy. Gender, Work
& Organization 27:6, 1040-1076. [Crossref]
69. Amirhosein Jafari, Behzad Rouhanizadeh, Sharareh Kermanshachi, Munahil Murrieum. 2020.
Predictive Analytics Approach to Evaluate Wage Inequality in Engineering Organizations. Journal of
Management in Engineering 36:6. . [Crossref]
70. Ruta Yemane. 2020. Cumulative disadvantage? The role of race compared to ethnicity, religion, and
non-white phenotype in explaining hiring discrimination in the U.S. labour market. Research in Social
Stratification and Mobility 69, 100552. [Crossref]
71. Sarah H. Bana, Kelly Bedard, Maya Rossin‐Slater. 2020. The Impacts of Paid Family Leave
Benefits: Regression Kink Evidence from California Administrative Data. Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management 39:4, 888-929. [Crossref]
72. J. Michelle Brock. 2020. Unfair inequality, governance and individual beliefs. Journal of Comparative
73. Carmen Aina, Giorgia Casalone. 2020. Early labor market outcomes of university graduates: Does time
to degree matter?. Socio-Economic Planning Sciences 71, 100822. [Crossref]
74. Zhen Yue, Kai Zhao. 2020. Understanding the Effectiveness of Higher Education System: Evidences
from Market Outcomes of Early University Graduates in Seven European Countries. Sustainability
12:18, 7761. [Crossref]
75. William E. Even, David A. Macpherson. 2020. The Gender Wage Gap and the Fair Calculations Act.
Journal of Forensic Economics 29:1, 39-58. [Crossref]
76. Izaskun Zuazu. 2020. Graduates’ Opium? Cultural Values, Religiosity and Gender Segregation by Field
of Study. Social Sciences 9:8, 135. [Crossref]
77. Frauke von Bieberstein, Stefanie Jaussi, Claudia Vogel. 2020. Challenge-seeking and the gender
wage gap: A lab-in-the-field experiment with cleaning personnel. Journal of Economic Behavior &
Organization 175, 251-277. [Crossref]
78. Shalini Srivastava, Poornima Madan, Vartika Kapoor Dhawan. 2020. Glass ceiling – An illusion
or realism? Role of organizational identification and trust on the career satisfaction in Indian
organizations. Journal of General Management 45:4, 217-229. [Crossref]
79. W. D. McCausland, F. Summerfield, I. Theodossiou. 2020. The Effect of Industry-Level Aggregate
Demand on Earnings: Evidence from the US. Journal of Labor Research 41:1-2, 102-127. [Crossref]
80. Marco Túlio Aniceto França, Gustavo Saraiva Frio, Mariza Bethanya Dalla Vecchia Korzeniewicz. 2020.
Self-employment and wage difference an analysis for Brazil. International Journal of Social Economics
47:6, 727-745. [Crossref]
81. Arun Balachandran, Joop de Beer, K. S. James, Leo van Wissen, Fanny Janssen. 2020. Comparison
of Population Aging in Europe and Asia Using a Time-Consistent and Comparative Aging Measure.
Journal of Aging and Health 32:5-6, 340-351. [Crossref]
82. Ewa Cukrowska-Torzewska, Iga Magda. 2020. The gender wage gap in the workplace: Does the age
of the firm matter?. European Journal of Industrial Relations 26:2, 123-137. [Crossref]
83. Timothy C. Brown, Julie M. Baldwin, Rick Dierenfeldt, Steven McCain. 2020. Playing the Game: A
Qualitative Exploration of the Female Experience in a Hypermasculine Policing Environment. Police
84. Nishtha Langer, Ram D. Gopal, Ravi Bapna. 2020. Onward and Upward? An Empirical Investigation
of Gender and Promotions in Information Technology Services. Information Systems Research 31:2,
383-398. [Crossref]
85. Uta K. Schier. 2020. Female and male role models and competitiveness. Journal of Economic Behavior
& Organization 173, 55-67. [Crossref]
86. Tom Turner, Christine Cross, Caroline Murphy. 2020. Occupations, age and gender: Men and
women’s earnings in the Irish labour market. Economic and Industrial Democracy 41:2, 276-295.
[Crossref]
87. Carlos Gradín. 2020. Segregation of women into low-paying occupations in the United States. Applied
88. Ioana Marinescu, Ronald Wolthoff. 2020. Opening the Black Box of the Matching Function: The
Power of Words. Journal of Labor Economics 38:2, 535-568. [Crossref]
89. . The Production of Knowledge 20, . [Crossref]
90. Rense Nieuwenhuis, Wim Van Lancker, Diego Collado, Bea Cantillon. 2020. Trends in Women’s
Employment and Poverty Rates in OECD Countries: A Kitagawa–Blinder–Oaxaca Decomposition.
Italian Economic Journal 6:1, 37-61. [Crossref]
91. Ariel BenYishay, Maria Jones, Florence Kondylis, Ahmed Mushfiq Mobarak. 2020. Gender gaps in
technology diffusion. Journal of Development Economics 143, 102380. [Crossref]
92. Bidisha Mandal, Michael P. Brady. 2020. The Roles of Gender and Marital Status on Risky Asset
Allocation Decisions. Journal of Consumer Affairs 54:1, 177-197. [Crossref]
93. Thomas Archibald. 2020. What’s the Problem Represented to Be? Problem Definition Critique as a
Tool for Evaluative Thinking. American Journal of Evaluation 41:1, 6-19. [Crossref]
94. M. Christl, Monika Köppl–Turyna. 2020. Gender wage gap and the role of skills and tasks: evidence
from the Austrian PIAAC data set. Applied Economics 52:2, 113-134. [Crossref]
95. Steffen Brenner, Sezen Aksin Sivrikaya, Joachim Schwalbach. 2020. Who is on LinkedIn? Self-
selection into professional online networks. Applied Economics 52:1, 52-67. [Crossref]
96. Erica Salvaj, Katherina Kuschel. Opening the “Black Box”: Factors Affecting Women’s Journey to
Senior Management Positions—A Literature Review 203-222. [Crossref]
97. Jana Stávková, Naďa Hazuchová, Hana Porkertová, Martina Rašticová. Gender Differences in the
Income of Employees Over 50 with Emphasis on Various Sectors of Economy 521-538. [Crossref]
98. David George Surdam. Labor Resists 1-41. [Crossref]
99. Michael Christl, Monika Köppl-Turyna. Gender Wage Gaps and Skills 1-21. [Crossref]
100. Geoffrey Odaga. 2020. Gender in Uganda’s tertiary educational distribution. Social Sciences &
Humanities Open 2:1, 100023. [Crossref]
101. Anja Roth, Michaela Slotwinski. 2020. Gender Norms and Income Misreporting Within Households.
SSRN Electronic Journal 115. . [Crossref]
102. Martin Jacob. 2020. Income Inequality and Gender. SSRN Electronic Journal 49. . [Crossref]
103. Nathan Barrymore, Cristian L. Dezso, Benjamin King. 2020. Can Sponsorship Address Women's
Underrepresentation in Senior Management? Experimental Evidence on Gender Differences in
Sponsoring Behavior. SSRN Electronic Journal 30. . [Crossref]
104. Jaan Masso, Priit Vahter. 2020. Innovation as a Firm-Level Factor of the Gender Wage Gap. SSRN
Electronic Journal 40. . [Crossref]
105. Anita Li, Nicole Gravina, Joshua K. Pritchard, Alan Poling. 2019. The Gender Pay Gap for Behavior
Analysis Faculty. Behavior Analysis in Practice 12:4, 743-746. [Crossref]
106. Xiaoshuang Iris Luo, Cyrus Schleifer, Christopher M. Hill. 2019. Police Income and Occupational
Gender Inequality. Police Quarterly 22:4, 481-510. [Crossref]
107. Camilla Gaiaschi. 2019. Same job, different rewards: The gender pay gap among physicians in Italy.
Gender, Work & Organization 26:11, 1562-1588. [Crossref]
108. Jerred Junqi Wang, Shuqi Zhang, James J. Zhang. 2019. Moderating Effects of Gender and Life Cycle
in the Relationship between Desired Self-Image and Sport Participation Behavior: A Multi-Group
Analysis. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science 23:4, 337-350. [Crossref]
109. Iga Magda, Ewa Cukrowska-Torzewska. 2019. Do Women Managers Lower Gender Pay Gaps?
Evidence from Public and Private Firms. Feminist Economics 25:4, 185-210. [Crossref]
110. Joyce C. Wang, Lívia Markóczy, Sunny Li Sun, Mike W. Peng. 2019. She’-E-O Compensation Gap:
A Role Congruity View. Journal of Business Ethics 159:3, 745-760. [Crossref]
111. Yossef Tobol, Ronen Bar-El, Yuval Arbel, Ofer H. Azar. 2019. Gender differences in the effect of
employee-manager friendships on salary dynamics in CPA firms. Heliyon 5:10, e02658. [Crossref]
112. Xiahai Wei, Tony Fang, Yang Jiao, Jiahui Li. 2019. Language Premium Myth or Fact: Evidence from
Migrant Workers of Guangdong, China. Journal of Labor Research 40:3, 356-386. [Crossref]
113. Marwa Biltagy. 2019. Gender wage disparities in Egypt: Evidence from ELMPS 2006 and 2012. The
Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance 73, 14-23. [Crossref]
114. Sule Alan, Seda Ertac. 2019. Mitigating the Gender Gap in the Willingness to Compete: Evidence
from a Randomized Field Experiment. Journal of the European Economic Association 17:4, 1147-1185.
[Crossref]
115. Mike Thelwall, Emma Stuart. 2019. She's Reddit: A source of statistically significant gendered interest
information?. Information Processing & Management 56:4, 1543-1558. [Crossref]
116. Clément Bosquet, Pierre‐Philippe Combes, Cecilia García‐Peñalosa. 2019. Gender and Promotions:
Evidence from Academic Economists in France*. The Scandinavian Journal of Economics 121:3,
1020-1053. [Crossref]
117. Jia-cheng LIU, Zhi-gang XU, Qiu-fen ZHENG, Lillian Hua. 2019. Is the feminization of labor
harmful to agricultural production? The decision-making and production control perspective. Journal
of Integrative Agriculture 18:6, 1392-1401. [Crossref]
118. Alexander Popov, Sonia Zaharia. 2019. Credit market competition and the gender gap in labor force
participation: Evidence from local markets. European Economic Review 115, 25-59. [Crossref]
119. Woo-Yung Kim. 2019. Subways and the labor force participation of Females:The case of Daejeon,
Korea. Research in Transportation Economics 75, 69-82. [Crossref]
120. Natasha Quadlin. 2019. Sibling Achievement, Sibling Gender, and Beliefs about Parental Investment:
Evidence from a National Survey Experiment. Social Forces 97:4, 1603-1630. [Crossref]
121. Nagore Iriberri, Pedro Rey-Biel. 2019. Competitive Pressure Widens the Gender Gap in Performance:
Evidence from a Two-stage Competition in Mathematics. The Economic Journal 129:620, 1863-1893.
[Crossref]
122. Dane P. Blevins, Steve Sauerwald, Jenny M. Hoobler, Christopher J. Robertson. 2019. Gender
Differences in Pay Levels: An Examination of the Compensation of University Presidents.
Organization Science 30:3, 600-616. [Crossref]
123. Cristiano Perugini, Jelena Žarković Rakić, Marko Vladisavljević. 2019. Austerity and gender
inequalities in Europe in times of crisis. Cambridge Journal of Economics 43:3, 733-767. [Crossref]
124. Jisoo Hwang, Chulhee Lee, Esther Lee. 2019. Gender norms and housework time allocation among
dual-earner couples. Labour Economics 57, 102-116. [Crossref]
125. Sungjoo Choi. 2019. Breaking Through the Glass Ceiling: Social Capital Matters for Women’s Career
Success?. International Public Management Journal 22:2, 295-320. [Crossref]
126. Hatice Yildiz Durak, Mustafa Saritepeci. 2019. Occupational burnout and cyberloafing among teachers:
Analysis of personality traits, individual and occupational status variables as predictors. The Social
Science Journal 56:1, 69-87. [Crossref]
127. Liza Reisel, Kjersti Misje Østbakken, Paul Attewell. 2019. Dynamics of Claims Making and Gender
Wage Gaps in the United States and Norway. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State &
Society 26:1, 87-115. [Crossref]
128. Silvio Hong Tiing Tai, Izete Pengo Bagolin. 2019. Regional Differences in the Gender Earnings
Gap in Brazil: Development, Discrimination, and Inequality. The Developing Economies 57:1, 55-82.
[Crossref]
129. Priit Vahter, Jaan Masso. 2019. The contribution of multinationals to wage inequality: foreign
ownership and the gender pay gap. Review of World Economics 155:1, 105-148. [Crossref]
130. Rense Nieuwenhuis, Ariana Need, Henk van der Kolk. 2019. Family policy as an institutional context
of economic inequality. Acta Sociologica 62:1, 64-80. [Crossref]
131. Shilin Zheng, Yuwei Duan, Michael R. Ward. 2019. The effect of broadband internet on divorce in
China. Technological Forecasting and Social Change 139, 99-114. [Crossref]
132. Conor Lennon. 2019. Employer-Sponsored Health Insurance and the Gender Wage Gap: Evidence
from the Employer Mandate. Southern Economic Journal 85:3, 742-765. [Crossref]
133. Dudley Cooke, Ana P. Fernandes, Priscila Ferreira. 2019. Product market competition and gender
discrimination. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 157, 496-522. [Crossref]
134. Scott E. Bokemper, Peter Descioli, Reuben Kline. 2019. Unfair Rules for Unequal Pay: Wage
Discrimination and Procedural Justice. Journal of Experimental Political Science 6:3, 180-191.
[Crossref]
135. Xian-Zhou Zhao, Yu-Bing Zhao, Li-Chen Chou, Barbara Hoinunnem Leivang. 2019. Changes in
gender wage differentials in China: a regression and decomposition based on the data of CHIPS1995–
2013. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja 32:1, 3168-3188. [Crossref]
136. Elizabeth Koomson. 2019. Work patterns and gender reproduction in the Talensi small‐scale gold‐
mining industry in Ghana: Implications for social welfare policy. International Journal of Social Welfare
28:1, 100-107. [Crossref]
137. Tamar Kricheli-Katz, Tali Regev, Shelley Correll. 2019. Why Are Women Penalized in Product
Markets?. Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World 5, 237802311986102. [Crossref]
138. Victor Rudakov, Ilya Prakhov. 2019. Gender Wage Inequality in Russian Universities. SSRN Electronic
Journal 46. . [Crossref]
139. Amalia R. Miller, Ragan Petrie, Carmit Segal. 2019. Does Workplace Competition Increase Labor
Supply? Evidence from a Field Experiment. SSRN Electronic Journal 120. . [Crossref]
140. Ashanti De León, Wilson Ozuem, Jummy Okoya. Reframing Diversity in Management 226-241.
[Crossref]
141. Elisabeth T. Pereira, Stefano Salaris. The Evolution of the Role of Women in Labor Markets in
Developed Economies 1-20. [Crossref]
142. Rebbeca Tesfai. 2018. Does Country Context Matter? Sub‐Saharan and North African Immigrants’
Labour Market Outcomes in France and Spain. International Migration 23. . [Crossref]
143. Niels-Hugo Blunch. 2018. Just like a woman? New comparative evidence on the gender income gap
across Eastern Europe and Central Asia. IZA Journal of Development and Migration 8:1. . [Crossref]
144. Getinet Astatike Haile. 2018. Intergenerational Mobility in Socio-economic Status in Ethiopia. Journal
of International Development 30:8, 1392-1413. [Crossref]
145. Stephen Whyte, Robert C. Brooks, Benno Torgler. 2018. Man, Woman, “Other”: Factors Associated
with Nonbinary Gender Identification. Archives of Sexual Behavior 47:8, 2397-2406. [Crossref]
146. Giulia La Mattina, Gabriel Picone, Alban Ahoure, Jose Carlos Kimou. 2018. Female leaders and gender
gaps within the firm: Evidence from three Sub-Saharan African countries. Review of Development
147. José Luis Palacios Gómez. 2018. Cuando los números hablan. Análisis y valoración de la estadística
oficial de discriminación salarial por razón de sexo en España (2005-2016). Sociología del Trabajo :93,
221-242. [Crossref]
148. Leonora Risse, Lisa Farrell, Tim R L Fry. 2018. Personality and pay: do gender gaps in confidence
explain gender gaps in wages?. Oxford Economic Papers 70:4, 919-949. [Crossref]
149. Sandeep Mohapatra, Bruno Wichmann, Philippe Marcoul. 2018. REMOVING THE “VEIL
OF IGNORANCE”: NONLINEARITIES IN EDUCATION EFFECTS ON GENDER WAGE
INEQUALITIES. Contemporary Economic Policy 36:4, 644-666. [Crossref]
150. Emma Neuman. 2018. Source country culture and labor market assimilation of immigrant women
in Sweden: evidence from longitudinal data. Review of Economics of the Household 16:3, 585-627.
[Crossref]
151. David Bjerk, Serkan Ozbeklik. 2018. Using Samples-of-Opportunity to Assess Gender Bias in Principal
Evaluations of Teachers: A Cautionary Tale. Journal of Labor Research 39:3, 235-258. [Crossref]
152. Louise Boivin. 2018. Quebec’s Pay Equity Act: Significant progress toward professional equality for
women?. French Politics 16:3, 297-311. [Crossref]
153. Moshe Semyonov. 2018. Development and Gender-Linked Economic Inequality in the Era of
Globalization. Sociology of Development 4:3, 304-324. [Crossref]
154. Vito Bobek, Anita Maček, Sarah Bradler, Tatjana Horvat. 2018. How to Reduce Discrimination in the
Workplace: The Case of Austria and Taiwan (R.O.C.). Naše gospodarstvo/Our economy 64:3, 12-22.
[Crossref]
155. Iñigo Hernandez-Arenaz, Nagore Iriberri. 2018. Women ask for less (only from men): Evidence from
bargaining in the field. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 152, 192-214. [Crossref]
156. Amir Shoham, Sang Mook Lee. 2018. The Causal Impact of Grammatical Gender Marking on Gender
Wage Inequality and Country Income Inequality. Business & Society 57:6, 1216-1251. [Crossref]
157. Anthony B. Atkinson, Alessandra Casarico, Sarah Voitchovsky. 2018. Top incomes and the gender
divide. The Journal of Economic Inequality 16:2, 225-256. [Crossref]
158. Moshe Justman, Susan J. Méndez. 2018. Gendered choices of STEM subjects for matriculation are not
driven by prior differences in mathematical achievement. Economics of Education Review 64, 282-297.
[Crossref]
159. Ying Shi. 2018. The puzzle of missing female engineers: Academic preparation, ability beliefs, and
preferences. Economics of Education Review 64, 129-143. [Crossref]
160. Reena Kumari. 2018. Economic growth, disparity, and determinants of female labor force participation.
World Journal of Entrepreneurship, Management and Sustainable Development 14:2, 138-152. [Crossref]
161. Taoufiki Mbratana, Andrée Fotie Kenne. 2018. Investigating gender wage gap in employment.
International Journal of Social Economics 45:5, 848-866. [Crossref]
162. Peter Valet. 2018. Social Structure and the Paradox of the Contented Female Worker: How
Occupational Gender Segregation Biases Justice Perceptions of Wages. Work and Occupations 45:2,
168-193. [Crossref]
163. Melanie Jones, Gerry Makepeace, Victoria Wass. 2018. The UK Gender Pay Gap 1997-2015: What Is
the Role of the Public Sector?. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society 57:2, 296-319.
[Crossref]
164. Neel Rao, Twisha Chatterjee. 2018. Sibling gender and wage differences. Applied Economics 50:15,
1725-1745. [Crossref]
165. Michael A. Kortt, Elisabeth Sinnewe, Simon J. Pervan. 2018. The Gender Wage Gap in the Tourism
Industry: Evidence from Australia. Tourism Analysis 23:1, 137-149. [Crossref]
166. Esther Ann Bøler, Beata Javorcik, Karen Helene Ulltveit-Moe. 2018. Working across time zones:
Exporters and the gender wage gap. Journal of International Economics 111, 122-133. [Crossref]
167. Steven Bednar, Dora Gicheva. 2018. Career Implications of Having a Female-Friendly Supervisor. ILR
Review 71:2, 426-457. [Crossref]
168. Anita Alves Pena. 2018. Skills and Economic Inequality Across Race and Ethnicity in the United
States: New Evidence on Wage Discrimination Using PIAAC. The Review of Black Political Economy
45:1, 40-68. [Crossref]
169. Lucia Marchegiani, Tommaso Reggiani, Matteo Rizzolli. Gender Effects in Injustice Perceptions: An
Experiment on Error Evaluation and Effort Provision 193-202. [Crossref]
170. Mariacristina Rossi, Eva M. Sierminska. Wealth Variation Across Countries 19-54. [Crossref]
171. Panu Poutvaara, Olli Ropponen. 2018. Shocking news and cognitive performance. European Journal
of Political Economy 51, 93-106. [Crossref]
172. Ashleigh Shelby Rosette, Rebecca Ponce de Leon, Christy Zhou Koval, David A. Harrison. 2018.
Intersectionality: Connecting experiences of gender with race at work. Research in Organizational
Behavior 38, 1-22. [Crossref]
173. Tanja Istenič, Irena Ograjenšek, Jože Sambt. 2018. The gender gap in economic dependency over
the life cycle: some theoretical and practical considerations. Economic Research-Ekonomska Istraživanja
31:1, 188-205. [Crossref]
174. Lori Beaman, Niall Keleher, Jeremy Magruder. 2018. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women?
Evidence from a Recruitment Experiment in Malawi. Journal of Labor Economics 36:1, 121-157.
[Crossref]
175. Priit mname Vahter, Jaan mname Masso. 2018. The Contribution of Multinationals to Wage
Inequality: Foreign Ownership and the Gender Pay Gap. SSRN Electronic Journal 40. . [Crossref]
176. Penny Mealy, R Maria del Rio-Chanona, J. Doyne Farmer. 2018. What You Do at Work Matters:
New Lenses on Labour. SSRN Electronic Journal 4. . [Crossref]
177. J. Michelle Brock. 2018. Inequality of Opportunity, Governance and Individual Beliefs. SSRN
178. Akiko Terada-Hagiwara, Sheila Camingue, Joseph E. Zveglich. 2018. Gender Pay Gap: A Macro
Perspective. SSRN Electronic Journal 104. . [Crossref]
179. Kris Hardies, Clive Lennox, Bing Li. 2018. Gender Discrimination? Evidence from the Belgian Public
Accounting Profession. SSRN Electronic Journal 19. . [Crossref]
180. Drew McNichols. 2018. Information and the Persistence of the Gender Wage Gap; Early Evidence
from California's Salary History Ban. SSRN Electronic Journal 105. . [Crossref]
181. Federico Gutierrez. 2018. Commuting Patterns, the Spatial Distribution of Jobs and the Gender Pay
Gap in the U.S. SSRN Electronic Journal 81. . [Crossref]
182. Daniel Montolio, Pere A. Taberner. 2018. Gender Differences Under Test Pressure and Their Impact
on Academic Performance: A Quasi-Experimental Design. SSRN Electronic Journal 14. . [Crossref]
183. Jeremy Greenwood, Nezih Guner, Guillaume Vandenbroucke. 2017. Family Economics Writ Large.
Journal of Economic Literature 55:4, 1346-1434. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
184. Dongyu Chen, Xiaolin Li, Fujun Lai. 2017. Gender discrimination in online peer-to-peer credit
lending: evidence from a lending platform in China. Electronic Commerce Research 17:4, 553-583.
[Crossref]
185. Shun Wang, Weina Zhou. 2017. Family structure and home ownership: Evidence from China. China
Economic Review 46, 165-179. [Crossref]
186. Colette Fourcade, Farida Khodri, Diane Gagné, Renaud Allamano-Kessler, Anne Mione. Chapitre 5.
Mixité : le droit ou les pratiques ? 69-82. [Crossref]
187. Kristin J. Kleinjans, Karl Fritjof Krassel, Anthony Dukes. 2017. Occupational Prestige and the Gender
Wage Gap. Kyklos 70:4, 565-593. [Crossref]
188. Michael R. Strain, Douglas A. Webber. 2017. High school experiences, the gender wage gap, and the
selection of occupation. Applied Economics 49:49, 5040-5049. [Crossref]
189. Yi Long, Christopher Nyland, Russell Smyth. 2017. Fiscal Decentralisation, the Knowledge Economy
and School Teachers’ Wages in Urban China. The Journal of Development Studies 53:10, 1731-1747.
[Crossref]
190. Felix Kölle. 2017. Affirmative action, cooperation, and the willingness to work in teams. Journal of
Economic Psychology 62, 50-62. [Crossref]
191. Ghazala Azmat, Rosa Ferrer. 2017. Gender Gaps in Performance: Evidence from Young Lawyers.
Journal of Political Economy 125:5, 1306-1355. [Crossref]
192. Christian King, Gregory B. Lewis. 2017. Nonprofit Pay in a Competitive Market: Wage Penalty or
Premium?. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly 46:5, 1073-1091. [Crossref]
193. Elena Delgadová, Monika Gullerová. 2017. Female managers and their characteristics in the Trenčin
region, Slovakia. Problems and Perspectives in Management 15:2, 549-556. [Crossref]
194. Mathieu Bunel, Jean-Pascal Guironnet. 2017. Income inequalities for recently graduated French
workers: a multilevel modeling approach. Empirical Economics 53:2, 755-778. [Crossref]
195. Karsten Albæk, Mona Larsen, Lars Stage Thomsen. 2017. Segregation and gender wage gaps in the
private and the public sectors: an analysis of Danish linked employer–employee data, 2002–2012.
Empirical Economics 53:2, 779-802. [Crossref]
196. Juho Jokinen, Jaakko Pehkonen. 2017. Promotions and Earnings – Gender or Merit? Evidence from
Longitudinal Personnel Data. Journal of Labor Research 38:3, 306-334. [Crossref]
197. Coren L. Apicella, Alyssa N. Crittenden, Victoria A. Tobolsky. 2017. Hunter-gatherer males are
more risk-seeking than females, even in late childhood. Evolution and Human Behavior 38:5, 592-603.
[Crossref]
198. Ernesto Reuben, Matthew Wiswall, Basit Zafar. 2017. Preferences and Biases in Educational Choices
and Labour Market Expectations: Shrinking the Black Box of Gender. The Economic Journal 127:604,
2153-2186. [Crossref]
199. 오오오. 2017. An Empirical Analysis Of The Motherhood Penalty in Korea. Social Welfare Policy 44:3,
217-245. [Crossref]
200. Thomas Georgiadis, George Christopoulos. 2017. Gender inequalities in labour market outcomes.
International Journal of Manpower 38:5, 675-695. [Crossref]
201. Michael R. Smith, Sean Waite, Claire Durand. 2017. Gender differences in the earnings produced by a
middle range education: The case of Canadian ‘colleges’. Social Science Research 66, 140-153. [Crossref]
202. Yavuz Akbulut, Onur Dönmez, Özcan Özgür Dursun. 2017. Cyberloafing and social desirability bias
among students and employees. Computers in Human Behavior 72, 87-95. [Crossref]
203. Angela Cristiane Santos Póvoa, Maickel Robert Maffezzolli, Wesley Pech, Wesley Vieira da Silva.
2017. A Influência do Gênero no Processo Decisório: O Jogo do Ultimato. Revista de Administração
Contemporânea 21:4, 481-499. [Crossref]
204. María del Mar Maira Vidal. 2017. La segregación horizontal por género y sus consecuencias en la
ocupación masculinizada de mecánico/a en el subsector de reparación de vehículos en España. Laboreal
13:1. . [Crossref]
205. Mehmet Ali SOYTAŞ. 2017. ÇOCUĞA YAPILAN ZAMAN YATIRIMLARININ İŞ GÜCÜ
PİYASASINDAKİ KADIN-ERKEK ÜCRET FARKLILIĞINA ETKİLERİ. Hacettepe Üniversitesi
İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi 35:2, 121-121. [Crossref]
206. Albert Yirmiyahu, Ofir D. Rubin, Miki Malul. 2017. Does greater accessibility to higher education
reduce wage inequality? The case of the Arab minority in Israel. Studies in Higher Education 42:6,
1071-1090. [Crossref]
207. Mary Hallward-Driemeier, Bob Rijkers, Andrew Waxman. 2017. Can Minimum Wages Close the
Gender Wage Gap?. Review of Income and Wealth 63:2, 310-334. [Crossref]
208. Chris Dawson. 2017. The upside of pessimism − Biased beliefs and the paradox of the contented female
worker. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 135, 215-228. [Crossref]
209. Marigee Bacolod. 2017. SKILLS, THE GENDER WAGE GAP, AND CITIES. Journal of Regional
Science 57:2, 290-318. [Crossref]
210. Karin Hoisl, Myriam Mariani. 2017. It’s a Man’s Job: Income and the Gender Gap in Industrial
Research. Management Science 63:3, 766-790. [Crossref]
211. Anthony Edo, Farid Toubal. 2017. Immigration and the gender wage gap. European Economic Review
92, 196-214. [Crossref]
212. Rense Nieuwenhuis, Henk van der Kolk, Ariana Need. 2017. Women’s earnings and household
inequality in OECD countries, 1973–2013. Acta Sociologica 60:1, 3-20. [Crossref]
213. Vincent Vandenberghe. 2017. Women Make a Fraction of Every Euro Earned by Men... Reflets et
perspectives de la vie économique Tome LV:4, 11-22. [Crossref]
214. Yuying Tong, Stephen Wing-kai Chiu. 2017. Women's Labor Force Participation in Hong Kong:
1991–2011. Chinese Sociological Review 49:1, 35-64. [Crossref]
215. John Fordyce, Lisa K Jepsen, Ken McCormick. 2017. Predicting First-year Law School Performance:
The Influences of Race, Gender, and Undergraduate Major. Eastern Economic Journal 43:1, 64-77.
[Crossref]
216. Emmanuel Peterle. 2017. Gender Differences in Competitive Positions: Experimental Evidence on Job
Promotion. SSRN Electronic Journal 335. . [Crossref]
217. Amalia R. Miller. 2017. Women and Leadership. SSRN Electronic Journal 94. . [Crossref]
218. Isabelle Sin, Steven Stillman, Richard Fabling. 2017. What Drives the Gender Wage Gap? Examining
the Roles of Sorting, Productivity Differences, and Discrimination. SSRN Electronic Journal 30. .
[Crossref]
219. William E. Even, David A. MacPherson. 2017. The Gender Wage Gap and the Fair Calculations Act.
220. Daniel Tartakovsky. 2017. Gender Differences in Reactions to Setbacks: Evidence from High School
Debate Competitions. SSRN Electronic Journal 126. . [Crossref]
221. CHARLES L. BALLARD, JEREMY F. DUFF. 2017. The Effects of Perceptions of Economic
Inequality on Policy Preferences: Evidence from Michigan. Michigan Academician 44:3, 256-286.
[Crossref]
222. Miruna Petrescu-Prahova, Michael W. Spiller. 2016. Women’s Wage Theft. Work and Occupations
43:4, 371-400. [Crossref]
223. Natascha Wagner, Matthias Rieger, Katherine Voorvelt. 2016. Gender, ethnicity and teaching
evaluations: Evidence from mixed teaching teams. Economics of Education Review 54, 79-94. [Crossref]
224. Olav Sorenson, Michael S. Dahl. 2016. Geography, Joint Choices, and the Reproduction of Gender
Inequality. American Sociological Review 81:5, 900-920. [Crossref]
225. Loukas Balafoutas, Brent J. Davis, Matthias Sutter. 2016. Affirmative action or just discrimination?
A study on the endogenous emergence of quotas. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 127,
87-98. [Crossref]
226. Andres Erosa, Luisa Fuster, Diego Restuccia. 2016. A quantitative theory of the gender gap in wages.
European Economic Review 85, 165-187. [Crossref]
227. Curtis K. Chan, Michel Anteby. 2016. Task Segregation as a Mechanism for Within-job Inequality.
Administrative Science Quarterly 61:2, 184-216. [Crossref]
228. Laura Chioda. Gender Differences in Earnings 153-176. [Crossref]
229. Alessandra Cassar, Feven Wordofa, Y. Jane Zhang. 2016. Competing for the benefit of offspring
eliminates the gender gap in competitiveness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113:19,
5201-5205. [Crossref]
230. Raj Chetty, Nathaniel Hendren, Frina Lin, Jeremy Majerovitz, Benjamin Scuderi. 2016. Childhood
Environment and Gender Gaps in Adulthood. American Economic Review 106:5, 282-288. [Abstract]
[View PDF article] [PDF with links]
231. David Card, Ana Rute Cardoso, Patrick Kline. 2016. Bargaining, Sorting, and the Gender Wage Gap:
Quantifying the Impact of Firms on the Relative Pay of Women *. The Quarterly Journal of Economics
131:2, 633-686. [Crossref]
232. Michael M. Atkinson, Dustin Rogers, Sara Olfert. 2016. Better Politicians: If We Pay, Will They
Come?. Legislative Studies Quarterly 41:2, 361-391. [Crossref]
233. Marios Karabarbounis. 2016. A Road Map for Efficiently Taxing Heterogeneous Agents. American
Economic Journal: Macroeconomics 8:2, 182-214. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
234. Umakrishnan Kollamparambil, Aarifah Razak. 2016. Trends in Gender Wage Gap and Discrimination
in South Africa: A Comparative Analysis across Races. Indian Journal of Human Development 10:1,
49-63. [Crossref]
235. Tamar Kricheli-Katz, Tali Regev. 2016. How many cents on the dollar? Women and men in product
markets. Science Advances 2:2. . [Crossref]
236. Stefan Bernhard, Sarah Bernhard. 2016. Do EU Anti-discrimination Provisions Make a Difference?.
Zeitschrift für Soziologie 45:1, 57-72. [Crossref]
237. Karl Boosten, André Spithoven. Pecuniary and Scientific Motives as Drivers of PhD Careers: Exploring
the Evidence from Belgium 121-143. [Crossref]
238. M. Doepke, M. Tertilt. Families in Macroeconomics 1789-1891. [Crossref]
239. María C. Latorre. 2016. A CGE Analysis of the Impact of Foreign Direct Investment and Tariff Reform
on Female and Male Workers in Tanzania. World Development 77, 346-366. [Crossref]
240. Vered Kraus, Yuval Yonay. Gender Earnings Gaps in Ethnic and Religious Groups in Israel 185-204.
[Crossref]
241. Simon Janssen, Simone Tuor Sartore, Uschi Backes-Gellner. 2016. Discriminatory Social Attitudes
and Varying Gender Pay Gaps within Firms. ILR Review 69:1, 253-279. [Crossref]
242. Travis Wiseman, Nabamita Dutta. 2016. Religion and the Gender Wage Gap: A U.S. State-Level
Study. SSRN Electronic Journal 56. . [Crossref]
243. Shun Wang, Weina Zhou. 2016. Family Structure and Home Ownership: Evidence from China. SSRN
244. Chris Bidner, Ben Sand. 2016. Job Prospects and Pay Gaps: Theory and Evidence on the Gender Gap
from U.S. Cities. SSRN Electronic Journal 100. . [Crossref]
245. Shun Wang, Weina Zhou. 2016. Family Structure and Home Ownership: Evidence from China. SSRN
246. J. Michelle Brock. 2016. Inequality of Opportunity and Beliefs About Success and Failure. SSRN
[Crossref]
248. Christopher S. Cotton, Cheng Li, Frank McIntyre, Joseph P. Price. 2015. Which explanations for
gender differences in competition are consistent with a simple theoretical model?. Journal of Behavioral
and Experimental Economics 59, 56-67. [Crossref]
249. Kitae Sohn. 2015. The Gender Gap in Earnings Among Teachers: The Case of Iowa in 1915. Feminist
250. Metin Akyol, Michael Neugart, Stefan Pichler. 2015. A tradable employment quota. Labour Economics
36, 48-63. [Crossref]
251. René Böheim, Mario Lackner. 2015. Gender and risk taking: evidence from jumping competitions.
Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society) 178:4, 883-902. [Crossref]
252. Markus M. Grabka, Jan Marcus, Eva Sierminska. 2015. Wealth distribution within couples. Review of
Economics of the Household 13:3, 459-486. [Crossref]
253. Jennifer Merluzzi, Stanislav D. Dobrev. 2015. Unequal on top: Gender profiling and the income gap
among high earner male and female professionals. Social Science Research 53, 45-58. [Crossref]
254. Daniela Piazzalunga. 2015. Is There a Double-Negative Effect? Gender and Ethnic Wage Differentials
in Italy. LABOUR 29:3, 243-269. [Crossref]
255. M. Grazia Pittau, Shlomo Yitzhaki, Roberto Zelli. 2015. The “Make-up” of a Regression Coefficient:
Gender Gaps in the European Labor Market. Review of Income and Wealth 61:3, 401-421. [Crossref]
256. Andreas Leibbrandt, John A. List. 2015. Do Women Avoid Salary Negotiations? Evidence from a
Large-Scale Natural Field Experiment. Management Science 61:9, 2016-2024. [Crossref]
257. Julia M. Schwenkenberg. Selection into Occupations and the Intergenerational Mobility of Daughters
and Sons 261-306. [Crossref]
258. Annamaria Conti, Fabiana Visentin. 2015. Science and Engineering Ph.D. Students’ Career Outcomes,
by Gender. PLOS ONE 10:8, e0133177. [Crossref]
259. Aaron D. Hill, Arun D. Upadhyay, Rafik I. Beekun. 2015. Do female and ethnically diverse executives
endure inequity in the CEO position or do they benefit from their minority status? An empirical
examination. Strategic Management Journal 36:8, 1115-1134. [Crossref]
260. Alan Benson. 2015. A Theory of Dual Job Search and Sex-Based Occupational Clustering. Industrial
Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society 54:3, 367-400. [Crossref]
261. Steve Bradley, Colin Green, John Mangan. 2015. Gender Wage Gaps within a Public Sector: Evidence
from Personnel Data. The Manchester School 83:4, 379-397. [Crossref]
262. Verena Tandrayen-Ragoobur, Rajeev Pydayya. 2015. Glass ceiling and sticky floors: hurdles for
Mauritian working women. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal 34:5, 452-466.
[Crossref]
263. Michael Daly, Mark Egan, Fionnuala O'Reilly. 2015. Childhood general cognitive ability predicts
leadership role occupancy across life: Evidence from 17,000 cohort study participants. The Leadership
264. Mohsen Javdani. 2015. Glass ceilings or glass doors? The role of firms in male‐female wage disparities.
Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique 48:2, 529-560. [Crossref]
265. Patricia Gabaldon, Celia De Anca, Concepcion Galdón. 2015. Measures of success for self-employed
mothers in Spain. International Journal of Entrepreneurial Behavior & Research 21:1, 128-145.
[Crossref]
266. Sebastien Buttet, Veronika Dolar. 2015. Engines of liberation redux when home appliances prices are
endogenous. Journal for Labour Market Research 48:1, 27-40. [Crossref]
267. Simona E. Cociuba, Alexander Ueberfeldt. 2015. Heterogeneity and long-run changes in aggregate
hours and the labor wedge. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control 52, 75-95. [Crossref]
268. Ujjaini Mukhopadhyay. 2015. ECONOMIC LIBERALIZATION AND GENDER INEQUALITY
IN THE LABOR MARKET: A THEORETICAL APPROACH. Review of Urban & Regional
Development Studies 27:1, 68-87. [Crossref]
269. Burkhard C. Schipper. 2015. Sex Hormones and Competitive Bidding. Management Science 61:2,
249-266. [Crossref]
270. Joyce Jacobsen, Melanie Khamis, Mutlu Yuksel. Convergences in Men’s and Women’s Life Patterns:
Lifetime Work, Lifetime Earnings, and Human Capital Investment 1-33. [Crossref]
271. Clara Kulich, Moran Anisman-Razin, Tamar Saguy. The Gender Pay Gap: Particularities and
Challenges in the Management Context 135-159. [Crossref]
272. Andreas Peichl, Nico Pestel. Earnings Inequality 765-772. [Crossref]
273. Tim Loughran, Bill McDonald. 2015. Old glass ceilings are hard to break: Gender usage trends in
annual reports. Studies in Communication Sciences 15:1, 5-11. [Crossref]
274. Metin Akyol, Michael Neugart, Stefan Pichler. 2015. A Tradable Employment Quota. SSRN
275. Christopher Cotton, Frank McIntyre, Joseph Price. 2015. Which Explanations for Gender Differences
in Competition are Consistent with a Simple Theoretical Model?. SSRN Electronic Journal 53. .
[Crossref]
276. Hanoch Dagan, Roy Kreitner, Tamar KricheliiKatz. 2015. Legal Theory for Legal Empiricists. SSRN
277. Kristin J. Kleinjans, Karl Fritjof Krassel, Anthony J. Dukes. 2015. Occupational Prestige and the
Gender Wage Gap. SSRN Electronic Journal 20. . [Crossref]
278. W. David McCausland, Fraser Summerfield, Ioannis Theodossiou. 2015. Are Individual Characteristics
All that Matters in Earnings Determination? Evidence from the US and Germany. SSRN Electronic
279. Marios Karabarbounis. 2015. A Road Map for Efficiently Taxing Heterogeneous Agents. SSRN
280. Carla Canelas, Silvia Salazar. 2014. Gender and ethnic inequalities in LAC countries. IZA Journal of
Labor & Development 3:1. . [Crossref]
281. David Stadelmann, Marco Portmann, Reiner Eichenberger. 2014. Politicians and Preferences of the
Voter Majority: Does Gender Matter?. Economics & Politics 26:3, 355-379. [Crossref]
282. Joya Misra, Marta Murray-Close. 2014. The Gender Wage Gap in the United States and Cross
Nationally. Sociology Compass 8:11, 1281-1295. [Crossref]
283. Tiziano Razzolini, Roberto Leombruni, Giovanni Mastrobuoni, Mario Pagliero. 2014. Beneath the
surface: The decline in gender injury gap. Labour Economics 30, 282-288. [Crossref]
284. HAU CHYI, ORGUL DEMET OZTURK, WEILONG ZHANG. 2014. WELFARE REFORM
AND CHILDREN'S EARLY COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT. Contemporary Economic Policy 32:4,
729-751. [Crossref]
285. Yuval Arbel, Yossef Tobol, Erez Siniver. 2014. Social involvement, level of income and employment
among immigrants. International Journal of Manpower 35:6, 798-816. [Crossref]
286. Diego DUEÑAS FERNÁNDEZ, Carlos IGLESIAS FERNÁNDEZ, Raquel LLORENTE HERAS.
2014. Ségrégation professionnelle selon le sexe en Espagne: exclusion ou confinement?. Revue
internationale du Travail 153:2, 339-365. [Crossref]
2014. Occupational segregation by sex in Spain: Exclusion or confinement?. International Labour
2014. Segregación ocupacional por género en España: ¿exclusión o confinamiento?. Revista
Internacional del Trabajo 133:2, 345-371. [Crossref]
289. Wei-Bin Zhang. 2014. Gender Discrimination, Education and Economic Growth in a Generalized
Uzawa-Lucas Two-Sector Model. Timisoara Journal of Economics and Business 7:1, 1-34. [Crossref]
290. Rita Asplund, Reija Lilja. 2014. Wage formation and gender wage gaps: is there a role for job-task
evaluation schemes?. International Journal of Manpower 35:3, 267-290. [Crossref]
291. Sandeep Mohapatra, Martin K. Luckert. 2014. Educational returns beyond the mean: Differences
along wage distributions of men and women in India's formal labor market. International Journal of
Educational Development 36, 22-32. [Crossref]
292. Claudia Goldin. 2014. A Grand Gender Convergence: Its Last Chapter. American Economic Review
104:4, 1091-1119. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
293. Omolola E. Adepoju, Jane N. Bolin, Robert L. Ohsfeldt, Charles D. Phillips, Hongwei Zhao, Marcia
G. Ory, Samuel N. Forjuoh. 2014. Can Chronic Disease Management Programs for Patients with Type
2 Diabetes Reduce Productivity-Related Indirect Costs of the Disease? Evidence from a Randomized
Controlled Trial. Population Health Management 17:2, 112-120. [Crossref]
294. Wei-Bin Zhang. 2014. Growth with gender-differentiated human capital and family wealth
accumulation based on the Uzawa-Lucas two-sector model. Society and Economy 36:1, 69-94.
[Crossref]
295. Sheree J. Gibb, David M. Fergusson, L. John Horwood, Joseph M. Boden. 2014. The Effects of
Parenthood on Workforce Participation and Income for Men and Women. Journal of Family and
Economic Issues 35:1, 14-26. [Crossref]
296. P. Wesley Routon. 2014. The Effect of 21st Century Military Service on Civilian Labor and Educational
Outcomes. Journal of Labor Research 35:1, 15-38. [Crossref]
297. Dan A. Black, Natalia Kolesnikova, Lowell J. Taylor. 2014. Why do so few women work in New York
(and so many in Minneapolis)? Labor supply of married women across US cities. Journal of Urban
Economics 79, 59-71. [Crossref]
298. Ale Hejase, Abdallah Dah. 2014. An Assessment of the Impact of Sticky Floors and Glass Ceilings in
Lebanon. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences 109, 954-964. [Crossref]
299. Mohammad Ashraf. Income Distribution and Economic Growth and Development 77-103. [Crossref]
300. Anastasia Cozarenco, Ariane Szafarz. 2014. Women's Access to Credit in France: How Microfinance
Institutions Import Disparate Treatment from Banks. SSRN Electronic Journal 42. . [Crossref]
301. Kristin Smith. 2014. The Ups and Downs in Women's Employment: Shifting Composition or
Behavior from 1970 to 2010?. SSRN Electronic Journal 90. . [Crossref]
302. Paul A. Gompers, Vladimir Mukharlyamov, Emily Weisburst, Yuhai Xuan. 2014. Gender Effects in
Venture Capital. SSRN Electronic Journal 8. . [Crossref]
303. Dozie Okoye, Roland Pongou. 2014. Historical Missionary Activity, Schooling, and the Reversal of
Fortunes: Evidence from Nigeria. SSRN Electronic Journal 91. . [Crossref]
304. Tim Loughran, Bill McDonald. 2014. Old Glass Ceilings are Hard to Break: Gender Usage Trends
in Annual Reports. SSRN Electronic Journal 127. . [Crossref]
305. Gail R. Eisenberg, Samuel M. Laposata. 2013. Case study of the gender earnings gap: a longitudinal
analysis of cohort data of same-department graduates at a small liberal arts college. Journal of
Employment Counseling 50:4, 179-189. [Crossref]
306. Dennis P. Culhane, Stephen Metraux, Thomas Byrne, Magdi Stino, Jay Bainbridge. 2013. The Age
Structure of Contemporary Homelessness: Evidence and Implications For Public Policy. Analyses of
Social Issues and Public Policy 13:1, 228-244. [Crossref]
307. Colin Campbell, Jessica Pearlman. 2013. Period effects, cohort effects, and the narrowing gender wage
gap. Social Science Research 42:6, 1693-1711. [Crossref]
308. Ma del Mar Salinas-Jiménez, Marta Rahona-López, Inés P. Murillo-Huertas. 2013. Gender wage
differentials and educational mismatch: an application to the Spanish case. Applied Economics 45:30,
4226-4235. [Crossref]
309. Steffen Andersen, Seda Ertac, Uri Gneezy, John A. List, Sandra Maximiano. 2013. Gender,
Competitiveness, and Socialization at a Young Age: Evidence From a Matrilineal and a Patriarchal
Society. The Review of Economics and Statistics 95:4, 1438-1443. [Crossref]
310. Carolina Castagnetti, Luisa Rosti. 2013. Unfair Tournaments. Gender & Society 27:5, 630-658.
[Crossref]
311. Eden B. King, Michelle R. Hebl, Whitney Botsford Morgan, Afra Saeed Ahmad. 2013. Field
Experiments on Sensitive Organizational Topics. Organizational Research Methods 16:4, 501-521.
[Crossref]
312. Boris Hirsch, Marion König, Joachim Möller. 2013. Is There a Gap in the Gap? Regional Differences
in the Gender Pay Gap. Scottish Journal of Political Economy 60:4, 412-439. [Crossref]
313. C. Bram Cadsby, Maroš Servátka, Fei Song. 2013. How competitive are female professionals? A tale
of identity conflict. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 92, 284-303. [Crossref]
314. Anne Busch, Elke Holst. 2013. Geschlechtsspezifische Verdienstunterschiede bei Führungskräften
und sonstigen Angestellten in Deutschland: Welche Relevanz hat der Frauenanteil im Beruf? / The
Gender Pay Gap in Leadership and Other White-Collar Positions in Germany: Putting the Relevance
of Women’s Share in Occupations into Context. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 42:4, 315-336. [Crossref]
315. David A. Matsa,, Amalia R. Miller. 2013. A Female Style in Corporate Leadership? Evidence from
Quotas. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 5:3, 136-169. [Abstract] [View PDF article]
[PDF with links]
316. Devasheesh P. Bhave, Amit Kramer, Theresa M. Glomb. 2013. Pay satisfaction and work-family
conflict across time. Journal of Organizational Behavior 34:5, 698-713. [Crossref]
317. JUAN J. DOLADO, CECILIA GARCÍA-PEÑALOSA, SARA DE LA RICA. 2013. ON GENDER
GAPS AND SELF-FULFILLING EXPECTATIONS: ALTERNATIVE IMPLICATIONS OF
PAID-FOR TRAINING. Economic Inquiry 51:3, 1829-1848. [Crossref]
318. Anne Busch. 2013. Der Einfluss der beruflichen Geschlechtersegregation auf den „Gender Pay Gap“.
KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 65:2, 301-338. [Crossref]
319. Yao Tang, Wenjin Long. 2013. Gender Earnings Disparity and Discrimination in Urban China:
Unconditional Quantile Regression. African Journal of Science, Technology, Innovation and Development
5:3, 202-212. [Crossref]
320. Victor Lavy. 2013. Gender Differences in Market Competitiveness in a Real Workplace: Evidence
from Performance‐based Pay Tournaments among Teachers. The Economic Journal 123:569, 540-573.
[Crossref]
321. Veronika V. Eberharter,. 2013. The Intergenerational Transmission of Occupational Preferences,
Segregation, and Wage Inequality – Empirical Evidence from Europe and the United States. Schmollers
Jahrbuch 133:2, 185-202. [Crossref]
322. Heather Antecol, Deborah A. Cobb-Clark. 2013. Do psychosocial traits help explain gender
segregation in young people's occupations?. Labour Economics 21, 59-73. [Crossref]
323. Katrin Auspurg, Thess Schönholzer. 2013. An Heim und Herd gebunden? / Tied to Home and
Children?. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 42:2, 138-156. [Crossref]
324. Matthew Pearson, Burkhard C. Schipper. 2013. Menstrual cycle and competitive bidding. Games and
Economic Behavior 78, 1-20. [Crossref]
325. Michael S. Hollingshaus, Rebecca L. Utz. 2013. Depressive Symptoms Following the Diagnosis of
Major Chronic Illness. Society and Mental Health 3:1, 22-39. [Crossref]
326. Inmaculada Cebrián, Gloria Moreno. 2013. Labour Market Intermittency and Its Effect on Gender
Wage Gap in Spain. Interventions économiques :47. . [Crossref]
327. Hilary M. Lips. 2013. The Gender Pay Gap: Challenging the Rationalizations. Perceived Equity,
Discrimination, and the Limits of Human Capital Models. Sex Roles 68:3-4, 169-185. [Crossref]
328. Josephine E. Olson. 2013. Human Capital Models and the Gender Pay Gap. Sex Roles 68:3-4, 186-197.
[Crossref]
329. Yitchak Haberfeld. 2013. Estimating Self-Selection of Immigrants: Comparing Earnings Differentials
Between Natives and Immigrants in the US and Israel. International Migration 51:1, 115-135.
[Crossref]
330. Klaus Deininger, Songqing Jin, Hari Nagarajan. 2013. Wage Discrimination in India's Informal Labor
Markets: Exploring the Impact of Caste and Gender. Review of Development Economics 17:1, 130-147.
[Crossref]
331. Magnus Bygren. 2013. Unpacking the causes of segregation across workplaces. Acta Sociologica 56:1,
3-19. [Crossref]
332. SUQIN GE, FANG YANG. 2013. ACCOUNTING FOR THE GENDER GAP IN COLLEGE
ATTAINMENT. Economic Inquiry 51:1, 478-499. [Crossref]
333. RODNEY J. GARRATT, CATHERINE WEINBERGER, NICK JOHNSON. 2013. THE STATE
STREET MILE: AGE AND GENDER DIFFERENCES IN COMPETITION AVERSION IN
THE FIELD. Economic Inquiry 51:1, 806-815. [Crossref]
334. Felicia Cornelia Macarie, Octavian Moldovan. 2013. Are Universities Role Models for Communities?
A Gender Perspective. SSRN Electronic Journal 21. . [Crossref]
335. Simon Janssen, Simone N. Tuor Sartore, Uschi Backes-Gellner. 2013. Social Norms and Firms'
Discriminatory Pay-Setting. SSRN Electronic Journal 115. . [Crossref]
336. Adina D. Sterling, Jill Perry-Smith. 2013. Gender, Productivity, and Collaborative Networks in
Science. SSRN Electronic Journal 68. . [Crossref]
337. Yann Girard. 2013. The Value of Competition. SSRN Electronic Journal 101. . [Crossref]
338. Ernesto Reuben, Matthew Wiswall, Basit Zafar. 2013. Preferences and Biases in Educational Choices
and Labor Market Expectations: Shrinking the Black Box of Gender. SSRN Electronic Journal 11. .
[Crossref]
339. Ezgi Kaya. 2013. Gender Wage Gap Trends in Europe: The Role of Occupational Allocation and Skill
Prices. SSRN Electronic Journal 18. . [Crossref]
340. Thomas E. Wei. 2012. Sticks, Stones, Words, and Broken Bones. Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis 34:4, 465-488. [Crossref]
341. Núria Rodríguez-Planas. 2012. Mentoring, educational services, and incentives to learn: What do we
know about them?. Evaluation and Program Planning 35:4, 481-490. [Crossref]
342. Kwok Leung, Fuli Li, Fan Zhou. 2012. Sex Differences in Social Cynicism Across Societies. Journal
of Cross-Cultural Psychology 43:7, 1152-1166. [Crossref]
343. Matthew Pearson, Burkhard C. Schipper. 2012. The visible hand: finger ratio (2D:4D) and
competitive bidding. Experimental Economics 15:3, 510-529. [Crossref]
344. Juan J. Dolado, Florentino Felgueroso, Miguel Almunia. 2012. Are men and women-economists
evenly distributed across research fields? Some new empirical evidence. SERIEs 3:3, 367-393.
[Crossref]
345. Marie Drolet, Karen Mumford. 2012. The Gender Pay Gap for Private-Sector Employees in Canada
and Britain. British Journal of Industrial Relations 50:3, 529-553. [Crossref]
346. Alison M. Konrad, Yang Yang, Kathleen Cannings. 2012. Pay dispersion and earnings for women and
men: a study of Swedish doctors. Gender in Management: An International Journal 27:4, 249-270.
[Crossref]
347. Colin Campbell. 2012. Low-wage mobility during the early career. Research in Social Stratification and
Mobility 30:2, 175-185. [Crossref]
348. Hipólito Simón. 2012. The gender gap in earnings: an international comparison with European
matched employer–employee data. Applied Economics 44:15, 1985-1999. [Crossref]
349. M. Christine Anderson, Nancy E. Bertaux. 2012. Education, Citizenship, and African American
Community in Nineteenth-Century Cincinnati: Issues of Social, Cultural, and Human Capital.
Humanity & Society 36:2, 145-162. [Crossref]
350. Jeremy Reynolds, Jeffrey B. Wenger. 2012. He said, she said: The gender wage gap according to self
and proxy reports in the Current Population Survey. Social Science Research 41:2, 392-411. [Crossref]
351. Kim Ittonen, Emilia Peni. 2012. Auditor's Gender and Audit Fees. International Journal of Auditing
16:1, 1-18. [Crossref]
352. C. Erik Landhuis, David K. Perry, Robert J. Hancox. 2012. Association between childhood and
adolescent television viewing and unemployment in adulthood. Preventive Medicine 54:2, 168-173.
[Crossref]
353. Alfonso Arpaia, Gilles Mourre. 2012. INSTITUTIONS AND PERFORMANCE IN EUROPEAN
LABOUR MARKETS: TAKING A FRESH LOOK AT EVIDENCE. Journal of Economic Surveys
26:1, 1-41. [Crossref]
354. Jema K. Turk. The Division of Housework Among Working Couples: Distinguishing Characteristics
of Egalitarian Couples 235-258. [Crossref]
355. DAVID W. JOHNSTON, WANG-SHENG LEE. 2012. Climbing the Job Ladder: New Evidence of
Gender Inequity. Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society 51:1, 129-151. [Crossref]
356. Taekjin Shin. 2012. The Gender Gap in Executive Compensation. The ANNALS of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science 639:1, 258-278. [Crossref]
357. Curtis R. Price. 2012. Gender, Competition, and Managerial Decisions. Management Science 58:1,
114-122. [Crossref]
358. Dan Black, Natalia Kolesnikova, Lowell J. Taylor. 2012. Why Do So Few Women Work in New York
(And So Many in Minneapolis)? Labor Supply of Married Women across U.S. Cities. SSRN Electronic
359. Pavel Dimitrov Atanasov, Jason D. Dana. 2012. Gender Discrimination by Contestants on The Price
Is Right. SSRN Electronic Journal 15. . [Crossref]
360. Olav Sorenson, Michael S. Dahl. 2012. Geography, Joint Choices and the Reproduction of Gender
Inequality. SSRN Electronic Journal 51. . [Crossref]
361. Burkhard C. Schipper. 2012. Sex Hormones and Competitive Bidding. SSRN Electronic Journal 50. .
[Crossref]
362. Rosa Ferrer, Ghazala Azmat. 2012. Gender Gaps in Performance: Evidence from Young Lawyers. SSRN
363. Anne Busch, Elke Holst. 2012. Occupational Sex Segregation and Management-Level Wages in
Germany: What Role Does Firm Size Play?. SSRN Electronic Journal 57. . [Crossref]
364. David Stadelmann, Marco Portmann, Reiner Eichenberger. 2012. Do Female Representatives Adhere
More Closely to Voters’ Preferences than Male Representatives?. SSRN Electronic Journal 80. .
[Crossref]
365. Peggy Bechara. 2012. Gender Segregation and Gender Wage Differences During the Early Labour
Market Career. SSRN Electronic Journal 3. . [Crossref]
366. F. Andrew Hanssen, Robert K. Fleck. 2012. Persistence and Change in Age-Specific Gender Gaps:
Hollywood Actors from the Silent Era Onward. SSRN Electronic Journal 31. . [Crossref]
367. Veronika V. Eberharter. 2012. The Intergenerational Transmission of Occupational Preferences,
Segregation, and Wage Inequality - Empirical Evidence from Europe and the United States. SSRN
368. Jiří Balcar, Lenka Filipová, Zuzana Machová. 2012. Gender Wage Gap in the Czech Republic: First
Descriptive Analysis Based on Survey 2011. Review of Economic Perspectives 12:3. . [Crossref]
369. Rita Asplund, Sami Napari. 2011. Intangibles and the Gender Wage Gap: An Analysis of Gender
Wage Gaps Across Occupations in the Finnish Private Sector. Journal of Labor Research 32:4, 305-325.
[Crossref]
370. Ping Cheng, Zhenguo Lin, Yingchun Liu. 2011. Do Women Pay More for Mortgages?. The Journal
of Real Estate Finance and Economics 43:4, 423-440. [Crossref]
371. Gabriele Plickert, John Hagan. 2011. Professional work and the timing of family formation among
young lawyers in US and German cities. International Journal of the Legal Profession 18:3, 237-261.
[Crossref]
372. Catherine J. Weinberger. 2011. In Search of the Glass Ceiling: Gender and Earnings Growth among
U.S. College Graduates in the 1990S. ILR Review 64:5, 949-980. [Crossref]
373. Daria B. Cochran, Eugene W. Wang, Sarah J. Stevenson, Leah E. Johnson, Charles Crews.
2011. Adolescent Occupational Aspirations: Test of Gottfredson's Theory of Circumscription and
Compromise. The Career Development Quarterly 59:5, 412-427. [Crossref]
374. Susi Störmer. 2011. Führt Attraktivität zum Erfolg? Zum Einfluss des Body-Maß-Index auf den
Karriereerfolg. Schmalenbachs Zeitschrift für betriebswirtschaftliche Forschung 63:6, 609-631. [Crossref]
375. Gianni Betti, Antonella D’Agostino, Laura Neri. 2011. Educational Mismatch of Graduates: a
Multidimensional and Fuzzy Indicator. Social Indicators Research 103:3, 465-480. [Crossref]
376. Lia M. Daniels, Tara L. Stewart, Robert H. Stupnisky, Raymond P. Perry, Tatiana LoVerso. 2011.
Relieving career anxiety and indecision: the role of undergraduate students’ perceived control and
faculty affiliations. Social Psychology of Education 14:3, 409-426. [Crossref]
377. Vincent Vandenberghe. 2011. Firm-level Evidence on Gender Wage Discrimination in the Belgian
Private Economy. LABOUR 25:3, 330-349. [Crossref]
378. Seamus McGuinness, Elish Kelly, Philip J O'Connell, Tim Callan. 2011. The impact of wage
bargaining and worker preferences on the gender pay gap. European Journal of Industrial Relations
17:3, 277-293. [Crossref]
379. Robert G. DelCampo, Kathryn J.L. Jacobson, Harry J. Van Buren, Donna Maria Blancero. 2011.
Comparing immigrant and US born Hispanic business professionals. Cross Cultural Management: An
International Journal 18:3, 327-350. [Crossref]
380. Kaisa Kotakorpi, Panu Poutvaara. 2011. Pay for politicians and candidate selection: An empirical
analysis. Journal of Public Economics 95:7-8, 877-885. [Crossref]
381. Pierre-Guillaume Méon, Ariane Szafarz. 2011. The modern corporation as a safe haven for taste-based
discrimination: An agency model of hiring decisions. Labour Economics 18:4, 487-497. [Crossref]
382. David A. Matsa,, Amalia R. Miller. 2011. Chipping away at the Glass Ceiling: Gender Spillovers
in Corporate Leadership. American Economic Review 101:3, 635-639. [Abstract] [View PDF article]
[PDF with links]
383. David E. DePianto. 2011. Financial satisfaction and perceived income through a demographic lens:
Do different race/gender pairs reap different returns to income?. Social Science Research 40:3, 773-783.
[Crossref]
384. Clara Kulich, Grzegorz Trojanowski, Michelle K. Ryan, S. Alexander Haslam, Luc D. R. Renneboog.
2011. Who gets the carrot and who gets the stick? Evidence of gender disparities in executive
remuneration. Strategic Management Journal 32:3, 301-321. [Crossref]
385. Yuhao Ge, Hongbin Li, Junsen Zhang. 2011. Gender earnings gaps in Hong Kong: Empirical evidence
from across the earnings distribution in 2006. China Economic Review 22:1, 151-164. [Crossref]
386. Dominique Meurs, Ariane Pailhé, Sophie Ponthieux. Chapitre 6. Enfants, interruptions d'activité des
femmes et écart de salaire entre les sexes 139-162. [Crossref]
387. Deborah A. Cobb-Clark, Michelle Tan. 2011. Noncognitive skills, occupational attainment, and
relative wages. Labour Economics 18:1, 1-13. [Crossref]
388. Chin-fen Chang, Paula England. 2011. Gender inequality in earnings in industrialized East Asia. Social
Science Research 40:1, 1-14. [Crossref]
389. Matthew Pearson, Burkhard C. Schipper. 2011. Menstrual Cycle and Competitive Bidding. SSRN
390. Matthew Pearson, Burkhard C. Schipper. 2011. The Visible Hand: Finger Ratio (2D:4D) and
Competitive Bidding. SSRN Electronic Journal 82. . [Crossref]
391. Anne Busch, Elke Holst. 2011. Gender-Specific Occupational Segregation, Glass Ceiling Effects, and
Earnings in Managerial Positions: Results of a Fixed Effects Model. SSRN Electronic Journal 57. .
[Crossref]
392. Clifford Chad Henson, Paul R. Dorasil. 2011. An Empirical Analysis of Judging Bias by Sex, Region
& Side. SSRN Electronic Journal 40. . [Crossref]
393. David A. Matsa, Amalia R. Miller. 2011. Chipping Away at the Glass Ceiling: Gender Spillovers in
Corporate Leadership. SSRN Electronic Journal 94. . [Crossref]
394. Marie-Josée Legault. 2011. La mixité en emploi au Québec... Dans l’angle mort chez les moins
scolarisés?. Revue multidisciplinaire sur l'emploi, le syndicalisme et le travail 6:1, 20-58. [Crossref]
395. Luc Cloutier, Paul Bernard, Diane-Gabrielle Tremblay. 2011. Activité professionnelle et
responsabilités familiales: les mères sont-elles encore perdantes dans leur qualité d'emploi?. Relations
industrielles 66:2, 256-278. [Crossref]
396. Alec Levenson, Cindy Zoghi. 2010. Occupations, Human Capital and Skills. Journal of Labor Research
31:4, 365-386. [Crossref]
397. Frédéric Palomino, Eloïc-Anil Peyrache. 2010. Psychological bias and gender wage gap. Journal of
Economic Behavior & Organization 76:3, 563-573. [Crossref]
398. Elda Pema, Stephen Mehay. 2010. The role of job assignment and human capital endowments in
explaining gender differences in job performance and promotion. Labour Economics 17:6, 998-1009.
[Crossref]
399. Dirk Antonczyk, Bernd Fitzenberger, Katrin Sommerfeld. 2010. Rising wage inequality, the decline
of collective bargaining, and the gender wage gap. Labour Economics 17:5, 835-847. [Crossref]
400. Andrés Erosa, Luisa Fuster, Diego Restuccia. 2010. A general equilibrium analysis of parental leave
policies. Review of Economic Dynamics 13:4, 742-758. [Crossref]
401. Eva M. Sierminska, Joachim R. Frick, Markus M. Grabka. 2010. Examining the gender wealth gap.
Oxford Economic Papers 62:4, 669-690. [Crossref]
402. Jeremy Pais. 2010. Competing sources of earnings inequality: A comparison of variance components.
Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 28:3, 359-373. [Crossref]
403. Christel Kesler. 2010. Immigrant Wage Disadvantage in Sweden and the United Kingdom: Wage
Structure and Barriers to Opportunity. International Migration Review 44:3, 560-592. [Crossref]
404. John Hagan, Fiona M. Kay. 2010. The Masculine Mystique: Living Large from Law School to Later
Life. Canadian journal of law and society 25:2, 195-226. [Crossref]
405. Jonathan Heathcote, Kjetil Storesletten, Giovanni L. Violante. 2010. The Macroeconomic
Implications of Rising Wage Inequality in the United States. Journal of Political Economy 118:4,
681-722. [Crossref]
406. Luca Flabbi. 2010. GENDER DISCRIMINATION ESTIMATION IN A SEARCH MODEL
WITH MATCHING AND BARGAINING*. International Economic Review 51:3, 745-783.
[Crossref]
407. Dominique Meurs, Ariane Pailhé, Sophie Ponthieux. 2010. Enfants, interruptions d'activité des
femmes et écart de salaire entre les sexes. Revue de l'OFCE n° 114:3, 113-133. [Crossref]
408. Yuying Tong. 2010. Place of education, gender disparity, and assimilation of immigrant scientists and
engineers earnings. Social Science Research 39:4, 610-626. [Crossref]
409. Rafael Lalive, Alois Stutzer. 2010. Approval of equal rights and gender differences in well-being.
Journal of Population Economics 23:3, 933-962. [Crossref]
410. Matthew J Cushing, David I Rosenbaum. 2010. Cohort Effects in Age-Earnings Profiles for Women:
Implications for Forensic Analysis. Eastern Economic Journal 36:3, 353-369. [Crossref]
411. JUAN D. BARÓN, DEBORAH A. COBB-CLARK. 2010. Occupational Segregation and the Gender
Wage Gap in Private- and Public-Sector Employment: A Distributional Analysis*. Economic Record
86:273, 227-246. [Crossref]
412. Glenn Ellison,, Ashley Swanson,. 2010. The Gender Gap in Secondary School Mathematics at High
Achievement Levels: Evidence from the American Mathematics Competitions. Journal of Economic
Perspectives 24:2, 109-128. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
413. Olivier Baguelin. 2010. Male-Female Wage Gap and Vertical Occupational Segmentation: the Role of
Work Attitude. Recherches économiques de Louvain Vol. 76:1, 31-55. [Crossref]
414. Catherine J. Weinberger, Peter J. Kuhn. 2010. Changing Levels or Changing Slopes? The Narrowing
of the Gender Earnings Gap 1959 – 1999. ILR Review 63:3, 384-406. [Crossref]
415. Melissa J. Williams, Levy Paluck Elizabeth, Julie Spencer-Rodgers. 2010. The Masculinity of
Money: Automatic Stereotypes Predict Gender Differences In Estimated Salaries. Psychology of Women
416. Yuriy Gorodnichenko, Klara Sabirianova Peter, Dmitriy Stolyarov. 2010. Inequality and volatility
moderation in Russia: Evidence from micro-level panel data on consumption and income. Review of
Economic Dynamics 13:1, 209-237. [Crossref]
417. Dirk Antonczyk, Bernd Fitzenberger, Katrin Sommerfeld. 2010. Rising Wage Inequality, the Decline
of Collective Bargaining, and the Gender Wage Gap. SSRN Electronic Journal 26. . [Crossref]
418. Robin M. Hogarth, Natalia Karelaia, Carlos Andres Trujillo. 2010. When Should I Quit? Gender
Differences in Exiting Competitions. SSRN Electronic Journal 15. . [Crossref]
419. Heather Antecol, Deborah A. Cobb-Clark. 2010. Do Non-Cognitive Skills Help Explain the
Occupational Segregation of Young People?. SSRN Electronic Journal 12. . [Crossref]
420. Gesine Fuchs. 2010. Promising Paths to Pay Equity: A Comparison of the Potentials of Strategic
Litigation, Collective Bargaining and Anti-Discrimination Authorities in Switzerland, Germany and
France. SSRN Electronic Journal 19. . [Crossref]
421. Anna Ruzik, Magdalena Rokicka. 2010. The Gender Pay Gap in Informal Employment in Poland.
422. Curtis R. Price. 2010. Does the Gender Preference for Competition Affect Job Performance? Evidence
from a Real Effort Experiment. SSRN Electronic Journal 14. . [Crossref]
423. Marisa C. Young. 2010. Gender Differences in Precarious Work Settings. Relations industrielles 65:1,
74-97. [Crossref]
424. Mohammad Ashraf. 2009. Characteristics of female managers in the US labour market. Applied
Economics Letters 16:17, 1683-1686. [Crossref]
425. Charlotte Muller, Oleg Volkov. 2009. Older Women: Work and Caregiving in Conflict? A Study of
Four Countries. Social Work in Health Care 48:7, 665-695. [Crossref]
426. Marilyn Gittell. 2009. The Effect of Geography, Education and Labor Market Segregation on
Women’s Economic Status in New York State. American Behavioral Scientist 53:2, 193-222. [Crossref]
427. Julio Huato, Kathryn Woodbury Zeno. 2009. Class, Race, and the Spousal Income Gap. American
Behavioral Scientist 53:2, 261-275. [Crossref]
428. Kristin J. Kleinjans. 2009. Do gender differences in preferences for competition matter for occupational
expectations?. Journal of Economic Psychology 30:5, 701-710. [Crossref]
429. Javier G. Polavieja. 2009. Domestic Supply, Job-Specialization and Sex-differences in Pay. Social
Indicators Research 93:3, 587-605. [Crossref]
430. John R. Walker. 2009. Earnings, Effort, and Work Flexibility of Self-Employed Women and Men:
The Case of St. Croix County, Wisconsin. Journal of Labor Research 30:3, 269-288. [Crossref]
431. Devasheesh P. Bhave, Theresa M. Glomb. 2009. Emotional labour demands, wages and gender:
A within-person, between-jobs study. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology 82:3,
683-707. [Crossref]
432. Ami R. Moore, Foster Amey, Yawo Bessa. 2009. Earnings attainment of immigrants in the USA: the
effects of race, gender, and place of birth. Equal Opportunities International 28:6, 500-512. [Crossref]
433. J. Hofmans, R. Pepermans, E. Loix. 2009. Measurement invariance matters: A case made for the
ORTOFIN. Journal of Economic Psychology 30:4, 667-674. [Crossref]
434. Beth D. Darnall, Edward C. Suarez. 2009. Sex and gender in psychoneuroimmunology research: Past,
present and future. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity 23:5, 595-604. [Crossref]
435. Ajit Zacharias, Melissa Mahoney. 2009. Do Gender Disparities in Employment Increase Profitability?
Evidence from the United States. Feminist Economics 15:3, 133-161. [Crossref]
436. Christophe J. Nordman, François Roubaud. 2009. Reassessing the Gender Wage Gap in Madagascar:
Does Labor Force Attachment Really Matter?. Economic Development and Cultural Change 57:4,
785-808. [Crossref]
437. Tavis Barr. 2009. With Friends Like These: Endogenous Labor Market Segregation with
Homogeneous, Nonprejudiced Agents. American Journal of Economics and Sociology 68:3, 703-746.
[Crossref]
438. Philip Broyles. 2009. The gender pay gap of STEM professions in the United States. International
Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 29:5/6, 214-226. [Crossref]
439. Yitchak Haberfeld. 2009. Group-based differences in intra-generational earnings mobility in Israel.
Research in Social Stratification and Mobility 27:2, 79-91. [Crossref]
440. Christian Pfeifer, Tatjana Sohr. 2009. Analysing the Gender Wage Gap (GWG) Using Personnel
Records. LABOUR 23:2, 257-282. [Crossref]
441. Pablo Beramendi, Thomas R. Cusack. 2009. Diverse Disparities. Political Research Quarterly 62:2,
257-275. [Crossref]
442. René Fahr, Uwe Sunde. 2009. Gender differentials in skill use and skill formation in the aftermath of
vocational training. Applied Economics Letters 16:9, 885-889. [Crossref]
443. Rachel Croson,, Uri Gneezy. 2009. Gender Differences in Preferences. Journal of Economic Literature
47:2, 448-474. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
444. Peter Kooreman. 2009. The early inception of labor market gender differences. Labour Economics 16:2,
135-139. [Crossref]
445. Joscha Legewie, Thomas A DiPrete. 2009. Family Determinants of the Changing Gender Gap in
Educational Attainment: A Comparison of the U.S. and Germany. Schmollers Jahrbuch 129:2, 169-180.
[Crossref]
446. Paul W. Miller. 2009. The Gender Pay Gap in the US: Does Sector Make a Difference?. Journal of
Labor Research 30:1, 52-74. [Crossref]
447. Cheryl B. Travis, Louis J. Gross, Bruce A. Johnson. 2009. Tracking the Gender Pay Gap: A Case
Study. Psychology of Women Quarterly 33:4, 410-418. [Crossref]
448. Gregory B. Lewis, Seong Soo Oh. 2009. A Major Difference?. The American Review of Public
Administration 39:2, 107-124. [Crossref]
449. Sei Jin Ko, Charles M. Judd, Diederik A. Stapel. 2009. Stereotyping Based on Voice in the Presence
of Individuating Information: Vocal Femininity Affects Perceived Competence but Not Warmth.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 35:2, 198-211. [Crossref]
450. Thomas J. Cooke, Paul Boyle, Kenneth Couch, Peteke Feijten. 2009. A longitudinal analysis of family
migration and the gender gap in earnings in the united states and great britain. Demography 46:1,
147-167. [Crossref]
451. Alice H. Eagly. Female Leadership Advantage and Disadvantage: Resolving the Contradictions
277-296. [Crossref]
452. Mary C. King. 2009. Occupational Segregation by Race and Sex in Brazil, 1989–2001. The Review of
Black Political Economy 36:2, 113-125. [Crossref]
453. Suqin Ge, Fang Yang. 2009. Accounting for the Gender Gap in College Attainment. SSRN Electronic
454. Elke Holst, Anne Busch. 2009. The Gender Pay Gap in Management Positions in the Private Sector in
Germany (Der 'Gender Pay Gap' in Fuehrungspositionen der Privatwirtschaft in Deutschland). SSRN
455. Jordan D. Matsudaira, Emily Greene Owens. 2009. The Economics of Rape: Will Victims Pay for
Police Involvement?. SSRN Electronic Journal 96. . [Crossref]
456. Yuriy Gorodnichenko, Klara Sabirianova Peter, Dmitriy Stolyarov. 2009. Inequality and Volatility
Moderation in Russia: Evidence from Micro-Level Panel Data on Consumption and Income. SSRN
457. Elke Holst, Anne Busch. 2009. Glass Ceiling Effect and Earnings - The Gender Pay Gap in Managerial
Positions in Germany. SSRN Electronic Journal 57. . [Crossref]
458. Deborah A. Cobb-Clark, Michelle Tan. 2009. Noncognative Skills, Occupational Attainment, and
Relative Wages. SSRN Electronic Journal 12. . [Crossref]
459. Robin M. Hogarth, Natalia Karelaia, Carlos Andres Trujillo. 2009. Under-Achievement and the Glass
Ceiling: Evidence from a TV Game Show. SSRN Electronic Journal 12. . [Crossref]
460. Ross Levine, Alexey Levkov, Yona Rubinstein. 2009. Racial Discrimination and Competition. SSRN
461. Tamar Khitarishvili. 2009. Explaining the Gender Wage Gap in Georgia. SSRN Electronic Journal
13. . [Crossref]
462. Clara Kulich, Grzegorz Trojanowski, Michelle K. Ryan, S. Alexander Alexander Haslam, Luc
Renneboog. 2009. Who Gets the Carrot and Who Gets the Stick? Evidence of Gender Disparities in
Executive Remuneration. SSRN Electronic Journal 66. . [Crossref]
463. Marie-Josée Legault. 2009. Are Less-Educated Women in the Blind Spot of Pay Equity?. Journal of
Workplace Rights 14:2, 195-228. [Crossref]
464. Edward J. Timmons, Robert J. Thornton. 2008. The Effects of Licensing on the Wages of Radiologic
Technologists. Journal of Labor Research 29:4, 333-346. [Crossref]
465. Luca Flabbi, Stefano Paternostro, Erwin R. Tiongson. 2008. Returns to education in the economic
transition: A systematic assessment using comparable data. Economics of Education Review 27:6,
724-740. [Crossref]
466. Mohamed Jellal, Christophe J. Nordman, François-Charles Wolff. 2008. Evidence on the glass ceiling
effect in France using matched worker-firm data. Applied Economics 40:24, 3233-3250. [Crossref]
467. Rodrigo R. Soares, Bruno L. S. Falcão. 2008. The Demographic Transition and the Sexual Division
of Labor. Journal of Political Economy 116:6, 1058-1104. [Crossref]
468. Graciela CHICHILNISKY, Elisabeth HERMANN FREDERIKSEN. 2008. Une analyse en termes
d'équilibre de l'écart salarial entre hommes et femmes. Revue internationale du Travail 147:4, 321-345.
[Crossref]
469. Graciela CHICHILNISKY, Elisabeth HERMANN FREDERIKSEN. 2008. An equilibrium analysis
of the gender wage gap. International Labour Review 147:4, 297-320. [Crossref]
470. Graciela CHICHILNISKY, Elisabeth HERMANN FREDERIKSEN. 2008. Análisis del desnivel
salarial entre hombres y mujeres con un modelo de equilibrio. Revista Internacional del Trabajo 127:4,
331-356. [Crossref]
471. Helen Lingard, Valerie Francis. 2008. An exploration of the adaptive strategies of working families in
the Australian construction industry. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management 15:6,
562-579. [Crossref]
472. Raquel Bernal. 2008. THE EFFECT OF MATERNAL EMPLOYMENT AND CHILD CARE ON
CHILDREN'S COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT*. International Economic Review 49:4, 1173-1209.
[Crossref]
473. Ilan Tojerow. 2008. Industry Wage Differentials Rent Sharing and Gender in Belgium. Reflets et
perspectives de la vie économique Tome XLVII:3, 55-65. [Crossref]
474. S. Alexander Haslam, Michelle K. Ryan. 2008. The road to the glass cliff: Differences in the perceived
suitability of men and women for leadership positions in succeeding and failing organizations. The
Leadership Quarterly 19:5, 530-546. [Crossref]
475. Troy Tassier. 2008. Referral Hiring and Gender Segregation in the Workplace. Eastern Economic
Journal 34:4, 429-440. [Crossref]
476. Margaret L. Usdansky, Douglas A. Wolf. 2008. When Child Care Breaks Down. Journal of Family
Issues 29:9, 1185-1210. [Crossref]
477. Linping Liu, Chunni Zhang. 2008. Wages for migrant workers in the Pearl River Delta: determining
factors. Social Sciences in China 29:3, 104-120. [Crossref]
478. Kevin T. Leicht. 2008. Broken Down by Race and Gender? Sociological Explanations of New Sources
of Earnings Inequality. Annual Review of Sociology 34:1, 237-255. [Crossref]
479. Casey B. Mulligan, Yona Rubinstein. 2008. Selection, Investment, and Women's Relative Wages Over
Time *. Quarterly Journal of Economics 123:3, 1061-1110. [Crossref]
480. Guillermina Jasso, Samuel Kotz. 2008. Two Types of Inequality. Sociological Methods & Research 37:1,
31-74. [Crossref]
481. Sara de la Rica, Juan J. Dolado, Vanesa Llorens. 2008. Ceilings or floors? Gender wage gaps by
education in Spain. Journal of Population Economics 21:3, 751-776. [Crossref]
482. Cortney A. Franklin, Noelle E. Fearn. 2008. Gender, race, and formal court decision-making outcomes:
Chivalry/paternalism, conflict theory or gender conflict?. Journal of Criminal Justice 36:3, 279-290.
[Crossref]
483. Evangelia Papapetrou. 2008. Evidence on gender wage differentials in Greece. Economic Change and
Restructuring 41:2, 155-166. [Crossref]
484. Gabrielle Wanzenried. 2008. How feminine is corporate America? A recent overview. The Journal of
Economic Inequality 6:2, 185-209. [Crossref]
485. John Robst. 2008. Childhood sexual abuse and the gender wage gap. Economics Letters 99:3, 549-551.
[Crossref]
486. Spyros Konstantopoulos, Amelie Constant. 2008. The gender gap reloaded: Are school characteristics
linked to labor market performance?. Social Science Research 37:2, 374-385. [Crossref]
487. R. Kelly Garrett, James N. Danziger. 2008. On Cyberslacking: Workplace Status and Personal Internet
Use at Work. CyberPsychology & Behavior 11:3, 287-292. [Crossref]
488. Elizabeth A. Corrigall. 2008. Welfare states, families, job attribute preferences, and work. Cross
Cultural Management: An International Journal 15:2, 144-161. [Crossref]
489. Bun Song Lee, Soomyung Jang, Jayanta Sarkar. 2008. Women's labor force participation and marriage:
The case of Korea. Journal of Asian Economics 19:2, 138-154. [Crossref]
490. David Rueda. 2008. Left Government, Policy, and Corporatism: Explaining the Influence of
Partisanship on Inequality. World Politics 60:3, 349-389. [Crossref]
491. Joseph Price. 2008. Gender Differences in the Response to Competition. ILR Review 61:3, 320-333.
[Crossref]
492. Mary C. Noonan, Mary E. Corcoran, Paul N. Courant. 2008. Is the partnership gap closing for
women? Cohort differences in the sex gap in partnership chances. Social Science Research 37:1, 156-179.
[Crossref]
493. Sylvia Fuller. 2008. Job Mobility and Wage Trajectories for Men and Women in the United States.
American Sociological Review 73:1, 158-183. [Crossref]
494. Sarah Damaske, Kathleen Gerson. Viewing 21st Century Motherhood Through a Work-Family Lens
233-248. [Crossref]
495. Jefferson Cowie, Nick Salvatore. 2008. The Long Exception: Rethinking the Place of the New Deal
in American History. International Labor and Working-Class History 74:1, 3-32. [Crossref]
496. Peter H. Van der Meer. 2008. Is the gender wage gap declining in the Netherlands?. Applied Economics
40:2, 149-160. [Crossref]
497. Ebru Kongar. 2008. Is deindustrialization good for women? Evidence from the United States. Feminist
498. Kristin J. Kleinjans. 2008. Do Gender Differences in Preferences for Competition Matter for
Occupational Expectations?. SSRN Electronic Journal 21. . [Crossref]
499. Eva Sierminska, Joachim R. Frick, Markus Grabka. 2008. Examining the Gender Wealth Gap in
Germany. SSRN Electronic Journal 35. . [Crossref]
500. Richard V. Burkhauser, Jeff Larrimore. 2008. Using Internal Current Population Survey Data to
Reevaluate Trends in Labor Earnings Gaps by Gender, Race and Education Level. SSRN Electronic
501. Simon D. Woodcock, Krishna Pendakur, Ravi Pendakur. 2008. Representation and Severity in the
Distribution of Income. SSRN Electronic Journal 47. . [Crossref]
502. Melissa Mahoney, Ajit Zacharias. 2008. Gender Disparities in Employment and Aggregate Profitability
in the United States. SSRN Electronic Journal 57. . [Crossref]
503. Eva Moreno-Galbis, François-Charles Wolff. 2008. New Technologies and the Gender Wage Gap.
Relations industrielles 63:2, 317-339. [Crossref]
504. Lisa T. Stickney, Alison M. Konrad. 2007. Gender-Role Attitudes and Earnings: A Multinational
Study of Married Women and Men. Sex Roles 57:11-12, 801-811. [Crossref]
505. Shosh Shahrabani. 2007. Sources of gender wage gap in different economic sectors: the Israeli case.
Applied Economics Letters 14:14, 1019-1022. [Crossref]
506. Barbara Masser, Kirsten Grass, Michelle Nesic. 2007. ‘We Like You, But We Don’t Want You’—The
Impact of Pregnancy in the Workplace. Sex Roles 57:9-10, 703-712. [Crossref]
507. Dragana Djurdjevic, Sergiy Radyakin. 2007. Decomposition of the Gender Wage Gap Using Matching:
An Application for Switzerland. Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics 143:4, 365-396. [Crossref]
508. Charlie G. Turner, Elizabeth Monk‐Turner. 2007. Gender differences in occupational status in the
South Korean labor market: 1988‐1998. International Journal of Social Economics 34:8, 554-565.
[Crossref]
509. Yitchak Haberfeld, Yinon Cohen. 2007. Gender, ethnic, and national earnings gaps in Israel: The role
of rising inequality. Social Science Research 36:2, 654-672. [Crossref]
510. Sonya Kostova Huffman, Maureen Kilkenny. 2007. Regional welfare program and labour force
participation. Papers in Regional Science 86:2, 215-239. [Crossref]
511. JOANNA K. SWAFFIELD. 2007. ESTIMATES OF THE IMPACT OF LABOUR MARKET
ATTACHMENT AND ATTITUDES ON THE FEMALE WAGE. The Manchester School 75:3,
349-371. [Crossref]
512. Natalia Levina, Mingdi Xin. 2007. Research Note—Comparing IT Workers’ Compensation Across
Country Contexts: Demographic, Human Capital, and Institutional Factors. Information Systems
Research 18:2, 193-210. [Crossref]
513. Jessica Wolpaw Reyes. 2007. Gender Gaps in Income and Productivity of Obstetricians and
Gynecologists. Obstetrics & Gynecology 109:5, 1031-1039. [Crossref]
514. Betsey Stevenson, Justin Wolfers. 2007. Marriage and Divorce: Changes and their Driving Forces.
Journal of Economic Perspectives 21:2, 27-52. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
515. Alice H. Eagly. 2007. Female Leadership Advantage and Disadvantage: Resolving the Contradictions.
Psychology of Women Quarterly 31:1, 1-12. [Crossref]
516. Susan M. Awbrey. 2007. The Dynamics of Vertical and Horizontal Diversity in Organization and
Society. Human Resource Development Review 6:1, 7-32. [Crossref]
517. Francine D. Blau, Lawrence M. Kahn. 2007. The Gender Pay Gap. Academy of Management Perspectives
21:1, 7-23. [Crossref]
518. Maria Karamessini, Elias Ioakimoglou. 2007. Wage determination and the gender pay gap: A feminist
political economy analysis and decomposition. Feminist Economics 13:1, 31-66. [Crossref]
519. MOHAMMAD ASHRAF. 2007. FACTORS AFFECTING FEMALE EMPLOYMENT IN
MALE-DOMINATED OCCUPATIONS: EVIDENCE FROM THE 1990 AND 2000 CENSUS
DATA. Contemporary Economic Policy 25:1, 119-130. [Crossref]
520. Lane Kenworthy. 2007. Inequality and Sociology. American Behavioral Scientist 50:5, 584-602.
[Crossref]
521. Betsey Stevenson, Justin Wolfers. 2007. Marriage and Divorce: Changes and Their Driving Forces.
522. Dan Black, Natalia Kolesnikova, Lowell J. Taylor. 2007. The Labor Supply of Married Women: Why
Does it Differ Across U.S. Cities?. SSRN Electronic Journal 94. . [Crossref]
523. Joseph Deutsch, Jaques Gabriel Silber. 2007. Earnings Functions and the Measurement of the
Determinants of Wage Dispersion: Extending Oaxaca's Approach. SSRN Electronic Journal 52. .
[Crossref]
524. Elke Wolf, Anja Heinze. 2007. How to Limit Discrimination? Analyzing the Effects of Innovative
Workplace Practices on Intra-Firm Gender Wage Gaps Using Linked Employer-Employee Data.
525. Magnus Henrekson, Anna Dreber. 2007. Female Career Success: Institutions, Path Dependence and
Psychology. SSRN Electronic Journal 115. . [Crossref]
526. Gillian Paull. 2006. The Impact of Children on Women's Paid Work. Fiscal Studies 27:4, 473-512.
[Crossref]
527. José María Da Rocha, Luisa Fuster. 2006. WHY ARE FERTILITY RATES AND FEMALE
EMPLOYMENT RATIOS POSITIVELY CORRELATED ACROSS O.E.C.D. COUNTRIES?.
International Economic Review 47:4, 1187-1222. [Crossref]
528. Ossi Korkeamäki, Tomi Kyyrä. 2006. A gender wage gap decomposition for matched employer–
employee data. Labour Economics 13:5, 611-638. [Crossref]
529. Anna Zajacova. 2006. Education, gender, and mortality: Does schooling have the same effect on
mortality for men and women in the US?. Social Science & Medicine 63:8, 2176-2190. [Crossref]
530. Yana van der Meulen Rodgers, Joseph E. Zveglich, Laura Wherry. 2006. GENDER DIFFERENCES
IN VOCATIONAL SCHOOL TRAINING AND EARNINGS PREMIUMS IN TAIWAN. Feminist
531. 2006. BOOK REVIEWS. Feminist Economics 12:4, 667-700. [Crossref]
532. Nabanita Datta Gupta, Ronald L. Oaxaca, Nina Smith. 2006. Analysing trends in US and Danish
gender wage gaps in the 1980s and 1990s. Applied Economics Letters 13:10, 643-647. [Crossref]
533. Stephen G. Donald, Daniel S. Hamermesh. 2006. What Is Discrimination? Gender in the American
Economic Association, 1935–2004. American Economic Review 96:4, 1283-1292. [Abstract] [View PDF
article] [PDF with links]
534. Debbi C. Harris. 2006. Lowering the Bar or Moving the Target: A Wage Decomposition of Michigan's
Charter and Traditional Public School Teachers. Educational Administration Quarterly 42:3, 424-460.
[Crossref]
535. Yana van der Meulen Rodgers, Teresa Boyer. 2006. Gender and racial differences in vocational
education: an international perspective. International Journal of Manpower 27:4, 308-320. [Crossref]
536. Scott Gilbert, Petr Zemčík. 2006. Who's afraid of reduced-rank parameterizations of multivariate
models? Theory and example. Journal of Multivariate Analysis 97:4, 925-945. [Crossref]
537. Yasemin Besen, Michael S. Kimmel. 2006. At Sam's Club, no girls allowed: the lived experience of sex
discrimination. Equal Opportunities International 25:3, 172-187. [Crossref]
538. Morley Gunderson. 2006. Viewpoint: Male-female wage differentials: how can that be?. Canadian
Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'<html_ent glyph="@eacute;" ascii="e"/>conomique 39:1, 1-21.
[Crossref]
539. Francois Rycx, Ilan Tojerow. Chapter 17 Can Rent Sharing Explain the Belgian Gender Wage Gap?
413-439. [Crossref]
540. Benoît Mahy, Robert Plasman, François Rycx. Introduction and Overview 1-9. [Crossref]
541. François Rycx, Ilan Tojerow. The Gender Pay Gap in Belgium: How Much do Sectors Matter? 99-117.
[Crossref]
542. Hermann Gartner. Gender Wage Inequality and Rent-Sharing: Evidence from a German-Linked
Employer—Employee Data-set 118-131. [Crossref]
543. Nabanita Datta Gupta, Ronald L. Oaxaca, Nina Smith. 2006. Swimming Upstream, Floating
Downstream: Comparing Women's Relative Wage Progress in the United States and Denmark. ILR
544. Joseph Price. 2006. Gender Differences in the Response to Competition. SSRN Electronic Journal
114. . [Crossref]
545. B. Burcin Yurtoglu, Christine Zulehner. 2006. The Gender Gap in Top Corporate Jobs is Still There.
546. Pierre Lefebvre. 2006. Discrimination sexuelle dans les dépenses des ménages : survol de la littérature
et évidences empiriques pour le Canada. L'Actualité économique 82:1-2, 119-153. [Crossref]
547. Hadas Mandel, Moshe Semyonov. 2005. Family Policies, Wage Structures, and Gender Gaps: Sources
of Earnings Inequality in 20 Countries. American Sociological Review 70:6, 949-967. [Crossref]
548. David Gleicher, Lonnie K. Stevans. 2005. A Comprehensive Profile of the Working Poor. Labour
19:3, 517-529. [Crossref]
549. Deon Filmer, Elizabeth King, Dominique van de Walle. 2005. Testing for pay and promotion bias in
an international organization. International Journal of Manpower 26:5, 404-420. [Crossref]
550. Bruno S Frey, Alois Stutzer. 2005. Happiness Research: State and Prospects. Review of Social Economy
63:2, 207-228. [Crossref]
551. Satoshi Kanazawa. 2005. Is “discrimination” necessary to explain the sex gap in earnings?. Journal of
Economic Psychology 26:2, 269-287. [Crossref]
552. Barbara F. Reskin, Denise D. Bielby. 2005. A Sociological Perspective on Gender and Career Outcomes.
Journal of Economic Perspectives 19:1, 71-86. [Abstract] [View PDF article] [PDF with links]
553. Jeremy Greenwood, Ananth Seshadri. Technological Progress and Economic Transformation
1225-1273. [Crossref]
554. Javier Silvestre Rodríguez. 2005. El grado de discriminación salarial de las mujeres en España, 1930:
una primera aproximación. Investigaciones de Historia Económica 1:2, 105-143. [Crossref]
555. Eric J. Solberg. 2005. The Gender Pay Gap by Occupation: A Test of the Crowding Hypothesis.
Contemporary Economic Policy 23:1, 129-148. [Crossref]
556. Jeremy Greenwood, Ananth Seshadri, Mehmet Yorukoglu. 2005. Engines of Liberation. The Review
of Economic Studies 72:1, 109-133. [Crossref]
557. Andres Erosa, Luisa Fuster, Diego Restuccia. 2005. A Quantitative Theory of the Gender Gap in
Wages. SSRN Electronic Journal 108. . [Crossref]
558. Andres Erosa, Luisa Fuster, Diego Restuccia. 2005. A General Equilibrium Analysis of Parental Leave
Policies. SSRN Electronic Journal 108. . [Crossref]
559. Mohamed Jellal, Christophe J. Nordman, Francois-Charles Wolff. 2005. Theory and Evidence on the
Glass Ceiling Effect Using Matched Worker-firm Data. SSRN Electronic Journal 3. . [Crossref]
560. Alfonso Arpaia, Gilles Mourre. 2005. Labour Market Institutions and Labour Market Performance:
A Survey of the Literature. SSRN Electronic Journal 19. . [Crossref]
561. Katharine Bradbury, Jane Katz. 2005. Wives' Work and Family Income Mobility. SSRN Electronic
562. Matthew Valle. 2004. In search of the 75 cents‐on‐the‐dollar woman. Equal Opportunities International
23:6, 31-37. [Crossref]
563. Michael C.M. Leung, Jie Zhang, Junsen Zhang. 2004. An economic analysis of life expectancy by
gender with application to the United States. Journal of Health Economics 23:4, 737-759. [Crossref]
564. Allen M. Parkman. 2004. The Importance of Gifts in Marriage. Economic Inquiry 42:3, 483-495.
[Crossref]
565. Michelle Gosse, Siva Ganesh. 2004. The gender pay gap and the importance of job size: Evidence from
the New Zealand public service. New Zealand Economic Papers 38:1, 101-118. [Crossref]
566. Daron Acemoglu, David H. Autor, David Lyle. 2004. Women, War, and Wages: The Effect of Female
Labor Supply on the Wage Structure at Midcentury. Journal of Political Economy 112:3, 497-551.
[Crossref]
567. Danièle Meulders, Robert Plasman, François Rycx. 2004. Introduction: Earnings inequalities: gender,
race and sexual orientation. International Journal of Manpower 25:3/4, 244-250. [Crossref]
568. François Rycx, Ilan Tojerow. 2004. Rent sharing and the gender wage gap in Belgium. International
Journal of Manpower 25:3/4, 279-299. [Crossref]
569. Pablo Beramendi, Thomas R. Cusack. 2004. Diverse Disparities: The Politics and Economics of Wage,
Market and Disposable Income Inequalities. SSRN Electronic Journal 107. . [Crossref]
570. Bruno S. Frey, Alois Stutzer. 2004. Happiness Research: State and Prospects. SSRN Electronic Journal
3. . [Crossref]
571. Carlos Manuel Gradín, Coral del Río, Olga Cantó-Sánchez. 2004. The Measurement of Gender Wage
Discrimination: The Distributional Approach Revisited. SSRN Electronic Journal 21. . [Crossref]
572. Nathalie Havet. 2004. Écarts salariaux et disparités professionnelles entre sexes : développements
théoriques et validité empirique. L'Actualité économique 80:1, 5-39. [Crossref]
573. Michael Shannon, Michael P. Kidd. 2003. Projecting the U.S. gender wage gap 2000–40. Atlantic
Economic Journal 31:4, 316-329. [Crossref]
574. Alice H Eagly, Linda L Carli. 2003. Finding gender advantage and disadvantage: Systematic research
integration is the solution. The Leadership Quarterly 14:6, 851-859. [Crossref]
575. Robert P. Vecchio. 2003. In search of gender advantage. The Leadership Quarterly 14:6, 835-850.
[Crossref]
576. Lisa Giddings. 2003. Continued decline for ethnic minorities in the transition?. Changes in ethnic
earnings differentials in Bulgaria, 1986, 1993 and 1997*. The Economics of Transition 11:4, 621-648.
[Crossref]
577. Sarah Avellar, Pamela J. Smock. 2003. Has the Price of Motherhood Declined Over Time? A Cross-
Cohort Comparison of the Motherhood Wage Penalty. Journal of Marriage and Family 65:3, 597-607.
[Crossref]
578. U. Gneezy, M. Niederle, A. Rustichini. 2003. Performance in Competitive Environments: Gender
Differences. The Quarterly Journal of Economics 118:3, 1049-1074. [Crossref]
579. Heather Boushey, Robert Cherry. 2003. The Economic Boom (1991-1997) and Women: Issues of
Race, Education, and Regionalism. NWSA Journal 15:1, 34-53. [Crossref]
580. James Albrecht, Anders Björklund, Susan Vroman. 2003. Is There a Glass Ceiling in Sweden?. Journal
of Labor Economics 21:1, 145-177. [Crossref]
581. Mary C. King. 2003. Strong Families or Patriarchal Economies? 'Familial' Labor Markets and Welfare
States in Comparative Perspective. SSRN Electronic Journal 39. . [Crossref]
582. Jeremy Greenwood, Ananth Seshadri. 2003. Technological Progress and Economic Transformation.
583. Suzanne Model, Lang Lin. 2002. The Cost of Not Being Christian: Hindus, Sikhs and Muslims in
Britain and Canada. International Migration Review 36:4, 1061-1092. [Crossref]
584. Andrés Erosa, Luisa Fuster, Diego Restuccia. 2002. Fertility Decisions and Gender Differences in
Labor Turnover, Employment, and Wages. Review of Economic Dynamics 5:4, 856-891. [Crossref]
585. Edward J. Schumacher. 2002. Technology, skills, and health care labor markets. Journal of Labor
Research 23:3, 397-415. [Crossref]
586. Dean Jolliffe. 2002. The Gender Wage Gap in Bulgaria: A Semiparametric Estimation of
Discrimination. Journal of Comparative Economics 30:2, 276-295. [Crossref]
587. Jeremy Greenwood, Ananth Seshadri, Mehmet Yorukoglu. 2002. Engines of Liberation. SSRN
588. Daron Acemoglu, David H. Autor, David Lyle. 2002. Women, War and Wages: The Effect of Female
Labor Supply on the Wage Structure at Mid-Century. SSRN Electronic Journal 84. . [Crossref]
589. Pundarik Mukhopadhaya. 2001. Changing labor-force gender composition and male-female income
diversity in Singapore. Journal of Asian Economics 12:4, 547-568. [Crossref]
590. Hoda Hessaramiri, Brian H. Kleiner. 2001. Explaining the pay disparity between women and men in
similar jobs. International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy 21:8/9/10, 37-52. [Crossref]
591. Paula England, Jennifer Thompson, Carolyn Aman. The Sex Gap in Pay and Comparable Worth
551-565. [Crossref]
592. Nabanita Datta Gupta, Ronald L. Oaxaca, Nina Smith. 2001. Swimming Upstream, Floating
Downstream: Trends in the U.S. and Danish Gender Wage Gaps. SSRN Electronic Journal 65. .
[Crossref]
593. Peter Bardsley, Katerina Sherstyuk. 2001. Rat Races and Glass Ceilings: Career Paths in Organizations.
594. Jenny J. Lee, John Cheslock, Alma Maldonado-Maldonado, Gary Rhoades. Professors as Knowledge
Workers in the New, Global Economy 55-132. [Crossref]
595. . Gender Gap und Arbeitsmarkt Die endlose Varietät der Differenz 55-178. [Crossref]
596. . Bibliographie 423-449. [Crossref]
[Crossref]

Gender Differences in Pay: Francine D. Blau and Lawrence M. Kahn

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gender Differences in Pay: Francine D. Blau and Lawrence M. Kahn

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 14, Number 4 —Fall 2000 —Pages 75–99

Gender Differences in Pay

Francine D. Blau and Lawrence M. Kahn

Overview of Gender Differences and Trends

y Francine D. Blau is Frances Perkins Professor of Industrial Relations and Professor of

encountering less discrimination than previous ones, or an upward progression

Wage Ratios 1978 1988 1998

18–24 0.824 0.930 0.942

Changes 1978–88 1988–98

Notes: Gender ratios are computed as exp(ln Wf ⫺ ln Wm), where ln

1980s, respectively. Thus, the long-term reduction in occupational segregation by

Explaining the Gender Pay Gap and Occupational Segregation

Traditionally, economic analyses of the gender pay gap and occupational

less important, gender differences in occupations would also be expected. Women

Evidence on Human Capital, Discrimination, and the Gender Pay Gap

flect the impact of discrimination, then discrimination will be underestimated.

Analyzing the Trends in the Gender Pay Gap

tional male predominance in blue-collar jobs, this shift might be expected to

1978 1988 1998 1978–88 1988–98 1978–98

Sources of Gender Differences in Occupations

1989). The claim that discrimination is also important is more controversial. It is

en’s representation in professional schools has been truly remarkable. Between

The U.S. Gender Pay Gap in International Perspective

Australia 0.800 0.814 0.868 0.068

prices and sectoral differentials. More heavily unionized economies in which

Average Female Female/Male Wage

Australia 33.4 0.716 0.555

Australia 34.7 0.773 0.667

You might also like