Abstract

Methods for estimating the scope of unjustified inequality differ in their sensitivity to address institutional and structural deficiencies. In the case of gender wage gaps, adjusting adequately for individual characteristics requires prior assessment of several important deficiencies, primarily whether a given labor market is characterized by gendered selection into employment, gendered segmentation and whether these mechanisms differ along the distribution of wages. Given that countries are characterized by differentiated prevalence of these deficiencies, ranking countries on gender wage gaps is a challenging task. Whether a country is perceived as more equal than others depends on the interaction between the method of adjusting gender wage gap for individual characteristics and the prevalence of these deficiencies. We make the case that this interaction is empirically relevant by comparing the country rankings for the adjusted gender wage gap among 23 EU countries. In this relatively homogeneous group of countries, the interaction between method and underlying deficiencies leads to substantial variation in the extent of unjustified inequality. A country may change its place in the ranking by as much as ten positions–both towards greater equality and towards greater inequality. We also show that, if explored properly, this variability can yield valuable policy insights: changes in the ranking positions across methods inform on the policy priority of the labor market deficiencies across countries in relative terms.

Highlights

  • In this paper, we study cross-country rankings of gender inequality

  • The literature refers to this last term as an adjusted gender wage gap (AGWG)

  • We focus on countries from the European Union (EU), since these countries embarked on efforts to harmonize policies addressing inequality

Read more

Summary

Introduction

We study cross-country rankings of gender inequality. For many aspects of gender inequality, policy debates focus on cross-country rankings. We show that a country can change its ranking by roughly ten places towards greater equality or greater inequality, depending on whether the underlying decomposition method accounts for selection into full-time employment or not These results quantitatively corroborate the concerns about the reliability of cross-country rankings. We show that changes in rankings across specifications correlate well with the measures of working time flexibility and work-life balance These findings illustrate that the cross-country rankings may vary systematically with the interaction between the method of estimation and the institutional features of the labor markets.

Measuring the wage gaps in the international context
Decomposition methods to uncover unjustified inequality
Ranking unjustified inequality
Data and methods
Results
Method
Systematic changes to rankings
Correlates of changes to rankings
Conclusions
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.