Gender Differences In Productivity Research Articles

Gender, Work and Wages in Industrial Revolution Britain (review)

Reviewed by: Gender, Work and Wages in Industrial Revolution Britain Eric Schneider (bio) Gender, Work and Wages in Industrial Revolution Britain. By Joyce Burnette. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2008. Pp. xii+377. £55. This book is the most forceful argument to date that gender wage differences and occupational sorting during the Industrial Revolution were based on market responses to real differences between male and female productivity, not on gender discrimination or custom. Joyce Burnette argues that productivity differences between the genders can be explained by two key factors. Most important, men's greater strength gave them a productivity advantage over women in manual labor, which resulted in men receiving higher wages for their greater productivity. Differences in human capital between men and women also contributed to the gender wage gap. Burnette sees strength as exogenous to the economic system because it was a product of biology, and human capital as endogenous because men and women had different incentives to invest in human capital. Thus, women earned approximately one-half to two-thirds the salaries of men performing the same task for equal periods of time because they were less productive. This argument challenges earlier historiography, which has emphasized the role of ideology, gender discrimination, and custom in determining women's wages. Burnette argues that ideological concepts of "women's work" rarely limited the industries in which women could work. Instead, conceptions of women's work reflected natural and efficient occupational segregation and were later harnessed by male unions in noncompetitive markets to justify the exclusion of women. Gender discrimination did not influence wages because men and women were given equal piece-rate wages for producing the same goods. Finally, women's wages were not set by custom because they varied over time and were responsive to regional economic pressures. Burnette also argues that, in competitive labor markets, occupational sorting based on strength decreased the gender difference in wages by allowing women to specialize in low-strength industries where they could [End Page 195] be more productive. This was the most efficient outcome for women and the economy as a whole. However, women were sometimes excluded from industries where labor markets were less competitive by men's distributional coalitions, which used ideological and discriminatory language to justify their attempt to maintain higher wages by excluding women. This outcome was less efficient for women and the economy. Of particular interest to the readership of this journal will be Burnette's discussion of how technological change shifted occupational structure. Because hand spinning in preindustrial England required little strength, women had a comparative advantage and performed most spinning work. Even with several substantial improvements in spinning technology in the early years of the Industrial Revolution—the spinning jenny and throstle—women continued to dominate the spinning industry because these new technologies were not strength-intensive. However, with the invention of mule-spinning, a task requiring a great deal of strength, women were pushed out of the spinning industry because men had a greater comparative advantage. After men became dominant in mule-spinning, they created unions and successfully excluded women after the self-actor decreased the strength requirements necessary to operate the machine. Thus new technology that either increased or decreased strength requirements could significantly influence occupational sorting in the economy. I agree with Burnette that strength did create real differences in productivity between men and women, but these productivity differences could have had an endogenous as well as exogenous determinant. For example, Burnette too readily dismisses the influence of gender inequality in the distribution of food in the household, which has been shown to leave women in a weaker and less-productive state than men. Therefore, it may not be possible to remove gender roles and ideology from gender differences in productivity and wages, even if wages were determined by the marginal product of female and male labor. In addition, in order to definitively prove that wage differences were determined by productivity differences and not by custom, Burnette would have to show quantitatively that wage differences were greater for occupations where strength was more important than in occupations where strength was not important. This is a difficult task given the paucity and nature...

Gender, ICTs, and Productivity in Low-Income Countries

This essay presents the first analysis of gender differences in productivity using panel data on scientists in low-income countries. About 540 researchers in Ghana, Kenya, and Kerala (India) were studied using the same survey instrument in 2001 and 2005. Results indicate very few gender disparities in outcomes at either period of the study with one exception: productivity in international journals. The authors show that substantial gains in access to technology and higher education by women have not reduced the gender gap on this important career dimension.

Gender Gap Among Gays and Lesbians

Gender differences in productivity, if any, that are unobserved to researchers may produce an omitted variable bias in gender gap studies. Finding a subpopulation with less acute differences in unobserved characteristics would allow this concern to be addressed. This paper argues that gays and lesbians are one such interesting group --- for the intra-household division of labor and its effects on market productivity cannot be sex-determined in this subpopulation. Indeed, there are substantial intra-household variations in labor market outcomes and other characteristics; the patterns and magnitudes are similar to different-sex households. Simultaneously, the gender wage gap between gays and lesbians is much smaller than in the heterosexual population; in specifications that control for geographic location it is near zero. These findings suggest that the intra-household division of labor is an important factor driving gender differences in labor market outcomes. Such an interpretation is consistent with recent studies that control for productivity.

The Gender Gap in Wages

Explanations of the gender pay gap and related labor market segregation remain fiercely debated. On the one side are those economic historians who take a primarily neoclassical view, in which competition among workers and employers eliminates wage differences that do not reflect productivity and occupational segregation that is not the outcome of choice. Persistent discrimination must reflect anticompetitive institutions, for instance, trade unions. A corollary of the neoclassical perspective is that markets are liberating, freeing agents, including women, from cultural stereotypes and ensuring that they get paid what they are worth, although of course this need not imply wage equality if there are gender differences in productivity. On the other side are those cultural historians who interpret wage differences as reflecting custom and, as far as women are concerned, the cultural deprecation of women's work, while occupational segregation represents gender stereotypes of fit work for women. In this view, socially and culturally constructed gender identities can influence market outcomes, producing discrimination in wages and work that persists even in the face of competitive forces.

Gender Gaps in Income and Productivity of Obstetricians and Gynecologists

To investigate differences in income, productivity, and practice style between male and female obstetrician-gynecologists between 1990 and 2002. The primary data were the Socioeconomic Surveys of Fellows conducted by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG). The surveys contained complete responses from 3,698 obstetrician-gynecologists. Linear regression analysis was used to investigate gender differences in income, productivity, and practice style. Female obstetrician-gynecologists were younger, had been in medical practice fewer years, earned lower annual incomes ($196,000 versus $257,000), and exhibited lower productivity. Even when considering only young obstetrician-gynecologists (40 years old or younger), women earned annual incomes that were 23% lower, worked 10% fewer hours, saw 9% fewer patients, and performed 21% fewer procedures. The raw income gap between male and female obstetrician-gynecologists of all ages fell from 31% in 1990 to 19% in 2002, whereas for young obstetrician-gynecologists it remained stable at approximately 19%. However, despite this apparent stability, the nature of the income gap changed: whereas differences in productivity and practice style explained only half of the income gap in the 1990s, by 2002 these factors explained nearly all of the income gap. Between 1990 and 2002, female obstetrician-gynecologists earned lower annual incomes than male obstetrician-gynecologists, even when matched on age. However, by 2002 this income gap was almost entirely explained by gender differences in productivity and practice patterns.

Gender Differences in Productivity

Since 1984, when Cole and Zuckerman referred to gender differences in productivity among academic scientists as a puzzle, sociologists have sought to explain these differences by incorporating primarily institutional-level factors. In addition to these factors, the author contends that an undertheorized and heretofore unmeasured concept—the extent of research specialization—can also help explain the process by which gender affects research productivity. Although some researchers have examined areas of specialization, the extent of research specialization has been completely neglected in studies of academic careers. Using a probability sample of academics in two disciplines (sociology and linguistics), primary data collection, and simultaneous equation modeling, the author finds that the extent of research specialization is a critical intervening variable: Women specialize less than men and thereby lose out on an important means of increasing their productivity.

Work Styles, Attitudes, and Productivity of Scientists in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom: A Comparison by Gender

With scientific research growing increasingly multidisciplinary in nature, team playing and communication skills have become critical in the achievement of scientific breakthroughs. This study adds valuable evidence to the oft-cited puzzle in the sciences by comparing the work styles, attitudes, and productivity of female and male scientists. The application of t-test analysis to data on scientists from the United Kingdom and the Netherlands indicates that women report relatively higher abilities in communication skills and teamwork than men. Also, both female and male scientists report difficulties in balancing work and family responsibilities, but proportionately more women than men rely on outside sources of childcare. A separate distribution analysis of academic productivity demonstrates substantial overlap between men and women in the number of scientific publications per year. These results add support to mounting pressure for policy reforms that effectively support the retention and advancement of women in the sciences. Key words: Skills, Workplace Diversity, Technical Innovation, Scientific Output, Women in Science, Science in Europe 1. Introduction Creativity leads to innovations, higher productivity, and ultimately, to economic growth. Human factors govern scientific innovation, with creativity across industries as an important factor in the stimulation of innovation in all its forms.1 Innovation, in turn, contributes to competitiveness and economic growth. A variety of ways of thinking and backgrounds are needed for an environment in which fruitful ideas can prosper. A broader participation in the scientific workforce is the surest strategy for bringing the best ideas, highest creativity, and greatest innovation to the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics enterprise and the service of the nation, (CEOSE 2004: xv). Cultural factors can also have a direct impact on scientific output and productivity, and cultural differences between the United States and Europe have been linked to differences in scientific productivity. In comparison with Americans, Europeans are notably less inclined to risk failure.2 The same is true for companies in terms of their willingness to be bold and experimental, and their general attitudes toward risk. However, the increasing demand on personnel to continually adapt their skills to the requirements of the labor market has provided impetus for many on both continents to acquire new knowledge and skills. European institutions have become the source of a growth in the number of high quality publications, and a growing amount of basic research is originating from European laboratories (TFFAI 2005). Questions about how to diversify the scientific workforce have gained attention in recent years in academic circles, policy discourse, and the media.3 A large literature, based mostly on American statistics, reveals numerous factors that influence women in scientific and technical disciplines, and why far fewer reach high positions.4 European countries exhibit the same pattern, as women remain under-represented in Europe's professional scientific employment across the business sector and academia (European Commission 2005). The low female representation comes at a cost because women bring a distinct set of skills, work styles, and attitudes to the table that can potentially affect productivity at all levels. The lack of consensus on the puzzle in science leaves open the question of whether gender differences in productivity do exist, and if so, the path by which these gender differences occur.5 To address this question, we conduct tests of statistical differences between male and female scientists in work styles, attitudes toward work, and productivity. The work is two-fold. In the first part of the study, we apply t-test analysis to samples of scientists from two western European countries known for their high indicators of scientific output: the United Kingdom and the Netherlands. …

Gender and Commercial Science: Women’s Patenting in the Life Sciences

Traditional research on gender differences in productivity focuses on academic scientists, and rarely investigates outcomes other than publications. We investigate gender disparities in commercial outcomes, for scientists in both the academic and industrial sectors. Using a unique combination of career history data and patenting information across a period of two decades, we present descriptive statistics and graphical trends of male and female commercialization. Empirical evidence indicates that female scientists engage in and produce less commercial work then their male counterparts, and that the degree of disparity remains constant across time. The quality and impact of women’s commercial work remains the same or better than that of men scientists, however. These results imply that a necessary focus for future work is to understand the personal, structural, and organizational reasons for the filtering process which leads to such a small proportion of female inventors.

Women in Economics: Moving Up or Falling Off the Academic Career Ladder?

The percentage of economics doctorates awarded to women has increased over the past twenty years. This article considers whether women Ph.D. economists have increased their representation in academia, particularly at higher tenured ranks. Our study draws upon several empirical approaches and multiple data sets for the 1990s. We find that when compared with other academic disciplines, women in economics are less likely to get tenure and take longer to achieve it. Although gender differences in productivity and the effect of children on promotion partly explain women's lesser chances of receiving tenure in economics, a significant portion of the gender promotion gap remains unexplained by observable characteristics.

The Impact of Gender on Productivity and Satisfaction Among Medical School Psychologists

The impact of gender on productivity and satisfaction was examined among a random sample of 293 psychologists employed as faculty members in medical schools. Forty-one percent of the respondents were female. Males were older than females, had worked in a medical school longer, had higher academic ranks, held more administrative positions, were more likely to be tenured, and earned higher salaries. When years of employment as a psychologist were statistically controlled, there were no gender differences in productivity, as measured by publications, presentations, and grant awards; however, gender differences in salary remained. Females were less satisfied than males with regard to salary, promotion opportunities, and overall respect. Results are discussed within the context of the changing gender composition within psychology and the changing demands within the health care system.

Physician Gender and Productivity in a Managed Care Setting

Physician productivity has been measured previously using a variety of different methods and has frequently been analyzed by gender. This study examined the role of gender and specialty on primary care physician productivity in a managed care setting. Because patient panel size more accurately reflects physician clinical contributions than patients seen per unit time, we have used a new measure of productivity: panel patients per hour (derived by dividing the panel size of each provider by the number of hours worked by that provider). The sample was composed of 133 primary care (family practice and pediatrics) physicians in a large western HMO. Analysis of variance revealed no effect of physician gender or specialty on productivity as measured by panel patients per hour. Although there was a statistically significant main effect of specialty on patients per hour (with pediatrics evidencing a higher level), the magnitude of the difference translated to a difference of only 15% of a single clinical visit per hour. Based on our data, we conclude that no gender differences in productivity among primary care physicians can be detected when appropriate analytic measures are used. We recommend that physician productivity in managed care settings be evaluated using panel patients per hour.

Gender differences in productivity and impact.

Gender differences in productivity and impact.

Gender differences in productivity and impact.

Gender differences in productivity and impact.