Gender Inequality Greater at Lower or Higher

¶ … gender inequality greater at lower or higher educational levels? The authors of this paper are Evertsson, England, Mooi-Reci, Hermsen, de Bruijn, and Cotter. The paper was published by the Oxford University Press. It was found on Google Scholar.

My motivation for selecting this paper was that the subject matter is of personal interest to me. I feel that pay inequality between the genders is not only an issue that should not persist in the 21st century, but makes for a fascinating component of gender studies in general, because it transcends all cultures and times. In fact, the paper I am studying covers multiple countries, including two known for their relative degrees of gender neutrality. It is important to understand as much as we can about this issue if we are to eliminate it. This paper helps with just that -- it adds to the rich body of research on the subject, lending insight to those of us who have an interest in identifying the key issues at play and eliminating them from society.

There has been extensive research in the past on this subject. The authors begin by outlining past research on a number of topics that help to frame their argument, covering different potential explanations for the gap, and evidence of the gap. There were a number of studies that pertained to the countries and demographics in question in the article, so the authors did a good job in summarizing the extensive prior research on the subject, and their study was born out of a desire to compare this phenomenon across cultures.

Body

Reverse causality models imply causal relationships that are the reverse of what might be expected (Blau & Kahn, 2003). In this instance, for example, we might see that higher levels of social equality lead to higher levels of wage inequality. Another example would be that women take fewer well-paying jobs because of various factors and this is why they earn less money. Many studies focus on reverse causality relationships for this subject, in many cases to debunk common arguments made in defense of the wage gap (Neckerman, 2004).

Economic arguments are also made, sometimes incorporating reverse causality theories. One common argument, for example, is that the cost of labor is directly related to the supply of labor, and the quality of the labor available in the market. Production would decline if policies were implemented to address gender wage inequality, it is commonly argued. Profits would fall because workers would be paid more than they are paid on the open market. Companies might also hire fewer women, it is argued. Yet the article I am studying highlights some critical factors that are not covered with the usual economic theories. The provision of state child care is shown to have an impact, because it allows women to miss less time at work after a pregnancy, thereby allowing them to maintain their skills.

Such a move would impact, for example, the supply of women in the workforce and their value to a corporate by virtue of having less child-related career disruption. The labor market is fluid with few barriers to either entry or exit, and this is sometimes taken into account with the research, noting that exiting the workforce makes it more difficult for a woman to return ot the workforce without some sacrifice in pay. Laws that lowered parental leave times, or balanced parental leave between the genders, would contribute to an environment where regulatory equality would be better able to equate to equality in pay.

Legislation aimed at eliminating gender wage inequality needs to focus on changing the economics of the labor markets. In the short run, more women in the workforce (or fewer men) would disrupt the supply of labor, decreasing wages for all. In the long run, however, the market would find a new equilibrium point. If the inputs -- specifically with respect to career-disrupting events like child-raising -- are equal between the genders, then the outputs (wages) should be equalized as well.

By using reverse causality, the different theories about the wage gap can be eliminated, leaving only employer discrimination as a key theory remaining. Ultimately, this is more difficult to address, because it is not related to rational economics. When employers limit their labor pools through discrimination, they must pay more than for labor, taking the market out of a state of equilibrium. With fully equal labor market participation, the labor market can find a sustainable long-run equilibrium point.

Conclusion