Download full text
(1.553Mb)
Citation Suggestion
Please use the following Persistent Identifier (PID) to cite this document:
https://nbn-resolving.org/urn:nbn:de:0168-ssoar-78837-5
Exports for your reference manager
How rankings disguise gender inequality: a comparative analysis of cross-country gender equality rankings based on adjusted wage gaps
[journal article]
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 whe... view more
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.... view less
Keywords
ranking; inequality; affirmative action; wage difference; gender-specific factors; EU
Classification
Women's Studies, Feminist Studies, Gender Studies
Labor Market Research
Free Keywords
EU-SILC 2013
Document language
English
Publication Year
2020
Page/Pages
p. 1-21
Journal
PLOS ONE, 15 (2020) 11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0241107
ISSN
1932-6203
Status
Published Version; peer reviewed