Looking for Parity in the Gender Pay Gap - Essay Example

?Looking for ‘Parity’ in the Gender Pay Gap Introduction Researchers have reported that much of the basis of the gender pay gap depends on the pervasiveness of gender segregation. The gender pay gap is essential for it remains an integral contributor to gender inequality. The gender pay gap remains a major hindrance to gender equality. There are a number of theoretical explanations of this phenomenon that help identify the various forces contributing to the gender segregation process. These theories can be classified into three: institutional, structural, and individual. This essay discusses these three theories, but it is the contention of the author that no particular explanation is adequate to completely give explanation for the presence of gender segregation. Every theory provides a distinctive explanation of how gender segregation works. The first section briefly discusses the historical roots of gender pay gap, particularly in the UK. The discussion then focuses on the theories, the supply- and demand-side. Basically, this essay critically assesses the argument that gender pay gap is fair in that it reflects the differing work and care priorities of men and women. Historical Roots of Gender Pay Gap In the 1940s, the post-war welfare state in the UK was rooted in the idea that men are the breadwinner while women are the housekeepers. Both the occupational system and the benefit system relied on this idea of a male breadwinner. Nevertheless, the idea was subjected to heavy scrutiny in the 1960s and 1970s, driven by the evolving labour market conditions and by the demands of the Women’s Movement (Bagilhole, 2009, p. 11). By the 1990s, women were already entering the labour market, and alongside was the emergence of the gender pay gap. The very first gender-based employment legislation was the Sex Disqualification Act, which was ratified in 1919 (Morris & O’Donnel, 1999, p. 91). Even though this legislation was supported by advocates of equal rights, its useful impacts were negligible. According to Shackleton (2008), it was only during the post-war years, after a substantial growth in the number of women in the labour market, that major instruments of redress were deliberated, endorsed and implemented. Supply Side Theories: Individual Researchers have discovered several individual, structural and institutional factors the influence the gender pay gap (GPG). The differences between the occupational profile of men and women, the comparative gap between full-time and part-time employment, and the level of participation of women in the labour market are commonly emphasised as having a considerable effect on the GPG (Grimshaw & Rubery, 2007; Blau & Kahn, 2001). The discourse on the importance of individual objectives against structural limitations has an extensive history in the social sciences. This section discusses two theories of gender wage inequality: Hakim’s Preference theory/Rational Choice and the Human Capital theory. Hakim disputes what she believes is the prevailing feminist perspective on the patterns of female employment. She believes that part-time employment or career breaks are decisions made by women willingly because of their obligations at home and the inadequate availability of childcare services (Davis, Evans, & Lorber, 2006). Instead, the underprivileged position of women in the labour market manifests the consequences of their changing work preferences. Hakim explains that both men and women are the driving forces in their own lives, hence “self-classification as a primary earner or secondary earner is determined by chosen identities, rather than imposed by external circumstance or particular jobs” (Davis et al., 2006, p. 255). Basically, the core assumption of Hakim is that the employment experiences of women are mostly the outcome of these women’s decisions. Hakim illustrates, more accurately, that part-time employment is preferred by women, referred to as ‘grateful slaves’, mostly committed to their domestic obligations. On the contrary, ‘self-made women’, who are mostly geared towards their work careers, prefer full-time employment and challenging jobs resembling that of men (Browne, 2006, p. 42). Hakim afterwards identifies three categories of women’s work orientations. Besides the renamed ‘work-centred’ and ‘home-centred’ women, she brings in the ‘adaptive women’. Not like home-centred women, adaptive women choose employment; but not like work-centred women, they are not career-oriented. Hakim argues that these three classifications demonstrate female diversity that is manifested in the labour market (Hakim, 1996). She believes that the disadvantaged or lower occupational status of most women is a manifestation of their lower levels of productivity and human capital. Hakim believes that it is the inability of women to organise themselves and the absence of collective consciousness that results in a rupturing of women’s ‘commitment to their work careers (Farrell, 2005). This is basically the reason why women in general are disadvantaged in the labour market (Hakim, 1996, p. 211): Male solidarity wins because women dither in their judgments, because they are swayed by the dominant male voice and also because women are divided in their preferences and interests. The key reason why male solidarity and male organisation are so effective is that women are diverse and divided. If men are the enemy, women make a hopeless adversary. However, Hakim’s assumptions have been broadly criticised. Her theory appears to be more a categorisation of the types of women derived from studied patterns of labour market participation. In fact, she did not explain why women are classified under a specific category, or why do women have different work orientations. Although she is correct in her observation that for a number of women a high-paying occupation is not more meaningful or appealing than a routine focused on domestic obligations or part-time employment, she places poor emphasis on women who are not willing parts of the adaptive or home-centred categories (Brown, 2006, pp. 42-43). She fails to evaluate the weaknesses of domestic and employment policy, both of which could hinder the work opportunities for women. Even though Hakim acknowledges the diversity of women, it is apparent that by focusing on the orientation or preferences of women instead of considering an adequate evaluation of constraints on choice, she fails to consider women’s varied experiences. As argued by Crompton and Harris, “sociological explanations relating to women’s employment patterns cannot rest upon a simplistic reduction to the argument that they are due to the fact that there are different ‘types’ of women” (Browne, 2006, p. 43). On the other hand, the human capital theory sees employment systems as outcomes of personal investment in education or other occupational factors. Individuals who have greater investments in human capital have better work opportunities; those who fail to make sufficient human capital investments have lesser work chances and inferior positions in the labour market (Hersch, 2007). This theory argues that the economic structure is just and that wage gaps indicate individual differences that employees have. The theory’s argument that gender pay gap is determined by differences in the experience, age, and education of men and women is largely supported by empirical findings. Nevertheless, when men and women at the same educational level, number of working hours, and previous experience are compared, women still have a lower salary than men (Andersen & Taylor, 2007; Blau & Kahn, 2001). Even though human capital theory illustrates several of the differences between the salaries of men and women, it fails to identify all the differences. Human capital theory has been disputed for its interpretation of gender pay gap. The theory states men have better or higher paying jobs than women because they made a greater investment in human capital resources. The theory disregards social structural forces that would clarify disparities in women’s and men’s possession of and access to human capital, as well as the classification of men and women across wage and work groups (Chant, 2011). It also overlooks unfair practices that discourage or have discouraged women from completely acquiring the returns from their human capital investments. In addition, the theory would argue that the distribution of members of the labour market across part-time and full-time jobs, especially the unbalanced number of women in part-time occupations, is an outcome of human capital investment as well (Andersen & Taylor, 2007; Scott, Crompton, & Lyonette, 2010). This assumption disregards social structural variables, particularly the gender-based labour division in the domestic sphere, which would clarify disparities in participation in full-time jobs. Human capital theory has been questioned by sociologists as well. Above all, labour market opportunities are unequal for male and female drop-outs or school-leavers (Bagilhole, 2009). Also, work privileges or benefits are not based entirely on economic factors like supply and demand, and human capital theory fails to take into account non-economic factors like domestic power relations and patriarchy. And, lastly, women who did not take any career breaks remain at the bottom of the pay scale compared to men. Even when men and women have the same jobs with the same credentials, international figures reveal that women still get lower wages than men and have lesser labour market mobility (Burnette, 2008). These disparities cannot be ascribed to the lower educational attainment of women, because countries with a large population of literate females do not automatically have lesser pay inequalities (Scott et al., 2010). Hence human capital theory is discredited by empirical findings from international studies, and considered an inadequate description of the roots of gender segregation. Demand Side Theories: Employer and Workplace Occupational gender segregation is one of the most widely used interpretations of the gender pay gap, where in women have a tendency to be in low-paying jobs. Segregation is usually defined as either ‘horizontal’, where women are hired in various and mostly low-paying jobs, or ‘vertical’, where men are placed in well-paid and professional positions in the same job (Browne, 2006, p. 6). As stated by Smith (2003), salaries are likely to be low in ‘female’ jobs because the higher frequency of discriminatory practices in the labour market and part-time employment opportunities can lead to an excessive availability of female workers for these occupations. Generally, occupational gender segregation is attributed to the rigidity of institutional systems that hamper competition within the labour market and organisations. Institutional scholars claim that occupational gender segregation is not the outcome of the discriminatory practices of the employer but of established systems of employment holding back market forces (Browne, 2006; Women and Work Commission, 2006). The major idea is that labour markets can be partitioned into distinct segments according to levels of education, promotion rates, payment, and so on. The segments operate quite autonomously because the labour market and occupations are segregated by demand-side, such as wages and educational demands, and by supply-side, such as work orientations and occupational skills. Within this perspective, according to Figart and Kahn (1997), occupational gender segregation develops because men tend to acquire better occupations in the primary sector, whilst women are more likely to get low-paid occupations in the secondary sector. Gender-based segregation is the outcome of employers’ particular recruitment techniques intended to reduce employment costs. Discrimination in Grading and Payment System Previous discriminatory theories about the importance or worth of women’s or men’s work may be manifested in existing grading systems. Women and men may have different job titles even though they are doing the same work, and as a result be in different grades, with the work of women being placed at a lower grade. They may also have different, but equally valuable, jobs, and yet women are still placed at a lower grade (Cohn, 2000). Therefore, the grading system may not be able to value women’s and men’s work and lead to discrimination. Likewise, payment systems tend to be formulated to reward jobs usually related to men’s work and do not acknowledge the diverse ‘female’ employment patterns. Generally, the discriminatory practices in the design of pay systems are hidden or indirect (Fine, 2013). This takes place where pay contracts and policies seem to be unbiased between women and men, but the consequence of their implementation is to marginalise significantly more women than men. Pay systems, according to Farrell (2005), can be biased when the grade boundaries are rooted entirely in factors which could strengthen current inequalities, common job descriptions poorly consider major differences between the roles of men and women, a systematic job assessment system is not utilised to identify grades or distribute works according to grades, and market-based wage levels reinforce gender discrimination in the marketplace. Stereotyping (perception of women as second earners) Men have higher wages than women because of established stereotypes; specifically, high earnings may be attributed to a common stereotype of men. Even though no empirical findings have conclusively associate money with the male stereotype, numerous researchers discursively show how money is related to male stereotype (Drolet & Mumford, 2012). For instance, both women and men are paid less for carrying out a work that is classified ‘feminine’. Gender stereotypes of primary and secondary earners stem from people’s perceptions of women performing mostly domestic tasks, and of men acting as breadwinners (Burnette, 2008). Similarly, it is assumed that individuals link masculinity with money, perhaps as an outcome of seeing men earn and handle personal earnings. Gender stereotypes have profound implications for the gender pay gap. For instance, gender stereotypes may affect an initial salary offer of an employer to a male applicant, or the perception of a female college graduate of the pay she can correctly demand (Hersch, 2007). Most people are not likely to show an unequivocal belief that males must be given a higher salary than females; to do so would go against social rules against gender discrimination. Yet, people who routinely connect the notions of masculinity and earnings may choose discriminatory pay schemes unconsciously. Low valuation of women’s productive activity Women are the favoured workers in industries that operate at the global arena and confront the urgent need to reduce cost. Women are employed more frequently than men in these industries, because the wages of women are lower than those of men. This gender pay disparity gives employers an opportunity to reduce cost, without massive productivity loss provided that women are placed only at low-paying, low-skill occupations (Adams, Carter, & Schafer, 2006). As stated by the Equal Pay Task Force (2001), gender research strongly proves that women are mostly located in the lowest possible types of production, both in subcontracted job and paid employment. Women in general are paid less than men in almost all developed countries. Yet, there are countless questions regarding its sources. There is an argument that women and men generally are similarly productive. Within a valid system they must hence acquire similar wages (Fine, 2013). But the most widespread belief is that women are less productive than men, and so women should receive lesser pay. It is very difficult to pass judgment on these two contrasting arguments. No reconciliation is possible plainly because the core factor, which is productivity, is very difficult to quantify. Low valuation and visibility of skill and status The economic importance attributed to women’s work is assumed to be a major factor determining gender pay gap (Great Britain, 2005). The observation that female occupations are under-valued is extensively cited in the literature. For instance, one research said (Figart & Kahn, 1997, p. 22): Influence of prejudices and stereotypes on job evaluation methods serves to reinforce and maintain gender pay disparities... traditional job evaluation methods overlooking or undervaluing important aspects of female jobs. Basically, the skills of women are not acknowledged by grading and pay systems and therefore there is almost no opportunity for promotion or career advancement. Even where the skills of women are acknowledged they are still under-valued (Khoreva, 2011). Valuation remains focused on masculine work. According to Tomlinson (2011), the belief that the skills of women are ‘innate’ brings about their under-valuation. Employer’s bargaining power Women’s and men’s preferences and performance in the labour market vary along numerous aspects. Gender differences are present in bargaining results and wage-bargaining strategies. It is discovered that women get lower salary offers from employers and demand lower salaries themselves (Heery, 2006). Employers have the advantage of bargaining for lower wages because of a high supply of female labour. Gender differences were also identified in the application of bargaining techniques. Women seldom promote themselves (Heery, 2006). If the economic rewards are lower for women, then women may prefer jobs where in competition or aggressive bargaining techniques are not highly valued. Self-promoting techniques are recognised by employers. But women get a lesser compensation compared with men from a similar self-promoting technique. The lower reward for self-promotion discourages women to use aggressive bargaining techniques (Davis et al., 2006). Thus, this may shed light on the reason why women avoid getting involved in competitive or high-paid jobs. Undervaluation Gender-based pay discrimination is tied to the undervaluation of female occupation. Traditionally it was assumed that the earnings of women were not the primary source of family income, and thus women’s salaries could be lower than men’s wages (Lewis & Smee, 2009). Sooner or later, employers replaced male employees with females in order to reduce labour costs. Teaching and clerical jobs are examples of occupations that were filled by women; as a result, women’s work became undervalued. This leads to lower wage rates for women. When females are the majority in a minority of jobs, they get lower salaries (Shackleton, 2008; Thornley, 2007). Female occupations are largely undervalued because they are believed to manifest ‘feminine’ qualities, rather than learned capabilities and skills. Undervaluation of female occupations reveals an array of industrial, historical, and social forces (Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency, n.d., p. 2): “inappropriate classification structures, inadequate recognition of qualifications, the absence of previous work value assessments, and the inadequate application of previous equal pay principles”. Conclusions Men and women across the globe perform different kinds of salaried jobs. But the question is does this disparity have to bear adverse repercussions? Is gender pay inequality naturally wrong? The connection between work and gender becomes a never-ending dilemma, where because males perform particular jobs, these jobs are viewed as well-matched to men’s skills, and hence men will keep on performing what is established as men’s work. This widespread practice of gender segregation makes the notion of equal pay appealing in general, but very hard to support in actual practice. It is a fact that women and men very seldom perform the same type of job, so how can equal work for equal pay be justified? The differences that are institutionalised by gender segregation facilitate the justification of the gender pay gap by ascertaining two quite distinct employment domains for men and women. Men’s work is compensated in accordance to their position within the ladder of men’s employment, and women’s work is compensated in accordance to their position within the ladder of women’s employment. The validity of this arrangement is easily justifiable within the framework of gender pay gap. References Adams, L. Carter, K., & Schafer, S. (2006) Equal pay reviews survey 2005, Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) Working Paper Series no. 42. Manchester: EOC. Andersen, M. & Taylor, H.F. (2007) Sociology with Infotrac: Understanding a Diverse Society, Casebound. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning. Bagilhole, B. (2009) Understanding Equal Opportunities and Diversity: The Social Differentiations and Intersections of Inequality. UK: The Policy Press. Blau, F. & Kahn, L. (2001) “The Gender Pay Gap”, NBER Reporter, 8. Browne, J. (2006) Sex Segregation and Inequality in the Modern Labour Market. UK: The Policy Press. Burnette, J. (2008) Gender, Work and Wages in Industrial Revolution in Britain. UK: Cambridge University Press. Chant, S. (2011) The International Handbook of Gender and Poverty: Concepts, Research, Policy. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Cohn, S. (2000) Race and Gender Discrimination at Work. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Davis, K., Evans, M., & Lorber, J. (2006) Handbook of Gender and Women’s Studies. London: Sage. Drolet, M. & Mumford, K. (2012) “The gender pay gap for private sector employees in Canada and Britain”, British Journal of Industrial Relations 50, 529-553. Equal Opportunity for Women in the Workplace Agency, n.d., Gender Pay Gap: The Facts, Why It is Important and What Actions can be Taken. [online] Available at: < http://www.wgea.gov.au/Pay_Equity/Pay_Equity_Information/Gender_Pay_Gap_The_Facts.pdf> Equal Pay Task Force, 2001, Just Pay (Manchester: Equal Opportunities Commission). [online] Available at: Farrell, W. (2005) Why Men Earn More: The Startling Truth behind the Pay Gap—and What Women Can do about It. New York: AMACOM. Figart, D. & Kahn, P. (1997) Contesting the Market: Pay Equity and the Politics of Economic Restructuring. Detroit, Michigan: Wayne State University Press. Fine, B. (2013) Labour Market Theory: A Constructive Reassessment. London: Routledge. Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Trade and Industry Committee (2005) Jobs for the Girls: The Effect of Occupational Segregation on the Gender Pay Gap; Sixteenth Report of Session 2004-05. London: The Stationery Office. Grimshaw, D. & Rubery, J., 2007, Undervaluing Women’s Work (Manchester: Equal Opportunities Commission). [online] Available at: Hakim, C. (1996) Key Issues in Women’s Work: Female Heterogeneity and the Polarisation of Women’s Employment. UK: Continuum International Publishing Group. Heery, E. (2006) “Equality Bargaining: Where, Who, Why?” Gender, work and organisation 13(6), 522-542. Hersch, J. (2007) Sex Discrimination in the Labour Market. Hanover, MA: Now Publishers Inc. Khoreva, V. (2011) “Gender pay gap and its perceptions”, Equality, diversity and inclusion: an international journal 30(3), 233-248. Lewis, R. & Smee, S., 2009, Closing the gap: does transparency hold the key to unlocking pay inequality. [online] Available at: Morris, A. & O’Donnel, T. (1999) Feminist Perspectives on Employment Law. London: Routledge. Scott, J., Crompton, R., & Lyonette, C. (2010) Gender Inequalities in the 21st Century: New Barriers and Continuing Constraints. UK: Edward Elgar Publishing. Shackleton, J.R. (2008) Should we Mind the Gap? Gender Pay Differentials and Public Policy. California: Institute of Economic Affairs. Smith, S. (2003) Labour Economics. London: Routledge. Thornley, C. (2007) “Working part-time for the State, Gender, Class and the Public Sector Pay Gap”, Gender, work and organisation 14(5), 454-475. Tomlinson, J. (2011) “Gender equality and the state: a review of objectives, policies and progress in the European Union”, International Journal of Human Resource Management 22(18), 3755-3774. Women and Work Commission (2006) Shaping a fairer future. London: Women and Equality Unit. Read More