低薪工作或学习领域?当代欧洲劳动力市场中受过高等教育的员工的性别薪酬差距

IF 0.4 Q4 DEMOGRAPHY Population Review Pub Date : 2022-09-27 DOI:10.1353/prv.2022.0008
Tomáš Doseděl
{"title":"低薪工作或学习领域?当代欧洲劳动力市场中受过高等教育的员工的性别薪酬差距","authors":"Tomáš Doseděl","doi":"10.1353/prv.2022.0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract:This article examines the reasons for gender-based income inequalities of tertiary-educated people in European labour markets. In the 50 years since the adoption of the anti-discrimination law in many countries, several explanations for gender-based income inequalities have been proposed. Following a literature review, the author presents two hypotheses concerning the lower female income. Even after two massive expansions of the tertiary level of education, there are still male- and female-dominated fields of study. Hence, the first hypothesis suggests that women tend to enrol in less lucrative study fields. The second hypothesis proposes that women – regardless of their university study field – tend to work in less lucrative occupations. Using data from the European Union Labour Force Survey 2016 for 28 member countries, the author first confirms that women are structurally selected to different parts of the education system (i.e., different fields of study), and to different occupations. In the second part of the analysis, the author tests both hypotheses: gender segregation in the field of study has no negative impact on income, but the gender segregation of the occupation strongly impacts income. Therefore, the author rejects the first hypothesis, supports the second hypothesis, and concludes that – in contemporary European societies – income differences arise not in the education system but in the labour market.","PeriodicalId":43131,"journal":{"name":"Population Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-09-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Poorly paid jobs or study fields? Gender pay gap of tertiary-educated employees in contemporary European labour markets\",\"authors\":\"Tomáš Doseděl\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/prv.2022.0008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract:This article examines the reasons for gender-based income inequalities of tertiary-educated people in European labour markets. In the 50 years since the adoption of the anti-discrimination law in many countries, several explanations for gender-based income inequalities have been proposed. Following a literature review, the author presents two hypotheses concerning the lower female income. Even after two massive expansions of the tertiary level of education, there are still male- and female-dominated fields of study. Hence, the first hypothesis suggests that women tend to enrol in less lucrative study fields. The second hypothesis proposes that women – regardless of their university study field – tend to work in less lucrative occupations. Using data from the European Union Labour Force Survey 2016 for 28 member countries, the author first confirms that women are structurally selected to different parts of the education system (i.e., different fields of study), and to different occupations. In the second part of the analysis, the author tests both hypotheses: gender segregation in the field of study has no negative impact on income, but the gender segregation of the occupation strongly impacts income. Therefore, the author rejects the first hypothesis, supports the second hypothesis, and concludes that – in contemporary European societies – income differences arise not in the education system but in the labour market.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43131,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Population Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-09-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Population Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/prv.2022.0008\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"DEMOGRAPHY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Population Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/prv.2022.0008","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"DEMOGRAPHY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

摘要:本文探讨了欧洲劳动力市场中高等教育人群性别收入不平等的原因。在许多国家通过反歧视法以来的50年里,对基于性别的收入不平等提出了几种解释。在文献回顾之后,作者提出了两个关于女性收入较低的假设。即使在两次大规模的高等教育扩张之后,仍然有男性和女性主导的研究领域。因此,第一个假设表明,女性倾向于选择利润较低的研究领域。第二种假设认为,女性——不管她们的大学专业是什么——倾向于从事收入较低的职业。作者利用2016年欧盟28个成员国劳动力调查的数据,首先证实了女性在结构上被选择到教育系统的不同部分(即不同的学习领域)和不同的职业。在第二部分的分析中,作者检验了两个假设:研究领域的性别隔离对收入没有负面影响,但职业的性别隔离对收入的影响很大。因此,作者拒绝第一种假设,支持第二种假设,并得出结论:在当代欧洲社会,收入差异不是来自教育系统,而是来自劳动力市场。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Poorly paid jobs or study fields? Gender pay gap of tertiary-educated employees in contemporary European labour markets
Abstract:This article examines the reasons for gender-based income inequalities of tertiary-educated people in European labour markets. In the 50 years since the adoption of the anti-discrimination law in many countries, several explanations for gender-based income inequalities have been proposed. Following a literature review, the author presents two hypotheses concerning the lower female income. Even after two massive expansions of the tertiary level of education, there are still male- and female-dominated fields of study. Hence, the first hypothesis suggests that women tend to enrol in less lucrative study fields. The second hypothesis proposes that women – regardless of their university study field – tend to work in less lucrative occupations. Using data from the European Union Labour Force Survey 2016 for 28 member countries, the author first confirms that women are structurally selected to different parts of the education system (i.e., different fields of study), and to different occupations. In the second part of the analysis, the author tests both hypotheses: gender segregation in the field of study has no negative impact on income, but the gender segregation of the occupation strongly impacts income. Therefore, the author rejects the first hypothesis, supports the second hypothesis, and concludes that – in contemporary European societies – income differences arise not in the education system but in the labour market.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Population Review
Population Review DEMOGRAPHY-
CiteScore
1.30
自引率
14.30%
发文量
3
期刊介绍: Population Review publishes scholarly research that covers a broad range of social science disciplines, including demography, sociology, social anthropology, socioenvironmental science, communication, and political science. The journal emphasizes empirical research and strives to advance knowledge on the interrelationships between demography and sociology. The editor welcomes submissions that combine theory with solid empirical research. Articles that are of general interest to population specialists are also desired. International in scope, the journal’s focus is not limited by geography. Submissions are encouraged from scholars in both the developing and developed world. Population Review publishes original articles and book reviews. Content is published online immediately after acceptance.
期刊最新文献
Capital and Cohesion: A new perspective on the analysis of mortality differentials Disparities in Health Insurance and the Intersection of Race/Ethnicity, Sexuality, and Gender Identity Regional Innovation and Economic Transformation A Micro-Sociology of an Emerging Global City: Miami Third-child Fertility Intention in Morocco: Analysis of Determinants Using a Gender-intersectional Approach
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1