Advertisement

Gender differences in competition: gender equality and cost reduction policies

  • António OsórioEmail author
Original Paper
  • 19 Downloads

Abstract

This paper investigates the implications of the unequal division of the domestic labor in men and women’s participation and effort incentives in competitive relations, in which the labor market is the main example. We found that moderate levels of affirmative action (i.e., bias in favor of women) incentivize men and women to exert more effort and women’s participation. However, it cannot guarantee full participation and equal effort among men and women without inducing economic inefficiency or even distorting the labor market. Given these limitations, we consider the effects of an alternative policy that supports the men’s involvement in the domestic tasks. The main conclusion is that if we want men and women to have the same opportunities in the labor market, we must solve the household problem first. While women hold a larger share of the domestic labor, they are in a weaker position to compete with men. We expect that our findings will guide researchers and decision-makers implementing effective policies that can allow men and women to have the same labor market opportunities.

Keywords

Gender equality Affirmative action Cost reduction policies Efficiency Women participation 

JEL Classification

J16 J78 D63 C72 

Notes

Acknowledgements

I wish to thank to Steven Brams, Douglas Heckathorn, Lawrence Kahn, Ricardo Ribeiro and Juan Pablo Rincón-Zapatero, as well as several seminars and congresses participants for helpful comments and discussions. Support from the Spanish Ministerio of Ciencia y Innovación project ECO2016-75410-P and GRODE is gratefully acknowledged. The usual caveat applies.

References

  1. Adams J (1963) Towards an understanding of inequality. J Abnorm Norm Soc Psychol 67(5):422–436Google Scholar
  2. Albanesi S, Olivetti C (2009) Home production, market production and the gender wage gap: incentives and expectations. Rev Econ Dyn 12(1):80–107Google Scholar
  3. Altonji JG, Blank RM (1999) Race and gender in the labor market. Handb Labor Econ 3:3143–3259Google Scholar
  4. Athey S, Avery C, Zemsky P (2000) Mentoring and diversity. Am Econ Rev 90(4):765–786Google Scholar
  5. Bateup HS, Booth A, Shirtcliff EA, Granger DA (2002) Testosterone, cortisol, and women’s competition. Evol Hum Behav 23(3):181–192Google Scholar
  6. Becker GS (1985) Human capital, effort, and the sexual division of labor. J Labor Econ 3(1):S33–S58Google Scholar
  7. Becker PE, Moen P (1999) Scaling back: dual-earner couples’ work–family strategies. J Marriage Fam 61(4):995–1007Google Scholar
  8. Benschop Y, Halsema L, Schreurs P (2001) The division of labour and inequalities between the sexes: an ideological dilemma. Gender Work Organ 8(1):1–18Google Scholar
  9. Bertrand M, Hallock KF (2001) The gender gap in top corporate jobs. Ind Labor Relat Rev 55(1):3–21Google Scholar
  10. Bianchi SM (2000) Maternal employment and time with children: dramatic change or surprising continuity? Demography 37(4):401–414Google Scholar
  11. Bianchi SM, Milkie MA, Sayer LC, Robinson JP (2000) Is anyone doing the housework? Trends in the gender division of household labor. Soc Forces 79(1):191–228Google Scholar
  12. Bielby WT, Bielby DD (1989) Family ties: balancing commitments to work and family in dual earner households. Am Sociol Rev 54(5):776–789Google Scholar
  13. Bird CE (1999) Gender, household labor, and psychological distress: the impact of the amount and division of housework. J Health Soc Behav 40(1):32–45Google Scholar
  14. Blau FD, Kahn LM (2016) The gender wage gap: extent, trends, and explanations. Tech. rep., National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  15. Booth A, Nolen P (2012) Choosing to compete: how different are girls and boys? J Econ Behav Organ 81(2):542–555Google Scholar
  16. Coate S, Loury GC (1993) Will affirmative-action policies eliminate negative stereotypes? Am Econ Rev 83(5):1220–1240Google Scholar
  17. Croson R, Gneezy U (2009) Gender differences in preferences. J Econ Lit 47(2):448–474Google Scholar
  18. Cubel M, Sánchez-Pagés S (2017) Gender differences and stereotypes in strategic reasoning. Econ J 127(601):728–756Google Scholar
  19. Datta Gupta N, Poulsen A, Villeval MC (2013) Gender matching and competitiveness: experimental evidence. Econ Inq 51(1):816–835Google Scholar
  20. Davis SN, Greenstein TN (2009) Gender ideology: components, predictors, and consequences. Annu Rev Sociol 35(1):87–105Google Scholar
  21. Dohmen T, Falk A (2011) Performance pay and multidimensional sorting: productivity, preferences, and gender. Am Econ Rev 101(2):556–590Google Scholar
  22. Fain JR (2009) Affirmative action can increase effort. J Labor Res 30(2):168–175Google Scholar
  23. Flory JA, Gneezy U, Leonard K, List J et al (2018) Gender, age, and competition: a disappearing gap? J Econ Behav Organ 150:256–276Google Scholar
  24. Franke J (2012) Affirmative action in contest games. Eur J Polit Econ 28(1):105–118Google Scholar
  25. Frisco ML, Williams K (2003) Perceived housework equity, marital happiness, and divorce in dual-earner households. J Fam Issues 24(1):51–73Google Scholar
  26. Fu Q (2006) A theory of affirmative action in college admissions. Econ Inq 44(3):420–428Google Scholar
  27. Gneezy U, Rustichini A (2004) Gender and competition at a young age. Am Econ Rev 94(2):377–381Google Scholar
  28. Gneezy U, Niederle M, Rustichini A (2003) Performance in competitive environments: gender differences. Q J Econ 118(3):1049–1074Google Scholar
  29. Gneezy U, Leonard KL, List JA (2009) Gender differences in competition: evidence from a matrilineal and a patriarchal society. Econometrica 77(5):1637–1664Google Scholar
  30. Goldin C, Rouse C (2000) Orchestrating impartiality: the impact of “blind” auditions on female musicians. Am Econ Rev 90(4):715–741Google Scholar
  31. Gornick JC, Meyers MK (2003) Families that work: policies for reconciling parenthood and employment. Russell Sage Foundation, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  32. Greenhaus JH, Beutell NJ (1985) Sources of conflict between work and family roles. Acad Manag Rev 10(1):76–88Google Scholar
  33. Greenstein TN (2000) Economic dependence, gender, and the division of labor in the home: a replication and extension. J Marriage Fam 62(2):322–335Google Scholar
  34. Grossbard-Shechtman SA (1984) A theory of allocation of time in markets for labour and marriage. Econ J 94(376):863–82Google Scholar
  35. Hewlett S, Luce C (2005) Off-ramps and on-ramps: keeping talented women on the road to success. Harv Bus Rev 83(3):43–54Google Scholar
  36. Holzer H, Neumark D (2000) Assessing affirmative action. J Econ Lit 38(3):483–568Google Scholar
  37. Holzer H, Neumark D (2006) Affirmative action: what do we know? J Policy Anal Manag 25(2):463–490Google Scholar
  38. Ivanova-Stenzel R, Kübler D (2011) Gender differences in team work and team competition. J Econ Psychol 32(5):797–808Google Scholar
  39. Lennon MC, Rosenfield S (1994) Relative fairness and the division of housework: the importance of options. Am J Sociol 100(2):506–531Google Scholar
  40. Lorber J (1994) Paradoxes of gender. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  41. Lundberg SJ (1991) The enforcement of equal opportunity laws under imperfect information: affirmative action and alternatives. Q J Econ 106(1):309–326Google Scholar
  42. Lundberg S, Pollak RA (1996) Bargaining and distribution in marriage. J Econ Perspect 10(4):139–158Google Scholar
  43. Nakamura M, Akiyoshi M (2015) What determines the perception of fairness regarding household division of labor between spouses? PloS ONE 10(7):1–17Google Scholar
  44. Niederle M, Vesterlund L (2007) Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much? Q J Econ 122(3):1067–1101Google Scholar
  45. Niederle M, Vesterlund L (2011) Gender and competition. Annu Rev Econ 3:601–630Google Scholar
  46. Niederle M, Segal C, Vesterlund L (2013) How costly is diversity? Affirmative action in light of gender differences in competitiveness. Manag Sci 59(1):1–16Google Scholar
  47. Olsen W, Heuvelman H, Gash V, Vandecasteele L, Walthery P (2010) The gender pay gap in the UK 1995–2007. Government Equalities OfficeGoogle Scholar
  48. Pascall G, Lewis J (2004) Emerging gender regimes and policies for gender equality in a wider Europe. J Soc Policy 33(3):373–394Google Scholar
  49. Presser HB (1994) Employment schedules among dual-earner spouses and the division of household labor by gender. Am Sociol Rev 59(3):348–364Google Scholar
  50. Reynolds J (2005) In the face of conflict: work–life conflict and desired work hour adjustments. J Marriage Fam 67(5):1313–1331Google Scholar
  51. Ross C, Mirowsky J, Huber J (1983) Dividing work, sharing work, and in-between: marriage patterns and depression. Am Sociol Rev 48(6):809–823Google Scholar
  52. Schieman S, Milkie MA, Glavin P (2009) When work interferes with life: Work–nonwork interference and the influence of work-related demands and resources. Am Sociol Rev 74(6):966–988Google Scholar
  53. Schotter A, Weigelt K et al (1992) Asymmetric tournaments, equal opportunity laws, and affirmative action: some experimental results. Q J Econ 107(2):511–539Google Scholar
  54. Shelton BA, John D (1996) The division of household labor. Annu Rev Sociol 22(1):299–322Google Scholar
  55. Sowell T (2004) Affirmative action around the world: an empirical study. Yale University Press, New HavenGoogle Scholar
  56. Tausig M, Fenwick R (2001) Unbinding time: alternate work schedules and work–life balance. J Fam Econ Issues 22(2):101–119Google Scholar
  57. Tullock G (1980) Efficient rent seeking. In: Buchanan JM, Tollison R, Tullock G (eds) Towards a theory of a rent-seeking society. Texas A&M University Press, College Station, pp 97–112Google Scholar
  58. Vandegrift D, Brown P (2005) Gender differences in the use of high-variance strategies in tournament competition. J Socio Econ 34(6):834–849Google Scholar
  59. Vandegrift D, Yavas A (2009) Men, women, and competition: an experimental test of behavior. J Econ Behav Organ 72(1):554–570Google Scholar
  60. Vierling-Claassen A (2013) Division of labor in child care: a game-theoretic approach. Ration Soc 25(2):198–228Google Scholar
  61. Welch F (1976) Employment quotas for minorities. J Polit Econ 84(4):S105–S141Google Scholar
  62. Wunderink S, Niehoff M (1997) Division of household labour: facts and judgements. De Economist 145(3):399–419Google Scholar
  63. Youm Y, Laumann EO (2003) The effect of structural embeddedness on the division of household labor: a game-theoretic model using a network approach. Ration Soc 15(2):243–280Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversitat Rovira i Virgili (Department of Economics) and CREIPReus/TarragonaSpain

Personalised recommendations