nep-gen New Economics Papers
on Gender
Issue of 2018‒01‒08
five papers chosen by
Jan Sauermann
Stockholms universitet

  1. Gender Quota and Inequalities inside the Boardroom By Antoine Rebérioux; Gwenael Roudaut
  2. Advice from Women and Men and Selection into Competition By Jordi Brandts; Cristina Rott
  3. Do Gender Preference Gaps Impact Policy Outcomes? By Eva Ranehill; Roberto A. Weber
  4. Masculine vs Feminine Personality Traits and Women's Employment Outcomes in Britain: A Field Experiment By Drydakis, Nick; Sidiropoulou, Katerina; Patnaik, Swetketu; Selmanovic, Sandra; Bozani, Vasiliki
  5. Entitled Women – but Not Men – Make Tougher Strategic Demands as Proposers in the Ultimatum Game By Elif E. Demiral; Johanna Mollerstrom

  1. By: Antoine Rebérioux (EconomiX - UPN - Université Paris Nanterre - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique); Gwenael Roudaut (Department of Economics, Ecole Polytechnique - Polytechnique - X - CNRS - Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique)
    Abstract: – This paper examines the evolution of within-board gender inequality following the adoption of a board-level gender quota for French listed companies in 2011. We show that the quota has succeeded in opening the doors of boardrooms to new, unseasoned women, who present distinctive characteristics. However, conditional on these characteristics, we provide evidence that female new comers are less likely that their male counterparts (both seasoned and new comers) to hold key positions within boards (namely, audit, compensation and nominating committee membership and chairing). This positional segregation is the main driver of a within-firm gender fees gap that amounts to 5.5% post-quota, as against 3.3% pre-quota.
    Keywords: gender inequality,board gender quota,board committees,gender fees gap
    Date: 2017–10–18
  2. By: Jordi Brandts; Cristina Rott
    Abstract: We study how gender matching affects the impact of advice on men’s and women’s entry into a real-effort tournament and how advice varies with gender and gender matching. We analyze the impact as well as the content and justification of advice. Our results show that gender pairings do not affect the impact of advice. With respect to the advice process we find that for medium performers women are less likely to reccommend entry than men, and that women give worse advice. Men are more reluctant to weaken women’s than men’s confidence in their success.
    Keywords: experiments, advice, gender gap in competitiveness
    JEL: C91 J08 J16
    Date: 2017–12
  3. By: Eva Ranehill; Roberto A. Weber
    Abstract: Many studies document systematic gender differences in a variety of important economic preferences, such as risk-taking, competition and pro-sociality. One potential implication of this literature is that increased female representation in decision-making bodies may significantly alter organizational and policy outcomes. However, research has yet to establish a direct connection from gender differences in simple economic choice tasks, to voting over policy and to the resulting outcomes. We conduct a laboratory experiment to provide a test of such a connection. In small laboratory “societies,” people repeatedly vote for a redistribution policy and engage in a real-effort production task. Women persistently vote for more egalitarian redistribution. This gender difference is large relative to other voting differences based on observable characteristics and is partly explained by gender gaps in preferences and beliefs. Gender voting gaps persist with experience and in environments with varying degrees of risk. We also observe policy differences between male- and female-controlled groups, though these are considerably smaller than the mean individual differences—a natural consequence of the aggregation of individual preferences into collective outcomes. Thus, we provide evidence for why substantial and robust gender differences in preferences may often fail to translate into differential policy outcomes with increased female representation in policymaking.
    Keywords: gender differences, risk, altruism, redistributive preferences, experiment
    JEL: C91 C92 J16 H23
    Date: 2017
  4. By: Drydakis, Nick (Anglia Ruskin University); Sidiropoulou, Katerina (Anglia Ruskin University); Patnaik, Swetketu (Anglia Ruskin University); Selmanovic, Sandra (Anglia Ruskin University); Bozani, Vasiliki (University of Cyprus)
    Abstract: In the current study, we utilized a correspondent test to capture the way in which firms respond to women who exhibit masculine and feminine personality traits. In doing so, we minimized the potential for reverse causality bias and unobserved heterogeneities to occur. Women who exhibit masculine personality traits have a 4.3 percentage points greater likelihood of gaining access to occupations than those displaying feminine personality traits. In both male- and female-dominated occupations, women with masculine personality traits have an occupational access advantage, as compared to those exhibiting feminine personality traits. Moreover, women with masculine personality traits take up positions which offer 10 percentage points higher wages, in comparison with those displaying feminine personality traits. Furthermore, wage premiums are higher for those exhibiting masculine personality traits in male-dominated occupations, than for female-dominated positions. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first field experiment to examine the effect of masculine and feminine personality traits on entry-level pay scales. As feminine personality traits are stereotypically attributed to women, and these characteristics appear to yield fewer rewards within the market, they may offer one of many plausible explanations as to why women experience higher unemployment rates, whilst also receiving lower earnings, as compared to men.
    Keywords: masculine traits, feminine traits, occupational access, wages, field experiment
    JEL: J16 J31
    Date: 2017–11
  5. By: Elif E. Demiral; Johanna Mollerstrom
    Abstract: In a laboratory experiment subjects are matched in pairs and interact in an Ultimatum Game. In the Entitlement treatment, the right to be the proposer is allocated to the personin the pair who performed better in a previously conducted math task. Compared to behavior in the control treatment, where the roles are randomly allocated, the proposers increase their strategic demands and offer a smaller share of the pie to the responder in the Entitlement treatment. This result is drivenentirely by female proposers; when earning their role, they significantly lower their offers, whereas male proposers do not behave differently than when roles are randomly allocated. This is in line with previous research suggesting that women are more sensitive to contextual factors and social cues, meaning that strengthening feelings of entitlement could be a way to decrease gender differences innegotiation behavior.
    Date: 2017

This nep-gen issue is ©2018 by Jan Sauermann. It is provided as is without any express or implied warranty. It may be freely redistributed in whole or in part for any purpose. If distributed in part, please include this notice.
General information on the NEP project can be found at For comments please write to the director of NEP, Marco Novarese at <>. Put “NEP” in the subject, otherwise your mail may be rejected.
NEP’s infrastructure is sponsored by the School of Economics and Finance of Massey University in New Zealand.