nep-gen New Economics Papers
on Gender
Issue of 2019‒12‒02
two papers chosen by
Jan Sauermann
Stockholms universitet

  1. Is the pay of medical specialists in New Zealand gender biased? By Isabelle Sin; Bronwyn Bruce-Brand
  2. As California goes, so goes the nation? The impact of board gender quotas on firm performance and the director labor market By Felix von Meyerinck; Alexandra Niessen-Ruenzi; Markus Schmid; Steven Davidoff Solomon

  1. By: Isabelle Sin (Motu Economic and Public Policy Research); Bronwyn Bruce-Brand (Motu Economic and Public Policy Research)
    Abstract: We use individual-level data from the 2013 New Zealand Census combined with administrative income data from the tax system to estimate the gender gap in hourly pay for the population of medical specialists employed in the New Zealand public health system. Unionisation of these doctors is 90 percent, and their union’s MECA specifies their pay rates, which should limit the opportunities for a gender pay gap to arise. Nevertheless, we find that in their public health system employment female specialists earn an average of 12.5 percent less than their male counterparts of the same age, with the same specialty, and who work the same number of hours each week. This wage gap is larger for older ages, among those who work fewer hours each week, and for parents. Controlling for gender differences in experience at the same age decreases the estimated gender wage gap by no more than 20 percent. Our findings are consistent with male medical specialists being placed on higher salary steps than equally experienced female specialists, or males disproportionately receiving additional payments beyond the MECA minimum.
    Keywords: gender wage gap, gender pay gap, gender inequality, medical specialists, doctors, District Health Boards, New Zealand, Association of Salaried Medical Specialists
    JEL: I11 J16 J31 J45 J52 J71
    Date: 2019–11
  2. By: Felix von Meyerinck; Alexandra Niessen-Ruenzi; Markus Schmid; Steven Davidoff Solomon
    Abstract: On September 30, 2018, California became the first U.S. state to introduce a mandatory board gender quota for all firms headquartered in California. We find that the introduction of the quota is associated with significantly negative announcement returns for these firms.Consistent with the quota imposing frictions, the effect is larger for firms requiring more female directors to comply with the quota and for firms with poor corporate governance. We also document negative spillover effects to non-Californian firms. They are larger for firms operating in industries in which Californian firms lack more female directors, suggesting that valuable female directors may migrate from non-Californian to Californian firms. We also document negative spillover effects for firms headquartered in states that are more likely to follow California’s lead. These are firms headquartered in states dominated by the Democratic Party and states which followed California’s lead in legalizing cannabis consumption and raising minimum wages exceeding the federal rate. Finally, we show that, already as of monthend December 2018, female representation on the boards of Californian firms increased. Newly appointed female directors are younger, less experienced, and less independent than incumbent and leaving directors.
    Keywords: Board Gender Quota, Firm Value, Director Labor Market
    JEL: J16 J78
    Date: 2019–02

This nep-gen issue is ©2019 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.