|
on Gender |
|
Issue of 2022‒09‒19
three papers chosen by Jan Sauermann Institutet för Arbetsmarknads- och Utbildningspolitisk Utvärdering |
| By: | Anastasia COSTANTINI (Diesis Network); Alessia SEBILLO (Diesis Network) |
| Abstract: | Women remain underrepresented in the labour market. In the EU, they earn 14,1% less than men, and they still experience barriers to access and remain at the labour market (Eurostat, 2021a). Currently, the COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the gender dimension of social and economic inequalities, producing a severe gender impact and the risk of economic marginalisation of women. Why do we expect the social and solidarity economy to improve gender equality at work? Therefore, the paper will discuss the potential and limits of the SEEs in promoting gender equality and women's empowerment. The analysis has referenced existing literature and available information on the sector, including interviews with experts and illustrative cases within Diesis Network2, one of the broadest European networks supporting the social economy and social enterprise development. The aim is to show impactful solutions of SEEs and bring social and solidarity economy closer to the gender perspective to increase their impact in supporting inclusive and sustainable growth. |
| Keywords: | Gender Equality, Gender Gap, Economic Growth, Social Economy, Social Economy Enterprise, Cooperative, Labour Market, Social Innovation, Sustainable Development |
| JEL: | J16 O33 O35 |
| Date: | 2022–02 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:crc:wpaper:2202&r= |
| By: | Marcel Fafchamps; Bereket Kebede |
| Abstract: | We conduct a novel lab experiment in which pairs of subjects make separable decisions about allocative efficiency and equity in different agency structures. In terms of equity, subjects appropriate all surplus when they can, and share equally when they have to negotiate. They achieve high efficiency in general, albeit less so when the allocation of surplus is negotiated and negotiations fail. Allocative efficiency is reduced by input and output endowment effects, particularly in negotiated allocation games where subjects seek to create a sense of entitlement over joint surplus so as to achieve a more equitable income distribution. We find few differences across gender or gender pairings. Subjects are then given a choice between negotiating, paying to decide alone, or be paid to let their assigned partner decide. We find that demand for agency or delegation is sensitive to the price of agency, irrespective of gender. But female subjects are more likely to delegate to their partner if it is a male. We also find that a large fraction of both male and female subjects show a preference for negotiating that appears intrinsically motivated. |
| JEL: | D03 L23 |
| Date: | 2022–08 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:nbr:nberwo:30349&r= |
| By: | Joanne S. McLaughlin; David Neumark |
| Abstract: | Gendered discrimination based on age and disability is a pressing issue, because this discrimination can interfere with the goal of lengthening work lives, especially for older women. In the United States, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act prohibit age and disability discrimination in employment, while Title VII of the Civil Rights Act bars discrimination against women. However, because gender and age (and disability) discrimination fall under different statutes, these laws may be inadequate to protect against discrimination based on gendered ageism and disablism. Legal rulings in the United States generally do not recognize intersecting claims – discrimination based on two or more protected characteristics – when those characteristics are covered by separate statutes. This may help explain the evidence that age discrimination is worse for women than for men. We discuss the theory and methods we can use to analyze these issues, and the relevant laws and their failure to protect women from gendered ageism. We review evidence on gendered age discrimination, and evidence on the effects of discrimination laws and how well they protect from intersectional discrimination. Finally, we discuss potential changes in policies that could better protect against gendered age discrimination. |
| JEL: | J14 J7 |
| Date: | 2022–08 |
| URL: | http://d.repec.org/n?u=RePEc:nbr:nberwo:30355&r= |