Introduction
The gender pay gap came to the attention of researchers only in the recent several decades, even though the issue has existed longer. The topic has been rather controversial because there were two prominent sides to the argument. One side tends to argue that the gender pay gap is not a result of patriarchal policies but rather occurs because women and men choose different professions and thus get compensated differently. The other side of the argument points to the oppressive and discriminatory practices in American society that value women less as workers, which results in them being paid less (Chapman & Benis, 2017).
Nevertheless, both sides of the argument can be considered when exploring why women are paid less compared to their male counterparts. The purpose of this review is to analyze the available evidence on the topic from research literature and discuss the causes of pay inequality between men and women.
Discussion
As the levels of gender segregation declined in the 1960s and women began increasing their representation in male-dominated occupations, such as managerial and high-status professional positions, earning disparities have been declining. As noted by Mandel and Semyonov (2014), the decline was especially visible around the mid-1970s, but its pace has slowed in the new millennium. The narrowing of the gap may be seen as a result of a relative improvement in women’s human capital resources, which include education, work skills, and experience, or shifts in the personal attributes of working women, such as marital and maternity status (Mandel & Semyonov, 2014).
Besides, the decline in the gap stems from the changes in the number of hours women allocate for paid work or reflects the decreases in earning discrimination against women. Finally, the decline in the gap could be the result of decreasing gender occupational segregation, which illustrates the upward occupational mobility that women experience.
Overall, current research reveals a significant reduction in the gross gender earnings gap, with most of the decline being attributed to the lowering of the unexplained portion of the gap, which implies a notable decline in economic discrimination against women. In contrast to discrimination, the role that human capital and personal characteristics play in explaining the gender pay gap is somewhat small in both the public and private sectors (Lawter, Rua, & Andreassi, 2016).
Variability between the two sectors includes not only the size and the rate of the gap’s reduction but also in the significance of the most prominent sources of the gap. Notably, working hours have been found to be among the most important factors defining gender pay inequality in both public and private sectors, with some domination found in the private sector. The decline in gender segregation can be used to explain the lowering influence of occupations on the gender pay gap in the private sector. In the public sector, gender segregation remains a significant burden that contributes to a substantial portion of the gap (Mandel & Semyonov, 2014). These findings are indicative of the fact that gender wage inequality cannot be analyzed in a general context without providing a context because the gap varies between sectors and, thus, between different professions.
When examining the reasons for the gender pay gap, researchers conclude that the majority of the traditional explanations continue to be noted for the understanding of the phenomenon, even though some factors have increased in importance and others have decreased. For instance, one of the findings of the study by Blau and Kahn (2017) is that while convergence between men and women in traditional human capital factors played an important part in the gap, these factors, taken together, explain fairly little of the wage gap. This is because women have exceeded men in educational attainment and have significantly reduced the gap in experience (Sterling et al., 2020).
In addition, recent research points to a crucial role that workforce interruptions and shorter hours play in explaining wage gaps in high-skilled occupations rather than the workforce as a whole (Blau & Kahn, 2017). These findings point to the lack of generalizability of the gender gap as an issue because its impact may range between higher- and lower-skilled work positions.
Another important factor emphasized within the traditional analysis is that the differences in gender roles and the gender-based division of labor persist, with the evidence available of motherhood penalties for women and marriage premiums for men (Blau & Kahn, 2017). Besides, the greater tendency of men to determine a family’s geographic location continues to be a trend even for highly educated couples, which may limit the choice of a work position for a woman. These factors combined point to the existence of a gender wage gap that occurs due the labor market discrimination (Blau & Kahn, 1999).
Decreasing the impact of such discrimination could help reduce the gap, especially when it comes to wage penalties that women endure when becoming mothers and not having the same amount of time to dedicate to work as men.
Considering the fact that previous findings indicate significant variability in the gender pay gap, researchers provide differentiation between explained and unexplained components. Such a difference emerges because there is a heterogeneity of the sample data that ranges from one study to another. Some scholars aimed to control for a wide range of influences to estimate the effect of being female on wages (Meara, Pastore, & Webster, 2020).
However, several other factors, such as parenthood, segregation based on gender, part-time work, and unionization, all of which impact the presence of the gender wage gap. Thus, the matter is concerned not only with the like-for-like comparison between male and female wages but also with how gender wage differences interact with other characteristics. Even though researchers have identified such interactions, the precise or systemic estimations of such effects remain unclear and scarce. The findings of the research suggest that the single uniform gender pay gap is less valuable than an understanding of how gender wages are shaped by several different forces.
Conclusion
To conclude, the gender wage gap exists and is not a point of contention. However, it is ineffective to argue which reason for its existence is the most prominent because it is the combination of factors that contribute to its existence. The choice of occupation, parenthood status, geographic location, and oppressive gender practices within the labor force create a context in which women do not have equal wages compared to men. This means that blaming the wage gap on only one factor is ineffective and does not allow for a fruitful conversation on the topic. Just as the research literature on the gender wage gap is multi-faceted and diverse, the explanations for its occurrence vary depending on the context.
References
Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (1999). Analyzing the gender pay gap. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 39(5), 625–646.
Blau, F., & Kahn, L. (2017). The gender wage gap: Extent, trends, and explanations. Journal of Economic Literature, 55(3), 789–865.
Chapman, S. J., & Benis, N. (2017). Ceteris non paribus: The intersectionality of gender, race, and region in the gender wage gap. Women’s Studies International Forum, 65, 78–86.
Lawter, L., Rua, T., & Andreassi, J. (2016). The glass cage: The gender pay gap and self-employment in the United States. New England Journal of Entrepreneurship, 19(1), 23–38.
Mandel, H., & Semyonov, M. (2014). Gender pay gap and employment sector: Sources of earnings disparities in the United States, 1970-2010. Demography, 51(5), 1597–1618.
Meara, K., Pastore, F., & Webster, A. (2020). The gender pay gap in the USA: A matching study. Journal of Population Economics, 33(1), 271–305.
Sterling, A. D., Thompson, M. E., Shiya Wang, Kusimo, A., Gilmartin, S., & Sheppard, S. (2020). The confidence gap predicts the gender pay gap among STEM graduates. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(48), 1–6.