We investigate intersecting wage gaps by gender and nativity by comparing the wages between immigrant women, immigrant men, native women, and native men based on Western German survey data. Adding to the analytical diversity of the field, we do a full comparison of group wages to emphasize the relationality of privilege and disadvantage, and we use a nonparametric matching decomposition that is well suited to address unique group-specific experiences. We find that wage (dis)advantages associated with the dimensions of gender and nativity are nonadditive and result in distinct decomposition patterns for each pairwise comparison. After accounting for substantial group differences in work attachment, individual resources, and occupational segregation, unexplained wage gaps are generally small for comparisons between immigrant women, immigrant men, and native women, but large when either group is compared to native men. This finding suggests that the often presumed “double disadvantage” of immigrant women is rather a “double advantage” of native men.

While research often invokes gender disparities in wage-determining characteristics to explain gender pay gaps, why these gender disparities and gender pay gaps vary across contexts has received less attention. Therefore, I analyze how subnational gender ideologies predict gender pay gaps in two ways: As directly affecting gender pay gaps and as indirectly predicting gender pay gaps through intermediate gender disparities in wage-determinants. I leverage regional differences in predictors of gender ideologies to predict regional gender ideologies and estimate regional gender disparities in wage-determinants and gender pay gaps based on German survey data (SOEP 2014-2018). Results reveal that traditional gender ideologies are associated with women gaining less labor market experience and working less often in full-time jobs or supervising positions. Additional to this indirect association, gender ideologies directly predict the extent of adjusted gender pay gaps.

While research often invokes gender disparities in wage-determining characteristics to explain gender pay gaps, why these gender disparities and gender pay gaps vary across contexts has received less attention. Therefore, I analyze how subnational gender ideologies predict gender pay gaps in two ways: as directly affecting gender pay gaps and as indirectly predicting gender pay gaps through intermediate gender disparities in determinants of wage. The analyses are based on German survey data (SOEP 2014–2018) supplemented with regional-level statistics. First, I leverage regional differences in predictors of gender ideologies to estimate region-specific gender ideologies. Mapping these gender ideologies across Germany reveals substantial regional variation. Second, multi-level models provide region-specific gender disparities in wage determinants and gender pay gaps. Results reveal that traditional gender ideologies are associated with women gaining less labor market experience and working less often in full-time jobs or supervising positions. In addition to this indirect association, gender ideologies directly predict the extent of adjusted gender pay gaps. These associations contribute novel evidence on regional variation of gender ideologies and how they can underlie explanations often invoked for gender pay gaps.

Occupational sex segregation persists in part because men seldom enter female-dominated occupations. Whereas programs providing women with gender-atypical learning experiences aim to increase female representation in male-dominated domains, similar programs for men—despite their potential to counteract the prevailing lack of men in female-dominated occupations—are rare. In this paper, I investigate whether men’s gender-atypical learning experiences affect their likelihood of entering female-dominated occupations by studying the effect of participation in Germany’s civilian service. The civilian service offered a social-sector alternative to compulsory military service, and its suspension in 2011 induced exogenous variation in men’s gender-atypical learning experiences. Combining register data from Germany’s social security system with data from the German Microcensus shows that men’s likelihood of entering the labor market in female-dominated occupations declined by about 21 percent when the civilian service was suspended. Scaling the estimate by participation in the civilian service indicates that having completed the civilian service increased men’s likelihood of entering female-dominated occupations by about 12 percentage points. This illustrates that programs exposing men to gender-atypical learning experiences can promote occupational integration and could “unstall” the gender revolution.

Decompositions make it possible to investigate whether gaps between groups in certain outcomes would remain if groups had comparable characteristics. In practice, however, such a counterfactual comparability is difficult to establish in the presence of lacking common support, functional-form misspecification, and insufficient sample size. In this article, the authors show how decompositions can be undermined by these three interrelated issues by comparing the results of a regression-based Kitagawa-Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition and matching decompositions applied to simulated and real-world data. The results show that matching decompositions are robust to issues of common support and functional-form misspecification but demand a large number of observations. Kitagawa-Blinder-Oaxaca decompositions provide consistent estimates also for smaller samples but require assumptions for model specification and, when common support is lacking, for model-based extrapolation. The authors recommend that any decomposition benefits from using a matching approach first to assess potential problems of common support and misspecification.