Sex Segregation, Labor Process Organization, and Gender Earnings Inequality

Abstract

This article revisits Tam's finding that occupational sex composition does not influence wages. This problem is approached in two quite different ways. First, a potential conceptual and methodological weakness in all research that focuses on national occupational, rather than local job and organizational, processes is pointed out. Second, the implications of organizationally relevant social closure and gendered labor process theories for our understanding of wage determination models is developed. The gendered devaluation and specialized human capital theories, which are stressed by Tam and his critics, do not represent the entire story. We find that the sex composition effect on wages exists, but it is indirect and relatively weak, operating largely through lower access of typically female jobs to extensive training. There is no strong evidence for the existence of a more generic gendered labor process in these crosssectional data. The evidence for social closure processes in this article is limited to the gendered nature of access to on-the-job training. INTRODUCTION Research has consistently demonstrated substantial gender segregation and gender inequality in many workplaces. However, there is considerable debate over the exact processes that lead to gender segregation in job assignment and the resulting inequalities (see the reviews in Reskin [1993] We gratefully acknowledge helpful suggestions by Ken Bolen, Paula England, Tony Tam, Catherine Zimmer, and the AJS reviewers. Remaining errors and ambiguity are our responsibility.

Socially Embedded Investments: Explaining Gender Differences in Job-Specific Skills

“…According to several studies, JSS could account for most of the statistical effect of occupational sex composition on earnings, as well as for a nontrivial part of the unexplained component of the gender wage gap (see Tam 1997;Tomaskovic-Devey and Skaggs 2002;Manning and Swaffield 2008;Polavieja 2008Polavieja , 2009). Understanding the determinants of gender differences in job-specific skills seems, therefore, a crucial task for gender stratification research.…”

“…Demand-side explanations stress the role that discrimination and social closure play in hindering women's access to firm-provided training (see, e.g., Tomaskovic-Devey and Skaggs 2002;Petersen and Saporta 2004;Mun 2010). According to these theories, gender differences in specialized skills would be the result of the active role that more powerful individuals actors (i.e., male employers, male coworkers, and male supervisors) play in exclud-2 Cotter et al (1997) study the microlevel impact of occupational sex integration.…”

“…fewer opportunities for skill advancement (see, e.g., Royalty 1996;Knoke and Ishio 1998;Tomaskovic-Devey and Skaggs 2002;Estevez-Abe 2005;Felstead et al 2007, chap. 3).…”

“…According to several estimations, gender differences in the skills that are effectively learned in the job, henceforth referred to as job-specific or specialized skills, could account for most of the statistical effect of occupational sex composition on earnings (Tam 1997;Tomaskovic-Devey and Skaggs 2002;Polavieja 2008Polavieja , 2009). The reason is that female-dominated occupations show lower average levels of skill specialization, while skill specialization increases wages (see, e.g., Dustmann and Meghir 2005;Buchinsky et al 2010).…”

“…Hence gender differences in job specialization also have important consequences for cumulative career success. Understanding why women are matched to jobs with lower levels of skill specialization is therefore a crucial task for gender stratification research (see, e.g., Reskin 1993;Tam 1997;Tomaskovic-Devey and Skaggs 2002).…”