Subscribe to our RSS feed
EconLife.com connects economics to everyday life, current events and history.

Tag Archives: feminism

The Surprising Glass Ceiling in Sweden and France

What happens to a woman’s career trajectory when her job is family-friendly? The results have not been what policy makers expected.

In their work lives, Swedish women receive generous paid maternity leave and and can opt for flexible work hours. Politically, the Swedish Parliament has gender balance as do 2 major Swedish political parties’ electoral slates. In France, 17 of President Hollande’s 34 cabinet ministers are female and the French Constitution was amended in 2010 to mandate corporate and public gender equality. In France, Sweden and across the EU, there is a commitment to end gender inequality.

And yet, in France and Sweden, in private industry, men are in charge. Among France’s 87 universities, only 8 presidents are female. In large French law firms, a vast minority of the partners are female. Even when their boards implement gender balance quotas, large corporations have few, if any, females CEOs.

Social scientists are not sure why women are not rising to the top when the work world has made it easier to combine work and family. One theory is children. When labor force participation enables women to divide their time and energy between work and the family, they select the balance. As a result, many do not become the professional alpha women who can compete against committed males who rise to the top.

Monday Gender Issues Posts


Sources and Resources: This excellent discussion of “The Plight of the Alpha Female” appeared recently in the City Journal while this paper, “Is There a Glass Ceiling in Sweden?” presents details on the the surprising results of the Swedish family-friendly work environment. Also, you might want to look at an avalanche of gender stats and ideas in this most recent 300+ page OECD report, “Closing the Gender Gap.”

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

Unless We Look More Closely at Women in the Global Labor Force, We See Only the Tip of the Iceberg.

Telling us that, “Women Still Can’t Have it All,” Princeton professor Anne-Marie Slaughter explains why she left her position as policy planning director for the State Department. In addition to her 24/7 job in Washington DC, she was a mother, a wife, and a weekend commuter to her Princeton NJ home. Nearing the 2-year mark when she would have lost tenure, she decided to return to Princeton to full time teaching, writing and speaking engagements. In her Atlantic article she says she was most concerned that she had not been the parent her adolescent son needed. In an excellent 6 page discussion, she says that for women to come even close to “having it all,” society has to change.

And that is where I started thinking about opportunity cost–the next best alternative that a decision requires you to sacrifice.

Here is how I got there:

I read the Slaughter article after contemplating a new US Department of Agriculture report that said the cost of parenting children up to the age of 17 is close to $300,000 for a middle income 2 parent family. Discussing the USDA report, the WSJ’s “numbers guy” added that the cost approaches $900,000 when you go to age 22. And yes, he does say that even then the expense is higher because forgone income and other hidden costs are not included.

At that point, I started to suspect that we were only looking at the tip of the cost iceberg. Yes, we all have the same categories of child-related dollar costs: housing, education, caregiving, food, health care, transportation, clothing.

But then, person specific opportunity cost takes over. For each of us, the parenting decision involves an array of career and personal choices. Each requires many sacrificed alternatives that may or may not have presented tough choices.

I wonder whether the changes Dr. Slaughter proposes will just take us to a new set of opportunity costs. How can we judge where the lowest cost for society and for different women lies, especially when the benefits–such as the maternal satisfaction, the happiness, maybe the old age care–differ for each of us?

Instead of talking about “having it all,” maybe we mean “having it more.” Because of opportunity cost, nobody ever “has it all.” Children will always be “expensive.”

Anne-Marie Slaughter explains her parenting costs and concerns in an Atlantic article that started a debate described by the NY Times. For the quantifiable costs of parenting, here are the USDA report and the WSJ article.

 

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment

The Surprising Glass Ceiling in Sweden and France

To one group of economists, oral contraception is all about human capital.

1970 appears to have been a turning point. 40 years ago, increasingly, women started entering law school, medical school and other professional programs after college. Instead of majoring in education, more women became judges, physicians, dentists, architects, veterinarians. They entered professions that required years of their time.

As a result, female human capital–a woman’s accumulation of productive knowledge–became more valuable.

Asking why, some economists are saying one reason is oral contraception. The proliferation of birth control pills among unmarried women that started during the early 1970s helped them to time marriage and children. Once women could plan child birth, they could better determine when and how to develop their professional skills-their human capital. They could enter and complete longer educational programs, decide the duration of employment, and have control over professional goals. As a result, women entering labor markets could earn more. Earning more, their value climbed in marriage markets. And, because more women were marrying later, postponing finding a spouse was a less costly decision since, as economists Goldin and Katz express it, marriage markets for older women “thickened.”

Our bottom line: A recent economic study suggests that the pill helped to narrow the gender wage gap, to “upgrade” women’s career choices and to encourage later marriages and child birth. I wonder also whether it materially contributed to U.S. economic growth (but could not find data to confirm it.) Yes, oral contraception is a major social issue but its economic significance is probably considerable.

I started researching the economic impact of oral contraception after reading NY Times financial journalist, Annie Lowrey’s economix blog. That took me to papers by Goldin and Katz from 2002 and a group from the University of Michigan. I also looked at an interesting discussion of “The Efficiency of Gender Equity.”

Posted by: adminEcon
Tags: , , , , , ,
Comments (0) Add a Comment