1 / 27

Comparative Methods in Research on Gender

Comparative Methods in Research on Gender. Wendy Sigle-Rushton ESRC Methods Festival 2 July 2008 St. Catherine’s College, Oxford. Comparative Methods . Why compare What to compare How to compare Benefits of comparison Caveats. Why compare. Pragmatic concerns International agendas

ivie
Download Presentation

Comparative Methods in Research on Gender

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Comparative Methods in Research on Gender Wendy Sigle-Rushton ESRC Methods Festival 2 July 2008 St. Catherine’s College, Oxford

  2. Comparative Methods • Why compare • What to compare • How to compare • Benefits of comparison • Caveats

  3. Why compare • Pragmatic concerns • International agendas • Broaden perspective • Quasi-natural experiment • Allows for theory building/testing

  4. What to compare • Comparisons across • Countries • Regions within countries (e.g. US States) • Time

  5. What to compare • Variables to compare • Inputs and Institutions • Expenditure and welfare effort • Aims and ideologies • Politics • Financing and delivery of policies • Welfare mix • Example: Jane Lewis – gender roles

  6. What to compare • Variables to compare • Outcomes, for example • Income distribution/poverty alleviation • Social exclusion/inclusion • Gender equality • Decommodification • Studies of outcomes • Maitre et al – income packaging • Rake – elderly, gender equality • Christopher – (lone) mothers • Sainsbury – gender equality • Sigle-Rushton and Waldfogel – earnings, household income • Hobcraft and Sigle-Rushton – social exclusion

  7. How to compare • Identify broad similarities and differences • Exploit variation across space • Simulations

  8. Benefits of comparison • Common and dissimilar problems/patterns • Quasi-natural experiment • Inspire best practice • Inspire and inform good measurement

  9. Caveats • Reliance on similar, available measures • Harmonisation • Proxy variables • Validity

  10. Occupational Segregation, 2000 Source: OECD 2002

  11. Gender Wage Gap and Employment, 2000 Source: OECD 2002

  12. Caveats • Reliance on similar, available measures • Harmonisation • Proxy variables • Validity • Tensions: Difference and sameness • Static measures • Geographical variations often ignored • Explanans et explanandum • Requires a lot of detail

  13. Example from my research on motherhood gaps in earnings • Data: Luxembourg Income Study • Strengths: Harmonised data, large number of countries • Relatively recent data available for many countries • Countries • Anglo-Saxon: Canada, United Kingdom (UK), United States • Continental Europe: Germany, the Netherlands • Nordic: Norway, Sweden, Finland

  14. Example from my research on motherhood gaps in earnings • Using the regressions: • Estimated wages for each age assuming different fertility histories • Estimate motherhood gaps • Estimate gender gaps by fertility history

  15. Example from my research on motherhood gaps in earnings • Using the regressions: • What the regressions show • Average gross earnings • What they don’t show • The reasons for the differences • Economic well-being

  16. Example from my research on motherhood gaps in earnings • Overall patterns • Large earnings penalties for each child, little catch-up • Germany, Netherlands, UK (esp. first) • Moderate earnings penalties for first child, differences persist • Canada • Small earnings penalty for each child, some catch-up • US, Norway • Moderate penalties for the first child, rapid catch-up • Sweden, Finland

  17. Example from my research on motherhood gaps in earnings • Overall patterns • Large earnings penalties for each child, little catch-up • Germany, Netherlands, UK (esp. first) • Moderate earnings penalties for first child, differences persist • Canada

  18. Example from my research on motherhood gaps in earnings • Overall patterns • Large earnings penalties for each child, little catch-up • Germany, Netherlands, UK (esp. first) • Moderate earnings penalties for first child, some catch-up • Canada • Small earnings penalty for each child, some catch-up • US, Norway

  19. Example from my research on motherhood gaps in earnings • Overall patterns • Large earnings penalties for each child, little catch-up • Germany, Netherlands, UK (esp. first) • Moderate earnings penalties for first child, some catch-up • Canada • Small earnings penalty for each child, some catch-up • US, Norway • Moderate penalties for the first child, rapid catch-up • Sweden, Finland

  20. Cumulative earnings of mothers aged 18-45 with medium education relative to non-mothers Example from my research on motherhood gaps in earnings

  21. Example from my research on motherhood gaps in earnings Cumulative earnings of mothers aged 18-45 with medium education relative to men

  22. Summary • Comparative studies can • Highlight similarities and differences • Inspire best practice • But • Direct of causation is rarely clear • Explanatory processes are rarely clear • Important measures may be omitted • Individuals vary as well as policies • Important to keep in mind when looking at “simulations” • Predictive power is tentative

  23. References • Christopher, K. (2002) “Helping mothers escape poverty.” LIS working paper No. 298. • Figari, F., Immervoll, H., Levy, H. and Sutherland, H. (2007) "Inequalities within Couples: Market Incomes and the Role of Taxes and Benefits in Europe". IZA Discussion Paper No. 3201 • Lewis, J. (1992) ‘Gender and the Development of Welfare Regimes’, Journal of European Social Policy 2(3):159-173. • Maitre, B., Nolan, B. and Whelan, C.T. (2005) “Welfare regimes and household income packaging in the European Union.” Journal of European Social Policy 15(2): 157.171. • Rake, K. (1999) Accumulated disadvantage? Welfare state provision and the incomes of older women and men in Britain, France and Germany. In J. Clasen (ed.) Comparative Social Policy: Concepts, Theories and Methods Oxford, Blackwell. • Sigle-Rushton, W. and Waldfogel, J. (2007) “Motherhood and women’s earnings in Anglo-American, Continental European, and Nordic countries.” Feminist Economics 13(2): 55-92. 

More Related