Replication data for: The Gender Wage Gap: Extent, Trends, and Explanations
Principal Investigator(s): View help for Principal Investigator(s) Francine D. Blau; Lawrence M. Kahn
Version: View help for Version V2
Name | File Type | Size | Last Modified |
---|---|---|---|
|
application/pdf | 287.8 KB | 10/12/2019 01:44:PM |
|
application/octet-stream | 321.3 MB | 10/12/2019 01:44:PM |
|
application/pdf | 122.6 KB | 10/12/2019 01:44:PM |
|
text/plain | 10.6 KB | 10/12/2019 01:44:PM |
|
text/plain | 16.5 KB | 10/12/2019 01:44:PM |
|
application/pdf | 136.2 KB | 10/12/2019 01:44:PM |
|
application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document | 13.6 KB | 11/07/2024 10:58:AM |
|
text/plain | 100 bytes | 11/14/2024 05:47:AM |
|
text/plain | 14.6 KB | 10/12/2019 01:44:PM |
Project Citation:
Blau, Francine D., and Kahn, Lawrence M. Replication data for: The Gender Wage Gap: Extent, Trends, and Explanations. Nashville, TN: American Economic Association [publisher], 2024. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2024-11-14. https://doi.org/10.3886/E113913V2
Project Description
Summary:
View help for Summary
Using Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID) microdata over the 1980-2010 period, we provide new empirical evidence on the extent of and trends in the gender wage gap, which declined considerably during
this time. By 2010, conventional human capital variables taken together explained little of the gender wage gap, while gender differences in occupation and industry continued to be important. Moreover, the
gender pay gap declined much more slowly at the top of the wage distribution than at the middle or bottom and by 2010 was noticeably higher at the top. We then survey the literature to identify what has been
learned about the explanations for the gap. We conclude that many of the traditional explanations continue to have salience. Although human-capital factors are now relatively unimportant in the aggregate,
women's work force interruptions and shorter hours remain significant in high-skilled occupations, possibly due to compensating differentials. Gender differences in occupations and industries, as well as
differences in gender roles and the gender division of labor remain important, and research based on experimental evidence strongly suggests that discrimination cannot be discounted. Psychological attributes
or noncognitive skills comprise one of the newer explanations for gender differences in outcomes. Our effort to assess the quantitative evidence on the importance of these factors suggests that they account for
a small to moderate portion of the gender pay gap, considerably smaller than, say, occupation and industry effects, though they appear to modestly contribute to these differences.
Scope of Project
JEL Classification:
View help for JEL Classification
I26 Returns to Education
J16 Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination
J24 Human Capital; Skills; Occupational Choice; Labor Productivity
J31 Wage Level and Structure; Wage Differentials
J71 Labor Discrimination
I26 Returns to Education
J16 Economics of Gender; Non-labor Discrimination
J24 Human Capital; Skills; Occupational Choice; Labor Productivity
J31 Wage Level and Structure; Wage Differentials
J71 Labor Discrimination
Related Publications
Published Versions
Report a Problem
Found a serious problem with the data, such as disclosure risk or copyrighted content? Let us know.
This material is distributed exactly as it arrived from the data depositor. ICPSR has not checked or processed this material. Users should consult the investigator(s) if further information is desired.