Check out the ultimate guide to 16 return-to-work programs in India for women
The Nobel Prize to Claudia Goldin for her work on ‘advancing our understanding of women’s labour market outcomes’ has put the gender inequity in the labour market in the spotlight.
“There are still large differences between women and men in terms of what they do, how they’re remunerated and so on. And the question is, why is this the case? And that’s what the work is about.”
– Claudia Goldin
Claudia Goldin became the third woman, after Elinor Ostrom and Esther Duflo to win the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences, and the first woman to be an individual winner. This takes the percentage of women awardees (in Economics) up from 2.17% to 3.23%, which is nearly a 50% increase.
But that is the not the only reason we should be celebrating the win of the 77 year old economic historian and labour economist from Harvard University. We should be celebrating because Claudia Goldin was awarded the Prize for “having advanced our understanding of women’s labour market outcomes’.
Globally, labour force participation of women is about 50% while that of men is closer to 80%. Even when women work, they are often paid less than men performing an equivalent job. Claudia Goldin’s research examines the source of these gender differences and throws up insights into the role of women in the labour market.
It was always assumed that female participation in the labour force started going up in the 20th century and that there was a positive co-relation between economic growth and female participation in the workplace.
However, when Goldin studied the 200 year historical data for the United States, she found that the participation of women in the work force was grossly underreported, especially for married women where the occupation was simply captured as ‘wife’. She also found that when workplaces shifted from home/ near home to a factory after the Industrial Revolution, the participation of women in the labour force went down drastically, and it started picking up only after the rise of the service industry.
By looking at how female participation in the labour market was changing for the same group of women over a period of time, Goldin confirmed what was intuitively known- that even if women entered the labour market, they dropped out after marriage and childbirth. Her research, however, threw up an additional insight- when women tried to re-enter the labour market after their children were grown up, their options were restricted by the educational choices they had made 2 decades ago.
This was a vicious cycle, because the educational decisions had been taken at a time when women did not expect to continue working after marriage and childbirth, and the fact that they did not have desirable educational qualifications later proved to be an impediment to their participation in the labour force market.
From the 1960s onwards, the relatively easier availability of contraceptive pills ensured that women were able to delay marriage and childbirth, which ensured that more women entered the workforce, particularly in fields like medicine, law and economics which involved an extended professional training. However, despite the entry of professionally qualified women the wage gap between men and women remained.
Once again, Goldin looked at data from a range of sources, and found that the gender pay gap could not be explained by factors like age, education or productivity. Her research showed what we now take as common knowledge- that employees with long and uninterrupted careers tend to get higher wages, and that salaries are often decided based on the perception of how long a particular employee will work with the firm. Goldin’s research clearly showed that, in the United States, the difference in income between men and women starts out being fairly small, but that both earnings and rate of growth of earnings start to fall after women have their first child.
It is largely because of the pioneering work of Claudia Goldin that we are able to understand the demands of the contemporary labour markets. When employees are expected to be constantly available and flexible to the demands of the employer, women who have greater responsibilities at home lose out on both career progression and earnings.
Goldin’s work was largely restricted to the Unites States, but similar studies were replicated in other countries, and they threw up similar results. Her work provides the background against which policymakers can try to create legislation to remove/ reduce these institutional barriers. It is because of her work that we now know that educational attainment alone doesn’t do much to reduce the earning gap- what is of greater importance is the opportunity to plan and finance a return to the labour force after having children, or to have greater flexibility at work.
By awarding the Nobel Prize to Claudia Goldin, and acknowledging her work on ‘advancing our understanding of women’s labour market outcomes’, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences has put the gender inequity in the labour market in the spotlight. This should, hopefully, start more conversations on what policy makers and corporates can do to ensure that women’s labour is acknowledged and rewarded.
Natasha works in the development sector, where most of her experience has been in Education and Livelihoods. She is passionate about working towards gender equity, sustainability and positive climate action. And avid reader and occasional read more...
Women's Web is an open platform that publishes a diversity of views, individual posts do not necessarily represent the platform's views and opinions at all times.
Stay updated with our Weekly Newsletter or Daily Summary - or both!
If her MIL had accepted her with some affection, wouldn't they have built a mutually happier relationship by now?
The incident took place ten years ago.
Smita could visit her mother only in summers when her daughter had school holidays. Her daughter also enjoyed meeting her Nani, and both of them had done their reservations for a week. A month before their visit, her husband told her, “My mom is coming for 4-5 months!”
Smita shuddered. She knew the repercussions. She would have to hear sarcastic comments from her mother-in-law for visiting her mother. She may make these comments directly only a bit, but her servants would be flooded with the words, “How horrible she is! She leaves me and goes!”
Maybe Animal is going to make Ranbir the superstar he yearns to be, but is this the kind of legacy his grandfather and granduncles would wish for?
I have no intention of watching Animal. I have heard it’s acting like a small baby screaming and yelling for attention. However, I read some interesting reviews which gave away the original, brilliant and awe-inspiring plot (was that sarcastic enough?), and I don’t really need to go watch it to have an informed opinion.
A little boy craves for his father’s love but doesn’t get it so uses it as an excuse to kill a whole bunch of people when he grows up. Poor paapa (baby) what else could he do?
I was wondering; if any woman director gets inspired by this movie and replicates this with a female protagonist, what would happen?. Oh wait, that’s the story of so many women in this world. Forget about not giving them love, you have fathers who try to kill their daughters or sell them off or do other equally despicable things.
Please enter your email address