Review of Economics of the Household

, Volume 6, Issue 4, pp 409–422

Marriage, partnership and sexual orientation: a study of British university academics and administrators

Article

Abstract

Using a unique data source on marital status, partnership and sexual orientation of academics and administrators at British universities, we estimate the impact of personal relationships upon earnings for men and women. While university data cover a relatively homogeneous group of workers, the two sides of the university are very different, with administrative jobs being more like the general job market in the economy. We find a large and significant married male premium, but only on the administrative side of the university. There is no female marriage premium, and no partnership return to gay men or to either heterosexual or homosexual women.

Keywords

Partnership Marriage Sexual orientation Academic labour markets 

JEL Classifications

J12 J16 J30 J45 

References

  1. Akerlof, G. A. (1998). Men without children. The Economic Journal, 108, 287–309. doi:10.1111/1468-0297.00288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Antonovics, K., & Town, R. (2004). Are all the good men married? Uncovering the sources of the marital wage premium. American Economic Review Papers and Proceedings, 94, 317–321.Google Scholar
  3. Bardasi, E., & Taylor, M. (2007). Marriage and wages: A test of the specialization hypothesis. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0335.2007.00630.x.
  4. Becker, G. S. (1965). A theory of the allocation of time. The Economic Journal, 75, 493–517. doi:10.2307/2228949.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Black, D., Gates, G., Sanders, S., & Taylor, L. (2000). Demographics of the gay and lesbian population in the United States: Evidence from systematic data sources. Demography, 37, 139–154. doi:10.2307/2648117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Blandford, J. M. (2003). The nexus of sexual orientation and gender in the determinationof earnings. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 56, 622–642. doi:10.2307/3590960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Booth, A. L. (1993). Private sector training and graduate earnings. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 75, 164–170. doi:10.2307/2109642.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carpenter, C., & Gates, G. (2004). Partnership-based selection among gay men and lesbians: Implications for census research. Proceedings of the Social StatisticsSection, American Statistical Association.Google Scholar
  9. Chun, H., & Lee, I. (2001). Why do married men earn more: productivity or marriage selection? Economic Inquiry, 39, 307–319. doi:10.1093/ei/39.2.307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Ehrenberg, R. G. (2003). Studying ourselves: The academic labor market. Journal of Labor Economics, 21, 267–288. doi:10.1086/345558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frank, J. (2006). Gay glass ceilings. Economica, 73, 485–508. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0335.2006.00516.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Ginther, D., & Zavodny, M. (2001). Is the male marriage premium due to selection? The effect of shotgun weddings on the return to marriage. Journal of Population Economics, 14, 313–328. doi:10.1007/s001480000058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jepsen, L. K., & Jepsen, C. A. (2002). An empirical analysis of same-sex and opposite-sex couples. Demography, 39, 435–453. doi:10.1353/dem.2002.0027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Korenman, S., & Neumark, D. (1991). Does marriage really make men more productive? The Journal of Human Resources, 26, 282–307. doi:10.2307/145924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Loh, E. S. (1996). Productivity differences and the marriage wage premium for white males. The Journal of Human Resources, 31, 566–589. doi:10.2307/146266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Lundberg, S., & Rose, E. (2002). The effects of sons and daughters on men’s labor supply and wages. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 84, 251–268. doi:10.1162/003465302317411514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mamun, A. (2004). Is there a cohabitation premium in men’s earnings? University of Washington Center for Research on Families Discussion Paper.Google Scholar
  18. Stratton, L. S. (2002). Examining the wage differential for married and cohabiting men. Economic Inquiry, 40, 199–212. doi:10.1093/ei/40.2.199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of EssexWivenhoe ParkUK
  2. 2.Economics Program, Research School of Social SciencesThe Australian National UniversityCanberraAustralia
  3. 3.Department of Economics, Royal Holloway CollegeUniversity of LondonEgham SurreyUK

Personalised recommendations