Using income and other individual data from EU-SILC for Germany and Austria, we analyze wage discrimination for three break-ups: gender, sector of employment, and country of origin. Using the method of Machado and Mata (J Appl Econom 20(4):445–465, 2005) the discrimination over the whole range of the wage distribution is estimated. Significance of results is checked via confidence interval estimates along the lines of Melly (Estimation of counterfactual distributions using quantile regression. Working Paper, SIAW, University of St. Gallen, 2006). The economies of Germany and Austria appear structurally very similar and are highly interconnected. One would, therefore, expect to find similar levels and structures of wage discrimination. Our findings deviate from this conjecture significantly.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.
A major rational for this sample restriction is the removal of self-selection bias. But, as our results on self-selection in the “Appendix” will show, filtering along the gender dimension is most likely insufficient for that purpose.
In the econometric literature dealing with decomposition this discriminatory part is called structural effect, whereas the part associated with different characteristics is known as composition effect. We will keep using the terms “discrimination” and “explained differences” instead.
A more thorough discussion of the shortcomings of the OB-decomposition is found e.g. in Fortin et al. (2011).
Results using RIF-regressions with reweighting were not found qualitatively different from the MM-results. These results are available from the authors upon request.
We found that the number of bootstrap samples S required to get stable results should be a multiple of the total number of observations. For the application we have chosen S = 40000 which is roughly four times the n 1 + n 2 number of observations in the case of Germany and eight times in the case of Austria. With this number of bootstraps the differences between the MM approach and Melly (2005b) are negligible for practical purposes.
Formulated as a programming problem, quantile regression coefficients β(τ) for quantile τ are estimated as solution to min β(τ) (1/n)∑ i ρ τ [w − x i β(τ)] with ρ τ (u) = τ u for u ≥ 0 and \(\rho_\tau(u)=(\tau\!-\!1)u\) for u < 0. We use the R-package quantreg by Roger Koenker for that purpose (see Koenker 2012).
Step 2 (b), by the probability integral transformation principle, simulates random sampling from the (estimated) conditional distributions of w ki conditional on X k , for k = 1,2. Or, put differently: The w ki consistently estimate the corresponding quantiles of the conditional distribution, see Koenker and Bassett (1978). Repeating these quantile estimates for S random draws of characteristics from the original distributions then amounts to integrating out these characteristics from the corresponding conditional distributions.
Numerous non-basic counterfactual distributions can be imagined and found in the literature (see Cahuc and Zylberberg 2004 pp. 280–282 for a short discussion). For example, one based on fictitious non-discriminatory market remuneration coefficients β m for both groups. Such non-basic counterfactuals are not considered here.
Melly provides a corresponding R-source code on http://www.econ.brown.edu/fac/Blaise_Melly/code_R_rqdeco3.html.
This latter criterion may potentially introduce another type of sample selection bias, as it ignores different likelihoods of longer unemployment spells for each subgroup considered. See Sect. 3.5.
Unfortunately, the understanding of these education levels has been different in Germany and Austria. This explains the implausible, massive differences in the proportions of these three levels between the two countries (see Tables 2 and 4 in the “Appendix”). This prohibits comparing the estimated standard quantile regression coefficients for these variables between countries. To our knowledge, statistical offices are aware of the corresponding shortcomings and currently work on improved definitions and comparable coding.
Using “age”, “age2” and “experience” instead of “age”, “experience” and “experience2” lead to a worse fit and was formally rejected by corresponding tests.
This is a fairly standard result and easy to interpret: Negative values for the bottom percentiles arise naturally, if the lowest incomes are associated with manual labor, which deteriorates in quality with age. Positive values for higher incomes simply reflect widespread seniority pay.
Synonymously we will speak of overall wage differences or raw discrimination.
Fournier and Koske (2012) report a difference of 25 % at the median (Fig. 7) where we find 20 %. One reason for this difference might be that we classify all persons born abroad as immigrants, while Fournier and Koske count only those born outside the EU. Furthermore, their underlying regression specification is not quite clear. The basic data set instead is the very same as used here.
Albrecht J, Björklund A, Vroman S (2003) Is there a glass ceiling in Sweden? J Labor Econ 21(1):145–177
Albrecht J, van Vuuren A, Vroman S (2009) Counterfactual distributions with sample selection adjustments: econometric theory and an application to the Netherlands. Labour Econ 16(4):383–396
Albrecht JW, van Vuuren Aico, Vroman S (2004) Decomposing the gender wage gap in the netherlands with sample selection adjustments. IZA Discussion Paper No. 1400, Institute for the Study of Labor, Bonn, November 2004
Altzinger W, Berka C, Humer S, Moser M (2012) Die langfristige Entwicklung der Einkommenskonzentration in Österreich 1957–2009. Teil 2: Methodik und Ergebnisse. Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft 38(1):77–102
Arulampalam W, Booth AL, Bryan ML (2007) Is there a glass ceiling over Europe? Exploring the gender pay gap across the wages distribution. Ind Labor Relat Rev 60(2):163–186
Blinder AS (1973) Wage discrimination: reduced form and structural estimates. J Hum Resour 8(4):436–455
Böheim R, Hofer H, Zulehner C (2005) Wage differences between men and women in Austria: evidence from 1983 and 1997. IZA Discussion Papaer No. 1554, Institute for the Study of Labor, Bonn, April 2005
Böheim R, Hofer H, Zulehner C (2007) Wage differences between Austrian men and women: semper idem?. Empirica 34(3):213–229
Böheim R, Himpele K, Mahringer H, Zulehner C (2013) The distribution of the gender wage gap in Austria: evidence from matched employer-employee data and tax records. J Labour Mark Res, 46(1):19–34. ISSN 1614-3485. doi:10.1007/s12651-012-0113-y
Buchinsky M (1998) The dynamics of changes in the female wage distribution in the USA: a quantile regression approach. J Appl Econom 13(1):1–30
Cahuc P, Zylberberg A (2004) Labor economics. The MIT Press, Cambridge
Depalo D, Giordano R, Papapetrou E (2013) Public-private wage differentials in euro area countries: evidence from quantile decomposition analysis. Temi di discussione (Economic working papers) 907, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area, April 2013
DiNardo J, Fortin N, Lemieux T (1996) Labor market institutions and the distribution of wages, 1973–1992: a semi parametric approach. Econometrica 64(5):1001–1044
Dustmann C, Ludsteck J, Schönberg U (2009) Revisiting the german wage structure. Q J Econ 124:843–881
Firpo S, Fortin N, Lemieux T (2009) Unconditional quantile regressions. Econometrica 77(3):953–973
Fitzenberger B, Kunze A (2005) Vocational training and gender: wages and occupational mobility among young workers. Oxf Rev Econ Policy 21(3):392–415
Fitzenberger B, Wunderlich G (2002) Gender wage differences in West Germany: a cohort analysis. Ger Econ Rev 3(4):379–414
Fortin NM, Lemieux T, Firpo S (2011) Decomposition methods in economics. In: Ashenfelter O, Card D (eds) Handbook of labor economics, vol. 4A. North-Holland Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 1–102
Fournier J-M, Koske I (2012) Less income inequality and more growth—are they compatible?: part 7. The drivers of labour earnings inequality—an analysis based on conditional and unconditional quantile regressions. Economics Department Working Papers, No. 930, OECD
García J, Hernández PJ, López-Nicolás A (2001) How wide is the gap? An investigation of gender wage differences using quantile regression. Empir Econ 26(1):149–167
Gosling A, Machin S, Meghir C (2000) The changing distribution of male wages in the UK. Rev Econ Stud 7(4):635–666
Heinze A (2010) Beyond the mean gender wage gap: decomposition of differences in wage distributions using quantile regression. ZEW Discussion Papers, No. 10-043, Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung
Ivanov AV (2008) Immigrant discrimination in Germany? Quantile regression decomposition of the wage gap. CDSE Discussion Paper No. 41, Center for Doctoral Studies in Economics, University of Mannheim
Koenker R (2012) Quantreg: quantile regression. http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=quantreg. R package version 4.81
Koenker R, Bassett Jr G (1978) Regression quantiles. Econometrica 46(1):33–50
Machado JAF, Mata J (2005) Counterfactual decomposition of changes in wage distributions using quantile regression. J Appl Econom 20(4):445–465
Melly B (2005a) Decomposition of differences in distribution using quantile regression. Labour Econ 12(4):577–590
Melly B (2005b) Public-private sector wage differentials in Germany: evidence from quantile regression. Empir Econ 30:505–520
Melly B (2006) Estimation of counterfactual distributions using quantile regression. Working Paper, SIAW, University of St. Gallen, 2006
Mueller RE (1998) Public-private sector wage differentials in Canada: evidence from quantile regressions. Econ Lett 60(2):229–235
Neuman S, Oaxaca RL (2004a) Wage decompositions with selectivity corrected wage equations: a methodological note. J Econ Inequal 2:3–10
Neuman S, Oaxaca RL (2004b) Wage differentials in the 1990s in Israel: endowments, discrimination, and selectivity. IZA Discussion Paper No. 1362, Institute for the Study of Labor, Bonn
Oaxaca R (1973) Male-female wage differentials in urban labor markets. Int Econ Rev 14(3):693–709
Peters H (2008) Development of wage inequality for natives and immigrants in Germany—evidence from quantile regression and decomposition. SOEPpapers on multidisciplinary panel data research 113, Deutsches Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Berlin, June 2008
Picchio M, Mussida C (2010) Gender wage gap: a semi-parametric approach with sample selection correction. CentER discussion paper series 2010-16, Tilburg University
Pointner W, Stiglbauer A (2010) Changes in the Austrian structure of wages, 1996–2002: evidence from linked employer-employee data. Empirica 37(2):105–125
Poterba JM, Rueben KS (1995) The distribution of public sector wage premia: new evidence using quantile regression methods. Working paper nr. 4734, NBER
Weichselbaumer D, Winter-Ebmer RR (2005) A meta-analysis of the international gender wage gap. J Econ Surv 19(3):479–511
Electronic Supplementary Material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Grandner, T., Gstach, D. Decomposing wage discrimination in Germany and Austria with counterfactual densities. Empirica 42, 49–76 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10663-014-9244-4
- Wage discrimination
- Quantile regression