Advertisement

Demography

, Volume 46, Issue 2, pp 341–369 | Cite as

Motherhood, labor force behavior, and women’s careers: An empirical assessment of the wage penalty for motherhood in britain, germany, and the united states

  • Markus Gangl
  • Andrea Ziefle
Article

Abstract

Using harmonized longitudinal data from the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS), the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP), and the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth (NLSY), we trace career prospects after motherhood for five cohorts of American, British, and West German women around the 1960s. We establish wage penalties for motherhood between 9% and 18% per child, with wage losses among American and British mothers being lower than those experienced by mothers in Germany. Labor market mechanisms generating the observed wage penalty for motherhood differ markedly across countries, however. For British and American women, work interruptions and subsequent mobility into mother-friendly jobs fully account for mothers’ wage losses. In contrast, respective penalties are considerably smaller in Germany, yet we observe a substantial residual wage penalty that is unaccounted for by mothers’ observable labor market behavior. We interpret this finding as indicating a comparatively more pronounced role for statistical discrimination against mothers in the German labor market.

Keywords

Labor Market British Household Panel Surve Wage Penalty German Woman Work Interruption 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Albrecht, J.W., P.-A. Edin, M. Sundström, and S.B. Vroman. 1999. “Career Interruptions and Subsequent Earnings: A Reexamination Using Swedish Data.” Journal of Human Resources 34:294–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allison, P.D. 1994. “Using Panel Data to Estimate the Effects of Events.” Sociological Methods & Research 23:174–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Anderson, D.J., M. Binder, and K. Krause. 2003. “The Motherhood Wage Penalty Revisited: Experience, Heterogeneity, Work Effort, and Work-Schedule Flexibility.” Industrial and Labor Relations Review 56:273–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anderson, P. and P. Levine. 2000. “Child Care and Mother’s Employment Decisions.” Pp. 420–62 in Findings Jobs: Work and Welfare Reform, edited by D.E. Card and R.M. Blank. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  5. Bainbridge, J., M.K. Meyers, and J. Waldfogel. 2003. “Child Care Policy Reform and the Employment of Single Mothers.” Social Science Quarterly 84:771–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Baum, C.L. 2002a. “A Dynamic Analysis of the Effect of Child Care Costs on the Work Decisions of Low-Income Mothers with Infants.” Demography 39:139–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. — 2002b. “The Effect of Work Interruptions on Women’s Wages.” Labour 16(1):1–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Becker, G.S. 1985. “Human Capital, Effort, and the Sexual Division of Labor.” Journal of Labor Economics 3(2):33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. — 1993. Human Capital. A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis With Special Reference to Education. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  10. Blau, D.M. and P.K. Robins. 1991. “Child-Care Demand and Labor Supply of Young Mothers Over Time.” Demography 28:333–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. —. 1998. “A Dynamic Analysis of Turnover in Employment and Child Care.” Demography 35:83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Blau, F.D. and L.M. Kahn. 1996. “Wage Structure and Gender Earnings Differentials: An International Comparison.” Economica 63:S29-S62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brewster, K.L. and R.R. Rindfuss. 2000. “Fertility and Women’s Employment in Industrialized Nations.” Annual Review of Sociology 26:271–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Budig, M.J. and P. England. 2001. “The Wage Penalty for Motherhood.” American Sociological Review 66:204–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Correll, S.J., S. Benard, and I. Paik. 2007. “Getting a Job: Is There a Motherhood Penalty?” American Journal of Sociology 112:1297–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Datta Gupta, N. and N. Smith. 2002. “Children and Career Interruptions: The Family Gap in Denmark.” Economica 69:609–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Desai, S. and L.J. Waite. 1991. “Women’s Employment During Pregnancy and After the First Birth: Occupational Characteristics and Work Commitment.” American Sociological Review 56:551–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dienel, C. 2002. Familienpolitik. Eine Praxisorientierte Gesamtdarstellung der Grundlagen, Handlungsfelder und Probleme [Family policy. A pragmatical introduction to premises, policies and problems]. Weinheim: Juventa.Google Scholar
  19. DiPrete, T.A. and C. Buchmann. 2006. “Gender-Specific Trends in the Value of Education and the Emerging Gender Gap in College Completion.” Demography 43:1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Drobnic, S., H.-P. Blossfeld, and G. Rohwer. 1999. “Dynamics of Women’s Employment Patterns Over the Family Life Course: A Comparison of the United States and Germany.” Journal of Marriage and the Family 61:133–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Estes, S.B. and J.L. Glass. 1996. “Job Changes Following Childbirth. Are Women Trading Compensation for Family-Responsive Work Conditions?” Work and Occupations 23:405–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ganzeboom, H.B.G. and D.J. Treiman. 1996. “Internationally Comparable Measures of Occupational Status for the 1988 International Standard Classification of Occupations.” Social Science Research 25:201–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Glass, J. 2004. “Blessing or Curse? Work-Family Policies and Mother’s Wage Growth Over Time.” Work and Occupations 31:367–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Goldin, C. 2006. “The Quiet Revolution That Transformed Women’s Employment, Education, and Family.” American Economic Review 96(2):1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gornick, J.C. and M.K. Meyers. 2003. Families That Work. Policies for Reconciling Parenthood and Employment. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  26. Gornick, J.C., M.K. Meyers, and K.E. Ross. 1997. “Supporting the Employment of Mothers: Policy Variation Across Fourteen Welfare States.” Journal of European Social Policy 7(1):45–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Greene, W.H. 2005. Econometric Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  28. Han, W.-J. and J. Waldfogel. 2003. “Parental Leave: The Impact of Recent Legislation on Parents’ Leave Taking.” Demography 40:191–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Harkness, S. and J. Waldfogel. 2003. “The Family Gap in Pay: Evidence From Seven Industrialized Countries.” Research in Labor Economics 22:369–413.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Heckman, J. 1974. “Shadow Prices, Market Wages, and Labor Supply.” Econometrica 42:679–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. International Labour Organization. 1990. Statistical Sources and Methods. Volume 3: Economically Active Population, Employment, Unemployment and Hours of Work (Household Surveys). Geneva: International Labour Organization.Google Scholar
  32. Jacobs, S.C. 1997. “Employment Changes Over Childbirth: A Retrospective View.” Sociology 31:577–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Joshi, H., P. Paci, and J. Waldfogel. 1999. “The Wages of Motherhood: Better or Worse?” Cambridge Journal of Economics 23:543–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kamerman, S.B. 2000. “Parental Leave Policies: An Essential Ingredient in Early Childhood Education and Care Policies.” Social Policy Report 14(2):3–15.Google Scholar
  35. Kilbourne, B.S., G. Farkas, K. Beron, D. Weir, and P. England. 1994. “Returns To Skill, Compensating Differentials, and Gender Bias—Effects of Occupational Characteristics on the Wages of White Women and Men.” American Journal of Sociology 100:689–719.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lundberg, S. and E. Rose. 2000. “Parenthood and the Earnings of Married Men and Women.” Labour Economics 7:689–710.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mair, J. 2000. “Maternity Leave: Improved and Simplified?” Modern Law Review 63:877–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Mandel, H. and M. Semyonov. 2006. “A Welfare State Paradox: State Interventions and Women’s Employment Opportunities in 22 Countries.” American Journal of Sociology 111:1910–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Manning, A. 2003. Monopsony in Motion: Imperfect Competition in Labor Markets. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  40. McRae, S. 1991. Maternity Rights in Britain. The Experience of Women and Employers. London: Policy Studies Institute.Google Scholar
  41. Mertens, N., J. Schippers, and J. Siegers. 1995. “Career Interruptions and Women’s Life-time Earnings.” European Journal of Women’s Studies 2:469–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Meyers, M.K., T. Heintze, and D.A. Wolf. 2002. “Child Care Subsidies and the Employment of Welfare Recipients.” Demography 39:165–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mincer, J. and H. Ofek. 1982. “Interrupted Work Careers: Depreciation and Restoration of Human Capital.” Journal of Human Resources 17(1):3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Nielsen, H.S., M. Simonsen, and M. Verner. 2004. “Does the Gap in Family-Friendly Policies Drive the Family Gap?” Scandinavian Journal of Economics 106:721–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. OECD. 1996. “Child Care in OECD Countries.” OECD Employment Outlook:123–51.Google Scholar
  46. OECD. 2001. “Balancing Work and Family Life: Helping Parents Into Paid Employment.” OECD Employment Outlook:129–66.Google Scholar
  47. —. 2007. Babies and Bosses. Reconciling Work and Family Life. A Synthesis of Findings for OECD Countries. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.Google Scholar
  48. Ondrich, J., K. Spiess, and Q. Yang. 2003. “Changes in Women’s Wages After Parental Leave.” Schmollers Jahrbuch 123(1):125–38.Google Scholar
  49. Petersen, T. and I. Saporta. 2004. “The Opportunity Structure for Discrimination.” American Journal of Sociology 109:852–901.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Phipps, S., P. Burton, and L. Lethbridge. 2001. “In and Out of the Labour Market: Long-Term Income Consequences of Child-Related Interruptions to Women’s Paid Work.” Canadian Journal of Economics 34:411–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Polachek, S.W. 2006. “How the Life-Cycle Human Capital Model Explains Why the Gender Wage Gap Narrowed.” Pp. 102–124 in The Declining Significance of Gender?, edited by F.D. Blau, M.C. Brinton, and D.B. Grusky. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  52. Rosenfeld, R.A. 1996. “Women’s Work Histories.” Population and Development Review 22:199–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ruhm, C.J. 1998. “The Economic Consequences of Parental Leave Mandates: Lessons From Europe.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 113(1):285–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sainsbury, D. 1994. “Gendering Welfare States.” London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  55. — 1996. Gender, Equality and Welfare States. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sigle-Rushton, W. and J. Waldfogel. 2007. “Motherhood and Women’s Earnings in Anglo-American, Continental European, and Nordic Countries.” Feminist Economics 13(2):55–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Spence, M. 1973. “Job Market Signaling.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 87:355–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stier, H., N. Lewin-Epstein, and M. Braun. 2001. “Welfare Regimes, Family-Supportive Policies, and Women’s Employment Along the Life-Course.” American Journal of Sociology 106:1731–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Waldfogel, J. 1995. “The Price of Motherhood: Family Status and Women’s Pay in a Young British Cohort.” Oxford Economic Papers 47:584–610.Google Scholar
  60. —. 1997. “The Effect of Children on Women’s Wages.” American Sociological Review 62: 209–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. — 1998a. “The Family Gap for Young Women in the United States and Britain: Can Maternity Leave Make a Difference?” Journal of Labor Economics 16:505–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. — 1998b. “Understanding the Family Gap in Pay for Women With Children.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 12(1):137–56.Google Scholar
  63. — 2001. “International Policies Toward Parental Leave and Child Care.” The Future of Children 11(1):98–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Wooldridge, J.M. 1995. “Selection Corrections for Panel Data Models Under Conditional Mean Independence Assumptions.” Journal of Econometrics 68:115–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. — 2002. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  66. Ziefie, A. 2004. “Die individuellen Kosten des Erziehungsurlaubs: Eine empirische Analyse der kurzund längerfristigen Folgen für den Karriereverlauf von Frauen” [The individual costs of parental leave: An empirical analysis of short- and longer-run consequences for women’s careers]. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 56:213–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Population Association of America 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Markus Gangl
    • 1
  • Andrea Ziefle
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of SociologyUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadison

Personalised recommendations