Drivers of Occupational and Sectoral Gendered Segregation, is development enough?

“Gender, Institutions, and Development”
Drivers of Occupational and Sectoral Gendered Segregation, is Development Enough?
David Dingus
Göttingen, 11403109
d.dingus@stud.uni-goettingen.de
April 9, 2015

DRIVERS OF OCCUPATIONAL AND SECTORAL GENDERED SEGREGATION, IS DEVELOPMENT ENOUGH?
Table of Contents
1. Introduction 1
2. Technical 2
2.1 Definitions 2
2.2 Indexes 3
3. Theories 4
3.1 Neoclassical Theory 4
3.2 Institutional and Feminist Theory 6
4. Hypotheses 9
4.1 Neoclassical Hypotheses 9
4.2 Institutional and Feminist Hypotheses 10
5. Empirical 11
5.1 Development (GDP) 11
5.2 Sectoral Change and Feminization 13
5.3 Female Labor Force Participation Rate (FLFPR) 13
5.4 Openness and Trade 14
5.5 Fertility 14
5.6 Education 15
5.7 Social Policies 15
5.8 Occupational and Sectoral Segregation 15
6. Closing Remarks 19
i

Table of Figures
Figure 1. Average Change in ID 1999-2000 1
Figure 2. Occupational Segregation 2000 2
Table 1. Occupational and Sectoral Titles 3
Figure 3. Gender Differences in Time Use 6
Figure 4. Gender Differences in Time Allocation 7
Figure 5. Sectoral and Occupational Segregation across Development 16
Figure 6. Occupational Segregation across Countries 16
Table 2. Changes in Sectoral Indices within Countries over Time 18
Table 3. Sectoral Concentration Ratio Means 18
Table A1. Trends in Occupational Segregation 23
Table A2. Occupational Segregation controlling for Regional Factors 24
Table A3. Occupational Segregation and State Policies 25
Table A4. Occupational and Sectoral Segregation ID & IP 26
ii

Abstract
Occupational and sectoral segregation remain an issue through out the world. In this
paper we examine neoclassical, institutional and feminist theory to develop hypotheses for
the behaviour of the drivers of segregation. Empirically, we find the literature to be mixed
with differences varying across techniques and time periods. We find that these drivers
deliver different outcomes between occupations and sectors, with different regions returning
different results. Overall, segregation generally increases as industrialization begins and then
declines. However, this decline is not in line with neoclassical theory, which suggests that
discriminating firms are driven out of the market, but rather that firms and the culture adapts
by changing its preferences. Yet the rate of this change and the decline in segregation is much
slower than anticipated, suggesting that regional factors may be a contributing factor. The
variance across regions is in line with institutional and feminist theory, suggesting that there
are inherent biasses and discrimination present that will take time to unwind across
generations. Furthermore, while there is evidence to suggest that policy may help speed up
the process of this unwinding, it must be done carefully, taking into account regional specific
factors such as culture, level of industrialisation and history.
I. Introduction
"No industry or country can reach its full potential until women reach their full
potential. This is especially true of science and technology, where women with a
surplus of talent still face a deficit of opportunity." — Sheryl Sandberg
Gender segregation across occupations and sectors not only harms the individual, but
society as a whole. Without gender equality, a country is not achieving its potential for
development and growth. Modernization theory suggests that as a country industrializes and
develops, key indicators of fertility, education and
income will improve as more women enter the labor
force. However, gender based occupational and
sectoral segregation persists across all countries and
levels of development. (World Bank, 2012)
In Figure 1, we can see differences in
regional trends with distinct interactions of a variety
of drivers within these regions. Overall, sectoral
segregation is decreasing in developed countries,
1
Figure 1. Average Change in ID 1990-2000
(Anker, Melkas, & Korten 2003)

the Middle East and in Latin America, but it has
actually increased in transition economies and East
Asia. Furthermore, in Figure 2 we can see that
occupational segregation is high overall, but
particularly problematic in East Asia and the
Middle East. These regional differences suggest
that regional specific factors may play a larger role
in driving gendered segregation in the labor market.
(Anker, Melkas, & Korten, 2003)
In this paper we will examine the drivers of gender segregation more closely to
determine if there are any clear trends that would lead to policy implication in reducing
gender segregation. We will examine if gender segregation follows neoclassical theories and
self corrects due to market forces as development and income increase, or if intervention is
needed, as suggested by institutional and feminist theories. First, we will begin by covering
the definitions and common indexes used to measure gender segregation. Next, we will cover
the common theories of gendered segregation and their hypotheses. Finally, we will look at
the empirical evidence to draw conclusions.
II. Technical
2.1 Definitions
In this paper we will use definitions from the European Commission (2009), as there
are different interpretations in the literature. Occupational segregation refers to the
segregation of genders between different occupations, where there are more males in certain
occupations and more females in others. Occupational segregation can be further divided into
horizontal and vertical segregation. Vertical segregation refers to the under or over
representation of one gender at the top of a specific occupation or sector. Vertical segregation
is sometimes also referred to as hierarchical segregation. We can further expand upon this
definition and incorporate the “glass ceiling”. This is when women have a more difficult time
being promoted to a higher level as compared to men. On the other hand, horizontal
segregation refers to the under or over representation of one gender at a specific level
between occupations and sectors. More broadly, sectoral segregation focuses on gender
2
Figure 2. Occupational Segregation 2000
(Anker, Melkas, & Korten 2003)

segregation between different sectors regardless of level or vertical standing. Refer to Table 1
for an example of sectoral and occupational titles.
2.2 Indexes
The Duncan Index of Dissimilarity, also referred to as ID, is a common Index used as
an indicator for horizontal segregation. The index sums up the difference between male
participation rates and female participation rates for a given sector i and then divides them by
2. It has a range of 0 – 1 in percentage terms, where 0 represents no segregation, and 1
perfect segregation. This ID number represents the percentage of the population that would
have to switch sectors to give an equal distribution across all sectors.
In this way the index does not take into account different female labor force
participation rates. In other words, even if all sectors are predominately male, there can still
be an equal distribution, so as long as there is an equal percentage of male and female
participation rates respective to their gender’s labor force participation rate. This index is also
heavily influenced by large sectors or occupations, in that if a large sector is highly
segregated, it would over shadow all of the less segregated smaller sectors. Conversely, if a
large sector were relatively equally distributed, it would also hide the segregation present in
smaller sectors. As such, the index has been reformulated numerous times to limit the effect
of these negative attributes, including “size standardized” versions, which eliminated the
negative effect of different size weightings. Nonetheless, the index is relatively common
given its easy understanding and interpretation. It is therefore the one with the most historic
data, and allows for an easy comparison over time.
3
Table 1. Sectoral and Occupational Titles
(Borrowman & Klasen 2015)

The Karmal and MacLachlan Index, also referred to as IP, is one such alternative
index which is not affected by the size of the sector occupation. The IP has a value from 0
to .5 with a similar interpretation as ID. The N represents the total employed population. The
major difference between ID and IP is that ID is a value without replacement, meaning that
female workers have to switch away from one sector and to another. Because IP uses N, it
allows for replacement, but this means that the values can change based on changes in the
female labor force participation rates. In other words, if more females enter the labor force as
is common in the development process and do so by entering an already female dominated
sector, the IP value would increase.
In summary, ID is susceptible to the size of sectors where as IP is susceptible to the
female labor force participation rate. By using both, we can compare results and get a more
complete picture. Nonetheless, neither of these indexes explains or shows changes in specific
sectors but rather the market as a whole. As such, some studies include another measure in
order to understand the dynamics of segregation between different sectors and occupations,
using what are referred to as Female to Male Concentration Ratios.
By calculating the concentration ration for each sector, we can see how individual
factors of education, fertility, openness, etc. affect each sector or occupation. In this way, we
can better understand the dynamics that drive gendered segregation on the micro level, and
avoid any dilution from the macro level as given by ID and IP.
III. Theories
3.1 Neoclassical Theory
Becker (1957) argues that due to biological differences, men and women should
specialize in different areas in order to maximize household utility. He expands upon this by
saying that since women rear children, they will spend more time in the home as a result. As
such, a woman should specialize in household production because she will be able to
multitask given that she can rear children while taking care of the home at the same time. It is
important to note that Becker is not saying that men are better at producing in the market than
4

at the home, but because only a woman can rear children, she has a comparative advantage
over the man since she can rear children and produce at home while a man can only do one.
Polacheck (1981) presents a human capital theory where he argues that gendered
segregation begins because of different domestic responsibilities, and thus encourages
intermittent employment. Therefore, women generally seek out employment that will not
penalize them for being out of the labor market and in general can accommodate flexible
schedules, in exchange for lower wages.
“If life cycle labor force participation differs across individuals, and if the costs of
these varying degrees of labor force intermittency vary across occupations, then
individuals will choose those occupation with the smallest penalty for their desired
lifetime participation” (Polachek, 1981, p. 144)
Croson and Gneezy (2009) find that because women are more risk averse and more
adverse to competition, they are less likely take on jobs with more risk. These higher risk
jobs often pay more and also offer greater and faster chance of promotion. In sum, because of
female preferences, we see higher gendered segregation in the labor market.
As such we should see women specializing in jobs in the areas of education and
services, and taking on part-time instead of full-time work. This creates a sort of “taste for
discrimination” by employers and we see an increase in gendered segregation as a country
begins to develop and more women begin to enter the workforce. (Becker 1957) As the
economy becomes more advanced, Becker argues that these employers with a “taste for
discrimination” will be pushed out of the market due to increasing competition. Essentially,
employers who do not discriminate will higher workers with a higher level of human capital
and be able to produce superior products at lower prices. Making those employers who
discriminate less competitive, and their market share erode over time, driving them out of the
market.
To summarize, neoclassical theory suggests that as a country begins to industrialize it
is optimal for women to specialize in household production and shift into occupations and
sectors that compliment their skills and can accommodate their schedules, thus allowing them
to continue their household responsibilities. Over time, as an economy becomes more
advanced and international competition increases due to an increasing export sector, the
demand for female laborers will increase, thus driving out these discriminating firms out of
5

the market. In essence, competition will
decrease gender segregation in the labor
market overt time without intervention.
In Figure 3, we can see that
generally in more developed countries,
women spend more of their time
engaged in market activities and less of
their time in housework and care.
Nonetheless, women spend the majority
of their time in housework, conforming
to Becker’s argument. However, upon
closer examination we see that while
there is an overall trend for market
activities to correlate with development
there are a few exceptions. In fact,
Cambodia has the least differences
between the two, hinting at other factors
that are not accounted for by neoclassical
theory.
3.2 Institutional & Feminist Theory
Institutional theory argues for the existence of two labor markets, a “primary” market
and a “secondary” market. (Reich, Gordon & Edwards, 1973) Jobs in the “primary” sector
can be described as those which are more desirable due to higher wages and job security,
better working conditions, and greater opportunities for advancement as compared to jobs in
the “secondary” sector. (Borrowman & Klasen, 2015) This division of “primary” versus
“secondary” market leads to both horizontal and vertical segregation. According to Anker
(1998) this is because of a “male breadwinner bias” which prioritizes men for these
“primary” jobs since they are generally viewed as having to provide for the family; whereas a
woman’s income is seen as supplemental or secondary to the man. Thus, women will receive
lower investment in human capital and have a lower participation rate in the labor force; and
when a woman does decide to participate, she will do so with fewer options, lower wages and
6
Figure 3. Gender Differences in Time use
(World Bank 2012)

less chance for investment. (Borrowman & Klasen, 2015) This “breadwinner bias” thus leads
to vertical segregation.
Similar to neoclassical theory, Reich, Gordan & Edwards (1973) argue that under
institutional theory women are generally paid less than men because they seek jobs that
require a “serving mentality”. This in turn leads to women seeking jobs in specific sectors
deemed appropriate by these institutions, fostering horizontal segregation. Furthermore, they
argue that society and the cultural norms encourage this behavior, both by their immediate
family and their schooling. The difference between neoclassical and institutional theory is
that the institution themselves, not just the household that perpetuate discrimination and
causes gender segregation in the labor market.
Feminist theory goes on to explain this preference for discrimination that can be
found both under neoclassical and institution theory. Feminist theories argue that cultural and
regional specific properties lead to a socialization of what a women’s role is and how she
should be invested in. Furthermore, she will choose a similar path for her own female
children and society as a whole will reinforce these ideas by choosing only to offer certain
jobs to men and others to women. In this way we see a self-reinforcing feedback loop, which
can only change over generations. (Borrowman & Klasen, 2015) In figure 4 we can see
evidence of these established
cultural norms; although women are
participating more in the work force,
they are still having to do most of
the work in the home, and while
men’s role in the home is increasing,
it is not increasing at the same rate
of women’s work in the market.
(World Bank, 2012)
One may argue that a reason for the observed gender segregation may be due physical
capabilities. However, Baron and Bielby (1986) find that the majority of the segregation is
not due to physical capabilities, but other factors consisting of regional factors and evidence
of an inherent gender bias and discriminatory practices. These findings are in line with
feminist theories, which argue that horizontal segregation is heavily affected by cultural
7
Figure 4. Gender Differences in Time Allocation
(World Bank 2012)

norms, and that these regional factors account for a large portion of segregation between
manual and non-manual sectors. (Charles & Grusky, 2004) Moreover, employers and
employees reinforce these cultural norms in their hiring practice and internally by promoting
those who fit their idea of what an employee should look like. According to Golding (2002)
employees may actively seek to ensure that the current system of discrimination remains in
place, which is referred to as the “pollution” theory. Finally, feminist economic theories also
form a “queuing” theory in which employers rank their employees based upon discriminating
characteristics that they tie to their benefits package (salary, benefits, promotions). This
system thus leads to the “glass ceiling” in which employees that fulfill certain characteristics
receive promotions over others with similar merit because they do not fulfill these constraints
of gender, race, or religion. (Golding, 2002)
Bergman (1973) developed a theory of gender discrimination based on employer
choices. She argues that discrimination creates barriers to certain jobs, thus forcing women
into predominately female occupations. As female labor force participation increases the
supply of labor in these female-dominated occupations will increase, causing wages to fall
and male dominated occupation to see increasing wages. In summary, she argues that it is
discrimination that forces women into particular sectors and occupations that causes gendered
segregation.
Institutional and feminist theories suggest that market intervention is necessary to
overcome the biases and discrimination present in a country. Anker (1998) expands upon the
argument for intervention, arguing that gendered segregation in the labor market is heavily
influenced by the level of socioeconomic development present in a country, but differentiates
between the structures of this segregation and the level. Where socioeconomic policies can
change the structure, the level of segregation is influenced by other issues, such as the level
of industrialization. Implying that policies will have different outcomes for different countries
based on regional specific factors, such as culture and the level of industrialization.
Nonetheless, Chang (2004) argues that policies that target women may be even more
important and have a greater impact than they do in developed countries. She describes two
types of polices, one that promotes programs which aid women in their child bearing
responsibilities, and another that directly targets discriminatory practices against women
based on their gender. She notes that while these policies may have negative effects in some
8

countries, they may have a positive effect in the long term, especially if combined with other
policies and especially for developing countries.
Overall, institutional and feminist theory argues that there are inherent gender biases
and discriminatory practices present in the labor market, specific to their respective
respective region and they lead to gender segregation. While they may break down over time,
it may take some time for these barriers and cultural norms to change. As such, some suggest
that intervention is needed to speed up the process, but each intervention must be carefully
matched with the targeted region.
IV. Hypotheses
4.1 Neoclassical Hypotheses
Neoclassical theories predict decreasing levels of gender segregation in the market
due to supply and demand factors. As development increases, the level of female education
and female labor force participation will increase. Becker (1957) predicts a “taste of
discrimination” where women would predominantly work in non-discriminatory firms. While
it predicts segregation between employers, it makes no predictions about occupational or
sectoral segregation. Increasing international competition in the export-oriented sector will
further compound these factors. This also implies that increasing international competition in
the trade sector through trade liberalization processes would lead to less gender segregation.
Furthermore, Jacobs (1989) and Blau, Brinton, & Grusky (2006) argue that much of the
initial segregation exists due to differences in preferences and differing level of investment in
human capital. Over time as the country becomes more developed we should see more
convergence of these factors and therefore increasing education should lead to decreasing
amount of gender specific segregation. Human capital theory also adds, that industrialization
may lead to higher segregation initially, but then decrease across the development process.
(England, 1973)
Overall, neoclassical theories predict an inverse relationship between segregation,
development, export propensity, female labor force participation, and female education as a
proxy for human capital. Borrowman & Klasen (2015) point out that structural changes in the
countries market structure as it develops and moves away from agriculture to an industrial
and service based economy, should lead to less gendered segregation in the labor market,
although initially segregation will increase according to human capital theory.
9

4.2 Institutional and Feminist Hypotheses
Institutional and Feminist theory hypothesize that gendered segregation will not be
dismantled by development, because it is driven by deeply rooted cultural factors, which are
perpetuated by institutions and gender biases and inherent discriminatory practices. Under
these theories there is not necessarily any tendency for development under capitalism to
foster gender equality in the labor market, both for domestic and international production.
Instead these theories suggest that if the segregation is rigid enough, increasing female labor
force participation may even increase segregation. Moreover as human capital, i.e. education,
become more equal in its distribution it may take quite some time for gender segregation to
decrease as these jobs and divisions exhibit a “stickiness” or “path dependency”. (Carraway,
2007) Carraway (2007) also argues that when inroads are made there is a tendency to
feminize jobs in a way, which does not foster labor force integration. Borrowman and Klasen
(2015) note that the development path may actually foster and correlate with gendered market
segregation. In sum, women will seek occupations with a low penalty and men a high
penalty.
Institutional and feminist theories hypothesize that structural adjustments will lead to
higher sectoral and occupational segregation. They also add that vertical segregation may be
attributed to a gender bias in the work place where men seek to protect their jobs and
maintain the status quo, thus resulting in a “glass ceiling”. Furthermore, the “male
breadwinner bias” will lead to higher level of vertical segregation. Institutional and feminist
theory suggest that these biasses can be overcome by female-targeted social policies. They
hypothesize that maternity leave and anti-discrimination policies would lead to less
10
Neoclassical Hypotheses:
• As GDP increases, we expect segregation to decrease, since discriminating
firms are driven out of the market
• Segregation will increase initially as industrialization begins
• As FLFP increases segregation will increase
• An increase in education will lead to a decrease in segregation
• As an economy becomes more open and trade makes up a larger proportion
of GDP, segregation will decrease from international competition
• A decrease in Fertility will also lead to a decrease in segregation

segregation in the work place, because they remove the risk a women has of losing her job
from having children or forcing her to choose between children and a career.
V. Empirics
5.1 Development (GDP)
There have been numerous studies on the key drivers of occupational and sectoral
segregation showing mixed results. Surprisingly, many have found a positive relationship
between development measured in GDP per capita and gender segregation. As a result, a
variety of different methods have been used to try and explain this discrepancy between
theory and empirics. Jacobs & Lim (1992) use longitudinal data to try and explain this result,
but still find a positive and highly significant relationship, though it is relatively small.
Furthermore, using their longitudinal data and controlling for sector size, they find overall
that segregation has decreased slightly across individual countries, see Table A1 for a list of
examples. Furthermore, they reject any notion of a feminization-U hypothesis in that they see
poor countries with declining segregation, while richer continue to increase.
Using more updated data, Ball (2008) attempts to control for regional specific factors
to explain this positive relation. In Table A2 we see that she too finds a positive correlation
between income and segregation that is also highly significant. In particular we see that
segregation is highest in the Middle East, North Africa, and previous socialist countries and
are significant. Overall, Ball (2008) arrives at many of the expected signs, except showing
11
Institutional and Feminist Hypotheses:
• Gender bias at the institutional level creates a dual market structure leading
to sectoral segregation
• Cultural norms reinforced by institutions create a “serving mentality”
leading to horizontal and sectoral segregation
• “male bread winner” bias will lead to vertical segregation
• Cultural norms create division between manual and non-manual labor
leading to sectoral segregation
• Gender biases lead to less employment opportunities and occupational
segregation: “pollution theory”
• “queuing theory” causes more vertical segregation and a glass ceiling
• Segregation will take time to dismantle due to the stickiness of regional
specific factors
• Pro-maternity leave and anti-discrimination policies lead to less segregation

that as industrialization begins we see increasing segregation, and above all that regional
differences make up a large proportion of the differences in segregation across countries. She
notes that while segregation and income are increasing, segregation is doing so at a
decreasing rate and provides evidence of a feminization U-Hypothesis. While a positive
correlation between GDP and gendered segregation may seem counterintuitive, it does
conform to neoliberal theory and the hypothesis that industrialization leads to higher
segregation initially that then tappers off. However, the time it takes for segregation to
decrease is much longer than the theory would suggest, and only visible using longitudinal
data. This suggests that other factors, and in particular regional factors may have a larger
impact on segregation than an increase in income alone, and that feminist and institutional
theory may be correct in explaining gender segregation given the general prevalence of
segregation and the time it takes to decline.
Borrowman and Klasen (2015) argue that the data used by the majority of these
studies is outdated. Using more recent and complete data they determine that there is no
direct correlation between development and segregation that is significant. These findings are
consistent with findings from World Bank (2012) that development alone is not strong
enough to overcome segregation. While not significant, their coefficients are positive and in
line with institutional and feminist theories, thereby underscoring the complexities in these
drivers and that development alone will not fix the issue.
“There are a multitude of forces working to increase and decrease gendered
segregation throughout the development process, many of which are crystallized in
institutions and social norms that have dynamic interactions with the very process of
development. Thus we cannot rely on economic forces alone to erode entrenched
patterns of gendered labor market segregation.” (Borrowman & Klasen, 2015, p. 23)
If development were enough, we would expect to see development policies lead to
increasing incomes and less segregation. SENAI is a development program that was designed
to provide vocational training in Brazil to help train the labor force and foster a path for
development and growth. However, the program was implemented without considering the
effects on occupational gender segregation, and thus there was no included component to
target women. Barria and Klasen (2014) have found that the program has led to an increase
occupational and sectoral gender segregation and argue that the negative effects of SENAI
serve as an example that development policies alone are not enough to reduce segregation,
12

but in fact can even worsen it. Overall, our empirical evidence is mixed on the relationship
between development and segregation and highlights the importance of regional specific
factors.
5.2 Sectoral Change and Feminization
As the development process takes hold we generally observe the service sector grow,
as women move away from agriculture and into the labor force, seeking to provide these
services that they once provided in the home on the market. (World Bank, 2012) Charles
(1992) emphasizes the importance of the service sectors as those are found to be mostly
female dominated since these types of jobs offer the flexibility and characteristics women
seek. Thus we would expect to see development lead to a larger service sector and higher
labor market sectoral gender segregation. That being said, neither Semyonov & Jones (1999),
nor Chang (2004) found the level of gendered segregation to be significant in comparison to
the size of a country’s service sector. However, Charles (1992) found a positive relationship
for industrialized countries. In all, empirical evidence does not show a strong case for
sectoral change to lead to an increase in segregation in the economy as a whole. This
underscores the importance of other regional factors, and that they may have a stronger effect
on the outcome of gender segregation in the labor market.
5.3 Female Labor Force Participation Rate (FLFPR)
Female labor force participation may cause either more or less segregation and it
depends highly on those regional specific factors and how deeply rooted they are. Carraway
(2007) examines the manufacturing sector in Indonesia and found that increasing labor force
participation there had mixed results, and much less of a positive impact as anticipated as the
factors contributing to the segregation proved to be much more resilient. For the most part,
many have found an inverse relationship between FLFPR and gendered segregation
including: Jacobs and Lim (1992); Anker (1998), Semyonov and Jones (1999), Meyer (2003)
and Ball (2008). Yet, Chang (2004) found the relationship to be insignificant and Swanson
(2005) even found the relationship to be positive. Chang (2004) sights the “culling effect” as
an explanation for her results. She argues that women are in less high status occupations
when the percent of FLFPR increases and thus cancels out any gains. In all, when the FLFPR
increases, we can expect to see an increase in segregation, as women will generally enter
13

occupations at the bottom end and sectors for which they have the skills, and those that can
accommodate their needs. However, regional factors may be able to cancel out this effect.
5.4 Openness and Trade
Extending these finding to the openness of the economy, Borrowman & Klasen
(2015) note that there are both push and pull factors at stake and that while the female labor
force has been drawn in, they have been particularly focused on occupations and sectors
which offer flexible time schedules and lower wages. (Standing,1999) This would suggest a
positive relationship between trade liberalization and gender segregation in the labor market.
Seguino (2000), Berik (2004), Carraway (2007) and Meyer (2003) found an inverse
relationship between the export share of GDP and occupational segregation and Chang
(2004) and Borrowman & Klasen (2015) have found no significant relationship. On the other
hand, Ederington, Minier & Troske (2009) found in their study of Colombia that as the
market structure shifted to a more trade based system, there was an increase in labor force
participation most of which focused on the export sector, thus partially confirming the human
capital hypothesis. However, they found that unlike Becker’s argument that says that
discriminating firms will be driven out of the market, Ederington, Minier, Troske (2009) find
that firms are forced to adopt. Implying that while an increasing trade sector may bring more
women into the work place and increase segregation initially, it will also force the
preferences of firms to change and discriminate less. Although the evidence is mixed, many
studies have found openness to correlate with less segregation; however, regional specific
factors may play a larger role, leaving the labor market unchanged. More importantly, there is
evidence of insertional and feminist theory given that firms seem to change their preferences
and discriminate less as competition increases from trade. This implies that occupational
gender segregation may not be because of the choices of women as suggested by neoclassical
theory, but that there are inherent gender biasses and discriminatory practices present in the
labor market as suggested by feminist and institutional theory.
5.5 Fertility
We expect increased fertility to correspond with higher segregation due to intermittent
labor force participation as child care responsibilities have to be balanced with work and
many male dominated positions are not necessarily supportive of family responsibilities.
Results may be mixed because as a country becomes more developed there may be maternity
14

leave policies, whose costs could be borne by the state or the employer. If borne by the
employer, it could deter the hiring of women and lead to further occupational and sectoral
segregation. Several studies have confirmed an overall positive relationship between fertility
and segregation such as Jacobs and Lim (1992), Anker (1998) and Ball (2008). Where as
some have found the relationship to be insignificant, meaning that other factors were most
likely important such as in studies by Chang (2004) and Swanson (2005). In sum, while there
is evidence to support that decreased fertility corresponds with less gender segregation, some
evidence suggests that regional specific factors and other drivers may be important.
5.6 Education
Neoclassical theory argues that most of the differences we observe in segregation are
due to differences in human capital, and thereby education. As such, we would expect that as
education levels increase, that the differences in human capital would decrease and gender
segregation to decrease. On the other hand, if these differences are driven by discrimination
as argued by institutional and feminist theory, then increases in education should have little
effect on occupational gender segregation. Semyonov & Jones (1999), Meyer (2003), Chang
(2004), and Swanson (2005) all found no significant relationship, thus leading to a conclusion
that most of these differences may be attributed to institutional and feminist theories. One
study by Jacobs and Lim (1992) show a positive relationship; however, using longitudinal
data the relationship also becomes negative. Overall, the majority of studies show that the
hypothesis from neoclassical theory on education and human capital does not hold, but
instead shows evidence of the institutional and feminist theories in that segregation is largely
driven by inherent gender biases deeply rooted in the culture and its institutions.
5.7 Social Policies
Given the prevalence and impact of regional specific factors on gendered segregation,
one would expect policies targeted at women, such as pro-maternity leave and anti-
discrimination policies to reduce gender segregation, but those outcomes are mixed as well.
Chang (2000) finds that maternity leave has a negative effect on market segregation, while
anti-discrimination policies can actually increase segregation. However, she points out that
these policies have different effects based upon the exact occupation and sector being studied.
This does not mean that these policies are bad and should be avoided, but rather studied more
15

closely and modified according to the country in order to achieve the desired outcome and
minimize the negative effects.
5.8 Occupational and Sectoral Segregation
Figure 5 compares occupational and sectoral segregation between 3 countries in
different stages of development. We can see that while there is correlation between sector and
occupational segregation, there are differences, with no clear trends. Furthermore, in Figure 6
16
Figure 5. Sectoral and Occupational Segregation across Development
(World Bank 2012)
Figure 6. Occupational Segregation across Countries
(Chang 2004)

we can see the results from Chang (2004), where she highlights occupational segregation
across developing countries. While there are clear divisions overall, there are variations. We
can see that there are trends between dominate female occupations in service, sales, and
clerical, and dominate male occupations in production and managerial. However, there is not
only variation in the level of gender segregation observed across occupations, but also
country specific differences, with some returning the opposite results of the observable
trends. In this section we will more closely examine the drivers of occupational and sectoral
segregation and differentiate their effects in more detail.
In table A3 Chang (2004) takes a closer look at the effects of these drivers across
occupations. When considering these drivers on the occupational level, many lose their
significance or have the opposite effect. For example, maternity leave policies decrease
segregation for professionals, clerical, sales and service occupations, but many are
insignificant. Furthermore, we see that maternity leave policies increase segregation for
production and managerial occupations. Most surprisingly, she finds that anti-discrimination
legislation increases segregation overall, specifically in clerical, sales, and service
occupations, while decreasing segregation in professional, managerial and production
occupations.
However, she is quick to point out that there are distinctions to be made. First, anti-
discrimination policy can lead to less segregation when applied to white-collar jobs and lead
to higher-level promotions than without the policy. On the other hand, she argues that anti-
discrimination policy can increase segregation in the service and commerce because women
generally seek positions that allow them to work part-time or with flexible schedules. In this
way, more women, especially those with children who may stay at home, are entering the job
market than otherwise would. These results underscore the inherent complexities underlying
occupational and sectoral segregation, and stress the importance of regional specific factors,
noting that while they may have an overall trend in one direction, we may observe the
opposite effect on sectoral or occupational segregation.
Borrowman and Klasen (2015) use the most up-to-date data to look at the differences
in occupational and sectoral segregation. They use both ID and IP indexes in their analysis.
ID allows for comparison with previous data to determine if there has been any improvement
over time. On the other hand, IP has too little data to compare over time, but helps to create a
17

more comprehensive picture. They find significant differences across regions. For example,
Borrowman & Klasen (2015) find that Latina America has higher gender segregation in both
industries and occupations, whereas Asia and Africa are at the lower end for both.
Borrowman and Klasen (2015) also use concentration ratios to determine the impacts
of specific drivers across occupations and sectors. They find that while the level of
segregation has decreased, there is increasing sectoral and occupational segregation in the
majority of countries, albeit at a lower level as seen in Table 2.
They also include concentration ratios shown in Table 3 to distinguish the effects on
individual sectors. Using the concentration ratios (as the dependent variable) they found that
commerce and mining and construction to be mostly male dominated, and that development
usually caused a decrease in the number of women in manufacturing, but and increase
presence of females in commerce and service areas.
Furthermore, they tried to capture some of the regional variance by also including
variable for different age groups and urban vs. rural workers. Notably, they found that in
urban areas, export was slightly positive for women in manufacturing, which supports the
hypothesis of female labor force feminization with development and the expansion of the
export sector. Overall, the commerce sector seems to be the most female dominated sector.
18
Table 2. Changes in Segregation Indices within Countries over Time
Table 3. Sectoral Concentration Ratio Means

On table A4 we can observe that Borrowman & Klasen (2015) also find that drivers
can have different implications between occupations and sectors. For example, the fertility
rate has a negative relationship for sectors, though insignificant, while having a significant
and positive effect on occupations in rural areas; it is a similar case for the FLFPR, and the
services employment share.
Borrowman and Klasen (2015) find an inverse relationship for sectors, but a positive
sign for occupations, hinting towards a changing employment structure where sectoral
employment is more equal, but occupational segregation is increasingly more segregated. A
positive relationship correlates with segmented labor market theory, queuing and pollution
theory, and with different gendered constraints and preferences. They also find that education
returned with positive coefficients for all sectors, which is counter intuitive. This does not
necessarily mean that more education leads to greater segregation, but that other variables are
having more influence. Overall, education measured both in gender ratio and average level
have a larger effect for occupational segregation, but the average level was more significant
in sectoral segregation and in particular for urban and age 30-54 cohorts. In particular, it was
the commerce and service sector where most of the change was observed. This highlights the
importance of structural change that economies undergo during the development process as
important, and demands further analysis to further understand gendered segregation
outcomes. (Borrowman & Klasen, 2015)
Overall, it is important to note that while there is high correlation between
occupational and sectoral segregation over time, there are different driving forces of each, so
they can change and behave differently over time, and affect specific sectors, occupations,
environments, and age groups differently. We can only underscore that regional differences in
both structural and social norms can have large impacts on the effects of these drivers on
gender segregation.
VI. Closing Remarks
Empirical evidence has highlighted the complexities underlying occupational and
sectoral gendered segregation in the market place. While we find mixed or no correlation
between development and segregation, this does not mean that there is no interaction, but
rather that other drivers have a larger, more influential role. Evidence is partially in line with
neoclassical theory in that we see an increase in segregation as industrialization begins, but it
19

decreases at a much slower rate than neoclassical theory suggests and in some cases
increases, implying that increasing competition and development alone, will not decrease
gender segregation in the labor market. Instead, our conclusions suggest we should consider
institutional and feminist theory when looking for mechanisms in which to break down and
reduce gender segregation. These theories emphasize the complexities in which existing
regional specific factors create a self-reinforcing gender bias that discriminates against
women. However, policies that seek to overcome these barriers can also have mixed results
with variation across occupational and sectoral sectors, which must be carefully considered
on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, all policies pursued must be implemented carefully to
understand and avoid any negative impacts on gendered segregation that may result based on
regional preferences, history and level of development.
Finally, more research should be conducting making use of the newest data. Given
how complex these drivers interact with each other, it is essential to use the most up-to-date
and complete data available. Furthermore, while we can conclude that regional factors are a
large factor in the observed gendered segregation outcomes, these regional specific factors
are themselves made up of many complex factors. The World Bank (2012) cites market
failures as a result of low access to credit and land rights as being a major driver of
occupational segregation in the developing world; yet given the current data, we cannot
differentiate these factors from other regional factors. More complete and detailed data would
give a better understanding of how these variables within regional factors interact. Moreover,
we should place greater emphasis on differentiating these impacts between both sectors and
occupations, given that an overall impact may differ from an impact on specific sectors or
occupations. Overall, we need more detailed and complete data to better understand these
complex interactions and avoid arriving at broad conclusions.
Gender segregation across occupations and sectors remains an issue for all countries
with policies having different outcomes based on regional specific factors. Though the
interactions are complex and the evidence mixed, there remains strong evidence that pursuing
development alone is not enough and we must pursue policies that carefully seek to break
down gender barriers specific to the targeted region.
20

References
Anker, R. (1998). Gender and Jobs: Sex Segregation in Occupations in the World. Geneva,
Switzerland: International Labour Office.
Anker, R., Melkas, H., & Korten, A. (2003). Gender-based occupational segregation in the
1990's.
Ball, J. A. (2008). Feminization of the Labor Force, Development, and Economic Reform:
Effects on Job Segregation by Sex. The Journal of Developing Areas , 42 (1), 53-67.
Ball, J. A. (2004). The effects of neoliberal structural adjustment on women's relative
employment in Latin America. International Journal of Social Economics , 31 (10),
974-984.
Barria, C. V., & Klasen, S. (2014). The Impact of SENAI's Vocational Training Programme
on Employment, Wages, and Mobility in Brazil: What Lessons for Sub Saharan
Africa? Goettingen: Ibero-America Institute for Economic Research.
Becker, G. (1957). The Economics of Discrimination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Bergmann, B. (1974). Occupational Segregation, Wages and Profits When Employers
Discriminate by Race or Sex. Eastern Economic Journal , 1 (2), 103-110.
Berik, G., Rodgers, Y. v., & Zveglich, J. E. (2004). International trade and gender wage
discrimination: Evidence from East Asia. Review of Development Economics , 8 (2),
237-254.
Bielby, W. T., & Baron, J. N. (1986). Men and women at work: Sex segregation and
statistical discrimination. American journal of sociology , 759-799.
Blau, F. D., Brinton, M. C., & Grusky, D. B. (2006). The Declining Significance of Gender?
New York: The Russell Sage Foundation.
Borrowman, M., & Klasen, S. (2015). Drivers of Gendered Occupational Sectoral
Segregation in Developing Countries.
Cagatay, N., & Ozler, S. (1995). Feminization of the labor force: the effects of long-term
development and structural adjustment. World Development , 23 (11), 1883-1894.
Carraway, T. L. (2007). Assembling Women: The Feminization of Global Manufacturing.
Ithaca: Cornell Univeristy Press.
Chang, M. (2004). Growing Pains: Cross-National Variation in Sex Segregation in Sixteen
Developing Countries. American Sociological Review , 69, 114-137.
Charles, M. (1992). Cross-National Variation in Occupational Sex Segregation. American
Sociological Review , 57, 483-502.
Charles, M., & Grusky, D. B. (2004). Occupational Ghettos: the Worldwide Segregation of
Women and Men. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Croson, R., & Gneezy, U. (2009). Gender Differences in Preferences. Journal of Economic
Literature , 47 (2), 448-474.
Ederington, J., Minier, J., & Troske, K. R. (2009, April). Where the Firls Are: Trade and
Labor Market Segregation in Colombia. (DP 4131). Bonn, Germany: IZA.
21

England, P. (1982). The Failure of Human Capital Theory to Explain Occupational
Segregation. The Journal of Human Resources , 17 (3), 358-370.
European Commission. (2009). Gender Segregation in the Labour Market: Root Causes,
Implications and Policy Responses in the EU. Luxembourg: Publications Office of
the European Union.
Golding, C. (2002). A pollution theory of discrimination: Male and female differences in
occupations and earnings. National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER.
Jacobs, J. A. (1989). Revolving Doors: Sex Segregation and Women's Careers. Stanford:
Stanford University Press.
Jacobs, J. A., & Lim, S. T. (1992). Trends in Occupational and Industrial Sex Segregation in
56 Countries, 1960-1980. Work and Occupations , 19 (4), 450-486.
Meyer, L. B. (2003). Economic Globalization and Women's Status in the Labor Market: A
Cross-National Investigation of Occupational Sex Segregation and Inequality. The
Sociological Quarterly , 44 (3), 351-383.
Polacheck, S. (2004). How the Life-Cycle Human Capital Model Explains Why the Gender
Wage Gap Narrowed.
Polacheck, S. (1981). Occupational self-selection: A human capital approach to sex
differences in occupational structure. Review of Economics and Statistics , 63 (1),
60-69.
Reich, M., Gordon, D. M., & Edwards, R. C. (1973). Dual Labor Markets: A Theory of Labor
Market Segmentation. American Economic Review , 63 (2), 359-365.
Seguino, S. (2000). Gender Inequality and Economic Growth: A Cross-Country Analysis.
World Development , 28 (7), 1211-1230.
Seyonov, M., & Jones, F. L. (1999). Dimensions of Gender Occupational Differentiation in
Segregation and Inequality: A Cross National Analysis. Social Indicators Research ,
46 (2), 225-247.
Standing, G. (1999). Global feminization through flexible labor: A theme revisited. World
Development , 27 (3), 583-602.
Swanson, P. A. (2005). Occupational Sex Segregation and Economic Development. Journal
of Business and Economic Research , 3 (8), 43-52.
World Bank. (2012). World Development Report 2012: Chapter 5: Gender differences in
employment and why they matter.
22

Appendix
!
!
23
Table A1. Trends in Occupational Segregation
(Jacobs & Lim 1992)

!  
24
Table A2. Occupational Segregation controlling for Regional Factors
(Ball 2008)

!
25
Table A3. Occupational Segregation and State Policies
(Chang 2004)

!
26
Table A4. Occupational and Sectoral Segregation ID & IP

Drivers of Occupational and Sectoral Gendered Segregation, is development enough?

Recomendados

Recomendados

Más contenido relacionado

La actualidad más candente

La actualidad más candente (19)

Similar a Drivers of Occupational and Sectoral Gendered Segregation, is development enough?

Similar a Drivers of Occupational and Sectoral Gendered Segregation, is development enough? (20)

Drivers of Occupational and Sectoral Gendered Segregation, is development enough?