nach oben

Social Indicators Research

Erschienen in:

24.01.2021 | Original Research

Beyond Wage Gap, Towards Job Quality Gap: The Role of Inter-Group Differences in Wages, Non-Wage Job Dimensions, and Preferences

verfasst von: Marko Ledić, Ivica Rubil

Erschienen in: Social Indicators Research | Ausgabe 2/2021

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

Abstract

Wage is not the only thing people care about when assessing the quality of their jobs. Non-wage job dimensions, such as autonomy at work and work-life balance, are important as well. Nevertheless, there is vast literature comparing groups of employed people that focuses on the inter-group wage gaps only. We go beyond the wage gap by proposing a framework for analysing inter-group gaps in multidimensional job quality. Job quality is measured by the so-called equivalent wage, a measure combining wage and multiple non-wage job dimensions in accordance with preferences over jobs as combinations of job dimensions. We derive a decomposition of the inter-group equivalent wage gap into three components: (1) the standard wage gap, (2) the gap in non-wage dimensions, and (3) inter-group preference heterogeneity. In an illustrative empirical application, we focus on the gender gap for recent university graduates using survey data from 19 countries. Men’s equivalent wages are substantially higher than women’s, and the equivalent wage gaps are significantly larger than the wage gaps. This is because the non-wage job dimensions are on average to men's advantage, and the preference heterogeneity is such that men care about the non-wage dimensions less than women do, and thus suffer less from having the non-wage dimensions at levels below the perfect level. This type of decompositions broadens information about labour market inequalities available to policy makers, but it is up to them to decide which of the three components of the equivalent wage gap are normatively relevant for them and whether they should aim to eliminate them.

Vorheriger Artikel The Influence of Human Capital and Social Capital on the Gendered Division of Labor in Peasant Family in Sichuan, China

Nächster Artikel Fractional persistence in income poverty in Africa

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich

Fleurbaey and Schokkaert (2013) analyse the case of incomplete preferences.

The same would hold if we assumed multiplicative separability, i.e. \(u^{g} \left( {W,D,X} \right) = f^{g} \left( {W,D} \right)h^{g} \left( X \right)\), or any other form of weak separability.

Analogously: \(u^{g} \left( {W^{\prime},D{^{\prime}},\tilde{X}} \right) > u^{g} \left( {W^{\prime\prime},D{^{\prime\prime}},\tilde{X}} \right)\) if everyone with \(X = \tilde{X}\) strictly prefers \(\left( {W^{\prime},D{^{\prime}}} \right)\) to \(\left( {W^{\prime\prime},D^{\prime\prime}} \right)\); \(u^{g} \left( {W^{\prime},D{^{\prime}},\tilde{X}} \right) = u^{g} \left( {W^{\prime\prime},D{^{\prime\prime}},\tilde{X}} \right)\) if everyone with is indifferent between \(\left( {W{^{\prime}},D{^{\prime}}} \right)\) and \(\left( {W{^{\prime\prime}},D{^{\prime\prime}}} \right)\).\(X = \tilde{X}\)

This should not be confused with unselfish (other-regarding, altruistic) behaviour.

Note that the same would hold if we assumed multiplicative separability: for \(u^{g} \left( {W,D,X} \right) = f^{g} \left( {W,D} \right)h^{g} \left( X \right)\), \({u}^{g}\left(W,D,X\right)={u}^{g}({W}^{\mathrm{*}},{D}^{r},X)\) if and only if \(f^{g} \left( {W,D} \right) = f^{g} \left( {W^{*} ,D^{r} } \right)\). This would hold for any other form of weak separability, too.

Or, equivalently, by \(f^{{\text{A}}} \left( {W_{j} ,D_{j} } \right) = f^{{\text{A}}} \left( {W_{j}^{*} ,D^{r} } \right)\) and \(f^{{\text{B}}} \left( {W_{i} ,D_{i} } \right) = f^{{\text{B}}} \left( {W_{i}^{*} ,D^{r} } \right)\).

We stress that, although we assumed the same reference levels for all persons and dimensions, this assumption could be relaxed. For example, for some persons, or groups, or some non-wage dimensions, an imperfect level may be as good as the perfect one. In such cases, the normative reasoning above works for reference levels below the maximal ones. We did not opt for these person- or group- or dimension-specific reference levels because we did not find plausible arguments to do so.

\({\text{MRS}}_{{D_{k} ,\ln W}}^{g} = \varphi_{k}^{g}\) must be distinguished from the MRS between \({D}_{k}\) and wage \(W\). The latter is given as \({\text{MRS}}_{{D_{k} ,W}}^{g} = W\varphi_{k}^{g} = W \cdot {\text{MRS}}_{{D_{k} ,\ln W}}^{g}\).

\({\text{WTP}} = W \cdot \left[ {1 - \exp \left( {\mathop \sum \limits_{k = 1}^{K} \varphi_{k}^{g} \left( {D_{k} - D_{k}^{r} } \right)} \right)} \right]\)

For details on the Shapley value approach to decomposition, see, for example, Shorrocks (2013).

If they were at the perfect level, preferences would not matter at all, as the weight \(\overline{{{\mathbb{E}}\left[ {D_{k} - D_{k}^{r} } \right]}}\) would be zero, and thus the gap in preferences would be zero.

Unless the zero gap in non-wage dimensions is due to the averages of both groups being at the perfect level, in which case preferences do not matter at all.

How fine the breakdown can be will depend on the sample size.

Suppose that each of the two \(g\)-specific EW distributions is divided into \(Q\) quantile groups each. Then, \({\mathbb{E}}^{g} \left[ {\ln W^{*} } \right] = \left( {1/Q} \right)\mathop \sum \limits_{q = 1}^{Q} {\mathbb{E}}_{q}^{g} \left[ {\ln W^{*} } \right]\), where \({\mathbb{E}}_{q}^{g} \left[ \cdot \right]\) stands for the average over the quantile group \(q\) within group \(g\). The EW gap is then, \({\Delta }{\mathbb{E}}\left[ {\ln W^{*} } \right] = \left( {1/Q} \right)\mathop \sum \limits_{q = 1}^{Q} {\Delta }{\mathbb{E}}_{q} \left[ {\ln W^{*} } \right]\), and Eq. (8) can be used to decompose each \({\Delta }{\mathbb{E}}_{q} \left[ {\ln W^{*} } \right]\) into the wage gap, the gap in non-wage dimensions, and the gap in preferences pertaining to quantile group \(q\).

In the latter case, the contribution of the preference gap to the EW gap will arguably depend on the length of the period considered, as any significant preference changes take time to develop.

Like us, Decancq et al. (forthcoming) allow for preference heterogeneity just with respect to a binary characteristic (rural vs. urban residence).

The derivation is given in the Appendix A1.

We do not do that in this paper.

The transformation makes sense only if \(D_{k}\)’s are (treated as) cardinal; it makes no sense to apply this transformation to a binary variable.

The derivation is given in the Appendix.

The essence of the approach is described in Clarke and Oswald (2002). For a critical overview, see, for example, Dolan and Fujiwara (2016).

This example is from the data used in this paper, namely the HEGESCO/REFLEX surveys of recent graduates, described in Sect. 3.2.

For similar specifications, see Jara et al. (2019), Schokkaert et al. (2011), Schokkaert and Jara (2017), Defloor et al. (2017), Petrillo (2018), Ledić and Rubil (2019), and Decancq et al. (forthcoming). The only difference is that these authors allow for preference heterogeneity, modelled through interactions between job or life dimensions and certain personal or employer attributes.

From the first to the last, the questions are from, respectively, the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP), the European Quality of Life Survey (EQLS), the British Household Panel Survey (BHPS), the International Survey for Higher Education Graduates (HEGESCO/REFLEX), and the European Working Conditions Survey (EWCS).

See also other papers that use the satisfaction approach to estimate prefereces: Schokkaert and Jara (2017), Petrillo (2018), Decancq et al. (2017, forthcoming), Decancq and Schokkaert (2016), Decancq and Neumann (2016), Defloor et al. (2017), Ledić and Rubil (2019), Mahler and Ramos (2019), Jara et al. (2019).

Or what amount of money would they be willing to receive to give up an amount of something they like.

However, some models of labour supply—the so-called latent job choice models (e.g., Dagsvik et al. 2014) – assume these job dimensions are part of the job ‘package’ and observed to the agent, but not to the econometrician.

For a comparison in a different context, see Benjamin et al. (2014).

REFLEX: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Switzerland, United Kingdom. HEGESCO: Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia, Turkey.

For more details on HEGESCO, see www.hegesco.org. Unfortunately, the web site for REFLEX does not exist any longer, but sufficient information is provided on HEGESCO’s web site, and on https://easy.dans.knaw.nl/ui/datasets/id/easy-dataset:34416/tab/1.

The unweighted average across the 19 countries is 54 percent for males and 50 percent for females. The shares vary across countries from 26 to 72 percent for males, and from 28 to 68 percent for females.

Some dimensions may seem very similar to one another. For example: ‘learn new things’ and ‘new challenges’; ‘time for leisure’ and ‘work and family’; ‘social status’ and ‘useful for society’. It might be that the number of dimensions could have been reduced using factor analysis. However, given the illustrative purpose of this empirical application, we decided to take each dimension as is. If different dimensions carried much the same information, that should be reflected in estimation results—the coefficients on ‘redundant’ dimensions would likely be statistically insignificant. Yet, according to our estimates, this does not seem to be the case (see Sect. 3.3).

The same question is asked for ‘high earnings’ as well, but it obviously is not a non-wage dimension, and thus we do not consider it.

It is recommended (e.g., Muñoz de Bustillo et al. 2011; OECD 2017) that job dimensions capture objective features of the job as experienced by workers, rather than workers’ subjective evaluations of these features. A worker’s own assessments of the extent to which a job dimension ‘applies’ to his job is in a sense a subjective evaluation. However, what is exactly meant by subjective evaluation is the worker’s assessment of how the level of a job dimension that he experiences on his job affects his subjective well-being—for example job satisfaction, or overall life satisfaction, or happiness. Judging by the wording of the questions on job dimensions in HEGESCO and REFLEX, it does not seem likely that respondents understood them as questions on the impact of job dimensions on their subjective well-being.

In a robustness check, we treat these variables as ordered categorical variables, and include them in the job satisfaction models as a set of four dummies. The results change little (see Sect. 3.4).

In a robustness check, we treat this variable as cardinal, and estimate the job satisfaction models using ordinary least squares. The results change very little (see Sect. 3.4).

This, and the previous one, could also be seen as job dimensions, but here we chose to specify job dimensions more generically.

Or, alternatively, introducing in the model additional 180 parameters (10 job dimensions × 18 country dummies).

Precisely, all statistically significant estimates of the coefficients on log-wage and the non-wage dimensions are positive, which is in line with the estimates from table 1, where preferences are equal across countries. In rare cases of negative estimates, these are very close to zero and statistically insignificant.

In fact, there is no multi-country application so far that estimated preferences separately for each country for the purpose of equivalent income computation. See Decancq and Schokkaert (2016), Petrillo (2018), and Ledić and Rubil (2019).

EW is also substantially more unequally distributed than wage, as measured by any commonly used inequality measure, such as the Gini coefficient or the Atkinson index. The estimates are not reported here but are available on demand. In the context of overall well-being, Decancq and Schokkaert (2016), Petrillo (2018), Decancq et al. (2017), and Ledić and Rubil (2019) found that equivalent income inequality is much higher than income inequality. For further analysis, see Decancq et al. (2017), who explored the role of preference heterogeneity for equivalent income inequality, and Ledić and Rubil (2019), who proposed a decomposition of the difference between equivalent income inequality and income inequality.

Some caution is in order, however, given the dependence of estimates on the analysts' choices concerning definitions, sample, and methods used (Weichselbaumer and Winter-Ebmer 2005).

Turkey is excluded because its wage gap is negative, although practically equal to zero.

See Fig. S4 for the results for all countries.

The ‘explained’ part is due to differences in various characteristics pertinent in wage formation, while the ‘unexplained’ part is attributed to the ‘returns’ on these characteristics, reflecting how each characteristic is valued in terms of pay. For an extensive overview of decomposition methods, see Fortin, Lemieux, and Firpo (2011).

https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/sdg_05_20/default/table?lang=en.

See the first paragraph of the present section.

For example, one might not identify with preferences arising from addictions or compulsions.

For reviews, see Roemer and Trannoy (2015, 2016) and Ramos and Van de gaer (2016).

Aaberge, R., & Colombino, U. (2014). Labour supply models. In C. O'Donoghue (Ed.), Handbook of microsimulation modelling (pp. 167–221). Emerald: Bingley.CrossRef

Adler, M. D., Dolan, P., & Kavestos, G. (2017). Would you choose to be happy? Tradeoffs between happiness and the other dimensions of life in a large population survey. Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 129, 60–73.CrossRef

Akay, A., Bargain, O., & Jara, H. X. (2017a). ‘Fair’ welfare comparisons with heterogeneous tastes: subjective versus revealed preferences. IZA DP No. 10908.

Akay, A., Bargain, O., & Jara, H. X. (2017). Back to Bentham, should we? (p. 10907). IZA DP No: Large-scale comparison of experienced versus decision utility.

Aldashev, A., Gernardt, J., & Thomsen, S. L. (2012). The immigrant-native wage gap in Germany. Jahrbücher für Nationalökonomie und Statistik (Journal of Economics and Statistics), 232, 490–517.CrossRef

Arneson, R. J. (1989). Equality and equal opportunity for welfare. Philosophical Studies: An International Journal of Philosophy in the Analytic Tradition, 56, 77–93.CrossRef

Atkinson, A. B. (1970). On the measurement of inequality. Journal of Economic Theory, 2, 244–263.CrossRef

Bakker, A. B., & Demerouti, E. (2007). The job demands-resources model: state of the art. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 22, 309–328.CrossRef

Bargain, O., Decoster, A., Dolls, M., Neumann, D., Peichl, A., & Siegloch, S. (2013). Welfare, labor supply and heterogeneous preferences: evidence for Europe and the US. Social Choice and Welfare, 41, 789–817.CrossRef

Bernheim, B. D., & Rangel, A. (2009). Beyond revealed preference: Choice-theoretic foundations for behavioral welfare economics. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 124(1), 51–104.CrossRef

Boudarbat, B., & Connolly, M. (2013). The gender wage gap among recent postsecondary graduates in Canada: a distributional approach. Canadian Journal of Economics, 46, 1037–1065.CrossRef

Benjamin, D. J., Heffetz, O., Kimball, M., & Rees-Jones, A. (2012). What do you think would make you happier? What do you think you would choose? American Economic Review, 102, 2083–2110.CrossRef

Benjamin, D. J., Heffetz, O., Kimball, M., & Rees-Jones, A. (2014). Can marginal rates of substitution be inferred from happiness data? Evidence from residency choices. American Economic Review, 104, 3498–3528.CrossRef

Bertrand, M., Goldin, C., & Katz, L. F. (2010). Dynamics of the gender gap for young professionals in the financial and corporate sectors. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2, 228–255.

Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (2017). The gender wage gap: extent, trends, and explanations. Journal of Economic Literature, 55, 789–865.CrossRef

Boll, C., & Lagemann, A. (2018). Gender pay gap in EU countries based on SES. Luxembourg, Publication Office of the European Union. doi, 10, 978935.

Bonhomme, S., & Jolivet, J. M. (2009). The pervasive absence of compensating wage differentials. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 24, 763–795.CrossRef

Brown, T. T. (2015). The subjective well-being method of valuation: An application to general health status. Health Services Research, 50(6), 1996–2018.CrossRef

Brown, D. A., Gardner, J., Oswald, A. J., & Quian, J. (2008). Does wage rank affect employees’ well-being? Industrial Relations, 47, 355–389.CrossRef

Brunner, E. J., Kivimäki, M., Siegrist, J., Theorell, T., Luukkonen, R., Riihimäki, H., et al. (2004). Is the effect of work stress on cardiovascular mortality confounded by socioeconomic factors in the Valmet study? Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 58, 1019–1020.CrossRef

Cazes, S., Hijzen, A., & Saint-Martin, A. (2016). Measuring and assessing job quality: the OECD job quality framework. OECD Social, Employment, and Migration Working Paper No. 174.

Christofides, L. N., & Michael, M. (2013). Exploring the public-private sector wage gap in European countries. IZA Journal of European Labor Studies, 2, 1–53.CrossRef

Clark, A. E., & Oswald, A. J. (1996). Satisfaction and comparison income. Journal of Public Economics, 61, 359–381.CrossRef

Clark, A. E., & Oswald, A. J. (2002). A simple statistical method for measuring how life events affect happiness. International Journal of Epidemiology, 31, 1139–1144.CrossRef

Cohen, G. A. (1989). On the currency of egalitarian justice. Ethics, 99, 906–944.CrossRef

Creedy, J., & Kalb, G. (2005). Discrete hours labour supply modelling: Specification, estimation and simulation. Journal of Economic Surveys, 19(5), 697–734.CrossRef

Decancq, K., & Neumann, D. (2016). Does the choice of well-being measure matter empirically? In M. Adler & M. Fleurbaey (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Well-being and Public Policy (pp. 553–587). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Decancq, K., & Nys, A. (2019). Non-parametric well-being comparisons. DPS 19.07, KU Leuven, Department of Economics.

Decancq, K., & Schokkaert, E. (2016). Beyond GDP: using equivalent incomes to measure well-being in Europe. Social Indicators Research, 126, 21–55.CrossRef

Decancq, K., & Lugo, M. A. (2013). Weights in multidimensional indices of wellbeing: an overview. Econometric Reviews, 32, 7–34.CrossRef

Decancq, K., Schokkaert, E., & Zuluaga, B. (2016). Implementing the capability approach with respect for individual valuations an illustration with Colombian data. In E. Chiappero-Martinetti, S. Osmani, & M. Qizilbash (Eds.), Handbook of the Capability Approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Decancq, K., Fleurbaey, M., & Schokkaert, E. (2015). Happiness, equivalent income and respect for individual preferences. Economica, 82, 1082–1106.CrossRef

Decancq, K., Fleurbaey, M., & Schokkaert, E. (2015). Inequality, income, and well-being. In A. B. Atkinson & F. Bourguignon (Eds.), Handbook of Income Distribution (Vol. 2A, pp. 67–140). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Decancq, K., Fleurbaey, M., & Schokkaert, E. (2017). Well-being inequality and preference heterogeneity. Economica, 84, 210–238.CrossRef

Decoster, A., & Haan, P. (2015). Empirical welfare analysis with preference heterogeneity. International Tax and Public Finance, 22, 224–251.CrossRef

Defloor, B., Verhofstadt, E., & Van Ootegem, L. (2017). The influence of preference information on equivalent income. Social Indicators Research, 131, 489–507.CrossRef

Dieckhoff, M. (2013). Continuing training in times of economic crisis. In D. Gallie (Ed.), Economic Crisis, Quality of Work and Social Integration: The European Experience (pp. 88–114). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dolan, P., & Fujiwara, D. (2016). Happiness-based policy analysis. In M. Adler & M. Fleurbaey (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Well-Being and Public Policy (pp. 286–317). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Dworkin, R. (1981). What is equality? Part 1: Equality of welfare. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 10, 185–246.

Dworkin, R. (1981). What is equality? Part 2: Equality of resources. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 10, 283–345.

Eurofound, . (2012). Trends in job quality in Europe. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

Eurofound, . (2013). Employment polarisation and job quality in the crisis: European jobs monitor 2013. Dublin: Eurofound.

Fernandez, R. M., & Nordman, C. J. (2009). Are there pecuniary compensations for working conditions? Labour Economics, 16, 194–207.CrossRef

Fleurbaey, M. (2005). Health, wealth, and fairness. Journal of Public Economic Theory, 7, 253–284.CrossRef

Fleurbaey, M. (2008). Fairness, Responsibility, and Welfare. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Fleurbaey, M. (2015). Beyond income and wealth. Review of Income and Wealth, 61, 199–219.CrossRef

Fleurbaey, M., Luchini, S., Muller, C., & Schokkaert, E. (2013). Equivalent income and fair evaluation of health care. Health Economics, 22, 711–729.CrossRef

Fortin, N., Lemieux, T., & Firpo, S. (2011). Decomposition methods in economics. In O. Aschenfelter & D. Card (Eds.), Handbook of Labor Economics (Vol. 4A, pp. 1–102). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Frey, B. S., Luechinger, S., & Stutzer, A. (2010). The life satisfaction approach to environmental valuation. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 2(1), 139–160.CrossRef

Gallie, D., & Zhou, Y. (2013). Job control, work intensity and work stress. In D. Gallie (Ed.), Economic Crisis, Quality of Work and Social Integration: The European Experience (pp. 115–141). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRef

Green, F. (2009). Subjective employment security around the world. Cambridge Journal of Regions, Economy and Society, 3, 343–363.CrossRef

Green, F., Mostafa, T., & Parent-Thirion, A. (2013). Is job quality becoming more unequal? Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 66, 753–784.CrossRef

Hakenen, J., Schaufeli, W. B., & Ahola, K. (2008). The job demands-resources model: a three-year cross-lagged study of burnout, depression, commitment, and work engagement. Work and Stress, 22, 224–241.CrossRef

Hunt, P. (2012). From the bottom to the top: a more complete picture of the immigrant-native wage gap in Britain. IZA Journal of Migration, 1, 1–18.CrossRef

ILO. (2012). Decent Work Indicators: Concepts and Definitions (1st ed.). Geneva: ILO.

Jara, H. X., Amores, C., & Díaz, Y. (2019). Missing dimensions of well-being and respect for individual preferences: How affected is equivalent income? In Special IARIW-World Bank Conference ‘New Approaches to Defining and Measuring Poverty in a Growing World”, Washington, DC, November 7–8, 2019.

Jürges, H. (2002). The distribution of the German public-private wage gap. LABOUR, 16, 347–381.CrossRef

Karasek, R., & Theorell, T. (1990). Healthy Work: Stress, Productivity and the Reconstruction of Work Life. New York: Basic Books.

Kivimäki, M., et al. (2012). Job strain as a risk factor for coronary heart disease: a collaborative meta-analysis of individual participant data. Lancet, 380, 1491–1497.CrossRef

Kivimäki, M., Leino-Arjas, P., Luukkonen, R., Riihimäki, H., Vahtera, J., & Kirjonen, J. (2002). Work stress and risk of cardiovascular mortality: prospective cohort study of industrial employees. British Medical Journal, 325, 1–5.CrossRef

Kuper, H., Singh-Manoux, A., Siegrist, J., & Marmot, M. (2002). When reciprocity fails: effort-reward imbalance in relation to coronary heart disease and health functioning within the Whitehall II study. Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 59, 777–784.CrossRef

Layard, R., Mayraz, G., & Nickell, S. (2008). The marginal utility of income. Journal of Public Economics, 92, 1846–1857.CrossRef

Ledić, M., & Rubil, I. (2019). Decomposing the difference between well-being inequality and income inequality. In K. Decancq & P. Van Kerm (Eds.), What Drives Inequality? Research on Economic Inequality (Vol. 27, pp. 105–122). Emerald: Bingley.CrossRef

Leythienne, D., & Ronkowski, P. (2018). A decomposition of the unadjusted gender pay gap using Structure of Earnings Survey data; 2018 edition. Statistical Working Papers, Eurostat.

Lucifora, C., & Meurs, D. (2006). The public sector pay gap in France, Great Britain and Italy. Review of Income and Wealth, 52, 43–59.CrossRef

Machin, S., & Puhani, P. A. (2003). Subject of degree and the gender wage differential: evidence from the UK and Germany. Economics Letters, 79, 393–400.CrossRef

Mahler, D. G., & Ramos, X. (2019). Equality of opportunity in four measures of well-being. Review of Income and Wealth, 65, S228–S255.CrossRef

Muñoz de Busillo, R., Fernández-Macias, E., & Antón, J.-I. (2011). E pluribus unum? A critical survey of job quality indicators. Socio-Economic Review, 9, 447–475.CrossRef

Muñoz de Busillo, R., Fernández-Macias, E., & Antón, J.-I. (2011). Measuring More than Money: The Social Economics of Job Quality. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRef

Noonan, M. C., Corcoran, M. E., & Courant, P. N. (2005). Pay Differences among the highly trained: cohort differences in the sex gap in lawyer’s earnings. Social Forces, 84, 853–872.CrossRef

OECD. (2011). How’s Life? Measuring Well-being. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.CrossRef

OECD. (2017). OECD Guidelines on Measuring the Quality of the Working Environment. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.CrossRef

Olivetti, C., & Petrongolo, B. (2008). Unequal pay or unequal employment? A cross-country analysis of gender gaps. Journal of Labor Economics, 26, 621–654.CrossRef

Ose, S. O. (2005). Working conditions, compensation and absenteeism. Journal of Health Economics, 24, 161–188.CrossRef

Parliament, E. (2009). Indicators of job quality in the European Union. European Parliament: Directorate General for Internal Policies.

Petrillo, I. (2018). Computation of equivalent incomes and social welfare for EU and non-EU countries. CESifo Economic Studies, 64, 396–425.CrossRef

Ponthieux, S., & Meurs, D. (2015). Gender inequality. In A. B. Atkinson & F. Bourguignon (Eds.), Handbook of Income Distribution (Vol. 2A, pp. 981–1146). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Purse, K. (2004). Work-related fatality risks and neoclassical compensating wage differentials. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 28, 594–617.CrossRef

Ramos, X., & Van de gaer, D. . (2016). Approaches to inequality of opportunity: principles, measures, and evidence. Journal of Economic Surveys, 30, 855–883.CrossRef

Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice (Revised). Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRef

Roemer, J. E. (1993). A pragmatic theory of responsibility for the egalitarian planner. Philosophy and Public Affairs, 22, 146–166.

Roemer, J. E. (1998). Equality of Opportunity. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRef

Roemer, J. E., & Trannoy, A. (2015). Equality of opportunity. In A. B. Atkinson & F. Bourguignon (Eds.), Handbook of Income Distribution (Vol. 2A, pp. 217–300). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Roemer, J. E., & Trannoy, A. (2016). Equality of opportunity: theory and measurement. Journal of Economic Literature, 54, 1288–1332.CrossRef

Rosen, S. (1986). The theory of equalizing differences. In O. Aschenfelter & R. Layard (Eds.), Handbook of Labor Economics (Vol. 1, pp. 641–692). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRef

Rugulier, R., Aust, B., & Madsen, I. E. (2016). Effort-reward imbalance and affective disorders. In J. Siegrist & M. Wahrendorf (Eds.), Work Stress and Health in a Globalized Economy: The Model of Effort-Reward Imbalance (pp. 103–143). Dodrecht: Springer.CrossRef

Samson, A.-L., Schokkaert, E., Thébaut, C., Dormont, B., Fleurbaey, M., Luchini, S., & Van de Voorde, C. (2018). Fairness in cost-benefit analysis: a methodology for health technology assessment. Health Economics, 27, 102–114.CrossRef

Samuelson, P., & Swamy, S. (1974). Invariant economic index numbers and canonical duality: survey and synthesis. American Economic Review, 64, 566–593.

Schaufeli, W. B., Bakker, A. B., & Van Rhenen, W. (2009). How changes in job demands and resources predict burnout, work engagement, and sickness absenteeism. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 893–917.CrossRef

Schaufeli, W. B., & Taris, T. W. (2014). A critical review of the job demands-resources model: implications for improving work and health. In G. F. Bauer & O. Hämmig (Eds.), Bridging Occupational, Organizational and Public Health: A Transdisciplinary Approach (pp. 43–68). Dodrecht: Springer.CrossRef

Schokkaert, E., & Jara, X. H. (2017). Putting measures of individual well-being to use for ex-ante policy evaluation. Journal of Economic Inequality, 15, 421–440.CrossRef

Schokkaert, E., Van Ootegem, L., & Verhofstadt, E. (2011). Preferences and subjective satisfaction: measuring well-being on the job for policy evaluation. CESifo Economic Studies, 57, 683–714.CrossRef

Sen, A. (2011). The informational basis of social choice. In K. J. Arrow, A. Sen, & K. Suzumura (Eds.), Handbook of Social Choice and Welfare (Vol. 2, pp. 29–46). Amsterdam: Elsevier.CrossRef

Shorrocks, A. (2013). Decomposition procedured for distributional analysis: a unified framework based on the Shapley value. Journal of Economic Inequality, 11, 99–126.CrossRef

Siegrist, J. (1996). Adverse health effects of high effort/low reward conditions. Journal of Organizational Psychology, 1, 27–41.

Siegrist, J. (2016). A theoretical model in the context of economic globalization. In J. Siegrist & M. Wahrendorf (Eds.), Work Stress and Health in a Globalized Economy: The Model of Effort-Reward Imbalance (pp. 3–19). Dodrecht: Springer.CrossRef

Smith, M., Burchell, B., Fagan, C., & O’Brein, C. (2008). Job quality in Europe. Industrial Relations Journal, 39, 586–603.CrossRef

Stiglitz, J. E., Fitoussi, J.-P., & Durand, M. (Eds.). (2018). Measuring What Counts for Economic and Social Performance. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Stiglitz, J. E., Fitoussi, J.-P., & Durand, M. (Eds.). (2018). For Good Measure: Advancing Research on Well-being Metrics Beyond GDP. Paris: Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.

Stiglitz, J. E., Sen, A., & Fitoussi, J.-P. (2009). Report by the commission on the measurement of economic performance and social progress. Paris: Commission on the Measurement of Economic Performance and Social Progress.

Theorell, T., Hammarström, A., Aronsson, G., Träskman Bendz, L., Grape, T., Hogstedt, T., et al. (2015). A systematic review including meta-analysis of work environment and depressive symptoms. BMC Public Health, 15, 1–14.CrossRef

Theorell, T., & Karasek, R. (1996). Current issues relating to psychosocial job strain and cardiovascular disease research. Journal of Occupational Health and Psychology, 1, 9–26.CrossRef

Theorell, T., Jood, K., Järvholm, L. S., Vingård, E., Östergren, P. O., & Hall, C. (2016). A systematic review of studies in the contributions of the work environment to ischaemic heart disease development. European Journal of Public Health, 26, 470–477.CrossRef

UNCE. (2015). Handbook on Measuring Quality of Employment: A Statistical Framework. United Nations Commission for Europe, New York and Geneva: United Nations.

Van der Doef, M., & Maes, S. (1999). The job demand-control (-support) model and psychological well-being: a review of 20 years of empirical research. Work and Stress, 13, 87–114.CrossRef

Weichselbaumer, D., & Winter-Ebmer, R. (2005). A meta-analysis of the international gender wage gap. Journal of Economic Surveys, 19, 479–511.CrossRef

Zizzo, D. J., & Oswald, A. J. (2001). Are people willing to pay to reduce others’ incomes? Annales d’Economie et de Statistique, 63(64), 39–65.CrossRef

Titel: Beyond Wage Gap, Towards Job Quality Gap: The Role of Inter-Group Differences in Wages, Non-Wage Job Dimensions, and Preferences
verfasst von: Marko Ledić
Ivica Rubil
Publikationsdatum: 24.01.2021
Verlag: Springer Netherlands
Erschienen in: Social Indicators Research / Ausgabe 2/2021
Print ISSN: 0303-8300
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-0921
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-021-02612-y

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 2/2021

Visualizing Health and Well-Being Inequalities Among Older Europeans

How Self-Rated is Self-Rated Health? Exploring the Role of Individual and Institutional Factors in Reporting Heterogeneity in Russia

Socio-economic Drivers of Food Security among Rural Households in Nigeria: Evidence from Smallholder Maize Farmers

Education as a Positional Good? Evidence from the German Socio-Economic Panel

The Intercultural Dialogue Index (ICDI): An Index for Assessing Intercultural Relations

Cross-Sectional Model-Building for Research on Subjective Well-Being: Gaining Clarity on Control Variables

Premium Partner