[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/uwp/jhriss/v25y1990i1p55-89.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Crowding Hypothesis and Comparable Worth

Author

Listed:
  • Elaine Sorensen
Abstract
Although women's pay and occupational distribution have improved during the past few years, it is still true that women earn considerably less than men and that their occupational distribution is substantially different. Because progress has been slow toward equality in the labor market, some have called for a comparable worth policy. Proponents of this approach argue that occupational segregation contributes to the earnings disparity between women and men. One theoretical justification for this position is the crowding hypothesis. This paper first explains this theory and presents a method used to test its principal hypothesis. It then describes an extension of this design for estimating the phenomenon that comparable worth policies address. Empirical studies conducted in this area are viewed and new findings are presented. Finally, limitations of this analysis are discussed.

Suggested Citation

  • Elaine Sorensen, 1990. "The Crowding Hypothesis and Comparable Worth," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 25(1), pages 55-89.
    • Handle: RePEc:uwp:jhriss:v:25:y:1990:i:1:p:55-89
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/145727
    Download Restriction: A subscripton is required to access pdf files. Pay per article is available.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:uwp:jhriss:v:25:y:1990:i:1:p:55-89. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://jhr.uwpress.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.