Publisher Summary This chapter presents a survey on female labor supply. The chapter surveys theoretical and empirical work on the labor supply of women, with special reference to women in Western economies, primarily the United States, in modern times. The behavior of female labor supply has important implications for many other phenomena, including marriage, fertility, divorce, the distribution of family earnings and male-female wage differentials. The labor supply of women is also of interest, because of the technical questions it poses. For example, because many women do not work, corner solutions are at least potentially a very important issue in both the theoretical and empirical analysis of female labor supply, even though in other contexts (for example, studies of consumer demand) corner solutions are often ignored. The chapter presents some “stylized facts” about female labor supply, and then discusses a number of theoretical models of special interest for understanding female labor supply. After considering empirical studies of the labor supply of women, the chapter concludes with some suggestions for future research. The chapter discusses major trends and cyclical patterns in time-series data, and then examines cross-sectional phenomena.

Chapter 2 Female labor supply: A survey

In the United States and Britain, there is a “family gap” between the wages of mothers and other women. Differential returns to marital and parental status explain 40%–50% of the gender gap. Another 30%–40% is explained by women's lower levels of work experience and lower returns to experience. Taking advantage of “quasi experiments” in job‐protected maternity leave in the United States and Britain, this article finds that women who had leave coverage and returned to work after childbirth received a wage premium that offset the negative wage effects of children.

/pdf/the-family-gap-for-young-women-in-the-united-states-and-4tu0wsmdk9.pdf

The Family Gap for Young Women in the United States and Britain: Can Maternity Leave Make a Difference?

There are no sex differences in cognitive ability but enduring sex differences in competitiveness, life goals, the relative emphasis on agency versus connection. Policy-makers’ and feminist emphasis on equal opportunities and family-friendly policies assumes that sex discrimination is the primary source of sex differentials in labour market outcomes—notably the pay gap between men and women. However, some careers and occupations cannot be domesticated—examples are given—and this also poses limits to social engineering. Recent research shows that high levels of female employment and family-friendly policies reduce gender equality in the workforce and produce the glass ceiling. Preference theory is the only theory that can explain these new trends, the continuing pay gap and occupational segregation. Preference theory implies that there are at least three types of career rather than one. However, the differences between men and women's career goals are smaller than sometimes thought.

/pdf/women-careers-and-work-life-preferences-2fev7q8vcr.pdf

Women, careers, and work-life preferences

Although job segregation concentrates women in the lowest status and lowest paid jobs in the workforce, women are disproportionately satisfied with their jobs. This paper assesses the strength of women's work commitment in Western industrial societies, and finds it to be markedly lower than men's work commitment. Work commitment is also found to be a powerful predictor of women's work decisions and job choices. The majority of women aim for a homemaker career in which paid work is of secondary or peripheral importance, with strong support from their husbands for this strategy. A minority of women are committed to work as a central life goal, achieving jobs at higher levels of status and earnings. The existence of these two discrete groups within the female workforce explains the paradox of women's high satisfaction with poor jobs, and helps explain the persistence of job segregation. We conclude that more refined and sociological indicators of workforce participation must be developed to replace the standard measures used by labour economists.

Grateful slaves and self-made women: fact and fantasy in women's work orientations

Explanations of the persisting differences in the structure of men's and women's employment have long been debated in the social sciences. Sociological explanations have tended to stress the continuing significance of structural constraints on women's employment opportunities, which persist despite the removal of formal barriers. Neo-classical economists, in contrast, have emphasized the significance of individual choice, an argument which has been recently endorsed by C. Hakim who suggests that patterns of occupational segregation reflect the outcome of the choices made by different 'types' of women. In this paper, a previous debate relating to the explanatory utility of men's 'orientations to work' is used to argue that employment structures are the outcome of both choice and constraint, and that this is the case for women, as well as men. The argument is illustrated with evidence from cross-nationally comparative biographical interviews carried out in five countries

/pdf/explaining-women-s-employment-patterns-orientations-to-work-q7jh0e8ytq.pdf

Explaining women's employment patterns: 'orientations to work' revisited.

Women and employment, a lifetime perspective

Les AA. s'efforcent de repondre aux affirmations de C. Hakim selon lesquelles la sociologie feministe en repliquant aux analyses patriarcales a cree de nouveaux mythes concernant l'emploi des femmes et s'est ecartee de l'evidence. Ils estiment que ces theses sont provocantes. Ils presentent une refutation de chacune d'entre elles. Ils affirment que Hakim a mesinterprete les donnees concernant les attitudes des femmes envers le travail et montrent que les emplois a temps partiel ne sont pas choisis volontairement par ces dernieres

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdfplus/591122.pdf

Feminist fallacies: a reply to Hakim on women's employment.

Legislating for Shared Time Parenting after Separation: A Research Review

Women and employment, a lifetime perspective : the report of the 1980 DE/OPCS women and employment survey

Introduction 1 Background 2 When do children with separated parents do best? 3 Workable shared time: what helps? 3 When is shared time difficult for children? 8 Shared finances and shared parenting? 9 Legislating for shared parenting time: The Australian experience 10 Questions needing further information before considering legislation 13 References 14 Summary 16 This paper was written by Belinda Fehlberg and Bruce Smyth with Mavis Maclean and Ceridwen Roberts Caring for children after parental separation: would legislation for shared parenting time help children?

Ceridwen Roberts

Papers

Women and employment, a lifetime perspective

Feminist fallacies: a reply to Hakim on women's employment.

Legislating for Shared Time Parenting after Separation: A Research Review

Women and employment, a lifetime perspective : the report of the 1980 DE/OPCS women and employment survey

Caring for children after parental separation: would legislation for shared parenting time help children?