dp17219
dp17219
Jorgen M. Harris
Eleonora Patacchini
AUGUST 2024
DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES
Jorgen M. Harris
Occidental College
Eleonora Patacchini
Cornell University, CEPR, and IZA
AUGUST 2024
Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and not those of IZA. Research published in this series may
include views on policy, but IZA takes no institutional policy positions. The IZA research network is committed to the IZA
Guiding Principles of Research Integrity.
The IZA Institute of Labor Economics is an independent economic research institute that conducts research in labor economics
and offers evidence-based policy advice on labor market issues. Supported by the Deutsche Post Foundation, IZA runs the
world’s largest network of economists, whose research aims to provide answers to the global labor market challenges of our
time. Our key objective is to build bridges between academic research, policymakers and society.
IZA Discussion Papers often represent preliminary work and are circulated to encourage discussion. Citation of such a paper
should account for its provisional character. A revised version may be available directly from the author.
ISSN: 2365-9793
ABSTRACT
Closing the Gender Gap:
Promoting Labour Market Participation*
In many countries, a significant share of the gender earnings gap stems not only from firm’s
practices, or self-selection into lower productivity jobs, but also from a lower participation
among women. Inactivity around the age of motherhood is frequent including in the most
advanced countries, and can have lasting consequences on the chances to return to the
labor market, as well as future earnings and promotions. In this paper, we discuss the major
barriers reducing women’s labor force participation and examine the effects of several
policies aimed at overcoming those barriers: parental leave, reserved paternal leave, state-
funded childcare for young children, extended school hours, and individual taxation. For
each, we provide a brief discussion of policy design and effectiveness.
Corresponding author:
Eleonora Patacchini
Department of Economics
Cornell University
404 Uris Hall
Ithaca, NY 14853
USA
E-mail: [email protected]
* This paper was prepared as a chapter in the Handbook on Labour Markets in Transition, edited by Stephane
Carcillo and Stefano Scarpetta. We thank Jonathan Martelli for his excellent work as a research assistant.
1. Introduction
Percentage points
55
45
35
25
15
-5
Note: This figure shows the percent of men employed minus the percent of women employed in OECD countries in 2000, 2010, and
2021, among individuals aged 15-16. Data for 2000 refers to 2002 for Croatia. This figure is adapted from Figure 13.1 in the OECD
report “Women at Work in OECD Countries” (Flutchmann and Patrini 2022). https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/152e4929-
en/index.html?itemId=/content/component/152e4929-en#chapter-d1e17348-76fd9fa03d
Source: OECD Employment Database.
United States.
New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and the District of
Columbia also provide paid family leave. https://www.ncsl.org/labor-and-
employment/state-family-and-medical-leave-laws
One potential reason that maternal leave policies may have such
disappointing effects on labor force participation is that these policies
reinforce the norm that women ought to have primary responsibility for
children. By encouraging mothers to take career interruptions and to
bond with infant children, these policies increase women’s comparative
advantage in parenting. Because parental leave available to both parents
is disproportionately taken by mothers, gender-neutral parental leave
policies are also likely to reinforce gender norms. To address this, a
majority of OECD countries provide non-transferrable parental leave to
fathers.4 While fathers are allowed to use a portion of parental leave
in most countries, periods of leave reserved for fathers are typically
short. The OECD average is 10 weeks, and Japan (52 weeks) and South Korea
(54 weeks) are the only countries providing more than 31 weeks of
reserved paternal leave.
4 https://www.oecd.org/els/soc/PF2_1_Parental_leave_systems.pdf
Most evidence suggests that setting aside parental leave for the
exclusive use of fathers or non-birthing parents can have large and long-
lasting effects on the distribution of labor within the household. Even
modest periods of paternal leave can increase father’s attachment to
their children and comfort caring for their children, in turn freeing
mothers to return to the labor market sooner and for more hours than
they would otherwise. However, these policies are effective only when
fathers take parental leave and take on primary parenting
responsibilities when on leave. This requires clear marketing of parental
leave as an entitlement for fathers, as well as encouragement or
requirement that parental leave be non-concurrent with maternal leave.
5. State-Financed Childcare
nannies.
The expected costs and benefits of extended school days are quite
similar to those of state-financed childcare. As with state-financed
childcare, targeting extended school hours is a key challenge—policies
are most cost-effective if they target parents who are unlikely to work
or unlikely to work full-time without policy intervention, but parents
who are likely to work regardless of the policy are most likely to take
it up. As a consequence, extended school days are most likely to affect
maternal employment in contexts where maternal employment is low and
where access to extended school days is easily available. However,
extended school days differ from state-financed childcare because the
cost of caring for older children is considerably less than that of
caring for younger children. For the state, providing adequate child
care for children younger than school age requires a high ratio of care-
givers to children, resulting in high overall costs of child care
programs and high marginal costs. In contrast, after-school programs for
older children can be provided at high quality with a much lower ratio
of instructors to students, reducing overall costs and especially
reducing marginal costs in contexts of relatively low take-up. At the
6 https://www.afterschoolalliance.org/documents/AA3PM-
2014/AA3PM_Key_Findings.pdf
In contrast, policies that extend the school day to five days per
week show more consistently positive effects. For instance, Duchini and
Van Effenterre (2020) examine the effects of a 2013 French reform that
reallocated some of children’s class-time to Wednesday mornings, rather
than concentrating class time in four days per week. The reform replaced
instructional hours on other weekdays with three hours of free, optional
extracurricular activities. They find that this reform increased the
likelihood that mothers work a five-day workweek by three percentage
points, with most of this increase coming from mothers who shifted from
part-time to full-time work contracts. Further, it increased mothers’
average monthly wages by 3%. Because this reform had no effect on the
work schedules of fathers, this reform reduced the gender wage gap among
parents of elementary-school children by 6 percentage points. Similarly,
Ward (2019) examines the effect of adopting a 4-day school week in rural
school districts in the United States. Ward finds that this shift reduces
maternal employment by 7.6 percentage points, with reductions coming
entirely from married mothers.
8. Concluding Remarks
However, much of the gap between mother’s and father’s labor force
participation is unlikely to be resolved through any of the policies
discussed in this paper. Women have substantially lower labor-force
participation than men in every OECD country (OECD 2023), demonstrating
that no as-of-yet existing combination of labor market policies has
eliminated all barriers to women’s employment. As a result, policy makers
may want to consider how to shift culture and norms around gender, in
addition to considering how to create better incentives for women to
enter or re-enter the workforce.
References
Albanese, A., Nieto Castro, A., & Tatsiramos, K. (2022). Job location
decisions and the effect of children on the employment gender gap.
Ashraf, N & Bau, N & Low, C. & McGinn, K, (2020). Negotiating a Better
Future: How Interpersonal Skills Facilitate Intergenerational
Investment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Volume 135, Issue 2, May
2020, Pages 1095–1151, https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjz039
Blau, F. D., & Kahn, L. M. (2007). The Gender Pay Gap: Have Women Gone
as Far as They Can? Academy of Management Perspectives, 21(1), 7–23.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/416628
Brenøe A. A. & Zölitz, U., (2020). Exposure to More Female Peers Widens
the Gender Gap in STEM Participation. Journal of Labor Economics,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 38(4), pages 1009-1054.
Cools, A., Fernández, R., & Patacchini, E. (2019). Girls, boys, and high
achievers (No. w25763). National Bureau of Economic Research.
Crossley, T. F., & Jeon, S.-H. (2007). Joint Taxation and the Labour
Supply of Married Women: Evidence from the Canadian Tax Reform of 1988.
Fiscal Studies, 28(3), 343–365. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24439984
Dahl, G. B., Løken, K. V., Mogstad, M., & Salvanes, K. V. (2016). What
is the case for paid maternity leave?. Review of Economics and
Statistics, 98(4), 655-670.
Del Rey, E., Kyriacou, A., & Silva, J. I. (2021). Maternity leave and
female labor force participation: evidence from 159 countries. Journal
of Population Economics, 34, 803-824.
Duchini, E., & Van Effenterre, C. (2020). School Schedule and the Gender
Pay Gap. IZA Discussion Papers 13791, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
Ekberg, J., Eriksson, R., & Friebel, G. (2013). Parental leave — A policy
evaluation of the Swedish “Daddy-Month” reform. Journal of Public
Economics, 97, 131–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2012.09.001
Fernández, R., Fogli, A., & Olivetti, C. (2004). Mothers and Sons:
Preference Formation and Female Labor Force Dynamics. The Quarterly
Journal of Economics, 119(4), 1249–1299.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25098718
Goldin, C. & Kerr, S. P. & Olivetti, C. (2022). When the Kids Grow Up:
Women's Employment and Earnings across the Family Cycle. NBER Working
Papers 30323, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
Grunow, D., Schulz, F., & Blossfeld, H.-P. (2012). What determines change
in the division of housework over the course of marriage? International
Sociology, 27(3), 289-307. https://doi.org/10.1177/0268580911423056
Guner, N., Kaygusuz, R., & Ventura, G. (2012). Taxation and Household
Labour Supply. The Review of Economic Studies, 79(3), 1113–1149.
https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdr049
Haeck, C., Lefebvre, P., & Merrigan, P. (2015). Canadian evidence on ten
years of universal preschool policies: The good and the bad. Labour
Economics, 36, 137-157.
Havnes, T., & Mogstad, M. (2011), Money for nothing? Universal child
care and maternal employment, Journal of Public Economics, 95, issue 11,
p. 1455-1465,
Huebener, M., Jessen, J., Kuehnle, D., & Oberfichtner, M. (2021). A firm-
side perspective on parental leave.
Kabátek, J., Van Soest, A., & Stancanelli, E. (2014). Income taxation,
labour supply and housework: A discrete choice model for French couples.
Labour Economics, 27(C), 30-43.
Kalil, A., Ryan, R., & Corey, M. (2012). Diverging destinies: maternal
education and the developmental gradient in time with children.
Demography, 49(4), 1361–1383. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13524-012-0129-5
Kleven, H., Landais, C., Posch, J., Steinhauer, A., & Zweimüller, J.
(2024). Do family policies reduce gender inequality? evidence from 60
years of policy experimentation. AMERICAN ECONOMIC JOURNAL: ECONOMIC
POLICY (FORTHCOMING).
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.20210346&&from=f
Kotsadam, A., & Finseraas, H. (2011). The state intervenes in the battle
of the sexes: Causal effects of paternity leave. Social Science Research,
40(6), 1611-1622.
Lundin, D., Mörk, E., & Öckert, B. (2008). How far can reduced childcare
prices push female labour supply. Labour Economics, 15, 647-659.
Olivetti, C., Patacchini, E., & Zenou, Y. (2020). Mothers, Peers, and
Gender-Role Identity. Journal of the European Economic Association,
18(1), 266-301.
Pearce, M., Page, A. S., Griffin, T. P., & Cooper, A. R. (2014). Who
children spend time with after school: associations with objectively
recorded indoor and outdoor physical activity. international journal of
behavioral nutrition and Physical Activity, 11, 1-9.
Riise, J., Willage, B., & Willén, A. (2022). Can Female Doctors Cure the
Gender STEMM Gap? Evidence from Exogenously Assigned General
Practitioners. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 104(4), 621–635.
https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00975
Saez, E., Slemrod, J., & Giertz, S. H. (2012). The Elasticity of Taxable
Income with Respect to Marginal Tax Rates: A Critical Review. Journal
of Economic Literature, 50(1), 3-50.
Selin, H. (2014). The rise in female employment and the role of tax
incentives. An empirical analysis of the Swedish individual tax reform
of 1971. International Tax and Public Finance, 21, 894-922.
Thévenon, O., & Solaz, A. (2013). Labour market effects of parental leave
policies in OECD countries.
Ward, J. (2019). The Four-day School Week and Parental Labor Supply.
Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3301406 or
http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3301406