1. Comparative Methods in Research on Gender Wendy Sigle-Rushton ESRC Methods Festival 2 July 2008 St. Catherine’s College, Oxford

2. Comparative Methods Why compare What to compare How to compare Benefits of comparison Caveats

3. Why compare Pragmatic concerns International agendas Broaden perspective Quasi-natural experiment Allows for theory building/testing

4. What to compare Comparisons across Countries Regions within countries (e.g. US States) Time

5. What to compare Variables to compare Inputs and Institutions Expenditure and welfare effort Aims and ideologies Politics Financing and delivery of policies Welfare mix Example: Jane Lewis – gender roles

6. What to compare Variables to compare Outcomes, for example Income distribution/poverty alleviation Social exclusion/inclusion Gender equality Decommodification Studies of outcomes Maitre et al – income packaging Rake – elderly, gender equality Christopher – (lone) mothers Sainsbury – gender equality Sigle-Rushton and Waldfogel – earnings, household income Hobcraft and Sigle-Rushton – social exclusion

7. How to compare Identify broad similarities and differences Exploit variation across space Simulations

8. Benefits of comparison Common and dissimilar problems/patterns Quasi-natural experiment Inspire best practice Inspire and inform good measurement

9. Caveats Reliance on similar, available measures Harmonisation Proxy variables Validity

10. Occupational Segregation, 2000 Source: OECD 2002

11. Gender Wage Gap and Employment, 2000 Source: OECD 2002

12. Caveats Reliance on similar, available measures Harmonisation Proxy variables Validity Tensions: Difference and sameness Static measures Geographical variations often ignored Explanans et explanandum Requires a lot of detail

13. Data: Luxembourg Income Study Strengths: Harmonised data, large number of countries Relatively recent data available for many countries Countries Anglo-Saxon: Canada, United Kingdom (UK), United States Continental Europe: Germany, the Netherlands Nordic: Norway, Sweden, Finland Example from my research on motherhood gaps in earnings

14. Using the regressions: Estimated wages for each age assuming different fertility histories Estimate motherhood gaps Estimate gender gaps by fertility history

15. Example from my research on motherhood gaps in earnings Using the regressions: What the regressions show Average gross earnings What they don’t show The reasons for the differences Economic well-being

16. Overall patterns Large earnings penalties for each child, little catch-up Germany, Netherlands, UK (esp. first) Moderate earnings penalties for first child, differences persist Canada Small earnings penalty for each child, some catch-up US, Norway Moderate penalties for the first child, rapid catch-up Sweden, Finland Example from my research on motherhood gaps in earnings

18. Overall patterns Large earnings penalties for each child, little catch-up Germany, Netherlands, UK (esp. first) Moderate earnings penalties for first child, differences persist Canada Example from my research on motherhood gaps in earnings

20. Overall patterns Large earnings penalties for each child, little catch-up Germany, Netherlands, UK (esp. first) Moderate earnings penalties for first child, some catch- up Canada Small earnings penalty for each child, some catch-up US, Norway Example from my research on motherhood gaps in earnings

22. Overall patterns Large earnings penalties for each child, little catch-up Germany, Netherlands, UK (esp. first) Moderate earnings penalties for first child, some catch- up Canada Small earnings penalty for each child, some catch-up US, Norway Moderate penalties for the first child, rapid catch-up Sweden, Finland Example from my research on motherhood gaps in earnings

24. Cumulative earnings of mothers aged 18-45 with medium education relative to non-mothers One child, age 27 Two children, ages 25, 27 Germany0.630.42 Netherlands0.630.46 UK0.670.58 Canada0.790.76 United States0.890.81 Norway0.870.80 Sweden0.860.89 Finland0.910.88 Example from my research on motherhood gaps in earnings

25. No ChildrenOne child, age 27 Two children, ages 25, 27 Germany0.940.600.40 Netherlands0.840.530.39 UK0.720.480.41 Canada0.690.540.52 United States0.640.570.52 Norway0.700.610.56 Sweden0.700.610.62 Finland0.750.680.66 Cumulative earnings of mothers aged 18-45 with medium education relative to men Example from my research on motherhood gaps in earnings

26. Summary Comparative studies can Highlight similarities and differences Inspire best practice But Direct of causation is rarely clear Explanatory processes are rarely clear Important measures may be omitted Individuals vary as well as policies Important to keep in mind when looking at “simulations” Predictive power is tentative

27. References Christopher, K. (2002) “Helping mothers escape poverty.” LIS working paper No. 298. Figari, F., Immervoll, H., Levy, H. and Sutherland, H. (2007) "Inequalities within Couples: Market Incomes and the Role of Taxes and Benefits in Europe". IZA Discussion Paper No. 3201 Lewis, J. (1992) ‘Gender and the Development of Welfare Regimes’, Journal of European Social Policy 2(3):159-173. Maitre, B., Nolan, B. and Whelan, C.T. (2005) “Welfare regimes and household income packaging in the European Union.” Journal of European Social Policy 15(2): 157.171. Rake, K. (1999) Accumulated disadvantage? Welfare state provision and the incomes of older women and men in Britain, France and Germany. In J. Clasen (ed.) Comparative Social Policy: Concepts, Theories and Methods Oxford, Blackwell. Sigle-Rushton, W. and Waldfogel, J. (2007) “Motherhood and women’s earnings in Anglo-American, Continental European, and Nordic countries.” Feminist Economics 13(2): 55-92.