The role of parenthood in shaping the gender wage gap - A comparative analysis of 26 European countries

The Motherhood Penalty of Immigrants in France: Comparing the Motherhood Wage Penalty of Immigrants From Europe, the Maghreb, and Sub-Sahara With Native-Born French Women

To date, relatively few studies analyzed the motherhood penalty as experienced by immigrant women. The principal objective of this research is to establish whether the negative effect of motherhood on wages is higher for immigrants than it is for the native population; and how this effect may vary across different immigrant regions of origin. Using data from the Enquête Revenus Fiscaux et Sociaux from 2009 to 2012 (INSEE, 2009-2012), a series of linear regression models were calculated to examine whether the effect of motherhood on wages differs for immigrant women and native women; and to what extent this effect varies across different immigrant origin groups. Specifically, this study explores the effect of motherhood on immigrant labor market integration in France from three regions of origin, as compared to native French women: immigrants from sub-Saharan Africa, the Maghreb (Algeria, Tunisia, and Morocco), and from European countries (each and every region of origin is considered separately in comparison to native French women). The results revealed substantial differences in the motherhood penalty between the different regions of origin and assert the existence of an especially pronounced motherhood penalty for mothers from the Maghreb. Given the gap in the research with regards to the cost of motherhood for immigrants in the labor market of the host country, this research sheds light on specific mechanisms influencing the integration patterns of immigrant women. Moreover, by choosing France, which is one of the main immigration destinations in Europe, and a country where the motherhood penalty for the native population is almost non-existent, this study provides a new perspective on the intersection of motherhood, immigration, and region of origin in the immigrants' labor-market integration process.

Assessing the role of gender in hiring: a field experiment on labour market discrimination

The under-representation of females within the labour market, particularly in managerial roles, has sparked a local and global debate on whether women, mostly mothers, face negative discrimination. This study distinctly adopts a field experiment methodology to investigate the presence of gender discrimination and the motherhood penalty against higher education (Bachelor, Master's, and Doctoral degree) females seeking full-time employment in the labour market at the initial stage of the recruitment process, being the call-back to the interview. This study took place in Malta, which was characterised by a low unemployment figure, complemented by strong economic growth at the time, thus enabling a proper analysis of the possible presence of gender-based discrimination even when labour demand is high. Field experiments were chosen as the methodology. This involved sending pairs of fictitious job applications belonging to two fictional male and female candidates (identical to each other except for the demographic characteristics) in response to job vacancies. Then, the employers' behaviour was recorded to assess whether they engaged in discriminatory practices. The analysis of the replies through the use of econometric models shows that there is no statistically significant evidence that employers engage in discrimination at the call-back stage of the recruitment process. Furthermore, during this distribution period, no particular age class was favoured or discriminated against, a finding that contradicts the idea that young female workers are discriminated against due to their maternal responsibilities. Such a study contributes to the growing literature on the subject, by being the first study done in Malta to scientifically test whether the significant gender employment gap present in various industries in Malta is attributed to negative discrimination against women or mothers with young children.

Gender discrimination in hiring: An experimental reexamination of the Swedish case

We estimated the degree of gender discrimination in Sweden across occupations using a correspondence study design. Our analysis of employer responses to more than 3,200 fictitious job applications across 15 occupations revealed that overall positive employer response rates were higher for women than men by almost 5 percentage points. We found that this gap was driven by employer responses in female-dominated occupations. Male applicants were about half as likely as female applicants to receive a positive employer response in female-dominated occupations. For male-dominated and mixed occupations we found no significant differences in positive employer responses between male and female applicants.

"It's Just Another Added Benefit": Women's Experiences with Employment-Based Egg Freezing Programs

BACKGROUND

In 2014, companies began covering the costs of egg freezing for their employees. The adoption of this benefit was highly contentious. Some argued that it offered women more reproductive autonomy, buying time to succeed in their careers and postpone childbearing. Others suggested this benefit might place inappropriate pressure on women, unduly influencing them to freeze their eggs to prioritize their career over reproduction. Although ethical problems with this benefit have been explored, there has not been research analyzing the perspectives of women working for companies that offer employer-based egg freezing. Furthermore, existing empirical studies often focus on the experiences of egg freezers rather than the young women thinking about, but not yet using, this technology. Methods: Through in-depth semi-structured interviews, we explore the perceptions and attitudes of 25 women employees of companies with employer-based egg freezing. Results: These women describe delaying childbearing for a multitude of reasons, including not having a partner, and the desire to achieve social and career goals. Many women did not know that their employers covered egg freezing before the interview (44%; 11/24), suggesting this benefit is not essential to their career and family-building decisions. While women did not describe pressure to use this technology, they did describe how this benefit would not solve the difficulties of becoming a mother while excelling in their careers. Conclusion: Although women may not feel pressure to freeze their eggs and delay childbearing, they still feel constricted in their reproductive options. While employer programs may offer women the ability to delay childbearing, many saw this delay as postponing problems with work-life balance rather than solving them. We suggest that sociocultural shifts, such as workplace daycare, flexible workplace hours, and acceptability of non-biological parenthood, might allow women to feel more empowered about their reproduction choices.