IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cambje/v39y2015i2p441-465..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Contradictions and misalignments in the EU approach towards the gender pay gap

Author

Listed:
  • Marco Peruzzi

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to highlight the tensions within the EU’s ‘governance architecture’ concerning pay equality. Specifically, after a preliminary outline of the theoretical discussion on the EU’s new/old governance, the analysis focuses on two empirical fields. The first one enables an assessment of the contradictions between old and new governance in EU equal pay policy. This analysis highlights the inconsistencies between the architecture of the antidiscrimination framework, established following the EU’s old governance-by-law approach, and the assessment of equal pay public policy measures in the context of the EU’s new governance-by-numbers approach. To this extent, the problems related to the political use of the unadjusted gender pay gap (GPG) indicator are pointed out. The second empirical field enables an assessment of the tensions within the EU’s new governance system itself, specifically between the approach in the area of equal pay and in the area of economic policy, with specific regard to the participatory role of the social partners in tackling the GPG. If the role of the social partners is emphasised in several policy documents, the potentialities of their action are seriously jeopardised by the push for decentralisation of collective bargaining, aimed at anchoring wages to productivity, fostered by the EU’s governance reforms responding to the crisis, in particular by the Euro Plus Pact and by the ‘six-pack’ regulations of 2011. As the paper finally remarks, both empirical fields of investigation confirm a narrowing down of pay equality in the context of an EU flexibility-centred and neoliberalist political perspective.

Suggested Citation

  • Marco Peruzzi, 2015. "Contradictions and misalignments in the EU approach towards the gender pay gap," Cambridge Journal of Economics, Cambridge Political Economy Society, vol. 39(2), pages 441-465.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:cambje:v:39:y:2015:i:2:p:441-465.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cje/bev007
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    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:oup:cambje:v:39:y:2015:i:2:p:441-465.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/cje .

    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.