Legalizing Gender Inequality: Courts, the Institutional Construction of Markets, and Unequal Pay for Women

This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data

Legalizing Gender Inequality: Courts, the Institutional Construction of Markets, and Unequal Pay for Women

Author Info

Robert L. Nelson
William P. Bridges

Abstract

This paper is the concluding chapter of a book that analyzes the relationship between markets, organizations, and sex-based wage inequality. The cornerstone of the analysis is a set of four case studies of organizations that were sued for sex discrimination in pay, and which included data on between-job wage differences. Here we summarize the results and discuss the implications for theory, policy, and law. The empirical results lend support to an organizational inequality model of gender-based pay differences. Despite significant differences across organizational settings and between the public and the private sector, we find that large organizations mediate between market prices and internal pay levels in ways that contribute to gender-based pay inequality.

The findings have significant policy implications. We suggest that neither the free market nor comparable worth will achieve gender inequality in pay without serious disadvantages. After discussing the experience of various attempts at reform, we propose several changes in law and regulation that will encourage organizations to adopt pay practices that are more rational and fair. Finally, we assert that the fate of the cases we studied reveals the limitations of the law as a vehicle for redressing gender inequality in American society. Plaintiffs made a critical error when they attacked between-job wage differences on the basis that the market discriminated against women, for they posed a false dichotomy between the market and antidiscrimination. But the courts also failed to deal with the issue adequately. After recognizing in principle that between-job wage differences could constitute sex discrimination under Title VII, they then consistently adopted the position that the market, rather than employer practices, was the source of such wage differences. The courts thus gave legal authority to one side of an empirical debate and effectively legalized a fundamental aspect of gender inequality in the American occupational system.

Download Info
To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

Publisher Info
Paper provided by Institute for Policy Resarch at Northwestern University in its series IPR working papers with number 97-16.

Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Length:
Date of creation:
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:wop:nwuipr:97-16

Contact details of provider:
Postal: 2040 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208-4100
Phone: 847-491-8712
Email:
Web page: http://www.nwu.edu/IPR/publications/wpindex1.html
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Thomas Krichel).

Related research
Keywords:

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? You can import bibliographic info in various formats into you bibliographic tool, or just into your word processor. See under "publisher info" on each abstract page.

This page was last updated on 2009-12-2.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.