IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/gender/v32y2025i5p1771-1785.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Australian Parental Leave Policy, Employers' Cognitive Bias, and Mothers' Wages: Penalty or Premium?

Author

Listed:
  • Dongju Lee
  • Lyn Craig

Abstract

This paper utilizes a natural experiment created by Australia's first national mandate for paid parental leave in 2011, to investigate employer‐side mechanisms in motherhood wage penalties. Drawing on literature on cognitive bias, we hypothesize that maternity leave taking behaviors could trigger employer discrimination. We test this proposition by comparing whether and how four types of leave‐taking behaviors affect the wage prospects of working mothers. Using fixed effect models with lagged dependent variables and nationally representative panel data, the Household Income and Labor Dynamics in Australia (HILDA) for the period 2005–2019, this study reveals that before the mandate, mothers who had to use unpaid leave due to ineligibility for employer‐funded leave suffered pay penalties. After the mandate, mothers who forwent paid leave received pay premiums. Our study contributes to debates about parental leave policy and gender discrimination in the labor market by indicating that employers interpret contrasting leave taking behaviors differently, and reward employees in accordance with what they believe maternity leave behaviors imply about working mothers' conformity to the “ideal worker” norm.

Suggested Citation

  • Dongju Lee & Lyn Craig, 2025. "Australian Parental Leave Policy, Employers' Cognitive Bias, and Mothers' Wages: Penalty or Premium?," Gender, Work and Organization, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 32(5), pages 1771-1785, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:gender:v:32:y:2025:i:5:p:1771-1785
    DOI: 10.1111/gwao.13216
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/gwao.13216
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/gwao.13216?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    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:bla:gender:v:32:y:2025:i:5:p:1771-1785. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0968-6673 .

    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.