IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/econjl/v130y2020i630p1842-1873..html

Gender differences in networking

Author

Listed:
  • Friederike Mengel

Abstract

Gender differences in networking have been cited as an important reason behind gender earnings and promotion gaps. Despite this fact there is comparatively little evidence on whether such differences exist or what they look like. We conduct a series of experiments to gain insight into these questions. The experiments are designed to understand differences in the strategic use of networks, when both men and women have the same opportunities to network. While we do find evidence of gender earnings and promotion gaps in the lab, we do not find evidence of gender differences in network formation, except for the fact that men display more homophily than women. Women and men do, however, not systematically differ in terms of the number of links formed or received nor in terms of their centrality in the network. Earnings and promotion gaps appear partly because male decision makers are more likely to reward their (predominantly male) network neighbours with increased earnings as well as promotion.

Suggested Citation

  • Friederike Mengel, 2020. "Gender differences in networking," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 130(630), pages 1842-1873.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:econjl:v:130:y:2020:i:630:p:1842-1873.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/ej/ueaa035
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    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:econjl:v:130:y:2020:i:630:p:1842-1873.. 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 or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/resssea.html .

    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.