IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/ijoeps/v12y2017i1d10.1007_bf03405768.html

Why Women’s Share among Managers Is So Low in Japan: A Statistical Fallacy or A Shadow of the Employment System?

Author

Listed:
  • Naoki Mitani

    (Okayama Shoka University)

  • Akira Wakisaka

    (Gakushuin University)

  • Atsushi Morimoto

    (Kobe University)

Abstract

Women’s share among managers is extremely low in Japan, compared with other OECD countries. We investigate two possible factors accounting for it: (a) the inconsistent application across countries of the classification of occupations, and (b) the international differences in employment systems. By analyzing the OECD Survey of Adult Skills (PIAAC) data and others, we show the following three empirical results. (1) The proportion of managers based on the International Standard Classification of Occupation is much smaller in Japan than in other OECD countries. The proportion of workers classified as managers among total employment is over 10% in the United States and the United Kingdom, while it is only about 2% in Japan. If the work of managers is distributed in each country equally, there would not be such large differences across countries in the fractions of the employees who are managers. Such large gaps could stem from differences in the organizational structures of companies across countries or from differences in employment practices across countries. But the low women’s share among managers in Japan might simply be because of differences in the scope of the category of workers classified as managers. In fact, the differences in women’s share among managers across countries becomes much smaller, if we take another definition of managers, based on the number of subordinates. (2) The effect of educational attainment on promotion is much larger in some OECD countries than in Japan. In France, for example, grandes-écoles are closely related to the managerial category of the socio-economic classification called cadres. Many graduates of grandes-écoles are promoted to the category of cadres at the start of their professional careers. By contrast, in Japan it is quite rare to see a worker being promoted to managerial category at the start of her career, even if she is a graduate from a prestigious university. (3) We estimate a promotion function (probit model), in which the dependent variable is a dummy variable taking the value one if the worker is promoted to manager, zero if otherwise, with labor market experience, schooling years and female dummy being included among the covariates. The estimation results are consistent with the following two hypotheses, though the consistency is weak for (ii). (i) Women’s share among managers is higher in those countries where the speed of promotion to manager is faster. (ii) Women’s share among managers is higher in those countries where the effect of educational attainment on promotion to manager is relatively more important, compared to the effect of work experience. The results suggest that women with household responsibilities are disadvantaged in the race for manager under the Japanese employment system, which is typically associated with long-term competition within firms and relatively little consideration of educational attainment. This is the second factor behind the low women’s share among managers in Japan. Thus, policies to promote work-life-balance are needed to provide women with more opportunities to be promoted to manager in Japan, with the merit of the current long-term competition system being maintained.

Suggested Citation

  • Naoki Mitani & Akira Wakisaka & Atsushi Morimoto, 2017. "Why Women’s Share among Managers Is So Low in Japan: A Statistical Fallacy or A Shadow of the Employment System?," International Journal of Economic Policy Studies, Springer, vol. 12(1), pages 42-68, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:ijoeps:v:12:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_bf03405768
    DOI: 10.1007/BF03405768
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/BF03405768
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/BF03405768?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
    ---><---

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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. repec:iab:iabdpa:201611 is not listed on IDEAS
    2. Dore, Ronald, 2000. "Stock Market Capitalism: Welfare Capitalism: Japan and Germany versus the Anglo-Saxons," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199240616.
    3. Jeffrey M Wooldridge, 2010. "Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 2, volume 1, number 0262232588, December.
    4. Prendergast, Canice, 1992. "Career development and specific human capital collection," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 6(3), pages 207-227, September.
    5. Hideo Owan, 2004. "Promotion, Turnover, Earnings, and Firm-Sponsored Training," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 22(4), pages 955-978, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Junichiro Ishida, 2012. "Dynamically Sabotage-Proof Tournaments," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 30(3), pages 627-655.
    2. Kato, Takao & Ogawa, Hiromasa & Owan, Hideo, 2016. "Working Hours, Promotion and the Gender Gap in the Workplace," IZA Discussion Papers 10454, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    3. Mengyuan Zhou, 2022. "Does the Source of Inheritance Matter in Bequest Attitudes? Evidence from Japan," Journal of Family and Economic Issues, Springer, vol. 43(4), pages 867-887, December.
    4. Campbell, Randall C. & Nagel, Gregory L., 2016. "Private information and limitations of Heckman's estimator in banking and corporate finance research," Journal of Empirical Finance, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 186-195.
    5. Christopher Dick-Sagoe & Ernest Ngeh Tingum & Peter Asare-Nuamah & Denis N. Yuni & Nicholas Baidoo, 2025. "Central transfers and incentives to collect local revenue among the Central Region of Ghana’s local government officials: analysing the flypaper effect," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 12(1), pages 1-12, December.
    6. Ilona Babenko & Benjamin Bennett & John M Bizjak & Jeffrey L Coles & Jason J Sandvik, 2023. "Clawback Provisions and Firm Risk," The Review of Corporate Finance Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 12(2), pages 191-239.
    7. Şahan, Duygu & Tuna, Okan, 2018. "Environmental innovation of transportation sector in OECD countries," Chapters from the Proceedings of the Hamburg International Conference of Logistics (HICL), in: Kersten, Wolfgang & Blecker, Thorsten & Ringle, Christian M. (ed.), The Road to a Digitalized Supply Chain Management: Smart and Digital Solutions for Supply Chain Management. Proceedings of the Hamburg International C, volume 25, pages 157-170, Hamburg University of Technology (TUHH), Institute of Business Logistics and General Management.
    8. Ruomeng Cui & Dennis J. Zhang & Achal Bassamboo, 2019. "Learning from Inventory Availability Information: Evidence from Field Experiments on Amazon," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 65(3), pages 1216-1235, March.
    9. Luiz Paulo Fávero & Joseph F. Hair & Rafael de Freitas Souza & Matheus Albergaria & Talles V. Brugni, 2021. "Zero-Inflated Generalized Linear Mixed Models: A Better Way to Understand Data Relationships," Mathematics, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-28, May.
    10. Shaikh M. S. U. Eskander & Sam Fankhauser, 2022. "Income Diversification and Income Inequality: Household Responses to the 2013 Floods in Pakistan," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, January.
    11. Meng, Chang & Ghafoori, Noorulhaq, 2024. "The economic impact of terrorism in South Asia," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 96(C).
    12. Hwang, Yujung & Nguyen, Toan, 2025. "Is sex ratio a valid distribution factor in a collective model?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    13. Peter Harasztosi & Attila Lindner, 2019. "Who Pays for the Minimum Wage?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(8), pages 2693-2727, August.
    14. Gordon L Clark & Ashby H B Monk, 2014. "The Geography of Investment Management Contracts: The UK, Europe, and the Global Financial Services Industry," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 46(3), pages 531-549, March.
    15. Jinwon Kim & Jucheol Moon & Dongyun Yang, 2024. "Pigouvian Congestion Tolls and the Welfare Gain: Estimates for California Freeways," Working Papers 2402, Nam Duck-Woo Economic Research Institute, Sogang University (Former Research Institute for Market Economy).
    16. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Kim, Heeho & Roberts, Roland K. & Kim, Taeyoung & Lee, Daegoon, 2014. "Effects of changes in forestland ownership on deforestation and urbanization and the resulting effects on greenhouse gas emissions," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(1), pages 93-109.
    17. Kazuki Onji & John P. Tang, 2015. "A nation without a corporate income tax: Evidence from nineteenth century Japan," Discussion Papers in Economics and Business 15-12, Osaka University, Graduate School of Economics.
    18. Brown, Sarah & Greene, William H. & Harris, Mark N. & Taylor, Karl, 2015. "An inverse hyperbolic sine heteroskedastic latent class panel tobit model: An application to modelling charitable donations," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 50(C), pages 228-236.
    19. Roberto Martino & Phu Nguyen-Van, 2014. "Labour market regulation and fiscal parameters: A structural model for European regions," Working Papers of BETA 2014-19, Bureau d'Economie Théorique et Appliquée, UDS, Strasbourg.
    20. Etienne Redor & Magnus Blomkvist, 2021. "Do all inside and affiliated directors hold the same value for shareholders?," Economics Bulletin, AccessEcon, vol. 41(3), pages 882-895.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:spr:ijoeps:v:12:y:2017:i:1:d:10.1007_bf03405768. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.