IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/femeco/v8y2002i3p21-53.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Revisiting Gender Variation in Training

Author

Listed:
  • Patricia Simpson
  • Linda Stroh

Abstract

The purposes of this current study are twofold. First, inspired by data emerging from the United Kingdom and Australia, we seek to confirm whether the incidence of training was higher for US women than for US men during the 1990s. Second, we explore the relationship between the comparatively greater incidence of training for women and occupational segregation. Our data confirm that overall levels of training participation were higher for women than for men in 1995. Further, when training is broken down by type, women also participated more than men did in the three possible categories: on-the-job training, employer-supported off-the-job training, and off-the-job training without employer support. These results challenge conventional expectations derived from human capital theory. Finally, our estimates indicate that occupational segregation accounted for more than one-third of the gender differences in training in 1995 and for more than 40 percent in on-the-job and employer-supported, off-the-job training categories.

Suggested Citation

  • Patricia Simpson & Linda Stroh, 2002. "Revisiting Gender Variation in Training," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 8(3), pages 21-53.
  • Handle: RePEc:taf:femeco:v:8:y:2002:i:3:p:21-53 DOI: 10.1080/0003684022000026656
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0003684022000026656
    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.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daron Acemoglu & Jörn-Steffen Pischke, 1998. "Why Do Firms Train? Theory and Evidence," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 113(1), pages 79-119.
    2. Christine Greenhalgh & George Mavrotas, 1996. "Job Training, New Technology and Labour Turnover," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 34(1), pages 131-150, March.
    3. Mark Wooden & Audrey VandenHeuvel, 1997. "Gender Discrimination in Training: a Note," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 35(4), pages 627-633, December.
    4. Greenhalgh, C. & Mavrotas, G., 1991. "Workforce Training in the Thatcher Era - Market Forces and Market Failures," Economics Series Working Papers 99120, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
    5. Paula England, 1982. "The Failure of Human Capital Theory to Explain Occupational Sex Segregation," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 17(3), pages 358-370.
    6. Bruce A. Weinberg, 2000. "Computer Use and the Demand for Female Workers," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 53(2), pages 290-308, January.
    7. Bruce Weinberg, 1998. "Computer Use and the Demand for Women Workers," Working Papers 98-06, Ohio State University, Department of Economics.
    8. Anne Beeson Royalty, 1996. "The Effects of Job Turnover on the Training of Men and Women," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 49(3), pages 506-521, April.
    9. Francine D. Blau & Lawrence M. Kahn, 1981. "Race and Sex Differences in Quits by Young Workers," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 34(4), pages 563-577, July.
    10. Harley Frazis & Maury Gittleman & Mary Joyce, 2000. "Correlates of Training: An Analysis Using Both Employer and Employee Characteristics," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 53(3), pages 443-462, April.
    11. Green, Francis, 1993. "The Determinants of Training of Male and Female Employees in Britain," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 55(1), pages 103-122, February.
    12. Mark A. Loewenstein & James R. Spletzer, 1999. "General and Specific Training: Evidence and Implications," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 34(4), pages 710-733.
    13. Light, Audrey Light & Ureta, Manuelita, 1990. "Gender Differences in Wages and Job Turnover among Continuously Employed Workers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, pages 293-297.
    14. Meitzen, Mark E, 1986. "Differences in Male and Female Job-quitting Behavior," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 151-167, April.
    15. Paul W. Miller, 1994. "Gender Discrimination in Training: An Australian Perspective," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 32(4), pages 539-564, December.
    16. Lynch, Lisa M, 1992. "Private-Sector Training and the Earnings of Young Workers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, pages 299-312.
    17. Vella, Francis, 1994. "Gender Roles and Human Capital Investment: The Relationship between Traditional Attitudes and Female Labour Market Performance," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 61(242), pages 191-211, May.
    18. Polachek, Solomon William, 1981. "Occupational Self-Selection: A Human Capital Approach to Sex Differences in Occupational Structure," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 63(1), pages 60-69, February.
    19. M. V. Lee BADGETT & Nancy FOLBRE, 1999. "Assigning care: Gender norms and economic outcomes," International Labour Review, International Labour Organization, vol. 138(3), pages 311-326, September.
    20. John M. Barron & Mark C. Berger & Dan A. Black, 1997. "On-the-Job Training," Books from Upjohn Press, W.E. Upjohn Institute for Employment Research, number ojt.
    21. Francis Green & Luisa Zanchi, 1997. "Trends in the Training of Male and Female Workers in the United Kingdom," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 35(4), pages 635-644, December.
    22. Cecilia Rouse & Claudia Goldin, 2000. "Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of "Blind" Auditions on Female Musicians," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, pages 715-741.
    23. David H. Autor & Lawrence F. Katz & Alan B. Krueger, 1998. "Computing Inequality: Have Computers Changed the Labor Market?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 113(4), pages 1169-1213.
    24. Light, Audrey & Ureta, Manuelita, 1992. "Panel Estimates of Male and Female Job Turnover Behavior: Can Female Nonquitters Be Identified?," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 10(2), pages 156-181, April.
    25. Duncan, Greg J & Hoffman, Saul, 1979. "On-the-Job Training and Earnings Differences by Race and Sex," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 61(4), pages 594-603, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Dostie, Benoit & Javdani, Mohsen, 2017. "Not for the Profit, but for the Training? Gender Differences in Training in the For-Profit and Non-Profit Sectors," IZA Discussion Papers 11108, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
    2. Fitzenberger, Bernd & Muehler, Grit, 2011. "Dips and floors in workplace training: Using personnel records to estimate gender differences," ZEW Discussion Papers 11-023, ZEW - Zentrum für Europäische Wirtschaftsforschung / Center for European Economic Research.

    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:taf:femeco:v:8:y:2002:i:3:p:21-53. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Chris Longhurst). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/RFEC20 .

    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 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.

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.