IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this article or follow this journal

Revisiting Gender Variation in Training

  • Patricia Simpson
  • Linda Stroh
Registered author(s):

    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.

    If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

    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 look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

    Article provided by Taylor & Francis Journals in its journal Feminist Economics.

    Volume (Year): 8 (2002)
    Issue (Month): 3 ()
    Pages: 21-53

    as
    in new window

    Handle: RePEc:taf:femeco:v:8:y:2002:i:3:p:21-53
    Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.tandfonline.com/RFEC20

    Order Information: Web: http://www.tandfonline.com/pricing/journal/RFEC20

    References listed on IDEAS
    Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

    as in new window
    1. 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 103-22, February.
    2. Acemoglu, D. & Pischki, J.S., 1996. "Why Do Firms Train? Theory and Evidence," Working papers 96-7, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
    3. Bruce A. Weinberg, 2000. "Computer use and the demand for female workers," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 53(2), pages 290-308, January.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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, November.
    7. 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.
    8. Anne B. Royalty, 1996. "The effects of job turnover on the training of men and women," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 49(3), pages 505-521, April.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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, 09.
    12. Bruce Weinberg, 1998. "Computer Use and the Demand for Women Workers," Working Papers 98-06, Ohio State University, Department of Economics.
    13. Lynch, Lisa M, 1992. "Private-Sector Training and the Earnings of Young Workers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 82(1), pages 299-312, March.
    14. 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.
    15. Francine D. Blau & Larry M. Kahn, 1981. "Race and sex differences in quits by young workers," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 34(4), pages 563-577, July.
    16. 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.
    17. 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 156-81, April.
    18. 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.
    19. 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.
    20. David H. Autor & Lawrence F. Katz & Alan B. Krueger, 1997. "Computing Inequality: Have Computers Changed the Labor Market?," NBER Working Papers 5956, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    21. Light, Audrey Light & Ureta, Manuelita, 1990. "Gender Differences in Wages and Job Turnover among Continuously Employed Workers," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 80(2), pages 293-97, May.
    22. Meitzen, Mark E, 1986. "Differences in Male and Female Job-quitting Behavior," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 4(2), pages 151-67, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    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: (Michael McNulty)

    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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

    If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.