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

Does gender matter for academic promotion? Evidence from a randomized natural experiment

  • Natalia Zinovyeva
  • Manuel F. Bagues

Given the lack of women in academia, several countries have recently adopted gender quotas in hiring and promotion committees. This paper studies whether these policies may work. The identification strategy exploits the random assignment mechanism in place between 2002 and 2006 in all academic disciplines in Spain to select the members of promotion committees. We find that a larger share of female evaluators increases the chances of success of female applicants to full professor positions, but it decreases the chances of success of female applicants to associate professor positions. The evidence is consistent with the existence of ambivalent sexism, and with some female evaluators behaving strategically.

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://documentos.fedea.net/pubs/dt/2010/dt-2010-15.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by FEDEA in its series Working Papers with number 2010-15.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: May 2010
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:fda:fdaddt:2010-15
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.fedea.net

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. Boschini, Anne & Sjögren, Anna, 2004. "Is Team Formation Gender Neutral? Evidence from coauthorship patterns," Research Papers in Economics 2004:11, Stockholm University, Department of Economics.
  2. Alison Booth & Andrew Leigh, 2010. "Do employers discriminate by gender? A field experiment in female-dominated occupations," Natural Field Experiments 00200, The Field Experiments Website.
  3. Jason Abrevaya & Daniel S. Hamermesh, 2012. "Charity and Favoritism in the Field: Are Female Economists Nicer (To Each Other)?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 94(1), pages 202-207, February.
  4. Booth, Alison & Jeff Frank & David Blackaby, 2003. "Outside Offers and the Gender Pay Gap: Empirical Evidence from the UK Academic Labour Market," Royal Economic Society Annual Conference 2003 28, Royal Economic Society.
  5. Pierre-Philippe Combes & Laurent Linnemer & Michael Visser, 2006. "Publish or peer-rich ? The role of skills and networks in hiring economics professors," Research Unit Working Papers 0604, Laboratoire d'Economie Appliquee, INRA.
  6. A. Colin Cameron & Jonah B. Gelbach & Douglas L. Miller & Doug Miller, 2009. "Robust Inference with Multi-way Clustering," Working Papers 98, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
  7. Phelps, Edmund S, 1972. "The Statistical Theory of Racism and Sexism," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 62(4), pages 659-61, September.
  8. Cornell, Bradford & Welch, Ivo, 1996. "Culture, Information, and Screening Discrimination," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 104(3), pages 542-71, June.
  9. Juan J. Dolado & Florentino Felgueroso & Miguel Almunia, 2008. "Do men and women-economists choose the same research fields?: Evidence from top-50 departments," Working Papers 2008-15, FEDEA.
  10. Bagues, Manuel & Perez-Villadoniga, Maria J., 2013. "Why do I like people like me?," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 148(3), pages 1292-1299.
  11. Donna K. Ginther & Shulamit Kahn, 2004. "Women in Economics: Moving Up or Falling Off the Academic Career Ladder?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 18(3), pages 193-214, Summer.
  12. Manuel Bagues & Maria Jose Perez-Villadoniga, 2009. "Do recruiters prefer applicants with similar skills? Evidence from a randomized natural experiment," Business Economics Working Papers wb090562, Universidad Carlos III, Departamento de Economía de la Empresa.
  13. Dennis J. Aigner & Glen G. Cain, 1977. "Statistical theories of discrimination in labor markets," Industrial and Labor Relations Review, ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 30(2), pages 175-187, January.
  14. Broder, Ivy E, 1993. "Review of NSF Economics Proposals: Gender and Institutional Patterns," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(4), pages 964-70, September.
  15. Donna K. Ginther & Shulamit Kahn, 2009. "Does Science Promote Women? Evidence from Academia 1973-2001," NBER Chapters, in: Science and Engineering Careers in the United States: An Analysis of Markets and Employment, pages 163-194 National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  16. Becker, Gary S., 1971. "The Economics of Discrimination," University of Chicago Press Economics Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 2, number 9780226041162.
  17. Manuel F. Bagues & Berta Esteve-Volart, 2010. "Can Gender Parity Break the Glass Ceiling? Evidence from a Repeated Randomized Experiment," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 77(4), pages 1301-1328.
  18. Hamermesh, Daniel S & Biddle, Jeff E, 1994. "Beauty and the Labor Market," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 84(5), pages 1174-94, December.
  19. Blank, Rebecca M, 1991. "The Effects of Double-Blind versus Single-Blind Reviewing: Experimental Evidence from The American Economic Review," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 81(5), pages 1041-67, December.
  20. Blackaby, David & Booth, Alison L & Frank, Jeff, 2002. "Outside Offers and the Gender Pay Gap: Empirical Evidence from the UK," CEPR Discussion Papers 3549, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
  21. Lavy, Victor, 2008. "Do gender stereotypes reduce girls' or boys' human capital outcomes? Evidence from a natural experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(10-11), pages 2083-2105, October.
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:fda:fdaddt:2010-15. 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: (Carmen Arias)

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.