IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/20256.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Breaking the Glass Ceiling? The Effect of Board Quotas on Female Labor Market Outcomes in Norway

Author

Listed:
  • Marianne Bertrand
  • Sandra E. Black
  • Sissel Jensen
  • Adriana Lleras-Muney

Abstract

In late 2003, Norway passed a law mandating 40 percent representation of each gender on the board of public limited liability companies. The primary objective of this reform was to increase the representation of women in top positions in the corporate sector and decrease the gender disparity in earnings within that sector. We document that the women appointed to these boards post-reform were observably more qualified than their female predecessors along many dimensions, and that the gender gap in earnings within boards fell substantially. On the other hand, we see no robust evidence that the reform benefited the larger set of women employed in the companies subject to the quota. Moreover, the reform had no clear impact on highly qualified women whose qualifications mirror those of board members but who were not appointed to boards. Finally, we find mixed support for the view that the reform affected the decisions of young women: while the reform was not accompanied by any change in female enrollment in business education programs, we do see some improvements in labor market outcomes for young women with graduate business degrees in their early career stages; however, we observe similar improvements for young women with graduate science degrees, suggesting this may not be due to the reform. Overall, seven years after the board quota policy fully came into effect, we conclude that it had very little discernible impact on women in business beyond its direct effect on the women who made it into boardrooms.

Suggested Citation

  • Marianne Bertrand & Sandra E. Black & Sissel Jensen & Adriana Lleras-Muney, 2014. "Breaking the Glass Ceiling? The Effect of Board Quotas on Female Labor Market Outcomes in Norway," NBER Working Papers 20256, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:20256
    Note: LS
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w20256.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lori Beaman & Raghabendra Chattopadhyay & Esther Duflo & Rohini Pande & Petia Topalova, 2009. "Powerful Women: Does Exposure Reduce Bias?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 124(4), pages 1497-1540.
    2. Chiara Pronzato & Paola Profeta & Valeria Ferraro & Giulia Ferrari, 2016. "Gender Quotas: Challenging the Boards, Performance, and the Stock Market," Working Papers id:11411, eSocialSciences.
    3. Renee B. Adams & Benjamin E. Hermalin & Michael S. Weisbach, 2010. "The Role of Boards of Directors in Corporate Governance: A Conceptual Framework and Survey," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 48(1), pages 58-107, March.
    4. Betsey Stevenson, 2010. "Beyond the Classroom: Using Title IX to Measure the Return to High School Sports," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 92(2), pages 284-301, May.
    5. David A. Matsa & Amalia R. Miller, 2013. "A Female Style in Corporate Leadership? Evidence from Quotas," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 5(3), pages 136-169, July.
    6. Muriel Niederle & Lise Vesterlund, 2007. "Do Women Shy Away From Competition? Do Men Compete Too Much?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 122(3), pages 1067-1101.
    7. 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.
    8. Raghabendra Chattopadhyay & Esther Duflo, 2004. "Women as Policy Makers: Evidence from a Randomized Policy Experiment in India," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(5), pages 1409-1443, September.
    9. Rafael La Porta & Florencio Lopez‐De‐Silanes & Andrei Shleifer, 1999. "Corporate Ownership Around the World," Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 54(2), pages 471-517, April.
    10. Tyrefors, Björn & Jansson, Joakim, 2017. "Gender Quotas in the Board Room and Firm Performance: Evidence from a Credible Threat in Sweden," Working Paper Series 1165, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    11. Kenneth R. Ahern & Amy K. Dittmar, 2012. "The Changing of the Boards: The Impact on Firm Valuation of Mandated Female Board Representation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 127(1), pages 137-197.
    12. Marianne Bertrand & Claudia Goldin & Lawrence F. Katz, 2010. "Dynamics of the Gender Gap for Young Professionals in the Financial and Corporate Sectors," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(3), pages 228-255, July.
    13. Esther Duflo & Raghabendra Chattopadhyay, 2010. "Women as Policy Makers: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment," Working Papers id:2786, eSocialSciences.
    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. Bertrand, Marianne & Black, Sandra & Lleras-Muney, Adriana & Jensen, Sissel, 2015. "Breaking the Glass Ceiling," CEPR Discussion Papers 10467, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Mario Daniele Amore & Orsola Garofalo & Alessandro Minichilli, 2014. "Gender Interactions Within the Family Firm," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 60(5), pages 1083-1097, May.
    3. Chiara Pronzato & Paola Profeta & Valeria Ferraro & Giulia Ferrari, 2016. "Gender Quotas: Challenging the Boards, Performance, and the Stock Market," Working Papers id:11411, eSocialSciences.
    4. Azmat, Ghazala & Petrongolo, Barbara, 2014. "Gender and the labor market: What have we learned from field and lab experiments?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 32-40.
    5. Marianne Bertrand & Esther Duflo, 2016. "Field Experiments on Discrimination," NBER Working Papers 22014, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Stefano Gagliarducci & M. Daniele Paserman, 2012. "Gender Interactions within Hierarchies: Evidence from the Political Arena," Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 79(3), pages 1021-1052.
    7. Thomas Le & Julien Sauvagnat, 2022. "Electoral Competition, Voter Bias, and Women in Politics," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 20(1), pages 352-394.
    8. Giulia Ferrari & Valeria Ferraro & Paola Profeta & Chiara Pronzato, 2022. "Do Board Gender Quotas Matter? Selection, Performance, and Stock Market Effects," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 68(8), pages 5618-5643, August.
    9. Casas-Arce, Pablo & Saiz, Albert, 2011. "Women and Power: Unwilling, Ineffective, or Held Back?," IZA Discussion Papers 5645, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Azmat, Ghazala & Petrongolo, Barbara, 2014. "Gender and the labor market: What have we learned from field and lab experiments?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 32-40.
    11. Marianne Bertrand & Esther Duflo, 2016. "Field Experiments on Discrimination," NBER Working Papers 22014, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Ferreira, Daniel & Ginglinger, Edith & Laguna, Marie-Aude & Skalli, Yasmine, 2017. "Board Quotas and Director-Firm Matching," CEPR Discussion Papers 12117, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    13. Fang,Sheng & Goh,Chorching & Roberts,Mark & Xu,L. Colin & Zeufack,Albert G., 2020. "Female Business Leaders, Business and Cultural Environment, and Productivity around the World," Policy Research Working Paper Series 9275, The World Bank.
    14. Laura Hospido & Luc Laeven & Ana Lamo, 2022. "The Gender Promotion Gap: Evidence from Central Banking," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 104(5), pages 981-996, December.
    15. Antoine Rebérioux & Gwenaël Roudaut, 2016. "Gender Quota inside the Boardroom: Female Directors as New Key Players?," Working Papers hal-01297884, HAL.
    16. Bhalotra, Sonia & Clots-Figueras, Irma & Iyer, Lakshmi, 2013. "Path-Breakers: How Does Women’s Political Participation Respond to Electoral Success?," Economics Discussion Papers 9008, University of Essex, Department of Economics.
    17. Sonia Bhalotra & Irma Clots-Figueras & Lakshmi Iyer & Joseph Vecci, 2023. "Leader Identity and Coordination," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 105(1), pages 175-189, January.
    18. Pierre Deschamps, 2018. "Gender Quotas in Hiring Committees: a Boon or a Bane for Women?," Sciences Po publications 82, Sciences Po.
    19. Kuzmina, Olga & Melentyeva, Valentina, 2020. "Gender diversity in corporate boards: Evidence from quota-implied discontinuities," CEPR Discussion Papers 14942, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    20. Audinga Baltrunaite & Mario Cannella & Sauro Mocetti & Giacomo Roma, "undated". "Board composition and performance of state-owned enterprises: Quasi-experimental evidence," Temi di discussione (Economic working papers) 1328, Bank of Italy, Economic Research and International Relations Area.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • J24 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Demand and Supply of Labor - - - Human Capital; Skills; Occupational Choice; Labor Productivity
    • J3 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Wages, Compensation, and Labor Costs
    • J7 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor Discrimination
    • J78 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor Discrimination - - - Public Policy (including comparable worth)

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:nbr:nberwo:20256. 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: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.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.