Research That Targets Gender Inequalities

THE AXA RESEARCH LAB ON GENDER EQUALITY PRESENTS TODAY THE RESULTS OF A YEAR OF WORK ON THE SUBJECT OF GENDER INEQUALITIES. THE CASE OF A FRENCH LAW ON THE GENDER PAY GAP

The AXA Research Lab on Gender Equality, which is supported with the contribution of the AXA Research Fund and AXA Italia, promotes research in the social sciences applied to gender. The research activity of the Laboratory, directed by Paola Profeta, is carried out on various topics with the aim of promoting gender equality in the economic and social fields through rigorous scientific methodologies. The second edition of the Lab’s annual conference, which takes place today atr 2pm at the University's Aula Magna Gobbi with an institutional remark by the Italian Minister for Family, Natality and Equal Opportunities, Eugenia Roccella, is an opportunity to present some of the research results.
 
One of the cases studied by the Lab is the gender salary gap in France: the introduction of laws forcing companies to negotiate agreements on gender equality with worker unions is not in itself an effective way to reduce pay gaps between men and women employees, as shown in Reducing the gender pay gap: can we let firms take action?, a working paper by Caroline Coly.

 

The fact that women’s earnings are on average lower than men’s remains to this day a very common and unwelcome feature of labor markets worldwide. In order to combat this so-called gender pay gap, many countries have passed laws forbidding discrimination and addressing gender inequalities. 
 
Among these countries, France passed a law in November 2010, and still standing, that mandates firms to negotiate agreements on gender equality with worker unions or face a fine. The aim of this law was to reduce the gender wage gap that in larger French companies stands on average at about 13%.
 
Using available data on more than 25,000 companies that have signed such agreements between 2010 and 2013, Caroline Coly found no noticeable effects on the mean wage gap. The resulting reduction in the gender wage gap is so small, about 0.1%, that it falls in fact within the margin of error and is therefore statistically not significant. 
 
In other words, the November 2010 law failed to achieve its intended objective of reducing the pay gap between men and women. Those results are consistent with the findings of other studies, according to which firms did sign these agreements with worker unions but they often lacked proper indicators of gender inequalities and avoided taking any active measures. 
 
Caroline Coly outlines a few factors that may explain this outcome. “First of all, by requiring only to sign an agreement without binding companies to take measurable steps in order to close any wage gap, the law is not very strict and allows firms a lot of leeway. In addition, labor inspectors are only required to verify that an agreement exists, not its content. Unions, for their part, are more interested in maintaining job levels than in reducing inequalities. Besides, the threat of a relatively low fine might not be strong enough to push firms to sign agreements and implement them correctly.”
 
“Letting firms negotiate without strong binding constraints is not enough to reduce the gender wage gap,” Coly continues. “There should be a supervisory body monitoring the content of those agreements, if we want to make them work. Otherwise, increased transparency on wages, although it has some counterindications, might be the best alternative to reduce the gender wage gap.”
 

by Andrea Costa