Gender board diversity across Europe throughout four decades.

We present a Gender Board Diversity Dataset (GBDD), which provides a cross-country perspective on women in management and supervisory boards that spans between 1985 and 2020. The data covers 43 European countries and accounts for private companies in addition to the stock-listed ones. GBBD was created using firm-level Orbis data. Our measures are based on a sample of more than 28 million unique firms observed for nearly seven years on average and reporting data about nearly 59 million individuals on management and supervisory boards. We provide the measures at the level of industry, country and year (firm-level data is proprietary). We provide three measures. The first is the share of women among all board members in a given industry, country, and year. The second one is the average of the shares of women across firms in a given industry, country and year. We also provide a new measure: the share of firms in a given industry, country and year which report no single woman on their board(s).

How rankings disguise gender inequality: A comparative analysis of cross-country gender equality rankings based on adjusted wage gaps.

Methods for estimating the scope of unjustified inequality differ in their sensitivity to address institutional and structural deficiencies. In the case of gender wage gaps, adjusting adequately for individual characteristics requires prior assessment of several important deficiencies, primarily whether a given labor market is characterized by gendered selection into employment, gendered segmentation and whether these mechanisms differ along the distribution of wages. Given that countries are characterized by differentiated prevalence of these deficiencies, ranking countries on gender wage gaps is a challenging task. Whether a country is perceived as more equal than others depends on the interaction between the method of adjusting gender wage gap for individual characteristics and the prevalence of these deficiencies. We make the case that this interaction is empirically relevant by comparing the country rankings for the adjusted gender wage gap among 23 EU countries. In this relatively homogeneous group of countries, the interaction between method and underlying deficiencies leads to substantial variation in the extent of unjustified inequality. A country may change its place in the ranking by as much as ten positions-both towards greater equality and towards greater inequality. We also show that, if explored properly, this variability can yield valuable policy insights: changes in the ranking positions across methods inform on the policy priority of the labor market deficiencies across countries in relative terms.

How (not) to make women work?

Women in developed economies have experienced an unparalleled increase in employment rates, to the point that the gap with respect to men was cut in half. This positive trend has often been attributed to changes in the opportunity costs of working (e.g. access to caring facilities) and the opportunity costs of not-working (notably, relative growth in wages in positions more frequently occupied by women, improved educational attainment). Meanwhile, the gender employment gaps were stagnant in transition economies. Admittedly, employment equality among genders was initially much higher in transition countries. We exploit this unique evidence from transition and advanced countries, to analyze the relationship between the institutional environment and the (adjusted) gender employment gaps. We estimate comparable gender employment gaps on nearly 1500 micro databases from over 40 countries. Changes in both types of the opportunity costs exhibited strong correlation with gender employment equality where the gap was larger, i.e. advanced economies. We provide some evidence that these results are not explained away by transition-related phenomena. We argue that the observed divergence in time trends reflects a level effect: the lower the gender employment gap, the lower the strength of the relationship between gender employment equality and the opportunity costs of working. An implication from our study is that the existing instruments might be insufficient to further reduce the gender employment gap.