Mobility and Gender in a Segmented Labor Market: A Closer Look

I Introduction A NUMBER OF STUDIES have examined differential labor market outcomes across gender groups focusing specifically on wage differentials (Polachek, 1979; England, 1982; Bergmann, 1989). An important and related issue in the labor market literature suggests that discriminatory barriers tend to prevent women from obtaining access to high status jobs to the same extent as do their male counterparts. The opportunity structure confronting female workers is, thus, postulated to be different than that facing men. This study extends labor market mobility research by analyzing differences in the nature of the opportunity structure facing male and female workers in the context of a segmented labor market. The labor market segmentation approach provides a useful framework for analyzing the issue of gender differences in occupational mobility.(1) Pomer (1984), for example, in a study influenced by labor market segmentation ideas, constructs low- paid and mainstream occupational strata. These strata somewhat correspond to secondary and primary labor markets. Using 1970 Census data, he finds that female workers experience a substantially lower probability of upward mobility across strata than do their male counterparts. Similarly, Howell and Reese (1986) define core and peripheral industrial sectors and demonstrate that female workers are both more likely to begin their careers in the periphery and less likely to make a transition to the core sector of the economy. While these studies are both influenced by ideas originating from the labor market segmentation framework, in critical respects they do not closely adhere to labor segment definitions as outlined in the literature (Piore, 1975; Gordon, Edwards and Reich, 1982). Pomer's work, for example, does not differentiate between upper and lower tiers of the primary segment, which tends to mask important differences in the occupational opportunity structure faced by female workers as compared to males. Howell and Reese (1986) analyze mobility through industrial rather than occupational segments. Though it is likely that secondary jobs are more concentrated in a peripheral sector, there is, nevertheless, not a one-to-one correspondence between industrial sectors and labor segments. The present study makes a unique contribution to the literature on occupational mobility in that it analyzes gender differences in the context of a tri-partite segment structure as proposed by Piore (1975) and Gordon, Edwards and Reich (1982).(2) One of the important aspects of the tri-partite structure is that it allows for a partitioning of the primary segment into an upper and lower tier (independent and subordinate primary segments, respectively). This procedure has the potential to offer additional insights into gender differences in mobility, which are lacking in previous work. Three dimensions of gender differences in opportunity structure will be examined. First, a segmentation view of the labor market is presented. Second, gender differences in segment location and upward intersegment mobility patterns across gender groups are examined; and third, an econometric model describing labor market opportunity is proposed and estimated. This model offers further insights into differences in male and female labor market mobility experience. II Labor Market Structure and Gender LABOR MARKET SEGMENTATION THEORY Suggests that the U.S. labor market is composed of three qualitatively distinct segments, which may be defined as bounded submarkets and identified by both industrial and occupational characteristics. Mobility between these submarkets are hypothesized to be somewhat, though not totally, restricted. Levels and determinants of mobility between labor segments represent important aspects of the structure of labor market opportunity faced by workers. An upward move through the segment structure often represents a significant increase in earnings, prestige and stability. …