# Discussion and conclusions

The results of the experiment described in this paper clearly demonstrate significant bias in perceptions of fair (or unfair) wages in nationally representative samples of respondents across three countries in Central Asia, comprising more than 70,000 individual evaluations of the fairness of earnings.

The results extend our understanding of potential drivers of patterns of wage differences between men and women. Randomly assigning gender to the subjects of vignettes in a survey experiment (such that half were described as female, and the other half as male) resulted in responses regarding the appropriateness of wages that were systematically biased against women and in favor of men. Other than the key content differences randomized for the purposes of the study (sex, age, and wage rate), the content of the vignettes was standardized such that all subjects (with respect to their age, pay, and occupation) were described the same way. On average, respondents were 13 percent more likely to say wages were too high when the subject of the vignette was a woman, and 34 percent more likely to say they were too low when the subject was a man.

However, the scope of the study design places limitations on the interpretation of the results. One such limitation is the narrow set of details provided in the vignettes. As the “story” of the subject is not comprehensive, the lack of details creates the possibility for respondents to “fill-in” details of the story according to their own expectations. As these are unobserved, the study does not isolate what characteristics of women (as described in the vignette) drive the bias, only that the bias exists. Put differently, the study does not identify the precise nature of the implicit assumptions—such as expectations about maternity leave and childcare responsibilities—but only the fact that bias clearly affects the perceived value of women’s work compared to men.

Given the salience of gender inequality and the gender pay gap for development outcomes, the results highlight the need for policies and programs that address discriminatory bias against women and improve opportunities for women to equally participate in the labor market. In the context Central Asia where the study was conducted, the lack of legal provisions mandating equal pay for work of equal value is a notable example.

However, equal pay regulations alone are unlikely to fully address widespread bias in perceptions, nor the remarkably large gender wage gap in Central Asia. Rather, such policies are likely only the first step in what is likely to be one of many steps needed to correct widespread harmful attitudes. To tackle these inequalities, employers, workers, governments, and the public must confront widespread perceptions about the role and value of women’s work. Without general agreement that discrimination and inequality of opportunity are injustices to be addressed, Central Asia is likely to underperform in reducing poverty and achieving inclusive growth.

The study results also highlight the need for further research, especially with a greater focus on the drivers of biased public perceptions. Tackling systemic bias will likely require a better understanding of why it arises in the first place. Though the findings reported here identify the presence of discriminatory attitudes, they do not suffice to establish what interventions would be effective in changing harmful attitudes regarding the appropriate pay for women compared to men. In other contexts, promising 19