**Table 6.  Occupational Segregation**<sup>**a**</sup> **of Employees by Gender – -** **<u>in the Baltic Countries (1997 2000) and Central Europe (1997 1999)</u>**

||**1997**|**1998**|**1999**|**2000**|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|**Estonia**|0.432|0.423|0.411|0.408|
|**Latvia**|0.406|0.407|0.407|0.409|
|**Lithuania**|0.335|0.339|0.312|n. a.|
|**Poland, public sector**|0.468|0.458|0.465|n. a.|
|**Poland, private sector**|0.362|0.345|0.342||
|**Czech R.**|0.340|0.340|0.375|n. a.|
|**Hungary**|0.390|0.380|0.390|n. a.|

_Notes:_<sup>a</sup> Dissimilarity index by nine major groups of occupations according to ISCO 88. _Sources_ : Enterprise census results for Latvia and Lithuania, LFS results for Estonia, and own calculations; Laxton (2001) for Poland, Czech Republic and Hungary.

Estimated earnings functions, presented in Appendix Tables 24, 25, and 26, predict about 25 percent lower net wage for women than for otherwise similar men after the impact of other observable factors is accounted for. This gap stays almost unchanged if occupation and/or working hours are controlled for, suggesting that segregation and working hours are unlikely to explain the unequal gender pay.

Table 7 puts the gender wage gap in an international context. Although the gender pay gap in Latvia has increased substantially between 2000 and 2002, it is still not large in comparison with other countries. (Brainerd (2000) and Newell and Reilly (2001) provide evidence that in most of the transition countries the evolution of the gender gap has been slow, so comparing results from different years makes some sense.)

**Table 7.** **_Ceteris paribus_**<sup>**#**</sup> **Female – Male Wage Ratio (percent). Latvia (2000 and 2002), Estonia and Lithuania (2000), Selected Central European (1992-98), - -** **<u>Former Soviet Union (1995 96) and OECD (1983 97) Countries.</u>**

|**The Baltic**<br>**States**<sup>**a**</sup><br>**Occ**<br>|**Wage**<br>**Ratio**<br>**upation c**<br>|**CEE**<br>**Countries**<sup>**b**</sup><br>**ontrols included**<br>|**Wage**<br>**Ratio**<br>|**Former SU**<br>**Countries**<sup>**c**</sup><br>**Occ**<br>|**Wage**<br>**Ratio**<br>**upation c**<br>|**OECD**<br>**Countries**<br>**ontrols included**<br>|**Wage**<br>**ratio**<br> <br>|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|Estonia|79|Bulgaria|78|Kazakhstan|76|UK<sup>d</sup><br>|61|
|Lithuania<br>|84|Hungary|81|Uzbekistan|77|Canada<sup>d</sup><br>|68|
|Latvia, 2000<sup>e</sup>|84|Poland|84|Russia|79|US<sup>d</sup><br>|70|
|Latvia, 2001<sup>e</sup>|83|Yugoslavia|87|Ukraine|82|Ireland<sup>d</sup><br>|74|
|Latvia, 2002<sup>e</sup>|76|||||Germany 1<sup>d</sup><br>|82|
|**Occup**|**ation co**|**ntrols not included**||||Germany 2<sup>f</sup><br>|76|
|Estonia/private|82|Czech R./private|77|||Germany 3<sup>g</sup><br>|77|
|Estonia/public|76|Czech R./public|86|||Netherlands<sup>d</sup>|83|
|Lithuania/private|84|Slovakia./private|82|||||
|Lithuania/public|85|Slovakia/public|93|||||
|Latvia:<br>||||||||
|2000, private<sup>e</sup>|87|||||||
|2000, public<sup>e</sup>|83|||||||
|2002, private<sup>e</sup><br>|77|||||||
|2002, public <sup>e</sup>|74|||||||

_Notes_ :<sup><u>#</u></sup> Other things, including sector of economic activity, being equal. All ratios are significantly different from 1 at 0.01 significance level. The estimates for Latvia presented here for 2000 - 2002 are based on interval data. Those for 2002 are consistent with the results derived from NORBALT (1999) dataset with self-reported wages. _Sources:_<sup>a</sup> OECD (2003a) and own calculations.<sup>b</sup> Hungary (1992) - Pailhé (2000); Bulgaria (1995), Poland (1996), Yugoslavia (1996) - Newell and Reilly (2001); Czech R. and Slovakia (1998) – Juraida (2001).<sup>c</sup> Newell and Reilly (2001). d UK (1983-89), Canada (1986), Ireland (1988-89), West Germany (1986-91), Netherlands (1987-90) - Blanchflower and Oswald (1994); US (1990) - Hellerstein et al (1999);<sup>e</sup> Based on survey interval regression; f g , - West and East Germany, 1996-97 – Brucker and Trubswetter (2003).

37