Skip to main content

Table 7 Confidence intervals of male and female elasticities—implications for three studies

From: Measuring links between labor monopsony and the gender pay gap in Brazil

Barth and Dale-Olsen (2009), Table 5

 

Low education

High education

Method 1: quits

Male

Female

Male

Female

ε l,w

1.492

1.142

1.182

1.088 a

 SE

0.08

0.058

0.126

0.084

 CI

[1.34–1.65]

[1.03–1.26]

[0.94–1.43]

[0.92–1.25]

 

Low education

High education

Method 2: excess turnover

Male

Female

Male

Female

ε l,w

1.710

1.170

1.098

0.840 a

 SE

0.088

0.054

0.12

0.082

 CI

[1.54–1.88]

[1.06–1.28]

[0.86–1.33]

[0.68–1]

Hirsch et al. (2010), Table 1

 

Model 1

Model 2

 

Male

Female

Male

Female

ε l,w

3.241

1.864 a

2.681

1.917 a

 SE

0.456

0.242

0.265

0.176

 CI

[2.35–4.13]

[1.39–2.34]

[2.16–3.2]

[1.57–2.26]

 

Model 3

Model 4

 

Male

Female

Male

Female

ε l,w

3.656

2.586

2.489

2.145

 SE

0.051

0.073

0.050

0.066

 CI

[3.56–3.76]

[2.44–2.73]

[2.39–2.59]

[2.02–2.27]

Booth and Katic (2011), Table 3

 Method 2

With controls

Tenure controls

 

Male

Female

Male

Female

ε l,w

0.760

0.610 a

0.461

0.409 a

 SE

0.156

0.199

0.165

0.208

 CI

[0.45–1.07]

[0.22–1]

[0.14–0.78]

[0–0.82]

  1. Author’s own calculations for SE, LB, and UB. See footnote 13 for the methods used to calculate standard errors and confidence intervals
  2. aIndicates overlapping 95% confidence intervals between elasticities or no statistically significant differences between males and females