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