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] |