Location of Repository

The Public Pay Gap in Britain: Small Differences That (Don't?) Matter

By Fabien Postel-Vinay and Hélène Turon


The existing literature on inequality between private and public sectors focuses on cross-section differences in earnings levels. A more general way of looking at inequality between sectors is to recognize that forward-looking agents will care about income and job mobility too. We show that these are substantially different between the two sectors. Using data from the BHPS, we estimate a model of income and employment dynamics over seven years. We allow for unobserved heterogeneity in the propensity to be unemployed or employed in either job sector and in terms of the income process. We then combine the results into lifetime values of jobs in either sector and carry out a cross-section comparative analysis of these values. We have four main findings. First focusing on cross-sector differences in terms of the income process only, we detect a positive average public premium both in income flows and in the present discounted sum of future income flows. Second, we argue that income inequality is lower but more persistent in the public sector, as most of the observed relative cross-sectional income compression in the public sector is due to a lower variance of the transitory component of income. Third, when taking job mobility into account, the lifetime public premium is essentially zero for workers that we categorize as "high-employability" individuals, suggesting that the UK labor market is sufficiently mobile to ensure a rapid allocation of workers into their "natural" sector. Fourth, we find some evidence of job queuing for public sector jobs among "low-employability" workers.income dynamics ; job mobility ; public-private inequality ; selection effects

OAI identifier:

Suggested articles



  1. (2002). 46Although direct comparison with our findings is difficult due to important differences in methodology, Cappellari’s
  2. (1984). A Method for Minimizing the Impact of Distributional Assumptions in Econometric Models for Duration Data”,
  3. (1993). A Modified Switching Regression Model for Earnings Differentials Between the Public and Private Sectors in the Netherlands”,
  4. (2003). A New Method for Estimating Public Sector Pay Premia: Evidence from Britain in the 1990s”, CEPR Discussion Paper 3787. h a l s h s -0 , v e r s i o n -M a y
  5. (1990). A Reexamination of the Federal-Private Wage Differential in the United States”,
  6. (1997). Consumption Inequality and Income Uncertainty”,
  7. (2002). Earnings Dynamics and Uncertainty in Italy: How Do They Differ Between the Private and Public Sectors?”,
  8. (1989). Government Wage Differentials: A Sample Selection Approach”,
  9. (1997). Inequality, Income Growth, and Mobility: The Basic Facts”,
  10. (2002). Labor Market Structure and Inequality: A Comparison of Italy and the US”,
  11. (1977). Maximum Likelihood from Incomplete Data via the EM Algorithm”,
  12. (2004). Modeling Individual Earnings Trajectories Using Copulas with an Application to the Study of Earnings Inequality:
  13. (1998). Public and Private Sector Wages of Male Workers in Germany”,
  14. (1998). Public-Private Sector Wage Differentials in Canada: Evidence from Quantile Regressions”,
  15. (1997). The Career Decisions of Young Men”,
  16. (1998). The Central Government-Private Sector Wage Differential”,
  17. (2002). The Consequences of the Decline in Public Sector Pay in Britain: A Little Bit of Evidence”,
  18. (1994). The Distribution of Public Sector Wage Premia: New Evidence Using Quantile Regression Methods”,
  19. (2004). The Inter-related Dynamics of Unemployment and Low-Wage Employment”,
  20. (2002). The Wage Structure and the Sorting of Workers into the Public Sector”, NBER working paper 9313.
  21. (1999). Why Youths Drop Out of High School: The Impact of Preferences,

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.