Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Gender discrimination and growth: theory and evidence from India

By Berta Esteve-Volart

Abstract

Gender inequality is an acute and persistent problem, especially in developing countries. This paper argues that gender discrimination is an inefficient practice. We model gender discrimination as the complete exclusion of females from the labor market or as the exclusion of females from managerial positions. The distortions in the allocation of talent between managerial and unskilled positions, and in human capital investment, are analyzed. It is found that both types of discrimination lower economic growth; and that the former also implies a reduction in per capita GDP, while the latter distorts the allocation of talent. Both types of discrimination imply lower female-to-male schooling ratios. We discuss the sustainability of social norms or stigma that can generate discrimination in the form described in this paper. We present evidence based on panel-data regressions across Indian states over 1961-1991 that is consistent with the model¿s predictions

Topics: HN Social history and conditions. Social problems. Social reform, HB Economic Theory
Publisher: Suntory and Toyota International Centres for Economics and Related Disciplines, London School of Economics and Political Science
Year: 2004
OAI identifier: oai:eprints.lse.ac.uk:6641
Provided by: LSE Research Online

Suggested articles

Citations

  1. (1955). (New Delhi: Indian Society of Labour Economics; Delhi: Institute of Economic Growth)
  2. 1999b, “Gender Bias in the Scientific and Technical Labour Market:
  3. (1999). Analyzing the Gender Pay Gap”, Quarterly Review of doi
  4. (1999). by Orley Ashenfelter and David Card (Amsterdam: North Holland) Treiman,
  5. (2003). Can Labor Regulation Hinder Economic Performance? Evidence from India”, Quarterly Journal of Economics, forthcoming doi
  6. (1983). Covariates of Child Mortality in the Philippines, Indonesia, and Pakistan: An Analysis Based on Hazard Models”, doi
  7. (2002). Distance to Frontier, Selection, and Economic Growth”, Working doi
  8. (1999). Does Gender Inequality Reduce Growth and Development? Evidence from Cross-Country Regressions”, Working Paper No. 7, Policy Research Report on Gender
  9. (2001). Education for Growth: Why and for Whom?” doi
  10. (1994). Gender Aspects of Labour Allocation during Structural Adjustment: Theoretical Framework and the Africa Experience”,
  11. (1998). Gender Discrimination without Gender Difference: Theory and Policy Responses”, doi
  12. (2000). Gender Inequality and Economic Growth: A Cross-Country Analysis”, doi
  13. (1995). Gender, Poverty and Employment: Turning Capabilities into Entitlements (Geneva: International Labour Office)
  14. (2003). How Much Should We Trust Differences-In-Differences Estimates?”, mimeo, doi
  15. (1995). India Decides: Elections 1952-1995
  16. (2001). Inter-Industry Wage Differentials and the Gender Wage Gap: An Identification Problem”, doi
  17. (1990). Job Queues, Gender Queues: Explaining Women's Inroads into Male Occupations (Philadelphia: doi
  18. (1999). Marginalisation of Women Workers: Leather Tanning Industry in Tamil Nadu”, Economic and Political Weekly,
  19. (1978). On the Size Distribution of Business Firms”, doi
  20. (2002). Robust Standard Error Estimation In Fixed-Effects Panel Models”, mimeo, doi
  21. Separate Spheres Bargaining and the Marriage Market”, doi
  22. (2000). Sex Discrimination and Growth”, Working Paper No. 84, International Monetary Fund Fershtman, doi
  23. (1993). The Allocation of Consumption by married couple families in the US: An Analysis Conditioning on Labor Supply”, Annales d’Economie et de
  24. (1991). The Allocation of Talent: Implications for Growth,” doi
  25. (1997). The Analysis of Household Surveys: A Microeconometric Approach to Development Policy (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins doi
  26. (1993). The Distribution of Income and Expenditure within the Household”, Annales d’Economie et de
  27. (1971). The Economics of Discrimination (Chicago: doi
  28. (1993). The O-Ring Theory of Economic Development,” doi
  29. (2002). The Political Economy of Government Responsiveness: Theory and Evidence from India”, doi
  30. (1994). The U-Shaped Female Labor Force Function doi
  31. (1984). Towards a General Theory of Occupational Sex Segregation: The Case of Public School Teaching”,
  32. (1996). Wealthier is Healthier”, doi

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