In any discussion of wages and occupational segregation, the role of choice and opportunity becomes an issue. One succinct evaluation of the problem of occupational segregation may be found in Beller (1982)
If more than half the population is denied access to 60 percent of the occupations, being crowded into a few at lower earnings, equality of opportunity does not exist. But if women freely choose to enter only a third of all occupations and those occupations pay less, then women's lower earnings may not be a fundamental social problem. The major issue is whether the dramatic differences in occupational distributions of the sexes result from different choices made by each, given equal opportunities, or from unequal opportunities to make similar choices.3
This analysis, although applied to gender related occupational segregation, is equally applicable to full- and part-time occupational segregation. If women are forced into certain occupations that earn lower pay as a result of their desire4 to work part-time, the policy implications regarding occupational segregation are quite different from equal opportunities for part- time work in all occupations and women freely choosing those occupations that pay less on average. In the former case, implementation of schemes which encourage employers for provided child care facilities would allow part-time workers to enter all occupations on the basis of skill and motivation,
In this decade however, there has been significant developments on industry-based unions, where small occupational based unions are amalgamated into a single union with members exceeding 100,000 members.
Beller, A.H.,(1982),p372
It should be noted that the preference for part-time work may be a constrained preference which results from females being the primary care giver in families with children.
rather than being constrained to occupations which allow flexibility to undertake family and work commitments. If, however, occupational segregation is not the result of constrained choices or discriminatory practices, policies such as employer sponsored child care would not be expected to improve either the occupational density or wage inequality of part-time workers.
Figure 6.1 : Australian Female Occupational Distribution, by labour force status
45 T
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
O c cu p atio n al C a te g o rie s
Source : 1986 Population and Housing (Census) data tape
Figures 6.1 and 6.2 provide a graphical illustration of occupational representation by labour force status for Australian and United States' females respectively.5 In Figure 6.1, for 1986 most Australia females are represented in the professional, clerical, sales and personal service and labourers and related workers. From Figure 6.2, which represents the occupational structure of female in the United States in 1987, the occupational structure would
appear to be less concentrated than Australia, with the largest representation in full- and part-time work being 6 the trades and clerical occupations.
F igure 6.2. U nited S totes F emale Occupational Distribution, by labour force status
45 t 40 - 35 --
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Occupations
From many studies of earnings, industries have often been found to be an important determinant of wages. Figures 6.3 and 6.4 provide a graphical representation of the industrial concentration of females by labour force status, for Australia and the United States respectively. It can be observed that for both countries females working full- and part-time are not concentrated in any particular industry. Unlike occupational segregation, industry concentration
The classifications identified for the United States have been altered from the raw occupational classifications provided in the data tape in order to be consistent with Australian Standard Classification of Occupations used in the Australian Census data. In comparison the U.S. sample used in this paper and that used by Blank (1990) do not appear to be significantly different using the CPS occupational classifications.
Figure 6.3. Australian Female Industrial Distribution, by labour force status
Industry
F igure 6.4. U nited S totes F emaie Industrial Distribution, by labour force status
1 2 3 4 5 6 8 9 10 11 12
■ FT □ PT
Industry
does not appear to differ (with respect to their employment of females) between Australia and the United States7.
Subsequent estimations of wage equations incorporating industries into the model developed in the preceding chapters revealed that at conventional levels of significance, using an F-test, the null-hypothesis that the industry coefficients were not significantly different from zero for part- time workers is accepted. The results of these specifications are provided in Appendix G.
The persistence of occupational segregation has led many researchers to investigate the reasons8 for gender differences. Most analysis has ignored the full- and part-time dichotomy9.
In their analysis of the United States between the years 1971, 1976 and 1981 Holden and Hansen (1987) examine whether changes in part-time jobs have contributed to changes in the degree of segregation of the workforce as a whole. Their analysis supports the hypothesis that there is a higher degree of occupational segregation among part-time job holders, but segregation declined more in the 1970s for the part-time work force. The decline in segregation is attributed to a decline in the segregation of some part-time jobs as well as part-time job growth in occupation which had a more integrated gender mix.
For Australia, no comparable analysis on occupational segregation has been conducted for full- and part-time workers.