Human Capital and Glass Ceiling: Quantile Regression Decomposition of Gender Pay Gap in Korean Labor Market

HongYe Sun

Human Capital and Glass Ceiling: Quantile Regression Decomposition of Gender Pay Gap in Korean Labor Market

HongYe Sun * §

Contact

§ Pusan National University

Human Capital and Glass Ceiling: Quantile Regression Decomposition of Gender Pay Gap in Korean Labor Market

Article Fingerprint

ReserarchID

69F63

Human Capital and Glass Ceiling: Quantile Regression Decomposition of Gender Pay Gap in Korean Labor Market Banner

Key Research Insights

Synthesized scholarly intelligence & interactive research assistant

This converted HTML version may contain rendering inconsistencies. Please refer to the PDF for the authoritative version, or click here to provide feedback.

Abstract

Conventional estimation methods on analyzing gender pay gap focus on comparing the earnings premium and gender inequality from the view of mean earnings distribution, highlighting human capital factors (e.g. education attainment, career training). However, mean distribution analysis do not reflect the whole perspective of gender earnings. Therefore, in our study, we adopt quantile regression estimation method to measure the impact of human capital (e.g. returns to education) and other social characteristics factors on wage. In addition, Melly2006 wage decomposition method is employed to reveal the pattern of gender earnings gap through overall distributions. We verified the evidence of ‘glass ceiling effect’ phenomenon in Korean labor market. The finds of our study also imply the female’s returns to education are higher than male, and the magnitude is even higher for upper earnings distribution. Furthermore, the estimation results of conditional and unconditional quantile regression present the differential of human capital variables occupy a big part of the explanatory on gender wage gap.

References

29 Cites in Article

Reference Format

1. T. Ahn (2012). Gender wage gap across the wage distribution in Korea. Applied Economics, 14(1), 127-149.
2. J. Albrecht,A. Bjorklund,S. Vroman (2001). Is There a Glass Ceiling in Sweden?. Journal of Labor Economics, 21(1), 145-177.
CrossRef DOI
3. W. Arulampalam,A. Booth,M. Bryan (2007). Is There a Glass Ceiling over Europe? Exploring the Gender Pay Gap across the Wage Distribution. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 60(2), 163-186.
4. Mehtabul Azam (2012). Changes in Wage Structure in Urban India, 1983–2004: A Quantile Regression Decomposition. World Development, 40(6), 1135-1150.
CrossRef DOI
5. G. Becker (1971). The Economics of Discrimination.
6. W. Chi,B. Li (2008). Glass ceiling or sticky floor? Examining the gender earnings differential across the earnings distribution in urban China. Journal of Comparative Economics, 36(2), 243-263.
7. Joonmo Cho (2014). Glass ceiling in a stratified labor market: Evidence from Korea. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 32, 56-70.
CrossRef DOI
8. L. Christofides,A. Polycarpou,K. Vrachimis (2013). Gender wage gaps, ‘sticky floors’ and ‘glass ceilings’ in Europe. Labour Economics, 21, 86-102.
9. S. De la Rica,J. Dolado,V. Llorens (2008). Ceilings or floors? Gender wage gaps by education in Spain. Journal of Population Economics, 21(3), 751-776.
10. J. DiNardo,N. Fortin,T. Lemieux,Labor institutions,the wages (1995). A semiparametric approach.
11. S. Firpo,N. Fortin,T. Lemieux (2007). Decomposing Wage Distributions Using Recentered Influence Function Regressions.
12. N. Fortin,T. Lemieux,S. Firpo (2009). Unconditional Quantile Regressions. Econometrica, 77(3), 953-973.
CrossRef DOI
13. Markus Frölich,Blaise Melly (2008). Unconditional Quantile Treatment Effects Under Endogeneity. IZA Discussion Paper No. 3288, January, 3288
CrossRef DOI
14. S. Heo (2003). An Empirical Analysis of Gender Wage Differentials in Industries and Occupations. Applied Economics, 5(3), 57-74.
15. H. Kee (2006). Glass Ceiling or Sticky Floor? Exploring the Australian Gender Pay Gap. Economic Record, 82(259), 408-427.
16. Roger Koenker,Gilbert Bassett (1978). Regression Quantiles. Econometrica, 46(1), 33.
CrossRef DOI
17. G. Liu (2001). The Gender Pay Gap in South Korea: Difference and Discrimination. Korea Development, 23(1), 193-232.
18. T. Lorenz (2014). Changes in the distribution of rental prices in Berlin. Regional Science & Urban Economics, 51, 88-100.
19. José Machado,José Mata (2005). Counterfactual decomposition of changes in wage distributions using quantile regression. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 20(4), 445-465.
CrossRef DOI
20. B. Melly (2006). Estimation of counterfactual distributions using quantile regression. Review of Labor Economics, 68(4), 543-572.
21. Blaise Melly (2005). Decomposition of differences in distribution using quantile regression. Labour Economics, 12(4), 577-590.
CrossRef DOI
22. George Messinis (2013). Returns to education and urban-migrant wage differentials in China: IV quantile treatment effects. China Economic Review, 26, 39-55.
CrossRef DOI
23. ILO (2012). International Standard Classification of Occupations 2008 (ISCO-08): Structure.
24. Gary Sandefur,Hyunjoon Park (2007). Educational expansion and changes in occupational returns to education in Korea. Research in Social Stratification and Mobility, 25(4), 306-322.
CrossRef DOI
25. Lorenz Thomschke (2015). Changes in the distribution of rental prices in Berlin. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 51, 88-100.
CrossRef DOI
26. Sasiwimon Warunsiri,Robert McNown (2010). The Returns to Education in Thailand: A Pseudo-Panel Approach. World Development, 38(11), 1616-1625.
CrossRef DOI
27. L. Xiu,M. Gunderson (2014). Glass ceiling or sticky floor? Quantile regression decomposition of the gender pay gap in China. International Journal of Manpower, 35(3), 306-326.
28. Ying Zhuge,Joyce Kaufman,Diane Simeone,Herbert Chen,Omaida Velazquez (2011). Is There Still a Glass Ceiling for Women in Academic Surgery?. Annals of Surgery, 253(4), 637-643.
CrossRef DOI
29. Hai Zhong (2011). Returns to higher education in China: What is the role of college quality?. China Economic Review, 22(2), 260-275.
CrossRef DOI

Download References

Funding

No external funding was declared for this work.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

No ethics committee approval was required for this article type.

Data Availability

Not applicable for this article.

How to Cite This Article

HongYe Sun. 2015. "Human Capital and Glass Ceiling: Quantile Regression Decomposition of Gender Pay Gap in Korean Labor Market". Global Journal of Human-Social Science - E: Economics GJHSS-E Volume 15 (GJHSS Volume 15 Issue 46 (E7)).

More Citation Formats

Select Citation Style:

Download Citation

GJHSS Volume 15 Issue 46 (E7)

Explore Journals Explore Volume Read This Issue

Journal Specifications

Crossref Journal DOI 10.17406/GJHSS

Print ISSN 0975-587X

e-ISSN 2249-460X

Keywords

Not Found

Classification

GJHSS-E Classification JEL Code: C21

D31

I24

Submission ReceivedFebruary 3, 2015
Peer Review Double Blind
Handling Editor
Accepted March 1, 2015
Published September 7, 2015

Version of record

v1.2

Issue date

September 7, 2015

Language

English

Order Article Reprint

Experience in AR

Explore published articles in an immersive Augmented Reality environment. Our platform converts research papers into interactive 3D books, allowing readers to view and interact with content using AR and VR compatible devices.

View in VR

Read in 3D

Your published article is automatically converted into a realistic 3D book. Flip through pages and read research papers in a more engaging and interactive format.

View in 3D

Article Matrices

Total Score: 132

Country: South Korea

Subject: Global Journal of Human-Social Science - E: Economics

Authors: HongYe Sun, GiSeung Kim (PhD/Dr. count: 0)

View Count (all-time): 348

Total Views (Real + Logic): 1464

Total Downloads (simulated): 92

Publish Date: 2015 09, Wed

Monthly Totals (Real + Logic):

Month 1: 41 views
Month 2: 42 views
Month 3: 35 views
Month 4: 44 views
Month 5: 70 views
Month 6: 31 views
Month 7: 59 views
Month 8: 46 views
Month 9: 25 views
Month 10: 43 views
Month 11: 32 views
Month 12: 37 views
Month 13: 29 views
Month 14: 31 views
Month 15: 33 views
Month 16: 23 views
Month 17: 24 views
Month 18: 28 views
Month 19: 22 views
Month 20: 47 views
Month 21: 39 views
Month 22: 27 views
Month 23: 16 views
Month 24: 31 views
Month 25: 24 views
Month 26: 25 views
Month 27: 36 views
Month 28: 24 views
Month 29: 30 views
Month 30: 12 views
Month 31: 39 views
Month 32: 36 views
Month 33: 19 views
Month 34: 34 views
Month 35: 27 views
Month 36: 26 views
Month 37: 35 views
Month 38: 37 views
Month 39: 41 views
Month 40: 17 views
Month 41: 29 views
Month 42: 19 views
Month 43: 45 views
Month 44: 26 views
Month 45: 22 views
Month 46: 44 views
Month 47: 25 views
Month 48: 42 views
Month 49: 27 views
Month 50: 13 views
Month 51: 24 views
Month 52: 34 views
Month 53: 25 views
Month 54: 41 views
Month 55: 36 views
Month 56: 34 views
Month 57: 34 views
Month 58: 30 views
Month 59: 30 views
Month 60: 30 views
Month 61: 46 views
Month 62: 39 views
Month 63: 15 views
Month 64: 22 views
Month 65: 23 views
Month 66: 21 views
Month 67: 21 views
Month 68: 25 views
Month 69: 21 views
Month 70: 34 views
Month 71: 44 views
Month 72: 35 views
Month 73: 42 views
Month 74: 32 views
Month 75: 35 views
Month 76: 26 views
Month 77: 24 views
Month 78: 49 views
Month 79: 38 views
Month 80: 17 views
Month 81: 23 views
Month 82: 33 views
Month 83: 11 views
Month 84: 44 views
Month 85: 18 views
Month 86: 39 views
Month 87: 30 views
Month 88: 35 views
Month 89: 39 views
Month 90: 30 views
Month 91: 37 views
Month 92: 34 views
Month 93: 24 views
Month 94: 34 views
Month 95: 16 views
Month 96: 36 views
Month 97: 27 views
Month 98: 16 views
Month 99: 28 views
Month 100: 25 views
Month 101: 30 views
Month 102: 20 views
Month 103: 19 views
Month 104: 39 views
Month 105: 19 views
Month 106: 23 views
Month 107: 39 views
Month 108: 15 views
Month 109: 36 views
Month 110: 27 views
Month 111: 31 views
Month 112: 40 views
Month 113: 17 views
Month 114: 30 views
Month 115: 32 views
Month 116: 25 views
Month 117: 41 views
Month 118: 28 views
Month 119: 33 views
Month 120: 27 views
Month 121: 33 views
Month 122: 47 views
Month 123: 25 views
Month 124: 48 views
Month 125: 66 views
Month 126: 52 views
Month 127: 50 views
Month 128: 43 views
Month 129: 26 views
Month 130: 29 views
Month 131: 21 views
Month 132: 29 views
Month 133: 36 views
Month 134: 19 views

Total Views: 1.5K

Total Downloads: 92

All Trends