Skip to main content

Michael Peters Publications

Discussion Paper
Abstract

Globally women’s labor force participation lags that of men and women, on average, have lower labor market earnings than men. Does economic growth reduce gender disparities in labor market outcomes between women and men? Conversely, do gender inequalities in the labor market impede growth? To inform these questions, we conduct two analyses. First, we estimate regressions using harmonized data on gender gaps in a range of labor market outcomes from 153 countries spanning two decades (1998-2018). Second, we conduct a systematic review of the recent economics literature on gender gaps in labor markets, examining 16 journals over 21 years. Our empirical analysis demonstrates that growth is not a panacea. The relationship between growth and labor market gaps is mixed, and results vary by specification. This result reflects, in part, the gendered nature of structural transformation, in which growth leads men to transition from agriculture to industry and services while many women exit the labor force. Disparities in hours worked and wages persist despite growth, and heterogeneity in trends and levels between regions highlight the importance of local institutions. Newly harmonized microdata further show substantial heterogeneity by education level and marriage status. To better understand whether gender inequalities impeded growth, we explore a nascent literature that shows that reducing gender gaps in labor markets increases aggregate productivity. Our broader review highlights how traditional explanations for gender differences do not adequately explain existing gaps and how policy responses need to be sensitive to the changing nature of economic growth. We conclude by posing open questions for future research.

Journal of Monetary Economics
Abstract

The last decades have seen a significant increase in the concentration of economic activity. Firms are getting bigger and the top firms account for a larger and larger share of employment and sales. The paper The ‘Matthew effect’ and market concentration: Search complementarities and monopsony Power provides a novel and intriguing take on these patterns. It starts from the premise that production is subject to search frictions. Producing firms need to find retailers to sell their goods to consumers. Similarly, retailers need to find producers to actually have something to sell. Crucially, both producers and retailers can decide on their search effort and search more intensely if the return of doing so is large.