Full-time employment is all that matters? Quantifying the role of relevant and gender-exclusive life-course experiences for gender pension gaps

IF 2.7 1区 社会学 Q1 SOCIOLOGY
Social Forces Pub Date : 2025-09-03 DOI:10.1093/sf/soaf143
Carla Rowold
{"title":"Full-time employment is all that matters? Quantifying the role of relevant and gender-exclusive life-course experiences for gender pension gaps","authors":"Carla Rowold","doi":"10.1093/sf/soaf143","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Gender pension gaps (GPGs) represent crucial indicators of gender inequalities over the life course. Despite reaching higher levels, they have received less attention than other gender inequalities, such as gender wage gaps. More generally, research typically focuses on selected sets of life course summary measures, predominantly the employment duration, to explain gender inequalities across the life course. This oversimplifies gender-specific life courses in particular. Taking a life-course perspective and using data from the Survey of Health, Ageing, and Retirement in Europe for the Netherlands and West Germany, I propose an innovative combination of machine learning, sequence analysis, and decomposition techniques, allowing for a new perspective on gender inequalities over the life course. The study disentangles which specific life-course elements are most relevant for pension inequalities and quantifies the role of gender-exclusive life-course experiences for gender disparities. I find that the duration, timing, order of life-course events, and overall life-course complexity matter for pension income inequalities in both pension systems. Specifically, the duration, timing, and order of care work experiences are more crucial pension predictors than the employment duration, which has been the primary focus of previous research. This holds for the GPGs: the largest shares are attributable to gender-exclusive life-course experiences because of the lack of a male counterpart for female engagement in care work, which is poorly rewarded in pension systems. Future research and policymakers will benefit from considering such gender-specific combinations of life-course experiences for the gender pension gap and other inequalities.","PeriodicalId":48400,"journal":{"name":"Social Forces","volume":"29 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Social Forces","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soaf143","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"SOCIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Gender pension gaps (GPGs) represent crucial indicators of gender inequalities over the life course. Despite reaching higher levels, they have received less attention than other gender inequalities, such as gender wage gaps. More generally, research typically focuses on selected sets of life course summary measures, predominantly the employment duration, to explain gender inequalities across the life course. This oversimplifies gender-specific life courses in particular. Taking a life-course perspective and using data from the Survey of Health, Ageing, and Retirement in Europe for the Netherlands and West Germany, I propose an innovative combination of machine learning, sequence analysis, and decomposition techniques, allowing for a new perspective on gender inequalities over the life course. The study disentangles which specific life-course elements are most relevant for pension inequalities and quantifies the role of gender-exclusive life-course experiences for gender disparities. I find that the duration, timing, order of life-course events, and overall life-course complexity matter for pension income inequalities in both pension systems. Specifically, the duration, timing, and order of care work experiences are more crucial pension predictors than the employment duration, which has been the primary focus of previous research. This holds for the GPGs: the largest shares are attributable to gender-exclusive life-course experiences because of the lack of a male counterpart for female engagement in care work, which is poorly rewarded in pension systems. Future research and policymakers will benefit from considering such gender-specific combinations of life-course experiences for the gender pension gap and other inequalities.
全职工作是最重要的吗?量化相关和性别排斥的生命历程经历对两性养恤金差距的作用
性别养老金差距(gpg)是一生中性别不平等的重要指标。尽管达到了更高的水平,但与其他性别不平等(如性别工资差距)相比,它们受到的关注较少。更一般地说,研究通常侧重于选定的生命历程总结措施,主要是就业持续时间,以解释整个生命历程中的性别不平等。这尤其过分简化了特定性别的生命历程。从生命历程的角度出发,利用荷兰和西德欧洲健康、老龄化和退休调查的数据,我提出了一种机器学习、序列分析和分解技术的创新组合,允许从新的角度看待生命历程中的性别不平等。这项研究阐明了哪些具体的生命过程因素与养恤金不平等最相关,并量化了性别排斥的生命过程经历对性别不平等的作用。我发现,两种养老金制度的养老金收入不平等与生命历程事件的持续时间、时间、顺序和整体生命历程复杂性有关。具体而言,护理工作经历的持续时间、时间和顺序是比就业时间更重要的养老金预测因素,这是以往研究的主要焦点。这一点适用于ggs:最大的份额归因于性别排斥的生命历程经历,因为女性参与护理工作缺乏男性对应,而这在养老金制度中得不到回报。未来的研究和政策制定者将受益于考虑这种针对性别养老金差距和其他不平等的生命历程经历的具体性别组合。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Social Forces
Social Forces SOCIOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
6.20%
发文量
123
期刊介绍: Established in 1922, Social Forces is recognized as a global leader among social research journals. Social Forces publishes articles of interest to a general social science audience and emphasizes cutting-edge sociological inquiry as well as explores realms the discipline shares with psychology, anthropology, political science, history, and economics. Social Forces is published by Oxford University Press in partnership with the Department of Sociology at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信