The gender gap in preferences and work aspirations

I've written a number of posts about the gender gap in economics over the last week (see the latest one here), and many more earlier about the gender gap in STEM and in economics. The underlying premise of all the research on the gender gap is that it is something that requires fixing. However, if you reflect on that for more than a moment, the idea that the gender gap is something that can be (or should be) fixed is somewhat disquieting. It involves over-riding the preferences and intentions of young people, encouraging more young women (or fewer young men) to persist in (or change their intentions) towards studying and working in STEM or economics. Such paternalism implies that 'we' (being those of us with the power to enact change) know better than young people do, how and where they should be developing and applying their talents, and that should make us uncomfortable.

Two recent research papers suggest that there is an underlying basis for the gender gap, and that it will take more than simple interventions to address. The first research paper is this NBER Working Paper by Angel Cuevas (Universidad Carlos III de Madrid) and co-authors (ungated version here). Cuevas extract data from the Facebook marketing API (which itself seems to be a fascinating data source and well worth exploring) on the number of Facebook users in each country (and of each gender) that Facebook categorises as having particular interests. In total, Cuevas et al. catalog 45,397 such interests, and then look at the proportions of each gender having each interest. They then:

...differentiate between gender-related and non-gender-related interests. We say that an interest is gender-related if it displays a systematic bias toward the same gender across the globe. More specifically, if in more than 90% of countries an interest is more prevalent among the same gender, then we refer to it as gender-related. For example, "cosmetics" and "motherhood" are universally more common among women, whereas "motorcycles" and "Lionel Messi" are universally more common among men. Conversely, we say that an interest is non-gender-related if its gender bias varies across countries. More specifically, if an interest is more common among men in at least 30% of countries and more common among women in at least another 30% of countries, then we refer to it as non-gender- related. For example, "world heritage site" and "physical fitness" do not display a systematic gender bias across the globe.

They then look at how the difference in interests between men and women relates to a country's level of gender equality (based on the World Economic Forum's Gender Gap Index). They find that there is:

...a sharp distinction between gender-related interests and non-gender-related interests. More gender equality is associated with greater differences between men and women for gender-related interests, whereas the opposite is true for non-gender-related interests.

This is illustrated nicely in Figure 4 from the paper:

The panel on the left shows the relationship between gender equality (on the x-axis) and gender differences in gender-related interests (on the y-axis). The upward-sloping trend line demonstrates a significant positive relationship, so more gender equality is associated with greater gender differences in these interests. The panel on the right shows the opposite for the relationship between gender equality and differences in non-gender-related interests.

What might explain this? Cuevas et al. outline two competing theories for the relationship between gender equality and gender interests, and note that both could simultaneously be true:

The debate on whether greater gender equality should enhance or mitigate preference differences between men and women has often been framed in terms of two competing theories. Evolutionary psychology argues that more gender equality allows men and women to more freely express their innate predispositions, leading to widening preference differences. In contrast, social role theory claims that more gender equality allows breaking down socially constructed barriers between men and women, leading to narrowing preference differences. This suggests that there is no reason why there should be a one-size-fit-all theory. Instead, evolutionary psychology should apply predominantly to innate preferences or interests, whereas social role theory should apply predominantly to socially constructed preferences or interests.

For an interest to be innate to gender, we claim that it must display a systematic bias toward the same gender across the globe. Viewing this as a necessary condition, we can interpret our gender-related interests as potentially innate. By the same token, interests that do not display such a systematic bias cannot be innate to gender. Hence, non-gender-related interests must be socially constructed. This argument provides us with a mapping from gender-related and non-gender-related interests into innate and socially constructed interests. Using this mapping, the paper's main finding is consistent with both theories: more gender-equal societies display greater differences between men and women in gender-related (innate) interests and smaller differences in non-gender-related (socially constructed) interests.

So, in trying to address the gender gap in STEM or economics by trying to change preferences for STEM or economics, we may simply be pushing against the tide, especially in countries with more gender equality, and even more especially in countries that are becoming more gender-equal.

The research paper is this one by Gijsbert Stoet (University of Essex) and David Geary (University of Missouri, Columbia). Stoet and Geary use data from the 2018 PISA survey of over 470,000 high school students across over 80 countries, focusing on students' answers to a question about their occupational aspirations when they are 30 years old. Stoet and Geary classify:

...these occupations as being "things oriented", "people oriented", or "other"... as well as being STEM or not. Things-oriented occupations are those that involve extensive work with machines, such as computer programming, repairing machines (e.g., cars), or tailoring, whereas people-oriented occupations involve beneficial face-to-face interactions, as in medicine or teaching.

Of course, there are some occupations that are difficult to classify, and some that fit across both classifications. Nevertheless, Stoet and Geary look at the gender ratio of occupational aspirations across countries and its relationship with gender equality (also using the same Gender Gap Index as Cuevas et al.). They find that:

In all 80 countries and economic regions included here, adolescent girls were more likely to aspire to a people-oriented than a things-oriented occupation (and vice versa for boys)... Further, we found that this sex difference is larger in countries with greater empowerment of girls and women, consistent with a so-called gender-equality paradox, which was previously found in university graduation rates and career choices...

Perhaps surprisingly though, these differences are not due to differences in occupational aspirations for girls:

We found that the latter correlations are mostly due to an increase in boys’ aspirations to enter things-oriented blue-collar careers and a decrease in boys' aspirations to enter people-oriented careers in countries with greater women's empowerment. In contrast, the percentages of girls aspiring to things-oriented jobs or people-oriented jobs did not systematically vary with national-levels of girls' and women's empowerment.

When they categorise occupations as 'sex-typical' and 'sex-atypical', Stoet and Geary find that:

...sex-typical aspirations were more common in countries with greater levels of women's empowerment.

This is at least as surprising as the results from the Cuevas et al. paper. Stoet and Geary suggest that:

Our interpretation of this result is that increased levels of women's empowerment increases national wealth. The increased levels of national wealth contributes to a situation in which students can aspire to careers that fit their interests rather than being largely based on economic security. We call this the Counter Intuitive Gender Empowerment Model (CIGEM).

I'm not sure that I fully buy that explanation, since it was based on mediation analysis (which I rarely find convincing). Nevertheless, like the Cuevas et al. results, it should give us some pause. Not only may we be pushing against a tide of gender-specific preferences, but we may also be pushing against a tide of gender-specific work aspirations. And both of those tides are pushing in the same direction, and likely against more gender-equal STEM and economics professions. Should we really be pushing against trends that may be themselves being driven by greater gender equality, by trying to override young people's preferences and aspirations?

Now, having given us reason to re-think whether and how we address the gender gap in STEM or economics, we need to recognise one more thing. That is that any discomfort we feel about taking a paternalistic approach to addressing the gender gap assumes that the status quo, wherein there is a persistent gender gap, is somehow the 'natural order' of things. It's unclear how defendable that assumption is. The persistent gender gap that we observe now has arisen from generations of socially constructed gender differences in aspirations, gender norms, and role models. Perhaps there are gender-based comparative advantages (for example, see here or here), but comparative advantages can be changed with determination and sustained investment (for anyone who doubts that, I offer the example of the transformation of South Korea over time). So, it should not only be possible to change the status quo, but it may be desirable to do so.

Another way of considering the moves to address the gender gap in STEM and economics is that it isn't only about changing preferences, but removing or relaxing the constraints that prevent or restrict participation in the field. So, if we consider a constrained optimisation model of occupational choice, relaxing some of the constraints that hamper participation in particular fields would increase the opportunity set of young people. 

Considering interventions that reduce constraints, rather than changing preferences, gives me greater comfort. It means that, in addressing the persistent gender gap, we are not actually doing a disservice to young female economists, but offering them the opportunity to engage and contribute to the discipline now and in the future.

[HT: Marginal Revolution for the two research papers, here and here]