IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/econjl/v129y2019i617p509-552..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Culture, Institutions and the Gender Gap in Competitive Inclination: Evidence from the Communist Experiment in China

Author

Listed:
  • Y Jane Zhang

Abstract

Can policy change competitive preferences? This study uses controlled laboratory settings to compare the gender gap in competitive inclination in ethnic groups exposed and exempted from communist institutional reforms that have radically changed the lives of women in China in the areas of marriage, education, work and fertility. Results suggest that exogenously imposed reforms may increase female competitive inclination, although they do not eliminate the gender gap in all cultural contexts. Potential confounding factors are minimised through random selection of subjects from the same high school, resulting in similarity across ethnic groups in demographics, socio-economic status and academic performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Y Jane Zhang, 2019. "Culture, Institutions and the Gender Gap in Competitive Inclination: Evidence from the Communist Experiment in China," The Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 129(617), pages 509-552.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:econjl:v:129:y:2019:i:617:p:509-552.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1111/ecoj.12596
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:econjl:v:129:y:2019:i:617:p:509-552.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/resssea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.