IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ucp/jpolec/v98y1990i1p134-52.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Implementation Process of Comparable Worth: Winners and Losers

Author

Listed:
  • Orazem, Peter F
  • Mattila, J Peter

Abstract

This paper provides a unique opportunity to observe how a public policy affected the earnings of various interest groups at different stages of implementation. Specifically, the authors examine how the earnings of women, union members, and supervisory and professional staff were affected by various proposed and implemented comparable-worth pay plans in Iowa. They find that large relative gains to women in the original proposed plans were reduced as the process evolved. As a result, some of the original gains to women were redistributed to union members, supervisors, and professionals. Copyright 1990 by University of Chicago Press.

Suggested Citation

  • Orazem, Peter F & Mattila, J Peter, 1990. "The Implementation Process of Comparable Worth: Winners and Losers," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(1), pages 134-152, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:ucp:jpolec:v:98:y:1990:i:1:p:134-52
    DOI: 10.1086/261672
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/261672
    File Function: full text
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers. See http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JPE for details.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1086/261672?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

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

    Other versions of this item:

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mark R. Killingsworth, 2002. "Comparable Worth and Pay Equity: Recent Developments in the United States," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 28(s1), pages 171-186, May.
    2. Michael Baker & Nicole M. Fortin, 2000. "Does Comparable Worth Work in a Decentralized Labor Market?," NBER Working Papers 7937, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Jane Lapidus & Deborah Figart, 1998. "Remedying "Unfair Acts": U.S. Pay Equity by Race and Gender," Feminist Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 4(3), pages 7-28.
    4. Gergely Ujhelyi, 2014. "Civil Service Rules and Policy Choices: Evidence from US State Governments," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 6(2), pages 338-380, May.
    5. Orazem, Peter F & Mattila, J Peter, 1998. "Male-Female Supply to State Government Jobs and Comparable Worth," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 16(1), pages 95-121, January.
    6. Michael Baker & Nicole M. Fortin, 2004. "Comparable worth in a decentralized labour market: the case of Ontario," Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 37(4), pages 850-878, November.
    7. Michael Baker & Nicole Fortin, 2000. "Comparable Worth Comes to the Private Sector: The Case of Ontario," Econometric Society World Congress 2000 Contributed Papers 0266, Econometric Society.
    8. Rizzo, John A. & Zeckhauser, Richard J., 2007. "Pushing incomes to reference points: Why do male doctors earn more?," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 63(3), pages 514-536, July.
    9. Morley Gunderson, 2002. "The Evolution and Mechanics of Pay Equity in Ontario," Canadian Public Policy, University of Toronto Press, vol. 28(s1), pages 117-131, May.
    10. Morley Gunderson & W. Craig Riddell, 1992. "Comparable Worth: Canada'S Experience," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 10(3), pages 85-94, July.
    11. repec:eee:labchp:v:3:y:1999:i:pc:p:3143-3259 is not listed on IDEAS

    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:ucp:jpolec:v:98:y:1990:i:1:p:134-52. 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: Journals Division (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/JPE .

    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.