IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/vrs/organi/v56y2023i4p281-296n2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Motherhood Gap and Employer Discrimination. A Qualitative Investigation in the German Context

Author

Listed:
  • Ziegler Yvonne

    (Frankfurt University of Applied Sciences, Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

  • Graml Regine

    (Frankfurt University of Applied Sciences, Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

  • Uli Vincenzo

    (Frankfurt University of Applied Sciences, Frankfurt am Main, Germany)

  • Khachatryan Kristine

    (University Medical Center of the Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz, Mainz, Germany)

Abstract

Background Motherhood penalty has often been considered the base for the wage gap and the glass ceiling phenomena. It represents a delicate topic in gender equality since its effects tend to persist over medium to long time periods and its validity holds in most countries. The study has been designed to investigate the specific contribution of employer discrimination to the overall motherhood penalty in socioeconomic contexts characterized by the archetype of the “male breadwinner model”, which has been further exacerbated by the recent Covid-19 pandemic. Methods The employer discrimination phenomenon has often been treated as a black box, since longitudinal data and panel regression modelling were unsuitable to assess the magnitude of the effect of this variable on the overall motherhood penalty. For this study, we addressed this gap by focusing on employer discrimination in the specific context of Germany. The work is based on data generated from a survey conducted among 2,130 working mothers and it is presented as a qualitative content analysis. Results Our qualitative angle on the employer discrimination phenomenon confirmed previous quantitative investigations. Firstly, the employer attitude toward working mothers conformed to the “second shift” hypothesis, with highly skilled mothers in managerial roles in particular experiencing the largest motherhood gap in our sample. Secondly, we found confirmation for the theory of human capital, with working mothers seeing their career progression come to a halt or temporary slowdown, and pending salary increases not implemented as originally planned. Finally, we found employer discrimination taking various forms, the most frequent being a mismatch between skills level of the working mothers and the suggested new role post parental leave. Conclusion Our study confirms the previous academic investigations on the topic discussing the antecedents of the motherhood gap, namely the “second shift” hypothesis and the work-effort hypothesis. Ultimately, employers seem to trigger, voluntarily or not, certain career choices for working mothers (e.g., “mother-friendly” arrangements) which cause the motherhood gap to increase, and thus further reinforce the traditional male breadwinner model.

Suggested Citation

  • Ziegler Yvonne & Graml Regine & Uli Vincenzo & Khachatryan Kristine, 2023. "Motherhood Gap and Employer Discrimination. A Qualitative Investigation in the German Context," Organizacija, Sciendo, vol. 56(4), pages 281-296, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:vrs:organi:v:56:y:2023:i:4:p:281-296:n:2
    DOI: 10.2478/orga-2023-0019
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.2478/orga-2023-0019
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2478/orga-2023-0019?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
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Deborah J. Anderson & Melissa Binder & Kate Krause, 2002. "The Motherhood Wage Penalty: Which Mothers Pay It and Why?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(2), pages 354-358, May.
    2. Felfe, Christina, 2012. "The motherhood wage gap: What about job amenities?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 59-67.
    3. Jan Ondrich & C. Spiess & Qing Yang & Gert Wagner, 2003. "The Liberalization of Maternity Leave Policy and the Return to Work after Childbirth in Germany," Review of Economics of the Household, Springer, vol. 1(1), pages 77-110, January.
    4. Susan Harkness & Jane Waldfogel, 2003. "The Family Gap In Pay: Evidence From Seven Industrialized Countries," Research in Labor Economics, in: Worker Well-Being and Public Policy, pages 369-413, Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
    5. Anna Kim & Youjin Hahn, 2022. "The motherhood effect on labour market outcomes: evidence from South Korea," Asian-Pacific Economic Literature, The Crawford School, The Australian National University, vol. 36(2), pages 71-88, November.
    6. Charles Baum, 2002. "A dynamic analysis of the effect of child care costs on the work decisions of low-income mothers with infants," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 39(1), pages 139-164, February.
    7. Desai, Sonalde & Linda J., Waite, 1991. "Women's employment during pregnancy and after the first birth: Occupational characteristics and work commitment," MPRA Paper 111172, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Astrid Kunze, 2017. "Types of absence from work and wages of young workers with apprenticeship training," Journal for Labour Market Research, Springer;Institute for Employment Research/ Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), vol. 51(1), pages 1-14, December.
    2. Lia Pacelli & Silvia Pasqua & Claudia Villosio, 2007. "What Does the Stork Bring to Women’s Working Career?," LABORatorio R. Revelli Working Papers Series 58, LABORatorio R. Revelli, Centre for Employment Studies.
    3. Chloé Duvivier & Mathieu Narcy, 2015. "The Motherhood Wage Penalty and Its Determinants: A Public–Private Comparison," LABOUR, CEIS, vol. 29(4), pages 415-443, December.
    4. Gafni Dalit & Siniver Erez, 2015. "Is There a Motherhood Wage Penalty for Highly Skilled Women?," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 15(3), pages 1353-1380, July.
    5. Schönberg, Uta & Ludsteck, Johannes, 2007. "Maternity Leave Legislation, Female Labor Supply, and the Family Wage Gap," IZA Discussion Papers 2699, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Isabelle Bouchard & Lydia Cheung & Gail Pacheco, 2021. "Evaluating the impact of 20 hours free early childhood education on mothers’ labour force participation and earnings," New Zealand Economic Papers, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 55(2), pages 188-202, May.
    7. repec:cge:wacage:518 is not listed on IDEAS
    8. Marie Connolly & Marie Melanie Fontaine & Catherine Haeck, 2023. "Child Penalties in Canada," Working Papers 23-02, Research Group on Human Capital, University of Quebec in Montreal's School of Management.
    9. Fang, Tony & Lee, Byron & Timming, Andrew R. & Fan, Di, 2019. "The Effects of Work-Life Benefits on Employment Outcomes in Canada: A Multivariate Analysis," IZA Discussion Papers 12322, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    10. Kuhlenkasper, Torben & Kauermann, Göran, 2010. "Duration of maternity leave in Germany: A case study of nonparametric hazard models and penalized splines," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(3), pages 466-473, June.
    11. Ewa Cukrowska & Anna Lovasz, 2014. "Are children driving the gender wage gap? Comparative evidence from Poland and Hungary," Working Papers 2014-16, Faculty of Economic Sciences, University of Warsaw.
    12. Kunze, Astrid, 2017. "Types of absence from work and wages of young workers with apprenticeship training," Journal for Labour Market Research, Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), Nürnberg [Institute for Employment Research, Nuremberg, Germany], vol. 51(1), pages 1-5.
    13. Kunze, Astrid, 2014. "The family gap in career progression," Discussion Paper Series in Economics 29/2014, Norwegian School of Economics, Department of Economics.
    14. repec:cge:wacage:519 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Mette Ejrnæs & Astrid Kunze, 2013. "Work and Wage Dynamics around Childbirth," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 115(3), pages 856-877, July.
    16. Gafni Dalit & Siniver Erez, 2018. "The Motherhood Penalty: Is It a Wage-Dependent Family Decision?," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 18(4), pages 1-18, October.
    17. Troeger, Vera E. & Di Leo, Riccardo & Scotto, Thomas J. & Epifanio, Mariaelisa, 2020. "Motherhood in Academia : A Novel Dataset with an Application to Maternity Leave Uptake," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1312, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    18. repec:iab:iabjlr:v:51:i:1:p:art.5 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Uta Schönberg & Johannes Ludsteck, 2014. "Expansions in Maternity Leave Coverage and Mothers' Labor Market Outcomes after Childbirth," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 32(3), pages 469-505.
    20. Astrid Kunze, 2017. "Types of absence from work and wages of young workers with apprenticeship training," Journal for Labour Market Research, Springer;Institute for Employment Research/ Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), vol. 51(1), pages 1-14, December.
    21. Troeger, Vera E. & Di Leo, Riccardo & Scotto, Thomas J. & Epifanio, Mariaelisa, 2020. "The Motherhood Penalties : Insights from Women in UK Academia," The Warwick Economics Research Paper Series (TWERPS) 1313, University of Warwick, Department of Economics.
    22. Nizalova, Olena Y. & Sliusarenko, Tamara & Shpak, Solomiya, 2016. "The motherhood wage penalty in times of transition," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(1), pages 56-75.
    23. Torben Kuhlenkasper & Göran Kauermann, 2009. "Duration of Maternity Leave in Germany: A Case Study of Nonparametric Hazard Models and Penalized Splines," SOEPpapers on Multidisciplinary Panel Data Research 213, DIW Berlin, The German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP).

    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:vrs:organi:v:56:y:2023:i:4:p:281-296:n:2. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Peter Golla (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.sciendo.com .

    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.