How Do Gender Quotas Affect Workplace Relationships? Complementary Evidence from a Representative Survey and Labor Market Experiments

References

• Adams RB, Ferreira D (2009) Women in the boardroom and their impact on governance and performance. J. Financial Econom. 94(2):291–309.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ahern KR, Dittmar A (2012) The changing of the boards: The impact on firm valuation of mandated female board representation. Quart. J. Econom. 127(1):137–197.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Akerlof G (1982) Labor contracts as partial gift exchange. Quart. J. Econom. 97:543–569.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Akerlof G, Yellen J (1990) The fair wage-effort hypothesis and unemployment. Quart. J. Econom. 105(2):255–283.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Alesina A, Angeletos GM (2005) Fairness and redistribution. Amer. Econom. Rev. 95(4):960–980.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Almås I, Cappelen AW, Tungodden B (2017) Cutthroat capitalism vs. cuddly socialism: Are Americans more meritocratic and efficiency-seeking than Scandinavians? Working Papers 2017-003, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group, Chicago.Google Scholar
• Almås I, Cappelen AW, Sørensen EO, Tungodden B (2010) Fairness and the development of inequality acceptance. Science 328(5982):1176–1178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Australian Broadcasting Corporation (2016) Women and men split on idea of gender quotas in Parliament. Accessed February 5, 2018, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-23/election-gender-quotas-parliament-women-split-vote-compass/7533006.Google Scholar
• Balafoutas L, Sutter M (2012) Affirmative action policies promote women and do not harm efficiency in the laboratory. Science 335:579–582.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Balafoutas L, Davis B, Sutter M (2016) Affirmative action or just discrimination? A study on the endogenous emergence of quotas. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 127:87–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Beaman L, Chattopadhyay R, Duflo E, Pande R, Topalova P (2009) Powerful women: Female leadership and gender bias. Quart. J. Econom. 124(4):1497–1540.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Benabou R, Tirole J (2006) Belief in a just world and redistributive politics. Quart. J. Econom. 12(2):699–746.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bertrand M, Sandra B, Sissel J, Lleras-Muney A (2014) Breaking the glass ceiling? The effect of board quotas on female labor market outcomes in Norway. Rev. Econom. Stud. 86(1):191–239.Google Scholar
• Bracha A, Cohen A, Conell-Price L (2015) Affirmative action and stereotype threat. Harvard Law School John M. Olin Center Discussion Paper No. 805, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
• Brown M, Falk A, Fehr E (2012) Competition and relational contracts: The role of unemployment as a disciplinary device. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 10:887–907.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Calsamiglia C, Franke J, Rey-Biel P (2013) The incentive effects of affirmative action in a real-effort tournament. J. Public Econom. 98:15–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cameron L, Erkal N, Gangadharan L, Zhang M (2015) Cultural integration: Experimental evidence of convergence in immigrants’ preferences. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 111:38–58.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cappelen AW, Drange Hole A, Sørensen EØ, Tungodden B (2007) The pluralism of fairness ideals: An experimental approach. Amer. Econom. Rev. 97(3):818–827.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cappelen AW, Konow J, Sørensen EØ, Tungodden B (2013) Just luck: An experimental study of risk taking and fairness. Amer. Econom. Rev. 103:1398–1413.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cappelen AW, Moene KO, Skjelbred S-E, Tungodden B (2017) The merit primacy effect. Working Paper 2017-047, Human Capital and Economic Opportunity Working Group, Norwegian School of Economics, Bergen, Norway.Google Scholar
• Charness G, Haruvy E (2002) Altruism, equity, and reciprocity in a gift-exchange experiment: An encompassing approach. Games Econom. Behav. 40(2):203–231.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Kuhn P (2007) Does pay inequality affect worker effort? Experimental evidence. J. Labor Econom. 25(4):693–723.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Kuhn P (2011) Laboratory labor: What can labor economists learn in the laboratory? Ashenfelter O, Card D, eds. Handbook of Labor Economics, vol. 4A (North Holland, Amsterdam), 229–330.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Charness G, Cobo-Reyes R, Jiménez N, Lacomba J, Lagos F (2012) The hidden advantage of delegation: Pareto improvements in a gift exchange game. Amer. Econom. Rev. 102(5):2358–2379.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chattopadhyay R, Duflo E (2004) Women as policymakers: Evidence from a randomized policy experiment in India. Econometrica 72(5):1409–1443.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dahl G, Kotsadam A, Rooth DO (2018) Does integration change gender attitudes? The effect of randomly assigning women to traditionally male teams. NBER Working Paper No. 24351, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Durante R, Putterman L, Weele J (2014) Preferences for redistribution and perception of fairness: An experimental study. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 12(4):1059–1086.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Economist, The (2014) The spread of gender quotas for company boards (March 25), https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2014/03/25/the-spread-of-gender-quotas-for-company-boards.Google Scholar
• Englmaier F, Strasser J (2014) Worker characteristics and wage differentials: Evidence from a gift-exchange experiment. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 97:185–203.Crossref, Google Scholar
• European Commission (2012) Women in decision-making positions: Report. Special Eurobarometer 376. Accessed February 5, 2018, http://ec.europa.eu/commfrontoffice/publicopinion/archives/ebs/ebs_376_en.pdf.Google Scholar
• European Commission (2016) Gender balance on corporate boards. Accessed February 5, 2018, ec.europa.eu/newsroom/document.cfm?doc_id=46280.Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Goette L, Zehnder C (2009) A behavioral account of the labor market: The role of fairness concerns. Annual Rev. Econom. 1:355–384.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fehr E, Kirchsteiger G, Riedl A (1993) Does fairness prevent market clearing? An experimental investigation. Quart. J. Econom. 108(2):437–459.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fischbacher U (2007) Z-tree: Zurich toolbox for ready-made economic experiments. Experiment. Econom. 10(2):171–178.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gächter S, Nosenzo D, Sefton M (2013) Peer effects in pro-social behaviour: Social norms or social preferences? J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 11:548–573.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Gilchrist D, Luca M, Malhotra D (2016) When 3 + 1 > 4: Gift structure and reciprocity in the field. Management Sci. 62(9):2639–2650.Link, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, Niederle M, Rustichini A (2003) Performance in competitive environments: Gender differences. Quart. J. Econom. 118(3):1049–1074.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grant Thornton (2014) Women in business: From classroom to boardroom. Grant Thornton International Business Report 2014. Accessed February 5, 2018, https://www.grantthornton.global/globalassets/1.-member-firms/global/insights/article-pdfs/2014/ibr2014_wib_report_final.pdf.Google Scholar
• Greiner B (2015) Subject pool recruitment procedures: Organizing experiments with ORSEE. J. Econom. Sci. Assoc. 1(1):114–125.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Herz H, Taubinsk D (2018) What makes a price fair? An experimental analysis of market experience and endogenous fairness views. J. Eur. Econom. Assoc. 16(2):316–352.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kahneman D, Knetsch JL, Thaler R (1986) Fairness as a constraint on profit seeking: Entitlements in the market. Amer. Econom. Rev. 76(4):728–741.Google Scholar
• Kirchsteiger G, Rigotti L, Rustichini A (2006) Your morals are your moods. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 59:155–172.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Konow J (1996) A positive theory of economic fairness. J. Econom. Behav. Organ. 31(1):13–35.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Konow J (2000) Fair shares: Accountability and cognitive dissonance in allocation decisions. Amer. Econom. Rev. 90(4):1072–1091.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kube S, Maréchal MA, Puppe C (2012) The currency of reciprocity: Gift exchange in the workplace. Amer. Econom. Rev. 102(4):1644–1662.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Leibbrandt A, Wang LC, Foo C (2017) Gender quotas, competitions, and peer review: Experimental evidence on the backlash against women. Management Sci. 64(8):3501–3516.Link, Google Scholar
• Matsa DA, Miller AR (2013) A female style in corporate leadership? Evidence from quotas. Amer. Econom. J. Appl. Econom. 5(3):136–169.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Mollerstrom J (2018) Favoritism and cooperation. Working paper, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA.Google Scholar
• Niederle M, Vesterlund L (2007) Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much? Quart. J. Econom. 122(3):1067–1101.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Niederle M, Segal C, Vesterlund L (2013) How costly is diversity? Affirmative action in light of gender differences in competitiveness. Management Sci. 59(1):1–16.Link, Google Scholar
• Petters L, Schröder M (2018) Justification as a key determinant of the success of affirmative action. Cologne Graduate School Working Paper 08-01, University of Cologne, Cologne, Germany.Google Scholar
• Pew Research Center (2015) Women and leadership: Public says women are equally qualified, but barriers persist (January 14), Pew Research Center, Washington, DC, https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2015/01/14/women-and-leadership/.Google Scholar
• Quota Project (2016) Global database of quotas for women. International IDEA and Stockholm University. Accessed May 23, 2016, http://www.quotaproject.org.Google Scholar
• Riffkin R (2015) Higher support for gender affirmative action than race. Gallup, Inc. Accessed February 5, 2018, http://news.gallup.com/poll/184772/higher-support-gender-affirmative-action-race.aspx.Google Scholar
• Schotter A, Weigelt K (1992) Asymmetric tournaments, equal opportunity laws and affirmative action: Some experimental results. Quart. J. Econom. 107(2):511–539.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Starmans C, Sheskin M, Bloom P (2017) Why people prefer unequal societies. Nature Human Behav. 1:0082.Crossref, Google Scholar