Not for the Profit, But for the Training? Gender Differences in Training in the For‐Profit and Non‐Profit Sectors
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/bjir.12531 |
| Author | Mohsen Javdani,Benoit Dostie |
| Date | 01 September 2020 |
| Published date | 01 September 2020 |
British Journal of Industrial Relations doi: 10.1111/bjir.12531
58:3 September 2020 0007–1080 pp. 644–689
Not for the Profit, But for the Training?
Gender Differences in Training in the
For-Profit and Non-Profit Sectors
Benoit Dostie and Mohsen Javdani
Abstract
In this article, we use Canadian-linked employer–employee data to examine
gender dierences in receiving firm-sponsored training. We find that women in
the for-profit sector are less likely to receive classroom training and receive
fewer classroom training courses. However, we find the opposite in the non-
profit sector, where women are more likely to receive both classroom and on-
the-job training, and also receive more classroom training courses. We show
that women’s worsetraining opportunities in the for-profit sector mainly operate
within workplaces. We find no evidence that gender gaps in training in the for-
profit sector are drivenby lower probabilities of accepting training oers, child or
family commitments,weaker labour market attachment or worker self-selection.
We also find that gender dierences in expected changes in wages and training
opportunities between the two sectors can explain a large portion of women’s
higher probability of employment in the non-profitsector. Finally,decomposition
results suggest that part of the gender wage gap in the for-profit sector, which is
twice as large as in the non-profit sector, can be explained by gender dierences
in training.
1. Introduction
Gender gaps have been documented for many labour market outcomes,
such as wages and promotion opportunities (see the literature review in
Blau and Kahn 2017 and Javdani and McGee 2018). There is, however,
increasing evidence that suggests that non-profit organizations demonstrate
greater gender equity compared to for-profit firms (e.g. Faulk et al. 2013;
Leete 2000; Preston 1989; Preston and Sacks 2010). Preston (1990) suggests
Benoit Dostie is at the Department of Applied Economics, HEC Montr´
eal. Mohsen Javdani is
at the Department of Economics, University of British Columbia – Okanagan.
C
2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Not for the Profit, But for the Training? 645
that the greater gender equity is one of the main sources of the female over-
representation documented in this sector by several studies (e.g. Leete 2006;
Hirsch et al. 2017; Preston and Sacks 2010).
The non-profit sector has been playing an increasingly important role in
employment and production in many countries such as the United States,
Canada, Germany, France and the United Kingdom (Benz 2005; Salamon
et al. 2013). In Canada, the non-profit sector accounts for 8.1 per cent of
Canada’sgross domestic product (GDP), and 11.1 per cent of the labour force,
which is more than the entire retail trade industry, or the mining, oil and gas
extraction industry (Hinna et al. 2016). However, as DeVaro and Brookshire
(2007) point out, despite the significant role the non-profit sector plays in the
economy,‘dierences between non-profits and for-profits in other (non-wage)
aspects of the employment relationship have received much less attention in
the literature’.
In this study,we join a relatively small literatureexamining dierences in the
type of employment relationshipsbetween the non-profit and for-profit sectors
(e.g. Becchetti et al. 2013; Binder 2016; DeVaro and Brookshire 2007). We fill
some gaps in this literature by being the first to investigate gender dierences
between those sectors in one important aspect of the employmentrelationship:
training opportunities. It is well documented that training is a key source of
skill formation, inter- and intra-firm mobility and earnings growth (see the
meta-analysis from Haelermans and Borghans 2012). Therefore, comparing
gender dierences in training opportunities between non-profit and for-profit
workplaces allows us to better understand non-profitorganizations and some
of the factors that have led to greater gender equity in this sector. This is
particularly important because as Leete (2000) suggests, ‘the economyat large
increasingly comes to resemble the non-profit sector in some respects’ and
employment in whatwas traditionally categorized as non-profit services (such
as social, educational, health and social services) is becoming more prevalent
in the for-profit sector.
Interest in understanding gender dierences in training opportunities has
been growing (Boll and Bublitz 2018). However, to the best of our knowledge,
we are the first to exploit a nationally representative sample of workers to
examine gender dierences in two dierent types of clearly defined and very
detailed training measures: formal classroom training (CLT), and informal
on-the-job training (OJT). Distinguishing between these two types of training
is important since there are important dierences between them in how they
are structured and delivered to workers. For example, Dostie (2013), who uses
the same data, finds that returns to training (measured as value added per
worker) are larger for CLT compared to OJT.
More specifically, our analysis uses Canadian-linked employer–employee
data from 1999 to 2005 to estimate gender dierences in probability, duration
and intensity of CLT and OJT. In addition, we use the richness of our data
to examine the dierences in the main subject of training, the person who
provided the training (e.g. self-learning, supervisor, outside trainer, fellow
worker, etc.) and the goal(s) of training. This could help to shed more light
C
2020 John Wiley& Sons Ltd.
646 British Journal of Industrial Relations
on the underlying mechanisms behind potential gender dierences in training,
and areas in which they are more likely to occur.
Our results suggest that examining the sample of all workers, females
experience the same average probability of receiving both CLT and OJT
compared to observationally equivalent males. However, looking separately
at workers in for-profit and non-profit establishments paints a completely
dierent picture. While females in the non-profit sector are significantly
more likely to receive both CLT and OJT (3.1 and 6.3 percentage points,
respectively), and receive 15 per cent more CLT courses, females in the for-
profit sector are 2.1 percentage points less likely to receive CLT, and also
receive 10 per cent fewer CLT courses.
We note that gender dierences in training opportunities we find could
operate through two distinct channels. On the one hand, these dierences
could stem from dierencesin training opportunities between men and women
who work within thesame workplace.On the other hand, they could be driven
by a between-workplace mechanism resulting from crowding of females into
workplaces with fewertraining opportunities.1For example,females who plan
to take a break from their job due to family responsibilities might voluntarily
avoid workplaces that require regular upgrade of skills through training.
Alternatively, workplaces that require more regular training might not be
willing to employ females if they are perceived to have weaker labour market
attachments.
Making this distinction is particularly important since there is evidence
that suggests gender pay gap varies significantly by industry within the non-
profit sector (e.g. Leete 2000; McGinnis 2011; Salamon 2002, and others),
highlighting the importance of sorting across industries and workplaces.
We are the first study to distinguish between these within- versus between-
workplace mechanisms. We find that women’s better training opportunities
in the non-profit sector are partly driven by their disproportionate sorting
into workplaces with more training opportunities. However, women’s
disadvantaged position in the for-profit sector mainly operates within
workplaces. This highlights the importance of within-workplace factors in
females’ disadvantaged position in the for-profit sector.
The reasons forthe documented gender dierences in training opportunities
are less well understood. Another contribution of this study lies in our
ability to exploit rich information about workers and their employment
relationships to test prominent hypotheses concerning sources of the gender
gaps in training opportunities. Child and family responsibilities, and weaker
labour market attachments, might discourage women from accepting training
opportunities or from subjecting themselves to situations that could provide
them access to more training opportunities. This could happen, for example,
if family responsibilities make women less likely/able to compete or apply
for promotions, which could, in turn, give them access to more training if
successful.
Examining these potential explanations, we find that women, especially
married women, are actually less likely to turn down training oers. In
C
2020 John Wiley& Sons Ltd.
To continue reading
Request your trial