Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to 11.08.2012 - Lori Beaman
Similar to 11.08.2012 - Lori Beaman (20)
More from AMDSeminarSeries
More from AMDSeminarSeries (20)
11.08.2012 - Lori Beaman
- 1. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? BKM Motivation Experiment Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Set-up Main Result Evidence from a recruitment experiment in Theory Network Malawi structure Connections Heterogeneous Networks Lori Beaman, Niall Keleher, and Jeremy Magruder Social Incentives Screening Northwestern, IPA, and UC-Berkeley Screening Either Gender versus Restricted Conclusions November, 2012 Bonus Slides Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 4 Comment 5
- 2. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Motivation BKM Motivation • In Malawi, as in much of the world, women are Experiment disadvantaged in labor markets Set-up Main Result • underrepresented in the formal sector Theory • earn less Network structure Connections • There are a litany of possible explanations, e.g. Heterogeneous Networks • taste-based or statistical discrimination Social • differences in baseline human capital Incentives • differences in preferences Screening Screening • differences in tenure/experience profiles Either Gender versus Restricted • and so on Conclusions • Current policy interventions focus on closing the gender Bonus Slides Comment 1 gap in educational attainment Comment 2 Comment Comment 3 4 • Question: will that be enough? Comment 5
- 3. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? What about hiring processes? BKM • Much less research on whether the hiring process causes Motivation (dis)advantages Experiment Set-up • About half of jobs are found through networks Main Result • In developing countries, networks are key for risk sharing, Theory credit in addition to labor market access Network structure • Several advantages for employers Connections Heterogeneous Networks • relatively costless way to circulate info Social • (some) workers may have useful screening info about Incentives friends and relatives (Montgomery 1991, Beaman and Screening Screening Magruder 2012) Either Gender • tied contracts between reference and referral may solve versus Restricted Conclusions moral hazard problems (Heath 2012) Bonus Slides • But do they disadvantage groups? Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 • Calvo-Armengol and Jackson (2004): the use of networks Comment Comment 4 5 can lead to disadvantages between groups • Are women one of these groups?
- 4. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Women and Networks BKM • Priors are not so clear - potential advantages and Motivation disadvantages. Experiment Set-up • Could help women, if e.g. resume characteristics are scarce Main Result Theory and hard-to-observe characteristics are more important • Or, could leave women out: sociologists emphasize Network structure gender-homophily in networks Connections Heterogeneous Networks • necessary condition for Calvo-Armengol and Jackson Social (2004) mechanism Incentives • However: as a stylized fact from observational data, Screening Screening women are less likely to get networked jobs Either Gender versus Restricted • In U.S. unemployed women are less likely to report using Conclusions Bonus Slides their friends and relatives for help in search (27% of men Comment 1 vs. 20% of women) (Ioannides and Loury,2004) Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 4 • Based on observational data - could be confounded by Comment 5 differences in occupations, reporting choices, etc.
- 5. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Why would networks leave women out? BKM • It may be more costly for firms to access female referrals Motivation • Men (or women) may not be connected to (high quality) Experiment Set-up women Main Result Theory • Sociology lit: women’s networks may be less organized Network around work (e.g. Smith 2000) structure Connections • Or men (or women) may have those connections, but Heterogeneous Networks prefer to refer men Social Incentives • If it is easier to get (high quality) male referrals than Screening female referrals because of network characteristics, then Screening Either Gender cost-minimizing firms may end up hiring more men versus Restricted through referrals Conclusions Bonus Slides • Firms may get more out of using referral systems for male Comment 1 Comment 2 hires Comment 3 Comment Comment 4 5 • References may be better able or more willing to screen men
- 6. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Our experiment BKM • We conducted a recruitment experiment as part of a hiring Motivation drive for enumerators in Malawi Experiment Set-up • Survey firm wanted to hire more women Main Result Theory • Two waves: people encouraged to apply themselves and Network people then asked to make a referral structure Connections • All applicants complete skills assessment Heterogeneous Networks • Competitive job between genders: Social Incentives • 38% of people who apply themselves are women and Screening perform similarly to men Screening Either Gender • One type of position, so differences in occupational sorting versus Restricted cannot affect results. Reporting clear, too. Conclusions Bonus Slides • Referral phase randomized whether applicants could refer Comment 1 Comment 2 only men, only women, or anyone, and also terms of Comment 3 Comment 4 contract Comment 5 • Fixed finders fees or performance incentive
- 7. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Preview BKM • The use of referral systems disadvantages highly skilled Motivation women Experiment • Only 30% of referrals (versus 38% of applicants) are Set-up Main Result women when people have a choice Theory • 2 reasons: men systematically refer men Network • Women’s referrals (both men and women) are less likely to structure Connections qualify Heterogeneous Networks • However, when we restrict gender choices, men and Social Incentives women make references at the same rate under all Screening contracts regardless of which gender they must refer Screening Either Gender • Men and women are connected to suitable men and women versus Restricted Conclusions • We develop and test a model to find out which Bonus Slides characteristics of networks lead to disadvantages Comment 1 Comment 2 • Social incentives rather than productivity differences lead Comment Comment 3 4 to disadvantages Comment 5 • Screening potential of networks is maximized when men refer men
- 8. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Outline of rest of talk BKM Motivation Experiment Set-up Main Result 1 Describe experimental design Theory 2 Test whether women are (dis)advantaged by referral Network structure systems Connections Heterogeneous Networks 3 Discuss a model of optimal referral choices under different Social network characteristics Incentives Screening 4 Test whether men and women are connected to suitable Screening Either Gender women versus Restricted Conclusions 5 Test for gender differences in network characteristics Bonus Slides Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 4 Comment 5
- 9. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Our Experiment BKM Motivation • IPA-Malawi regularly hires a large number of enumerators Experiment for several projects Set-up Main Result • We posted fliers indicating a hiring drive at a number of Theory visible places in Lilongwe and Blantyre Network structure • Applicants were instructed to appear at a local Connections Heterogeneous employment center at a specific date and time, with a Networks Social resume. Incentives • Upon arrival, applicants given an id card and resumes Screening Screening collected Either Gender versus Restricted • Applicants completed a written test Conclusions • Several math problems, ravens matrices, English skills Bonus Slides Comment 1 assessment, job comprehension component, computer skills Comment 2 Comment 3 assessment Comment Comment 4 5 • 2 similar versions of test to limit cheating
- 10. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Our Experiment (2) BKM • Following, applicants completed a practical skills Motivation assessment Experiment Set-up • IPA enumerators act as survey respondents, applicants act Main Result as enumerators Theory • To test for hard-to-observe abilities, we made a number of Network structure incorrect answers to questions - i.e. inconsistent household Connections Heterogeneous Networks size, implausible values for household acreage Social • Actors instructed to give the right answer if the applicants Incentives press them Screening Screening • 2 versions of incorrect answers Either Gender versus Restricted • We measure the number of traps that the applicants Conclusions caught Bonus Slides • Total score on all components averaged. Applicants Comment 1 Comment Comment 2 3 informed of qualification threshold. Comment 4 Comment 5 • Qualified individuals called for enumerator positions as positions open
- 11. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? CA men and women are BKM competitive Motivation Experiment Figure 1: CA Ability by Gender .03 Set-up Main Result Theory kernel density estimate Network structure .02 Connections Heterogeneous Networks Social Incentives .01 Screening Screening Either Gender versus Restricted Conclusions 0 Bonus Slides Comment 1 20 40 60 80 100 Comment 2 CA's overall (corrected) score Comment 3 Comment 4 Male CAs Female CAs Comment 5
- 12. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Experiment: Referral Rounds BKM Motivation • Finally, applicants asked to make a referral Experiment • Randomly assigned to one of following treatments: Set-up Main Result • Asked at random to make a referral who was male, a Theory referral who was female, or a referral who could be male or Network female structure Connections Heterogeneous • Cross-randomized the finder’s fee: Networks Social • A fixed fee of either 1000 MWK or 1500 MWK ($6 or Incentives $10). Screening • A performance incentive of 500 MWK if their referral does Screening Either Gender not qualify or 1800 MWK if their referral does qualify versus Restricted Conclusions • All treatments fully blinded from the perspective of Bonus Slides evaluators Comment 1 Comment Comment 2 3 • Referrals attend recruitment session 3 or 4 days later. Comment 4 Comment 5 Complete same skills assessment.
- 13. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Do Referral Systems disadvantage BKM women? Motivation Table 1: Gender Distributions of CAs and Referrals Experiment Set-up (1) (2) (3) (4) Main Result Female Diff: p Theory All CAs Male CAs CAs value Network A. CA Characteristics structure Connections Fraction of CAs 100% 62% 38% Heterogeneous CA is qualified 53% 56% 48% 0.047 Networks N 767 480 287 Social B. CA Characteristics: Made Referral, Either Gender Treatments Incentives Fraction of CAs 100% 61% 39% Screening CA is qualified 57% 62% 49% 0.061 Screening Either Gender N 217 130 87 versus Restricted C. Referral Characteristics: Either Gender Treatments Conclusions Referral is Female 30% 23% 43% 0.002 Bonus Slides Referral is Qualified 49% 56% 38% 0.019 Comment 1 Referral is Qualified Male 34% 43% 22% 0.002 Comment 2 Comment 3 Referral is Qualified Female 14% 13% 17% 0.456 Comment 4 N 195 117 78 Comment 5
- 14. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? A simple model BKM Motivation • Suppose conventional applicants (CAs) each know a Experiment Set-up collection of potential referrals, some men and women. Main Result Theory • Each of these potential referrals has a social transfer they Network will give the applicant structure Connections • Each also has an actual quality and an observed expected Heterogeneous Networks quality Social Incentives • Focus on individuals the CA might actually choose: Screening Screening • For each perceived probability of qualifying, the person Either Gender versus Restricted who maximizes social payments Conclusions • Therefore expected quality is decreasing in social payments Bonus Slides • Observe referral choice under two contact types: fixed fee Comment 1 Comment Comment 2 3 and performance pay Comment 4 Comment 5
- 15. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Today, graphically BKM sample similar networks 20 Motivation Experiment 15 Set-up Main Result Theory 10 Network structure Social Payment Connections Heterogeneous Networks 5 Social Incentives 0 Screening Screening Either Gender versus Restricted -5 Conclusions Bonus Slides Comment 1 -10 Comment 2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Comment 3 Perceived Probability of Qualifying Comment 4 Comment 5 Note: Diamonds: women, Circles: men
- 16. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? What we observe BKM Motivation Experiment Set-up • Whether someone chooses to make a referral Main Result Theory • For those who make a referral, we see 2 nodes in the Network structure gender-specific network for each gender: Connections Heterogeneous Networks • Characteristics of person who maximizes social incentives Social • Characteristics of person who maximizes expected pay Incentives Screening +social incentives under performance incentive contract Screening Either Gender versus Restricted Conclusions Bonus Slides Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 4 Comment 5
- 17. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Are men and women connected? BKM • One reason women may be disadvantaged by referral Motivation system is if (suitable) women are not integrated into men’s Experiment Set-up networks Main Result • Men and women make a decision to make a referral if the Theory Network expected payoffs are greater than 0 structure Connections • Under fixed fees, this means that they know a man or Heterogeneous Networks woman whose social payment is not too negative Social • Under perf pay, this means that they know a man or Incentives woman whose total package of fixed fees + expected perf Screening pay Screening Either Gender versus Restricted • A stronger question: Are there men who only know Conclusions suitable women? Bonus Slides Comment 1 • Are men in “either” treatments more likely to return with Comment 2 Comment 3 a referral than men in “male” treatments? Comment 4 Comment 5 • [Later] does screening behavior look different in “either” treatments versus restricted male referrals?
- 18. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Are men less likely to know BKM suitable women? Motivation Experiment Table 2: Probability of Making a Referral Set-up (1) (2) (3) (4) Main Result Theory Female Treatment ‐0.004 ‐0.055 ‐0.004 ‐0.042 Network (0.038) (0.054) (0.050) (0.074) structure Either Gender Treatment 0.014 0.017 ‐0.052 ‐0.024 Connections (0.040) (0.055) (0.052) (0.071) Heterogeneous Performance Pay ‐0.148 *** ‐0.113 Networks (0.056) (0.080) Social Perf Pay * Female Treatment 0.004 ‐0.013 Incentives (0.076) (0.111) Screening Perf Pay * Either Treatment 0.152 * 0.086 Screening (0.079) (0.110) Either Gender versus Restricted Observations 506 310 506 310 Conclusions CA Gender Men Women Men Women Bonus Slides Notes Comment 1 1 The dependent variable is an indicator for whether the CA makes a referral. Comment 2 2 All specifications include CA visit day dummies. Comment 3 Comment 4 Comment 5
- 19. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? How would different network BKM characteristics affect referral Motivation choices Experiment Set-up Main Result We identify four dimensions of heterogeneity: Theory Network 1 Maximal Social payment received: “Closest gender” structure Connections Heterogeneous 2 Expected quality of closest person: “Quality” Networks Social Incentives 3 Slope of social payment/expected quality tradeoff: Screening “Network Shallowness” Screening Either Gender versus Restricted 4 Variance of actual quality relative to expected quality: Conclusions “Information” Bonus Slides Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 4 Comment 5
- 20. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Similar Networks BKM sample similar networks 20 Motivation Experiment Set-up 15 Main Result Theory Network 10 structure Connections Social Payment Heterogeneous Networks 5 Social Incentives Screening Screening 0 Either Gender versus Restricted Conclusions -5 Bonus Slides Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 4 -10 Comment 5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Perceived Probability of Qualifying
- 21. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Closer men BKM higher male social payments 20 Motivation Experiment Set-up 15 Main Result Theory Network 10 structure Connections Social Payment Heterogeneous Networks 5 Social Incentives Screening Screening 0 Either Gender versus Restricted Conclusions -5 Bonus Slides Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 4 -10 Comment 5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Perceived Probability of Qualifying
- 22. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Similar Networks BKM sample similar networks 20 Motivation Experiment Set-up 15 Main Result Theory Network 10 structure Connections Social Payment Heterogeneous Networks 5 Social Incentives Screening Screening 0 Either Gender versus Restricted Conclusions -5 Bonus Slides Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 4 -10 Comment 5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Perceived Probability of Qualifying
- 23. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Higher quality men BKM higher male quality 20 Motivation Experiment Set-up 15 Main Result Theory Network 10 structure Connections Social Payment Heterogeneous Networks 5 Social Incentives Screening Screening 0 Either Gender versus Restricted Conclusions -5 Bonus Slides Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 4 -10 Comment 5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Perceived Probability of Qualifying
- 24. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Similar Networks BKM sample similar networks 20 Motivation Experiment Set-up 15 Main Result Theory Network 10 structure Connections Social Payment Heterogeneous Networks 5 Social Incentives Screening Screening 0 Either Gender versus Restricted Conclusions -5 Bonus Slides Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 4 -10 Comment 5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Perceived Probability of Qualifying
- 25. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Shallower women BKM Shallower female network 20 Motivation Experiment Set-up 15 Main Result Theory Network 10 structure Connections Social Payment Heterogeneous Networks 5 Social Incentives Screening Screening 0 Either Gender versus Restricted Conclusions -5 Bonus Slides Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 4 -10 Comment 5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Perceived Probability of Qualifying
- 26. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Similar Networks BKM sample similar networks 20 Motivation Experiment Set-up 15 Main Result Theory Network 10 structure Connections Social Payment Heterogeneous Networks 5 Social Incentives Screening Screening 0 Either Gender versus Restricted Conclusions -5 Bonus Slides Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 4 -10 Comment 5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Perceived Probability of Qualifying
- 27. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Worse information about women BKM less information about women 20 Motivation Experiment Set-up 15 Main Result Theory Network 10 structure Connections Social Payment Heterogeneous Networks 5 Social Incentives Screening Screening 0 Either Gender versus Restricted Conclusions -5 Bonus Slides Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 4 -10 Comment 5 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Perceived Probability of Qualifying
- 28. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Model predictions BKM Motivation Experiment 1 Under fixed fees: only differences in closeness affect which Set-up Main Result referral is chosen Theory Network 2 Higher quality increases returns under performance pay structure Connections • Quality (of person who gives highest social payment) is Heterogeneous Networks revealed under fixed fees Social Incentives 3 Worse info, more shallow networks can both lead to lower Screening Screening response to performance pay Either Gender versus Restricted Conclusions Bonus Slides Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 4 Comment 5
- 29. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Closest gender, quality & social BKM incentives Motivation Experiment Men may know women, but would they share opportunities? Set-up Main Result Theory • Prediction 1 from the model: The person referred under Network fixed fees is the closest person in the network structure Connections Heterogeneous • If men are closer to men (or women), should see men Networks referred systematically under fixed fee - unrestricted Social Incentives treatment Screening Screening • The restricted-gender fixed fee treatments also let us Either Gender versus Restricted observe the quality of the closest people in the network: Conclusions • If men’s networks of men are higher quality than men’s Bonus Slides Comment 1 networks of women, should see fixed fee restricted male Comment Comment 2 3 referrals being higher quality than fixed fee restricted Comment Comment 4 5 female
- 30. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Characteristics of closest referrals BKM Motivation Experiment Set-up Main Result C. Referral Characteristics: Either Gender Treatments Theory Referral is Female 30% 23% 43% 0.002 Referral is Qualified 49% 56% 38% 0.019 Network structure Referral is Qualified Male 34% 43% 22% 0.002 Connections Referral is Qualified Female 14% 13% 17% 0.456 Heterogeneous Networks N 195 117 78 Social D. Referral Characteristics: Either Gender, Fixed Fee Treatments Incentives Referral is Female 32% 25% 43% 0.042 Screening Referral is Qualified 50% 60% 37% 0.012 Screening Either Gender Referral is Qualified Male 34% 44% 20% 0.007 versus Restricted Referral is Qualified Female 16% 16% 16% 0.983 Conclusions N 117 68 49 Bonus Slides Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 4 Comment 5
- 31. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Do men refer similar male and BKM female network members? Motivation Figure 2: Men's Fixed Fee Referrals Experiment .03 Set-up Main Result Theory Kernel density estimate Network structure .02 Connections Heterogeneous Networks Social Incentives .01 Screening Screening Either Gender versus Restricted 0 Conclusions 20 40 60 80 100 Bonus Slides Referral's overall (corrected) score Comment 1 Comment 2 Men referring men Men referring women Comment 3 Comment 4 Comment 5 Note: figure compares men in restricted treatments only
- 32. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? What about women’s referrals? BKM Motivation Figure 3: Women's Fixed Fee Referrals Experiment .03 Set-up Main Result Kernel density estimate Theory .02 Network structure Connections Heterogeneous Networks .01 Social Incentives Screening Screening Either Gender 0 versus Restricted 20 40 60 80 100 Conclusions Referral's overall (corrected) score Bonus Slides Women referring men Women referring women Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment Comment 4 5 Note: figure compares women in restricted treatments only
- 33. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Summary so far BKM Motivation • By design, we only observe clean evidence of differences in Experiment social incentives for men or women who maximize social Set-up Main Result incentives (who are revealed through the fixed fee Theory treatments) Network structure • For those people: Connections Heterogeneous Networks • Men tend to maximize men’s incentives Social • Low ability people tend to maximize women’s incentives Incentives • Closest women are low ability Screening Screening • Closest men however are not systematically low ability Either Gender versus Restricted • Can conclude: at least among socially closest people, men Conclusions and women have different social incentives Bonus Slides Comment Comment 1 2 • Social incentives make it cheaper to (a) get male referrals Comment Comment 3 4 from men and (b) use men to get high quality referrals Comment 5
- 34. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Is Women’s Disadvantage BKM Productive? Motivation Experiment Set-up Main Result • If employers encourage referral hires, they likely gain Theory something from their use Network structure • One thing which has been emphasized is screening (e.g. Connections Heterogeneous Montgomery (1990), Beaman and Magruder (2012)) Networks Social • If employees see hard to observe characteristics, can Incentives improve outcomes for employer Screening Screening Either Gender • If men (women) are less able to screen women, it may lead versus Restricted to employers discouraging female referrals Conclusions Bonus Slides • From the model: CAs will screen if and only if they have Comment Comment 1 2 good information, and networks are not too shallow Comment 3 Comment 4 Comment 5
- 35. Do Job Networks Disadvantage less information about women 20 Women? BKM Motivation 15 Experiment Set-up Main Result 10 Theory Social Payment Network structure Connections 5 Heterogeneous Networks Social Incentives 0 Screening Screening Either Gender versus Restricted -5 Conclusions Bonus Slides Comment 1 -10 Comment 2 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Comment 3 Perceived Probability of Qualifying Comment 4 Comment 5
- 36. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Low info and screening BKM Motivation • Low info makes the tradeoffs “steeper” - it becomes more Experiment Set-up expensive and more infeasible to find very high quality Main Result referrals Theory Network • Essentially, most referral probabilities of qualification structure Connections pushed towards 1/2 Heterogeneous Networks • this increases the payoffs to referring someone who you Social Incentives think is relatively low ability under perf pay incentives Screening Screening • and decreases the payoffs to referring someone who you Either Gender versus Restricted think is relatively high ability under perf pay Conclusions • Empirically, if men (women) have lower ability to screen Bonus Slides Comment 1 women, should observe a smaller increase in performance Comment 2 Comment Comment 3 4 in response to perf pay Comment 5
- 37. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? BKM Table 4: Referral Performance Motivation Referral Qualifies (1) (2) (3) (4) Experiment Female Referral Treatment ‐0.030 ‐0.190 ** 0.068 ‐0.181 Set-up (0.062) (0.083) (0.081) (0.113) Main Result Either Gender Treatment 0.071 ‐0.231 *** 0.227 *** ‐0.242 ** Theory (0.066) (0.082) (0.084) (0.107) Network Performance Pay 0.267 *** 0.021 structure (0.093) (0.122) Connections Perf Pay * Female Treatment ‐0.248 * ‐0.022 Heterogeneous (0.127) (0.171) Networks Perf Pay * Either Treatment ‐0.383 *** 0.032 Social (0.132) (0.169) Incentives Observations 390 227 390 227 Screening CA Gender Men Women Men Women Screening Notes Either Gender 1 The dependent variable is an indicator for the referral qualifying. versus Restricted 2 All specifications include CA visit day dummies. Conclusions Bonus Slides Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 4 Comment 5
- 38. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Screening Results BKM Motivation • Men can screen men Experiment Set-up • Men cannot screen women (or, at least, won’t at these Main Result Theory levels of incentives) Network • Allowing the option to refer women eliminates the structure Connections screening premium Heterogeneous Networks • Suggests that employers who want to maximize screening Social Incentives may discourage men from making female referrals. Screening • Some evidence that difference is info and not shallowness: Screening Either Gender versus Restricted men are more likely to make a low quality referral under Conclusions perf pay-female treatments than under fixed fee-female Bonus Slides • Women show less ability to screen men or women overall Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 • Some not quite sig evidence that they can screen women Comment 4 Comment 5
- 39. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Screening with choice of gender BKM Why is there a lower screening premium when we allow either Motivation gender? Experiment • Under performance pay, one maximizes the sum of social Set-up Main Result incentives and expected perf incentive Theory • This makes the theoretical effect ambiguous Network structure Connections • Considering either gender in general allows you to “buy” Heterogeneous Networks quality with giving up a lower amount of social incentives Social Incentives • Increases both chance that you observe someone who has Screening a high chance of qualifying and gives you OK social Screening incentives Either Gender versus Restricted ⇒ May increase performance premium Conclusions Bonus Slides • Also ↑ chance that you observe someone who has an OK Comment Comment 1 2 chance of qualifying but gives you great social incentives Comment 3 Comment 4 ⇒ May decrease performance premium Comment 5 • Happens, in particular, when info is bad about one gender
- 40. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? What exactly is being screened? BKM Motivation • Have much richer data than is being used here - detailed Experiment assessments of different referral characteristics Set-up Main Result • Men are screening in some ways across a broad category of Theory characteristics Network structure • Women are screening, too - Connections Heterogeneous Networks • significantly, women screen women on language scores and Social cognitive skills. Incentives • Women screen men on survey experience Screening Screening Either Gender • The former is probably more valuable as screening for versus Restricted Conclusions employers. May be a role for encouraging female referrals Bonus Slides of women Comment 1 Comment 2 • still, if employers use referrals for screening, biggest returns Comment Comment 3 4 are to get men to refer men Comment 5
- 41. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? BKM Motivation Table 5: Screening of Male CAs on Different Characteristics Survey Tertiary Math Language Ravens Computer Practical Feedback Experiment exp Education Score Score score Score Exam Score points (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Set-up Main Result Female Referral ‐0.033 0.045 ‐0.017 ‐0.115 ‐0.092 0.062 1.033 3.003 *** Treatment (0.069) (0.074) (0.142) (0.207) (0.194) (0.371) (0.661) (1.044) Theory Either Gender 0.040 0.072 0.009 0.087 0.089 0.623 1.378 ** 1.856 * Treatment (0.072) (0.077) (0.148) (0.215) (0.203) (0.387) (0.689) (1.089) Network Performance Pay 0.080 0.067 0.134 ‐0.005 0.230 0.943 ** 0.496 1.883 structure (0.080) (0.085) (0.164) (0.238) (0.224) (0.428) (0.757) (1.197) Connections Perf Pay * Female ‐0.075 0.025 ‐0.259 ‐0.027 ‐0.293 ‐0.915 ‐0.950 ‐2.443 Heterogeneous Treatment (0.108) (0.116) (0.223) (0.325) (0.305) (0.583) (1.026) (1.622) Networks Perf Pay * Either ‐0.165 ‐0.083 ‐0.065 ‐0.169 ‐0.367 ‐0.856 ‐1.768 * ‐3.371 ** Social Treatment (0.113) (0.121) (0.232) (0.338) (0.318) (0.607) (1.069) (1.696) Incentives Observations 386 390 390 390 390 390 383 382 Notes 1 The dependent variable is an indicator for the referral qualifying. Screening 2 All specifications include CA visit day dummies. Screening Either Gender versus Restricted Conclusions Bonus Slides Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 4 Comment 5
- 42. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? BKM Motivation Table 6: Screening of Female CAs on Different Characteristics Tertiary Math Language Ravens Computer Practical Feedback Survey exp Experiment Education Score Score score Score Exam Score points Set-up (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) Main Result Female Referral 0.032 0.151 ‐0.332 ‐1.140 *** ‐0.435 ‐0.627 0.972 2.152 Treatment (0.091) (0.110) (0.216) (0.342) (0.270) (0.538) (0.963) (1.349) Theory Either Gender 0.040 0.017 ‐0.189 ‐0.246 ‐0.172 ‐0.139 0.015 0.879 Treatment (0.086) (0.104) (0.205) (0.324) (0.256) (0.509) (0.910) (1.274) Network Performance Pay 0.264 *** 0.143 ‐0.400 * ‐0.465 ‐0.175 0.419 1.832 * 1.604 structure (0.098) (0.119) (0.234) (0.370) (0.293) (0.582) (1.056) (1.479) Connections Perf Pay * Female ‐0.320 ** ‐0.292 * 0.402 1.330 ** 0.551 0.232 ‐2.164 ‐2.134 Heterogeneous Treatment (0.138) (0.166) (0.326) (0.515) (0.408) (0.811) (1.468) (2.055) Networks Perf Pay * Either ‐0.270 ** ‐0.052 0.368 0.500 ‐0.260 ‐0.372 ‐1.625 ‐4.511 ** Social Treatment (0.136) (0.164) (0.323) (0.510) (0.403) (0.802) (1.448) (2.027) Incentives Observations 226 227 227 227 227 227 222 222 Notes Screening 1 The dependent variable is indicated in the column heading. 2 All specifications include CA visit day dummies. Screening Either Gender versus Restricted Conclusions Bonus Slides Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 4 Comment 5
- 43. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Conclusions BKM Motivation Experiment • Stylized Fact: women are less likely to receive job referrals Set-up Main Result than men (from data in US and Europe) Theory Network • Using a recruitment experiment in Malawi, we confirm structure Connections that women are disadvantaged by referral systems Heterogeneous Networks • Men choose not to refer women, when given the choice Social Incentives • Women choose women at about the population average, Screening Screening but make on average low quality referrals Either Gender versus Restricted Conclusions Bonus Slides Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 4 Comment 5
- 44. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Conclusions: Economics BKM Motivation • We test several network constraints that could drive this Experiment Set-up result Main Result Theory • Men and women are equally likely to be connected to men Network and women structure Connections • Men are closest to men, but have high quality male and Heterogeneous Networks female contacts Social Incentives • Women are not socially closer to one gender than the Screening other, but have low quality networks of women Screening Either Gender • Men can screen men well, cannot screen women; women versus Restricted can screen both men and women to a lesser extent Conclusions Bonus Slides Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 4 Comment 5
- 45. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Conclusions: Policy BKM Permitting women’s disadvantage in referral rates has three Motivation benefits to employers: Experiment Set-up Main Result • It is lower cost for men to refer men than for men to refer Theory women (since social incentives are higher) Network structure Connections • It is lower cost to get high quality referrals if men are Heterogeneous Networks making referrals Social Incentives • Screening benefits of referral systems are maximized when Screening Screening men are encouraged to refer only men Either Gender versus Restricted • All in all, a hard problem to solve Conclusions Bonus Slides • Current policies to address gender gap - such as investing Comment 1 Comment 2 in girls’ education - will not be enough to overcome this Comment 3 Comment 4 • Maybe a role for quota systems in hiring policy Comment 5
- 46. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Comment on Attrition BKM • 80% of applicants make a referral Motivation • Reference rate is always really similar across genders, Experiment different across treatments Set-up Main Result • Differences in referral quality across gender, within Theory treatment can be taken at (close to) face value for those Network who make referrals structure Connections • Difference in referral quality across treatment will be the Heterogeneous Networks combined effect of some attrition + population average Social choices Incentives • For employers (and to understand actual trends in Screening Screening references), the net effect (including attrition) is the Either Gender versus Restricted relevant dimension in any event Conclusions • Implications for e.g. ability to screen are the same if Bonus Slides Comment 1 individuals attrit because they know their options are bad Comment 2 Comment 3 • We also simulate the model and recover the same Comment 4 Comment 5 predictions on the attrition decision and results within made referrals
- 47. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Can work experience explain BKM results? Motivation Experiment Set-up Main Result Theory • Men are more likely to have worked at a survey firm in the Network past than women structure Connections • Working at a survey firm may both enhance your network Heterogeneous Networks and give you better information Social Incentives • While it does not affect any of the interpretations - or Screening disadvantages women face - it may be an underlying Screening Either Gender mechanism versus Restricted Conclusions • We find no differential response among people who have Bonus Slides worked at a survey firm in the past. Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 4 Comment 5
- 48. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Competition BKM Motivation • Niederle and Vesterlund (2007) find that women are Experiment Set-up averse to competition relative to men Main Result • Making a reference involves introducing the employer to a Theory Network potential competitor for the job structure Connections • May have an incentive to refer someone bad (though, a Heterogeneous Networks marginal incentive for an informed decision maker - Social referral is one additional applicant among many) Incentives Screening • May have been particularly salient in our context, as Screening Either Gender applicants not yet hired versus Restricted • However, certainly a relevant incentive in on-the-job Conclusions referrals, too Bonus Slides Comment 1 • Again, suggests a mechanism, without affecting Comment 2 Comment 3 interpretations or policy prescriptions Comment 4 Comment 5
- 49. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Cross-randomization BKM Motivation Experiment • We cross-randomized a treatment designed to make the Set-up Main Result competitiveness more salient Theory • CAs were told the qualification threshold was either Network structure Connections 1 Absolute: scoring better than 60 Heterogeneous Networks 2 Relative: scoring in the top half of applicants Social Incentives • We hypothesize that the relative treatment makes the Screening competition more salient (since CAs compete directly with Screening Either Gender referrals to be in the top half) versus Restricted Conclusions • (admittedly, somewhat weak test) Bonus Slides • Look just at fixed fee referrals to isolate social incentives Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 4 Comment 5
- 50. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? BKM Appendix Table 3: Competition incentives among fixed fee referrals Motivation (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) Experiment CA Referral Referral CA Referral Referral Dependent Variable Qualifies Qualifies Qualifies Qualifies Qualifies Qualifies Set-up Main Result Competitive Treatment 0.021 0.072 0.052 0.014 0.090 0.227 (0.062) (0.069) (0.121) (0.086) (0.095) (0.165) Theory Female Treatment 0.094 ‐0.024 Network (0.116) (0.177) structure Either Treatment 0.175 ‐0.160 Connections (0.123) (0.169) Heterogeneous Competitive * Female 0.007 ‐0.263 Networks (0.166) (0.236) Social Competitive * Either 0.103 ‐0.142 Incentives 0.176 (0.236) Screening Observations 287 232 232 166 133 133 Screening CA Gender Men Men Men Women Women Women Either Gender versus Restricted Conclusions Bonus Slides Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 4 Comment 5
- 51. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? BKM Figure 2: Gender choice in referrals, by CA performance .8 Motivation Experiment Set-up .6 Main Result Referral is Female Theory Network .4 structure Connections Heterogeneous Networks .2 Social Incentives 0 Screening Screening 20 40 60 80 100 Either Gender CA's overall (corrected) score versus Restricted Referrals of Male CAs Referrals of Female CAs Conclusions Bonus Slides Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 4 Comment 5
- 52. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? BKM Figure 3: Referral qualification rate, by CA performance 1 Motivation Experiment Referral's qualification rate Set-up .8 Main Result Theory .6 Network structure Connections .4 Heterogeneous Networks Social Incentives .2 Screening Screening 20 40 60 80 100 Either Gender CA's overall (corrected) score versus Restricted Referrals of Male CAs Referrals of Female CAs Conclusions Bonus Slides Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 4 Comment 5
- 53. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? BKM Figure 6: Referral Qualifies , by Male CA performance .8 Motivation Experiment Set-up .6 Referral qualifies Main Result Theory .4 Network structure Connections .2 Heterogeneous Networks Social Incentives 0 Screening 20 40 60 80 100 Screening CA's overall (corrected) score Either Gender versus Restricted Men referring women, fixed Men referring men, fixed Men referring women, perf Men referring men, perf Conclusions Bonus Slides Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 4 Comment 5
- 54. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? BKM Figure 7: Referral Qualifies , by Female CA performance Motivation Experiment .8 Set-up Referral qualifies Main Result .6 Theory Network .4 structure Connections Heterogeneous .2 Networks Social Incentives 0 Screening 20 40 60 80 100 Screening CA's overall (corrected) score Either Gender versus Restricted Women referring women, fixed Women referring men, fixed Women referring women, perf Women referring men, perf Conclusions Bonus Slides Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 4 Comment 5
- 55. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Social Payments and Qualification BKM Motivation • Possible (reasonable?) that social payments increase with Experiment qualification in the ambient network Set-up Main Result • Referrals give you better social transfers if they get the job Theory Network • Consistent with our modelling assumptions structure Connections • No assumption made about the joint distribution of αg , Qjg in the ambient network Heterogeneous Networks j Social • Selection rule still leads to decreasing relationship among Incentives Screening non-dominated referrals Screening Either Gender • However, may change interpretation of social payments versus Restricted Conclusions • Incentives aligned with employer Bonus Slides • differences in quality expectations may lead to women’s Comment 1 Comment 2 disadvantage if men expect men to be higher quality, Comment Comment 3 4 women have wrong quality expectations Comment 5
- 56. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Unbiased Expectations of Quality BKM Motivation Experiment Set-up • Model assumed εg was mean 0 - allowed us to estimate Q1 j g Main Result Theory • Already showed that men’s fixed fee referrals of men ARE Network NOT higher ability than men’s fixed fee referrals of women structure Connections • And women’s (low quality) fixed fee referrals ARE NOT Heterogeneous Networks the highest quality people they know (they know high Social quality men) Incentives Screening • So, if CA’s have unbiased expectations: can conclude that Screening Either Gender expectations of quality ARE NOT source of women’s versus Restricted Conclusions disadvantage Bonus Slides • But, expectations of quality could be biased Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 4 Comment 5
- 57. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Biased Expectations of Quality BKM • If expected social incentives increase in expected referral Motivation qualification and expectations are biased (for now, against Experiment women) Set-up Main Result • Incentives to refer a qualified person are still strictly larger Theory under perf Network structure • Would expect to see even more men referred under perf Connections Heterogeneous (We don’t) Networks • Would expect to see men restricted to refer women attrit Social Incentives more under perf (We don’t) Screening Screening • Moreover, some evidence that social incentives are not Either Gender versus Restricted strongly correlated with expected referral performance Conclusions • Men referring other men are choosing not to refer the best Bonus Slides men they know under fixed Comment 1 Comment 2 • Men do respond to incentives Comment 3 Comment Comment 4 5 • Similar argument holds for women referring low ability people.
- 58. Do Job Networks Disadvantage Women? Selection rule even with positive relationship BKM Motivation Experiment Set-up Main Result Theory Network structure Connections Heterogeneous Networks Social Incentives Screening Screening Either Gender versus Restricted Conclusions Bonus Slides Comment 1 Comment 2 Comment 3 Comment 4 Comment 5