Gender and occupational prestige. testing the devaluation theory in spain
Resumen: The devaluation theory, that is, that occupations where women predominate become less socially valued than those where men are in the majority, has not reached a unanimous conclusion in the empirical literature, especially when prestige is used as an indicator of the valuation of the occupation. The changing economic and social circumstances may influence the fulfillment of this hypothesis over time. Using regression analysis, this article tests the adequacy of the devaluation theory in the Spanish labor market at two points in time, 1991 and 2013. Previously, it also describes and analyzes whether the ordering of occupations has changed substantially in this period, using two different comparable scales. The results confirm a weakening in the support of the devaluation theory such that gender segregation of occupations does not necessarily imply differences in their social valuation. This result can be attributed to (i) the increase of prestige in some feminized occupations and (ii) the increase of women's participation in prestigious occupations.
Idioma: Inglés
DOI: 10.1111/gwao.13262
Año: 2025
Publicado en: GENDER WORK AND ORGANIZATION (2025), [12 pp.]
ISSN: 0968-6673

Financiación: info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/ES/AEI/PID2020-118355RB-I00
Financiación: info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/ES/DGA/S32-20R
Financiación: info:eu-repo/grantAgreement/ES/DGA/S33-23R
Tipo y forma: Article (Published version)
Área (Departamento): Área Sociología (Dpto. Psicología y Sociología)
Área (Departamento): Área Fund. Análisis Económico (Dpto. Análisis Económico)


Rights Reserved All rights reserved by journal editor


Exportado de SIDERAL (2025-04-10-14:05:32)


Visitas y descargas

Este artículo se encuentra en las siguientes colecciones:
Articles > Artículos por área > Fundamentos del Análisis Económico
Articles > Artículos por área > Sociología



 Record created 2025-04-10, last modified 2025-04-10


Versión publicada:
 PDF
Rate this document:

Rate this document:
1
2
3
 
(Not yet reviewed)