Gender Problems in the Labor Market during the Russian Transition FUJIWARA, katsumi Osaka University of Foreign Studies Abstract Only few attempts have so far been made at gender approach to the transition economy in Russia. In contrast to the development of sociological gender studies, most of Russian economists simply neglect gender problems and some even deny the exis tence of the gender gap and inequality of opportunity. This paper critically examines the argument denying the gender gap in Russian labor market. First of all, the gender disparity in the labor market is reflected not in unemployment rate but in the structure of labor market. Almost 70 percent of workers who had dropped out of employment were women. Many of them seem to have chosen to retire or to stay at home. It is hasty to assume the gender equality in the labor mar ket without considering the reason why these women have left for economically nonactive. It is an undeniable fact that there exists gender segregation in Russian labor market. The main point of dispute lies how or why gender segregation is generated. Interindustry wage differentials are explained by the fact that average wages in e feminized' (women's) industries such as light industry, education or health care are relatively low. Under the condition of gender segregation, the widening of interindus try wage differentials are manifest in the widening of wage differentials by sex. On the other hand, the wage differential is caused by the fact that women take relatively lowwage and low-skilled jobs in the branch. Economists denying the existence of the gender gap explain this situation as a result of enormal f function of market, that is, a result of free choices made by individuals. They argue that women are more tolerant of low-wage jobs because of their position as subsidiary earners in household. However, this explanation already presupposes the dominance of patriarchal ideology, which is one of the typical form of gender discrimination. In reality, gender segregation is caused by inequalities of opportunity for recruitment and advancement within a company between men and women. Therefore, the differences in job evaluation of workers would not correspond to the differences in real skill level of them. Keywords: gender, labor market, segregation, (in)equality of opportunity 119
O { p t p Thus, it seems reasonable to conclude that in Russian labor market in 90's there were apparent gender gap in both wage and employment. While withdrawal of women from the workplace was strongly affected by the severe depression resulting from the transition, the important factor that made women main victim of depression would be informal inequalities of opportunity for recruitment and advancement. Female-worker's individual decision which concerns joining the workforce was made within the framework of this inequality. (2) S y ~ r p N. E., D p r t r p N. M., K y x y ƒ x p ~ ƒ y y y u s u t u ~ y ~ p } y { r ~ u,, t u t. Y { p p p ~ p. I., C T B Y ^, 2003, ƒ. 328-369.( 3) K p u Š ~ y { r Q. I.,, C T B Y ^, 2001, ƒ. 51-52. (4) I ~ ƒ y ^ { ~ } y { y Q @ N, W u ~ I ƒ ƒ u r p ~ y z ~ { p t p,, M., 1995.
(8) S { ƒ p ~ q p u r p M., O ƒ ˆ y p Ž ~ z x r y } ƒ y G u ~ y ~,, 2000, yo.3, ƒ.137-143.
p q ~ y { y ~ p ƒ ƒ y z ƒ { } ~ { u t p : x r y } ƒ Ž w u ~ y y } t y ƒ { y } y ~ p ˆ y y M O S, 2003, ƒ.123. (10) S { ƒ p ~ q p u r p M., G u ~ Š y ~ r ƒ ƒ p r u { ~ } y u { y p { y r ~ s ~ p ƒ u ~ y G
{ } ƒ p C u ~ t u ~ z t u ~ y ƒ ƒ u t r p ~ y z Q ƒ ƒ y y t t { p ~ p y x Q @ N t p y x p ~ ƒ y o Š: Ae { ~ ~ p., C u ~ t u ~ p L ƒ p y ƒ y { p Q ƒ ƒ y y,, 2000. 3, ƒ. 118. Coc-, 2003, ƒ. 85., C, M ƒ { r ƒ { y z ˆ u ~ s u ~-, @ { p t u } y, 2002 ƒ. 364.
ƒ { p p ~ p } p Q Š y ~., H R. _ S E I R,1996, ƒ. 37. (15) I ~ ƒ y ^ { ~ } y { y, W u ~ ~ ƒ ƒ u t r p y z ~ { p t p,. ƒ 2-3. (16). (17) X u { y ~ p N., G u ~ Š y ~ e y ƒ ˆ p Ž ~ p y y { p r ƒ r y ~ ~ s u } y r p ~ y o C t u t. M u x u ~ ˆ u r z E. A., Q ƒ-, 2002.
o Š ƒ u t r p ~ y z B C ƒ { } ƒ p ~ { p t p, Q ƒ ƒ y y : Silverman B, and M. Yanowitch, New Rich, New Poor, New Russia, ME. Sharpe, Armonk, 2000, p. 72.Œ T Í I ~ ƒ y ^ { ~ } y { y Q @ N, W u ~ y ƒ- M.,1995, ƒ. 17, 50., G 2002, ƒ. 109.
È Á Ä é v S { ƒ p ~ q p u r p I ~ ƒ y ^ { ~ } y { y M., G u ~ Š y ~ r ƒ ƒ p r p { ~ } y u ƒ { y p { y u ƒ { y p { y r ~ s ~ p ƒ u u ~ y (25) M u x u ~ ˆ u r p E. A, G u ~ Š y ~ p ~ p } Ž Š u ~ } y x r t ƒ r u: p ~ p y x p t r q y s p y y G u, t u t. Q ~ } p Š u r { p N. M. y t., N p { p,1992, ƒ. 76., G u 34., W u ~ W u ~ y ƒ ƒ u t r p ~ y z ~ { p, 1995. CTp.
o Š: C ƒ { } ƒ p K q x u r p t u t Q ƒ ƒ y y, 2003, ƒ. 87, 91. (27) V { y p H (28) C Š { r M. @.,, ƒ. 368.. K., N. E. S y ~ r p, G Q O R R P ^ N, 2002, ƒ. 24., E. B., Q u x p ƒ ˆ y s y u ƒ { s q u r q ~ y p q ~ y ˆ x r t ƒ r u ~ s q Œ u y ~ u ~ y, K @ M @ H. Q y } p Š u r ƒ { p, N. M. y t, N p { p,1992, ƒ. 64
o Š Q y } p Š u r ƒ { : K q x u r p, E. B., Q u x Ž p ƒ ˆ y s u ƒ { s q ƒ t r p ~ y p q ~ y ˆ - y x r ƒ r u ~ ~ s q Œ u t y ~ u y K @ M,, t u t., N. M. y t,,1992, ƒ. 64-65.