ONLY 5.7 per cent of managerial positions are occupied by women in Pakistan. A common argument for explaining this low statistic is that there are just not enough qualified women. True, women on average see lower educational achievement than men. Similarly, women also enter and remain in the labour market at much lower rates. But, labour force participation rates for women with tertiary levels of education are about 32pc. Why then do such low numbers make it to managerial (and higher) positions? Is this really a supply-side problem or are there other factors at play?

Conducting in-depth interviews with women in Lahore shows women opting out of high-pressure jobs and roles. Here, most of the higher-income, highly educated women interviewed cited care burdens, mother’s guilt and a desire to spend more time with family as some of the primary reasons why they have cut back on working hours or passed up on promotions. This ‘motherhood penalty’ has been well-documented within the literature. The high-time poverty faced by such women also means that when given the choice, they would be unwilling to enter and stay in the labour market unless they are well-compensated. Unfortunately, gender wage gaps are pervasive across all labour market sectors.

Using 30 years of the Pakistan Labour Force surveys, we found evidence of wage differences between men and women with similar levels of education who occupy similar positions on the occupation ladder. Can differences in experience help explain these wage gaps? Women on average take more breaks in their career and avail less training opportunities, negatively affecting their on-the-job experience. Besides, higher care work burdens and frequent career breaks translate into less time spent both at work and work-related events. This, in turn, affects the types of social contacts and networks women are able to build. Indeed, women have lower, less diverse networks. This negatively impacts the extent and type of mentoring that they receive as well as the information flows that they can tap into for career advancement. That these differences would then be penalised in the form of lower lifetime earnings relative to men is unsurprising.

Yet, women may also be purposely locked out of opportunities and networks. This gatekeeping is partly driven by the gender-segregated nature of our society and the separation in social activities and circles that this inevitably leads to. But, also by the high incidence of discrimination against women documented for the Pakistani labour market.

Gender wage gaps are pervasive across all labour market sectors.

Careful disaggregation performed on labour market outcomes shows that gender gaps cannot entirely be explained by such characteristics as age, education, experience, etc and that there are unobservables such as biases and sociocultural norms at play. Obvious examples of discrimination include harassment, institutionalised lower wages for women, or prejudice against hiring or promoting women because of stereotyping. More covert examples are seemingly well-meaning policies that perpetuate cycles of disadvantages specific to women and market segmentation where we find women (and men) confined to certain professions based on their gender.

In Pakistan, we typically find women’s concentration in careers that are extensions of their caregiving roles such as teaching and nursing. What is telling here is that not only are female-dominated professions systematically lower paid than male-dominated ones, a difference which cannot be entirely explained by considering observable characteristics, but that even in these female-dominated fields we often find men in more senior positions and at higher pay. Thus, there is an additional layer of discrimination embedded within the already segmented market.

That women are locked out of certain professions, and equally qualified women are paid lower wages than men, goes against the pillars of just remuneration: Employment and equal pay for work of equal value are internationally recognised as fundamental human rights. Yet, aside from speaking to questions of justice, a systemic absence of women at positions of power has wider and deeper consequences.

Women leaders and managers have been shown to have a markedly different set of preferences and behaviours when compared to their male counterparts. Women have been found to have a more transformational leadership style, focusing on motivating their followers, fostering collaboration and emphasising ethical behaviour. In contrast, men have been found to have a more transactional leadership style, which is more task-oriented and based on rewards. This is not to say that one style of leadership is better relative to the other. Rather, the difference means that an organisation can be that much more well-rounded in its approach to various situations when both genders are represented up the ladder.

These differences across men and women continue when we look at responses to crises or even approaches to design because of a higher tendency among women to emphasise communication and empathy. The gendered variations in approaches, style, and preferences become especially relevant when we look at the case of policymaking. Women have been shown to prioritise separate sets of issues, such as those related to health, education, the environment, peace and security and social welfare, when compared to men. Women also tend to advocate at higher rates for marginalised and vulnerable populations.

Moreover, the inclusion of women in governance and policymaking has not only been associated with better policy outcomes but also with more effective governance as well as lower levels of corruption. A dearth of women in leadership and policymaking roles then means under-representation of not just significant areas of intervention but also of specific populations; leaving all of us worse off when we have fewer women in power. Indeed, if we are to make consistent moves towards a just, peaceful, and sustainable world, we must do better to include and champion our women.

The writer is chair of the Department of Economics at Lums.

Published in Dawn, August 23rd, 2024