Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 87
Commentary
PAMELA STONE CAIN
Chapters 2, 3, and 4 view segregation from
three different vantage points. Beller pre-
sents an analysis of aggregate occupational
trends. Bielby and Baron explore the or-
ganization of jobs within firms. Rosenfelc!
looks at the occupational shifts of job chang-
ers. The resulting picture is a confusing one.
Beller emphasizes the decline in segrega-
tion from 1960 to 1981, Rosenfeld the ex-
istence of significant (i.e., nontrivial) move-
ment across the boundaries of sex-typed
occupations. In contrast, Bielby and Baron
highlight the finding that segregation is vir-
tually complete across jobs and firms of widely
varying characteristics. From their results,
it appears that only about 10 percent of
workers are employed in integrated job ti-
tles, and even in those jobs they often work
at different sites or with different clients.
Moreover, Bielby and Baron found no de-
cline in job segregation over a period roughly
comparable to the one studied by Beller.
How to reconcile these results? In part,
the contradictions can be attributed to inter-
pretation. Although the segregation index
declined at an ever-increasing rate, Beller
finds that the resulting level of segregation
was still very high: in 1981 approximately
87
60 percent of workers of either sex would
have had to change occupations in order to
achieve identical male and female distri-
butions. Indeed, over a 20-year period, the
index dropped by only 5 percentage points.
Rosenfeld finds that over a 1- to 5-year
period, 10 to 15 percent of the individuals
in her sample of job changers moved from
an occupation typical of their sex to one that
was atypical; 60 to 70 percent moved from
an atypical to a sex-typical occupation. Thus,
over a relatively short period of time, only
about 15 to 30 percent of job changers failed
to cross the sex-typed boundary. These fig-
ures indicate a movement of individuals across
segregated occupations that is not imme-
diately obvious given the level and con-
stancy of segregation indices for the aggre-
gate distribution. These results, however,
like those of Beller, are less cause for op-
timism when one realizes that fewer than 5
percent ofthe 1973 Current Population Sur-
vey sample changed jobs. Their behavior,
then, represents a flux at the margin. Most
workers were stayers not movers, and, judg-
ing from the other papers in Part I, they
stayed in sex-typical jobs.
The inconsistency in results between Beller
OCR for page 88
88
PAMELA STONE CAIN
and Rosenfeld, on one hand, and Bielby and
Baron, on the other, is also attributable to
different units of analysis. Beller's and Ro-
senfeld's use of relatively aggregated occu-
pations underestimates the degree of seg-
regation, given the considerable heter-
ogeneity of jobs within even fairly detailed
three-digit census categories. Beller and Ro-
senfeld recognize this but nonetheless adopt
a more optimistic, "half full" interpretation
of their results. In light of Bielby and Bar-
on's findings and the considerations cited
above, a "half empty" interpretation might
be more in order.
This is not to deny that Belier and Rosen-
fekI found evidence of change, however in-
cremental and sIow-moving. Moreover, each
found that sex-typed patterns were most
yielding among younger workers. Both also
found that the clecline in segregation was con-
centrated among certain occupations, espe-
cially those in the professional, managerial,
service, and health care sectors. Other sec-
tors, particularly skilled crafts, appear to pre-
sent formidable barriers to women's entry.
Although Bielby and Baron found little
evidence of change, a case-by-case analysis
of those companies that did move toward!
greater integration led them to tentatively
identify several factors responsible for, or at
least facilitative of, such change. High on
their list are rapid growth in company size
and technological changes. To a lesser ex-
tent, the presence of a sizable female work
force was also helpful. Surprisingly, federal
intervention in the form of contract com-
pliance regulations during the early period
appears to have had no impact on segrega-
tion. By enabling an empirical assessment
of the correlates (if not the causes) of seg-
regation, Bielby and Baron's unique firm-
level focus contributes immensely to a bet-
ter understanding of the overall downward
trend in segregation that Beller documents.
Beller attributes the decline primarily to
equal employment opportunity legislation
and enforcement activities, citing the en-
actment of Title VII and the Equal Rights
Act early in the period under study. Putting
aside questions about using time-ordering
as a basis for attributing cause, the credi-
bility of this interpretation is undermined
by what we know about the slowness and
inefficiency of the enforcement process and
by the limited scope of some federal en-
forcement efforts, especially contract com-
pliance.
Bielby and Baron's cross-sectional and
longitudinal analyses suggest that more im-
portant than regulatory efforts are larger
structural changes in the economy that lead
to the creation of new types of work, to new
forms of work organization, and/or to changes
in employee-employer relationships. They
find less pronounced segregation in estab-
lishments engaged in nonmanual service
work, with unspecialized job structures and
an absence offormal bargaining agreements.
Larger firms with well-structured internal
labor markets as well as very small firms
were extremely segregated.
Projecting these results and assuming that
the factors Bielby and Baron identify are
causes not correlates of segregation, there
is reason to believe that segregation could
decline as the national economy shifts from
a manufacturing to a service base and the
number of workers covered by collective
bargaining drops. Countering these trends,
however, are trends toward larger firm size
and greater bureaucratization. Unfortu-
nately, the main effects of each factor can
be disentangled only in multivariate analy-
ses and then only if the individual factors
are not highly correlated with one another.
Ultimately, it is the complex interplay of
these factors that will determine the direc-
tion of segregation in the 1980s, and it is
difficult to predict this outcome given our
current level of understanding. Certainly, a
continuation of the downward trend that
Beller documents cannot be taken for
granted, given the scenario that Bielby and
Baron depict.
Confounding these structural changes that
may affect segregation are the changes noted
OCR for page 89
COMMENTARY
89
by Rosenfeld in women's family and house-
hold responsibilities, which have been brought
on largely by inflation, unemployment, and
divorce. As their paychecks become increas-
ingly critical to household survival, women
can even less afford, if indeed they ever could,
cr , ,,
women s wor <.
Given that naturally occurring trends have
opposing implications for segregation and
that many previous interventions appear to
have had little effect, what policy implica-
tions can be drawn from these papers? Bielby
and Baron's contention is persuasive that,
with such widespread segregation, any in-
tervention is warranted. What, then, should
be the focus of intervention? Beller views
the sex composition of occupations as es-
pecially amenable to manipulation, presum-
ably through the use of quotas and various
affirmative action strategies. Enhancing the
success ofthis strategy would be the changes
in younger workers' job preferences that are
already taking place.
Bielby and Baron's results suggest that
the solution may not be straightforward.
Fundamental forms of workplace organiza-
tion appear to be in need of alteration if
segregation is to abate. Some of the crucial
factors they identify (e.g., firm size, degree
of job differentiation, and unionization) are
outside the scope of government interven-
tion as typically conceived. If their analysis
is correct, the greatest hope for future in-
tegration may lie not in the public policy
domain but in the hands of workers them-
seIves, through either more enlightened
collective bargaining or other mechanisms
of workplace democracy. The complex or-
ganization of the contemporary workplace
appears to play a major role in maintaining
segregation. This organization can perhaps
be changed only from within.
Women moving into professional and
managerial positions may be a catalyst in
transforming the traditional organizational
structures that have functioned so long to
exclude them. As other papers in this vol-
ume suggest, however, change will not be
accomplished easily or without resistance
(see, for example, Boos and Reskin).
Turning to the research implications of
these papers, Bielby and Baron's paper re-
minds us of the distinction between re-
search questions and researchable ques-
tions. On the face of it, such guiding questions
as "Why is there job segregation?" and "What
causes it?" are plausible until it is recog-
nized that the level of job segregation may
not vary substantially. As a virtual constant,
job segregation defies social science, as all
our empirical methods determine cause and
effect through covariation of variables. Thus,
in the absence of variation, we cannot really
dd . . .. .
explam segregation.
This predicament may direct us to explore
phenomena that do vary to see what they
can tell us about sex segregation. For ex-
ample, particular occupations and jobs have
changed sex type, i.e., are no longer mainly
female or male. Newly emerging occupa-
tions such as computer programming, as
Beller finds, are becoming rapidly identified
with one sex. Bielby and Baron's work also
points out that, although the level of seg-
regation does not vary much from firm to
firm, specific jobs may be female in one firm
and male in another. These examples lead
to interest in historical or comparative in-
quiries into the determinants of the sex com-
position of a job or job family.
A new research question dictates changes
in methods. Ibe importance affirms in Bielby
and Baron's work establishes the importance
of using jobs rather than occupations as the
unit of analysis and the concomitant need
for firm-specific data. This is not merely be-
cause the use of job data uncovers more
segregation, but because job-level analysis
picks up organizational context and varia-
tions in hiring and allocation that occupa-
tional-level analysis does not. Firms appear
to exert a strong effect on occupations, and
disregarding their context may obscure more
than it illuminates. For example, it is dif-
ficult to know what the occupational shifts
Rosenfeld measured represent, especially as
OCR for page 90
go
PAMELA STONE CAIN
we do not know whether they were volun-
tary or involuntary moves. Moreover, the
high rate of movement across sex-typed oc-
cupations may be misleading. A move to a
sex-atypical occupation is not necessarily a
move to an integrated job.
Focusing on jobs, not occupations, raises
problems of data availability. Few individ-
ual-leve! surveys have any information on
respondents' jobs or firms. At firms them-
seives, it is often difficult to obtain coop-
eration and access. These problems point to
the need for new data collection efforts to
supplement existing surveys. More broadly,
the difficulties Beller encountered in com-
piling a series of data on occupational seg-
regation should alert us to the need for im-
proved national statistical reporting systems
that would enable us to monitor this critical
indicator of sex equity. But prospects for
better data at the national level are not en-
couraging, given the current political cTi-
mate. The agency within the U. S. Depart-
ment of Labor, for example, that collected
the data Bielby and Baron used in their anal-
ysis has now been all but shut down.
Bielby and Baron's paper also under-
scores the need for new analytic strategies.
Their survey analysis complements case
studies by Rosabeth Moss Kanter (Men and
Women of the Corporation, Basic Books,
New York, 1977) and others, and, in their
careful attention to selected firms (outliers),
they blend case study and survey method-
ologies. The richness oftheir analysis should
settle the debate between those who ad-
vocate one method over another. Clearly we
need both, especially in this area, because
of the problems of obtaining valid survey
data on jobs and firms from either workers
or employers.
Finally, how do these studies enlighten
the major debate of whether segregation is
the result of employee choice or employer
discrimination? These papers offer evidence
for both positions. Within firms, Bielby and
Baron document the existence of powerful
mechanisms of control that would support
an employer-side explanation. Among work-
ers, Rosenfeld shows considerable circula-
tion across sex-typed occupations. More-
over, she finds some evidence that male
employees are making rational choices in
their avoidance of lower-paying, female-
dominated occupations as their family re-
sponsibilities increase. The question of
cause employee or employer—is un-
doubtedly too simply framed. The different
levels of analysis and seemingly contradic-
tory findings of these papers highlight the
complexity of the etiology of job segrega-
tion.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
job segregation
