Cross-Gender Asymmetry in Human Capital and Labor Market Effects
RCTClinical Trial
When labor market interventions target jobs specifically seeking female employees, it is unclear whether the resulting economic benefits, educational investments, and employment shifts spill over to men within the same communities.
Picture this
Imagine a scholarship program created exclusively for female high school students in a town. While young women study harder and apply for college, young men do not change their study habits or career paths because the specific economic reward is not applicable to them.
What the evidence says
Treatment had zero statistically significant impact on men's BPO employment (0.003, p > 0.10), total paid employment (-0.006, p > 0.10), enrollment in school/training (0.003, p > 0.10), or likelihood of marriage (-0.006, p > 0.10).
- Who was studied
- Men aged 15–21 (schooling/marriage) and men aged 18–24 (employment) across 160 rural villages.
- How
- Randomized controlled trial tracking male outcomes across treatment and control villages as a counterfactual check for female-targeted intervention.
What to do
Target labor market interventions specifically by gender when attempting to close gender-specific gaps in education and workforce participation.
From the source
"In sharp contrast to the results for women, there are no effects for young men... the recruiting treatment had no impact on enrollment, training, employment, or marriage for young men."
517 labor market opportunities QJE April '12.pdf