4.1 Article

Gender and job-related non-formal training: A comparison of 20 countries

Journal

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE SOCIOLOGY
Volume 56, Issue 6, Pages 433-459

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS INC
DOI: 10.1177/0020715215626769

Keywords

Cross-national comparison; gender differences; gender inequality; institutions; training

Categories

Funding

  1. Advanced Grant of the European Research Council (ERC) [269568]
  2. European Research Council (ERC) [269568] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article analyses gender differences in the participation in various types of job-related non-formal training in 20 societies and examines the relationship of these gender differences with country-specific institutional settings such as employment protection, family policies and the gender culture. Using data from the Programme for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC) and applying two-step multilevel regression analyses, two main findings are obtained: First, gendered participation clearly differs among training types, with women being less likely to participate in employer-financed training but more likely to participate in non-employer-sponsored training. These gender differences in training participation are crucial because they are likely to shape men's and women's career development in different ways, that is, by providing better future career prospects with the current employer for men and with a new employer for women. Second, country-specific settings can reduce gender differences in training participation: in countries with family policies supporting females' employment (e.g. good coverage of formal childcare and short parental leave), we found a lower training disadvantage of women in employer-financed training. In turn, gender differences in non-employer-sponsored training seem to be lower in countries with less rigid employment protection.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available