跳到正文
← 返回论文列表与筛选
阅读说明

本页整理公开书目信息,不生成学术质量评分。AI 解读根据题名及所注明的摘要或原文片段生成,未完成全文核验,可能有误;具体假设、证明与结论请核对原文。摘要保留来源文本,未经模型改写。

DOI 首次登记不等于接收或发表日期。部分更正、评论等条目没有独立摘要;缺少可靠材料时保留待补状态。

引用量采用 OpenAlex 单条关联记录,不合计多个记录;关联记录可能包含正式发表版本,不等于此版本单独引用。缺失不视为零,引用指标不代表论文质量。

关注作者按书目中的完整姓名匹配,同名和姓名变体需人工辨别。相关论文先按共享细分方向和具体方法排列,再参考通用方法与发表日期。

分类依据与纠错

AI 根据所提供的论文材料归类:摘要明确利用政策宣传冲击与双重差分设计研究招聘及企业性别构成的因果变化。

反馈分类问题

正在核对关联版本…

代码、数据与补充材料

正在核对对应版本的资源…

关注这篇论文的作者
David Card
Fabrizio Colella
Rafael Lalive

招聘广告中的性别偏好与工作场所性别多样性

研究问题
奥地利禁止招聘广告明示性别偏好的执法宣传,是否改变岗位录用的性别构成,并影响企业和职业的性别多样性?
方法与思路
作者合并招聘广告与雇主记录,用宣传前数据预测岗位性别偏好,再以预测无偏好的岗位为参照开展双重差分分析。
材料陈述的贡献
摘要称,原本偏好男性或女性的岗位及企业均增加了另一性别的占比,企业存续、就业总量和平均工资未见影响。
阅读关注点
应核对预测性别偏好的构造、双重差分的平行趋势证据、企业与岗位样本的衔接,以及同期政策和招聘构成变化。
阅读边界
仅据所给 Crossref 摘要,不能判断因果识别条件是否成立;摘要未报告效应精度,未见影响也不等于排除所有经济影响。

原文摘要

Abstract In Spring 2005, the Ombud for Equal Treatment in Austria launched a campaign notifying employers and newspapers that gender preferences in job ads were illegal. At the time, over 40% of vacancies on the nation’s largest job board stated a gender preference; within a year the rate fell below 5%. We merge job board vacancies and employer records to study how the campaign affected hiring choices and the gender diversity of occupations and workplaces. Using pre-campaign data, we predict the use of gender preferences, then conduct a difference-in-differences analysis of hiring outcomes for vacancies with predicted male or female preferences, relative to those with no predicted preferences. The elimination of explicit gender preferences boosted the share of women hired for jobs that were likely to be targeted to men (and vice versa). At the firm level, we find that the campaign led to a rise in the share of women at firms that were more likely to use male stated gender preferences (SGP’s), and a symmetric increase in the share of men at firms that were likely to use female SGP’s, with no effects on firm survival, employment, or average wages.

笔记与分组
相关领域论文