Comments from discussant on PMMA 20000

Post Reply
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2018 1:05 am

Comments from discussant on PMMA 20000

Post by chanhang » Tue Jun 12, 2018 10:09 am

Thank you for your presentation and congratulation for the completion of your final report. I like your paper and I enjoy reading it very much. I have some suggestions which I hope that you find them useful as follows:

• You should provide an abstract on the first page of your paper in order to provide a summary of your paper. And you should also put page number.

• In your introduction section, you should provide a few lines telling about your methodology and findings in order to hook the audience.

• In your literature review section, you tend to focus mainly on Europe, and I am wondering whether there is similar experience in other regions, such as Latin America.

• The section on “Austerity measures introduced in Serbia in late 2014” should be set as a separate section as it is main section of your report. And it should be expanded a little bit more as it provides main context of the study. For instance, why 2015, but not later? Why wage cut and pension cut, but not social expenditures? And there should be more explanation on how the study arrives at the fact that a 10% wage cut is applied to public wages higher than 25,000 dinars.

• On the data section, do you have data on pension cut at household level? Since the main pillars of the austerity program in your study include both cut in wage and pension, I think you should introduce pension cut in your estimation equation. Additionally, because there is also potential effect of cut in social expenditure on care for children resulting in increase in demand for women’s unpaid labor, I think you should also control for social expenditure if data is available.

• Since you are using household survey data, it would be interesting if you could describe how survey data was collected.

• You might want to consider adding education of individual because it is also main determinant of labor force participation.

• I am also wondering whether you have data up to 2017. And if you have, it would be more interesting to see whether the effect persists over time.

• For the result section, in Table A2, you may consider running the same multinomial probit model by excluding interaction term between gender and wage cut to see whether there is an effect of wage cut on the general population.

• In addition to that, since data is group at household and community levels, I am wondering whether you cluster your standard error at both household and community levels. And because you use quarterly data in your analysis you should also consider clustering your standard error at the individual level.

• For Table 4 column 1, do you have any reason to why the effect of wage cut regime 3 larger than that of wage cut regime 2.
Last, there should be some policy implications in the conclusion section since there is unintended consequence of the austerity measures, which is the transition of women from public sector labor to inactivity.


Post Reply

Return to “Gender pay gap in times of austerity – PMMA 20000”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests