CASE Network Studies and Analyses 406 - The Gender Pay Gap in Informal Employment in Poland

CASE Network Studies & Analyses No.406 The Gender Pay Gap in Informal Employment…
Materials published here have a working paper character. They can be subject to further
publication. The views and opinions expressed here reflect the author(s) point of view and not
necessarily those of CASE Network.
This publication is based on the research supported by a grant from the CERGE-EI Foundation
under a program of the Global Development Network.
Key words: gender pay gap, informal employment, quantile regression
1
JEL Codes: J31, O17, J71
© CASE – Center for Social and Economic Research, Warsaw, 2010
Graphic Design: Agnieszka Natalia Bury
EAN 9788371785160
Publisher:
CASE-Center for Social and Economic Research on behalf of CASE Network
12 Sienkiewicza, 00-010 Warsaw, Poland
tel.: (48 22) 622 66 27, 828 61 33, fax: (48 22) 828 60 69
e-mail: case@case-research.eu
http://www.case-research.eu

2
Contents
Abstract .....................................................................................................................................4
1. Introduction .........................................................................................................................5
2. Literature Review.................................................................................................................6
2.1. Gender wage gap..........................................................................................................6
2.2. Informal economy.........................................................................................................9
3. Data And Methodology......................................................................................................14
3.1. Data ...............................................................................................................................14
3.2. Methodology .................................................................................................................15
4. Results .................................................................................................................................20
4.1. Descriptive statistics....................................................................................................20
4.2. Earnings inequality.......................................................................................................23
4.3. Quantile Regression.....................................................................................................25
5. Conclusions.........................................................................................................................32
References...............................................................................................................................34
Appendix..................................................................................................................................39

Magdalena Rokicka is an economist, currently a candidate for Ph. D at the Institute for Social
and Economic Research (Essex University). She holds a MA degree in economics from Warsaw
University, and has obtained a postgraduate study diploma in Cross-Cultural Studies. She has
worked for CASE-Center for Social and Economic Research since 2004, participating in its
numerous projects including: Poland's Shadow Economy: its size, characteristics and social
consequences, ESCIRRU (Economic and Social Consequences of Industrial Restructuring in
Russia and Ukraine, ENEPO (The Eastern Neighbourhood: Economic Potential and Future
Development), Mobility of Polish Researcher. Her current research interests are mainly in the
area of labour market economics, including : gender related aspects of labour market, family
and work- life balance, self-employment creation, and informal employment . She is fluent in
English and French and has a working knowledge of Russian language.
Anna Ruzik, Ph.D, is an expert and author of publications in the fields of labour economics and
social policy. Since 2004, she has been participating in numerous research projects carried out
by CASE. Dr. Ruzik is employed as an assistant professor at the Warsaw School of Economics
and at the Institute of Labour and Social Studies in Warsaw.
3

4
Abstract
This paper addresses the issue of the gender pay gap in the formal and informal labour markets
in Poland. The authors verify the hypothesis of the existence of a gender pay gap in informal
work and compare this gap with the one observed in the formal (registered) labour market.
Various analyses of available data show that size and characteristics of gender pay gap differ
depending on the level of earnings. The inequality of earnings among unregistered women and
men is more pronounced at the bottom tail of the earnings distribution. In the case of formal
employees, inequality at the top of the distribution tends to be larger, confirming the existence of
a ‘glass ceiling’.
The decomposition of the gender pay gap for selected quintiles indicates that it would be even
higher if women had men’s characteristics.
A possible explanation of the results is the lack of minimum wage regulations in the informal
market and the greater flexibility in agreement on wages in the higher quantiles.

5
1. Introduction
In the expanding stream of economic literature on gender aspects of the labour market, scant
attention is given to the empirical analysis of male and female earnings differences in informal
work. Even less can be found in terms of empirical analyses for the so called transition
countries of Central and Eastern Europe. Furthermore, no specific analyses on the gender pay
gap have been carried out in the transition economies in the context of differences between the
formal and informal labour markets.
The main purpose of our study is to analyse if informal labor has any impact on the gender pay
gap in Poland. Specifically, we will:
· verify the hypothesis of the existence of a gender pay gap in informal (unregistered)
employment,
· check if it is larger or smaller than that in the formal (registered) labour market,
· try to explain possible differences between pay gaps in the two labour markets.
The paper has the following structure. First, we present the literature review and general findings
on the gender pay gap in developed countries, followed by a review of the gender pay gap
specifically in Poland, and finally on the economics of the informal labour market. Section III
describes the dataset used and the methodology chosen for the analyses. That leads to the
presentation in Section IV of the results of the analyses of wage distribution, as well as returns
to different characteristics for female and male participants of the formal and informal labour
market. Section V concludes and discusses possible further research. The last parts of the
paper are appendixes and a list of cited literature.

6
2. Literature Review
2.1. Gender wage gap
Gender wage discrimination and the size of the gender pay gap are frequently researched fields
in labour economics. The growing importance of this issue can be seen by its presence in the
major labour economics textbooks (Ashenfelter and Card (ed.), 1999; Bosworth et al., 1996,
Cahuc and Zyberberg, 2004).
Apart from pure discrimination, the wage rates of women and men also differ because of non-discriminatory
factors connected with e.g. the generally shorter work experience of females due
to different family duties (see e.g. O’Neill 2003). Altonji and Blank (1999) show that differences in
earnings (and also in occupation and employment patterns) may result from differences in
unobservable characteristics like preferences and skills, rather than discrimination.
Numerous empirical studies have been conducted to analyse the size of an earnings gap
between women and men, and to estimate to what extent the gap results from differences in
education, tenure, age, experience and to what extent it results from returns to observable
characteristics in favour of men i.e. if it is an effect of discrimination. (e.g. Blau, 2000).
Our review of empirical findings supports the trend of a decline in gender wage discrimination
since the 1960s in industrialized countries. An international analysis by Weichselbaumer and
Winter-Ebmer (2005) indicates a decrease in the gender wage differential from about 65 percent
in the 1960s to 30 percent in the 1990s in favour of men. That may reflect progress in women’s
education and increased job experience, as well as the broad introduction of non-discrimination
regulations. The meta regression analysis carried out by Jarrel and Stanley (2004) also showed
a strong trend for the estimates of wage discrimination to decline. Interestingly, it seems that
there is a tendency for male researchers to report larger discrimination estimates.
The hypothesis that the institutional framework of a specific labour market and regulations
concerning compensation matter for the gender pay gap was confirmed in a number of papers.
Elvira and Graham (2002), in their paper on the relationship between pay system formalization
and gender earnings effects, used personnel data from Fortune 500 financial corporations to
show the existence of a negative relationship between earnings and the proportion of females in
a job. This finding supports the conclusions of other researchers (e.g. England et al., 1988) that

the higher the proportion of women in a job, the lower the earnings for both women and men in
that job. Larger gender-related earnings differences in the same job have been found in
companies where bonus programs (apart from the basic wage) exist.
Results of models based on microdata for 22 countries over the 1985-94 period by Blau and
Kahn (2003) show that an overall wage compression and a low female labour supply relative to
demand reduce a country’s gender pay gap. Additionally, wage-setting mechanisms, such as
collective bargaining agreements that result in relatively high wage floors, raise the relative pay
of women.
It would be also interesting to explore the effect of competition on the wage gap between men
and women. Does market competition tend to reduce discrimination by employers?
Weichselbaumer and Winter-Ebmer (2007) describe different theories on discrimination that
show that more competition may or may not lead to a reduction in gender wage gaps. A number
of studies have indeed found a negative relationship between competition and the gender wage
gap at the industry or firm level. On the other hand, gender differences with respect to
competitive behaviour may explain part of the male-female wage differential leading to higher
wage differentials given higher competitive pressure.
This poses an interesting research question on whether a more competitive shadow economy
labour market would cause more or less gender pay discrimination. Due to greater family duties,
women are usually more interested in having flexible work hours. This trend could have an effect
on their preferences towards informal work and the earnings they are willing to accept in such
employment.
As the main part of our empirical work in this paper is for Poland, let us now have a closer look
at the size of the gender pay gap in countries that started to transition from centrally planned
economies to market economies in the beginning of the 1990s. For this area, the economic
literature is smaller but still expanding, see e.g. Jurajda (2003), Adamchik and Bedi (2003),
Newell and Reilly (2001), or Brainerd (2000).
It is a well known fact in transition economies that the distribution of income has become more
concentrated since the beginning of 1990s. Growing differences between income levels have
brought inequality coefficients closer to that of the OECD countries (see e.g. Milanovic 1997).
This was caused on one hand by the restructuring of sectors, lay-offs, and the emergence of
open unemployment, and on the other hand by a closer link (at least in the private sector)
between productivity and wages. Analyses conducted by the European Foundation (2005) point
to an observed improvement in the gender pay ratio since the pre-transition period for certain
7

Central and Eastern European countries and a slowdown of this improvement in recent years
with variation between countries. Paci (2002) discusses changes in the labour market caused by
the transition in countries of Europe and Central Asia. Despite the crude pay gap decline in the
first years of the transition in the region, preliminary empirical evidence for some countries
suggests there is still a high degree of wage discrimination.
In Poland, basic stylised facts on differences in monthly full-time gross wages in the official
labour market can be derived from the biannual survey on wages in companies employing 9 or
more workers. In 1996-2006, at least in the formal labour market, the factors that most
differentiated wages that women and men earned were: education (with the highest difference in
favour of men among employees with tertiary education) and type of occupation (with clerks and
office workers as the relatively most “equal” groups and senior officials and professionals as the
group with the highest gender pay gap). Age was less important as far as the gender pay was
concerned1.
More comprehensive studies for Poland also show that the gender pay gap declined at the
beginning of the period of transition compared to its pre-transitional level, and that it has
remained more or less stable since that time. Grajek (2001) investigated the earnings gap
between women and men in Poland over the years 1987-1996 (using Household Budget Survey
individual data) and suggested that women gained in the very first years of transition. The
difference in log percentage points of the gender wages decreased from 34.5 in 1987 to 24.3 per
cent in 1996. Adamchik and Bedi (2003) used Labour Force Survey individual data for the years
1993-97. In this period the gender wage gap ceteris paribus was at a similar level of 22-23
percent and most of the explained gap was due to industrial and occupational segregation.
Marcinkowska (2005) focused on specific groups within the labour force. She analysed the
gender wage gap among young people in Poland (aged 18-29) and found that young women
aged 25-29 earn less by about 15.2 percent than men. The comparable figure is lower among
workers aged 18-24, amounting to 12.6 percent.
Marcinkowska et al. (2008) also studied changes in the wage structure in Poland in the years
1996-2006 using different labour market and individual characteristics. They based their
estimates on two data sources: the biannual Central Statistical Office survey of gross wages in
companies employing 9 or more employees and on the Labour Force Survey information on net
wages. The authors found that pay differentiation between females and males decreased in the
1 Based on data from the biannual wage survey conducted by the Central Statistical Office of Poland, available at
www.stat.gov.pl.
8

described period. That confirms results of earlier analyses by e.g. Newell and Reilly (2001). The
between-sex differentiation is lower and decreasingly important as an explanation of all wage
differentiation in Poland.
Newell and Socha (2005), on the basis of quantile analyses using LFS data for 1992–2002,
showed that many of the factors influencing wages, including gender, have a stronger impact in
higher quintiles for higher wages. This suggests that women are discriminated mainly in jobs or
positions with a relatively better pay.
9
2.2. Informal economy
One of the motivations of our study originates from differences in the formal and informal
economy. As argued by Renooy (1990), the informal economy: lacks formal regulations and
laws, is perceived as more flexible than the formal economy, interacts with the formal economy,
is highly fragmented (functioning only in certain specific areas), relies predominantly on
social/family networks, and has a low entry threshold.
Research on the informal economy tends to focus mainly on its macroeconomic aspects.
Socioeconomic, institutional, and political factors are analysed in order to establish a causal
relation between levels of development, taxation, legislation, protective labour policy, and the
existence of informality in the economy (Chong et al., 2007; Johansson, 2009; Karlinger, 2009;
Maloney 2004). Furthermore, the lack of appropriate data results in a number of studies aimed
at estimations of the size and scope of the informal market (Frey et al., 1983; Schneider and
Enste, 2000).
Micro-level analysis is mostly limited by the unwillingness of respondents to openly admit
engaging in unofficial activities, which results in a shortage of reliable data (Jutting et al., 2008).
Another issue in micro analyses arises from the variety of alternative definitions of informal
economy, which makes comparison of empirical studies quite complex and, as shown by Henley
et al. (2006), it could lead to contradicting conclusions.
According to the conventional approach of labour market segmentation, informal workers do not
compete with formal workers, as they belong to a ‘secondary sector’. This sector is
characterised by low-skilled and unstable jobs with low wages and poor working conditions. Yet,
recently, a new approach has been suggested. The argument has been put forth that informal
employment is a free choice, and those who work in the informal sector are maximising their
utility, weighing the costs and benefits of these two sectors (Perry et al., 2007). Fields (2005)

builds on those two approaches and distinguishes between an ‘upper tier’ and a ‘lower tier’. The
“upper tier” comprises the competitive part, i.e. those who voluntarily choose to be informal, and
the “lower tier” is the part that consists of individuals who cannot afford to be unemployed but
have no hope to get a formal job (Fields, 2005). Similar heterogeneity among those voluntary
and involuntary workers was also reported by Henley at al. (2006) and (Perry et al., 2007).
In line with this approach were studies of the impact of minimum wage on informal employment.
The theoretical model suggested by Fiszbein (1992) shows that a decrease in minimum wage
does not necessary imply benefits for informal employees. Empirical evidence for Costa Rica by
Terrell et al. (2001) also gives a mixed picture. On the one hand, the evidence shows that a unit
increase in the minimum wage is associated with an increase in the average number of hours
worked per week by 0.14 percent in the formal sector and 0.34 percent in the informal sector. On
the other hand, the authors do not find supportive evidence to indicate that an increase in the
minimum wage has any impact on the size of the informal sector (measured by the number of
informal workers).
According to empirical studies, the probability of participating in the informal sector is also
determined by socio-demographic factors such as age, level of education, gender, and marital
status. As summed up by Jutting et al., (2008) individuals enter the informal market in certain
moments of their lives. They may start their careers in the informal market in order to gain
valuable experience and then move to formal employment, and, as some studies suggest, they
may return to the informal market again when they are older. One’s marital status and gender
also have a considerable impact on choice of sector. Heads of households and single women
are more often found among formal employees, while dependent household members,
especially in households with young children, are more likely to work informally (Perry et al.
2007).
A review of the literature reveals some interesting gender patterns of informal employment.
In developing countries, women outnumber men in the informal sector as a consequence of the
underdevelopment of local labour markets (Maloney 2004). As it is argued by Cunningham
(2001) that this disproportion may be also a result of women’s choice, especially if they care for
small children, and is motivated by the flexibility of jobs offered in the informal sector. Results for
Ukraine for a 2005 study presented by Williams et al. (2008) are consistent with two of the
studies above: almost 64 per cent of Ukrainian women participated in the informal market in the
previous year compared to 59 per cent of men.
10

However, empirical studies for EU Member States do not confirm this pattern. In developed
countries, women tend to participate less than men in undeclared work. As stated in the EC
report on undeclared work (Renooy et al., 2004): ‘in Denmark, almost three times more men
than women carry out undeclared work (29.4 % and 11.5 %, respectively). In Germany, Sweden
and the UK, male participation is generally twice as high: 14.5 % and 6.5 % respectively in
Germany, 15.4 % and 7 % in Sweden and 10.3 % and 5.4 % in UK.’
Also Andresen et al. (2005), using repeated survey data for Norway, confirm a substantial
overrepresentation of males in the informal market as they found that the probability of having
an unreported income is higher among men than women. Moreover, they point out that between
1980 and 2003, a significant number of women left the shadow economy, while the population of
men working without registration remained relatively unchanged. They explain this trend by the
increase in female participation in the formal market, the introduction of a more generous
maternity leave scheme, and the development of subsidized public childcare institutions2.
An interesting insight into labour market transitions (public, private, informal, and out of work) is
provided by Dimova et al. (2005) in their analysis for Bulgaria during the economic crisis. The
authors report a higher conditional probability of moving from the public to the informal sectors
for women (0.707) than for men (0.564), and find the same trend in the case of the transition
from the private formal sector into informal employment. Also Perry et al. (2007) claim higher
mobility between being out of work to informal self-employment for women as compared to men,
and point out that it is mainly due to the high participation of married women with children in this
sector.
Women’s participation in the informal economy in the context of family obligations is discussed
by Leonard (1998). She argues that childcare shapes determinants of female labour market
participation, though women often agree to do lower-paid and precarious jobs, which are mainly
provided on an unregulated basis. Pfau-Effinger (2009) further develops this concept. She
expresses the view that female participation in informal work is related to the different forms of
welfare state regimes. In a social democratic system, which provides adequate social coverage
(child care, elderly care, etc.), the need for female undeclared work is minimal. While in a
conservative welfare regime (for example Germany), the demand for domestic labour
considerably increases the number of people in the informal market, especially within the
household sector. In regards to the ‘Latin Rim’ she argues that cultural norms and ethics
2 As a result, demand for private predominantly unreported child care decreased.
11

discourage women, especially mothers with young children, from participating in the formal
labour market.
Not only has the participation rate in the informal sector indicated a clear division between
genders, the nature and characteristics of informal jobs differ too. Women work mainly in more
regular, but part-time jobs in sectors with traditional female overrepresentation (cleaning,
personal care, hotels and restaurant, etc.), which provide only supplements to family income
(Williams et al., 2008; Jutting et al., 2008; Renooy et al., 2004).
Scarce empirical evidence confirms the existence of a gender earnings gap in the informal
economy. Specifically Williams et al. (2008), using Ukrainian data for 2005, show that women
tend to receive on average 67% of the earning rate of men in the informal sector. Renoy et al.
(2004) also report than in the Netherlands, men earn on average 50% more per hour than
women do. Similar findings are shown for Latin America, where women earn on average 52% of
men’s earning rates, and this gap is larger than in the formal sector (64%) (Silveira and Matosas,
2005). However, as argued by Silveira and Matosas (2005), there is evidence of a diminishing
gender pay gap in the informal sector in this region.
According to special modules of the Polish Labour Force Survey on informal work conducted in
1998 and 2004 by the Central Statistical Office, the size of the informal sector in Poland is
diminishing (GUS 2004). However, in 2004, still around 9.6 per cent of the working population
was engaged in either full-time or temporary informal jobs. The main reasons for choosing the
informal sector as indicated by respondents were: the need to have any kind of income, the lack
of jobs opportunities in the formal sector, and the aspiration to have higher income than in formal
jobs. There were evident disparities in answers depending on the place of residence: town or
village, and gender. Jobs in the informal sector tend to be concentrated in the construction and
repairs, trade, private tutorial, and child care sectors. For 60 per cent of respondents, informal
work was their main source of income.
Women represented 37 per cent of informal employees. Furthermore, women tended to work in
the informal sector mostly in the middle of their carrier (35-45 years old). There were also visible
gender disparities with regards to the education level. Women tended to be better educated than
men, although the most numerous workers had only vocational education, regardless of gender
(69 per cent of informal workers had vocational education). According to 2004 data, there was a
considerable gender pay gap in favour of men. Women earned 79 per cent of men’s monthly
earnings, but because of the differences in work characteristics (full-time, part time, etc.) and the
12

unwillingness of respondents to provide accurate information, these results should be treated
with caution.
The informal sector seems to provide certain benefits as well as disadvantages. As summarized
by Jutting et al. (2008), the most common risks associated with informal work are:
· uncertainty and vulnerability,
· lack of social benefits related to formal work,
· worse and uncontrollable working conditions,
· potential fine.
13
While potential benefits are be as follows:
· higher pay,
· greater flexibility and autonomy,
· learning by doing and training opportunities (especially for young unskilled workers),
· free access to public goods.
Based on the above literature and empirical studies of the informal sector in both well developed
Western countries and in developing regions, we are able to formulate certain hypotheses,
which we can then test further using Polish data.
We expect that the gender pay gap in the informal, usually more competitive, unregulated
market differs from the gender pay gap in the formal sector. There are two main factors which
could have an impact on the earnings gap. First, based on previous studies, we can expect that
legal regulations will result in a lower gender pay gap in the formal economy as reported for
Ukraine (Williams et al., 2008), Netherlands (Renooy et al., 2004) and Mexico (Silveira and
Matosas, 2005). On the other hand, higher job flexibility, the autonomy of the informal market,
and the lack of regulation gives potential employees (including women) higher bargaining power,
which may result in a smaller earnings gap in this market. The final outcome is a result of these
two opposing forces. Taking the above reported heterogeneity of the informal market, we can
suppose that these factors play different roles in voluntary and involuntary informal jobs. In
voluntary jobs, bargaining power or more efficient use of special skills and ability, could lead to a
better position for women in the informal labour market. In contrast, low skilled involuntary jobs
in the informal sector do not provide such opportunities. Using several econometric approaches,
we will address these questions in the next part of our paper.

14
3. Data And Methodology
3.1. Data
We used cross-sectional data from 2007, which were collected within the project entitled
Poland's Shadow Economy: its size, characteristics, and social consequences financed by the
Polish Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (MPiPS, 2008). The data covers members of
randomly sampled households. The size of the sample was approximately 8,000 households.
The data refer to the non-institutionalized population and covered all persons aged 15 years and
over. The survey contained an extensive set of demographic characteristics: age, education,
marital status and also information about labour market status, hours worked, income in the
previous month, in both the primary and additional jobs. Because of the sensitive nature of the
analysed issue, the survey did not include a direct question about an informal job. Instead, there
were a number of questions which identified certain characteristics of the informal employment.
On the basis of this query, we considered a person to be informally employed in the following
cases:
· a paid employee who works on the basis of an oral contract only without being declared
to the authorities,
· an employee who is declared to the authorities but his/her social contribution payment
and tax deductions are intentionally diminished, generally by joint agreement, for
example a full-time worker is declared to earn half of the sum actually paid,
· a paid employee who has a legal primary job but who works without registration and
without paying taxes and social security contributions in other jobs,
· a self-employed person, who works without being declared to the authorities,
· a self-employed person who declares only a part of his/her services for tax purposes.
Our definition is also consistent with an approach suggested by the ILO in 2003, which includes
workers outside informal enterprises into the informal sector. In which informal employment
refers to: “total number of informal jobs, whether carried out in formal sector enterprises, informal
sector enterprises, or households” (ILO 2002).

In this paper we have excluded from our analysis any illegal activity which is associated with
crime and criminal action. The analysis is restricted to respondents between 15 and 65 years of
age, who reported their income in the last month before interview, and number of hours worked
in the same period with an income higher than 1 Polish Zloty. After excluding those who have
not met the criteria we ended up with 5276 observations in the sample: 2545 observation for
women and 2731 for men regardless the employment status. Those who were considered as
informal employees/self-employed represent around 8.5% of the sample (452 observations).
G 1 2 L(X )dX (1),
where L(X) is a Lorenz curve
1 = = = =x x a
15
3.2. Methodology
There is no perfect measure of earnings inequality; each of the inequality measures satisfies
certain conditions, while disregarding other properties. There are many ways to measure the
dispersion of income distribution. In our analysis, first, we estimated the earnings distribution in
the formal and informal economies in Poland in 2007, using deciles ratios, Gini coefficients, and
other entropy indices (including Theil index).
The commonly used Gini coefficient is a measure of dispersion based on the Lorenz curve3:
= - 1
0
The coefficient varies between 0, which indicates complete equality, and 1, which indicates
complete inequality.
The inequality measures which are symmetric and additively decomposable are Generalized
Entropy inequality indices. We applied several generalized entropy indices in our analysis since,
as we shall show, this allows for more detailed decompositions:

( / ) 1 , 0,1
1
= =
)
1
( 1)
( ) (
1
¹

-
x a
a a N
I x
N
i
a
a i m (2)
) ( / )log( / ), 1
1
( ) (
Theil I x i
1
N
N
i
i m m (3)
3 See: Dorfman, Robert, 1979, A Formula for the Gini Coefficient, „The Review of Economics and Statistics” vol. 61,
p.146-149.

CASE Network Studies Analyses No.406 The Gender Pay Gap in Informal Employment…
16
) log( / ), 0
1
= ( ) = (
x a
= =
0 N
1
MLD I x
N
i
i m (4),
where xi is a wage (earnings) of the i-th individual, N is a number of observations, μ is a mean of
earnings of N individuals.
The parameter ‘a’ specifies sensitivity to earnings differences in different parts of earnings
distribution: a0 is related to a greater sensitivity to higher earnings values, while a0
corresponds to a greater sensitivity to low earnings. Mean Log Deviation (MLD) is recognised as
relatively middle sensitivity. The value of indices varies between 0, which indicates total equality,
(everyone’s earnings are equal to a mean), and ln N (where only one individual has earnings).
The Theil index is equal to 0.5 for an inequality represented by a 74/26 distribution, and is 1 for
an inequality represented by an 82/18 distribution.
We could further decompose total inequality into a weighted sum of the inequalities within each
sub-group, plus inequality between groups:
I(x) = I within + I between (5)
This decomposition allows us to estimate earnings inequalities among men and compare them
with wage inequalities among women. We conducted the same decomposition twice, first using
information about informal employees, then applying the method to formal employees.
The next step is the measurement of the gender pay gap. As the raw gender pay gap could be a
result of the differences in productivity characteristics between the two genders, we applied a
method which allows for a more in-depth analysis. The main methodology used was the quantile
regression, as it gives a more detailed overview of wage characteristics depending on the wage
level. We first ran a regression on a pooled female and male sample, introducing a gender
specific variable. Then, we estimated quantile regression for each gender separately.
Quantile regression was introduced by Koenker and Bassett (1978). It is an extension of the
classical least squares estimation, in which instead of a mean estimation the estimation of the
quantile function is performed.
Let us assume that wage level depends linearly on a set of labour market characteristics:
q q = ' b + n i i y x (6)
The conditional quantile functions can be estimated by minimizing an asymmetrically weighted
of absolute errors (Koenker and Bassett 1978, Buchinsky 1998). If the conditional quantile of y,
qθ, is linear in x; q0 =xβ(θ), consequently, vector β(θ) is a solution to a:

q b q + - q -
b (q ) }
b q b q
min 1 (7)
i i y x y x
1 = - (8),
*
1 G = z a + e (9)
The Heckman model is based on the assumptions that both error terms (v, ε) are normally
distributed with the mean 0; (v, ε) is independent of X and Z. We used a probit model to estimate
equation (9), from this the Heckman correlation term (inverse of Mill’s ratio) is computed and
integrated into the wage equation (6).
17
( )
( )
( )
( )
i i
i y x i y x
i i i

-
: ³ :
where 0 θ1.
The estimator that minimizes (7) has good asymptotic properties: it is asymptotically normal
under general conditions (Cameron and Trivedi, 2009).
Sample selection – parametric approach
As only 56.5% of women aged 15-64 participate in the labour market in Poland, we have also
corrected for the selection into labour market.4 The reason for this is that we did not observe
wages of individuals who do not participate in the labour market. Individuals in employment tend
to have higher wages than those not in the labour force. As a result, the sample selection could
have biased our results if the selection was not random.5
In the analysis of female wage determinants, we applied the parametric procedure suggested by
Heckman (1979).
Let us assume that an individual is observed in employment only if a wage he is offered is above
his reservation wage:
i i G * W G '
where Wi is a wage, and G’1 is a reservation wage, so we could observe an indicator variable for
the employment G=1 if G*i0 and G=0 otherwise
1 1 1
Sample selection – semi-parametric approach
4 Data for 2007 based on Polish Labour Force Survey (Badanie Aktywności Ekonomicznej Ludności)
5 Because of the higher rate of male participation in labour market, we ignored the issue of sample selection in this
case.

As suggested by Buchinsky (1998), the parametric correction for the sample selection, which
assumes a specific distributional form of the disturbances, is not the best choice in the context of
quantile regression. Instead he recommends a non-parametric approach. Here, we decided to
use the semi-parametric estimator suggested by Klein and Spady (1993) to estimate the model
of labour market participation. Let us assume that Xi and μi are independent and the equation
has the form:
= ( a ) + m 0 Y g Z ' (10),
where g is an unknown function and the error term μ satisfies the condition:
E (m | Z ) = 0 , and Z is a set of explanatory variables of labour market participation.
Klein and Spady (1993) suggested estimating α using a maximum likelihood method. The log-likelihood
L = - Y - g X + Y g X (11)
i - i i i
- 18
function is given by:
(a ) (1 )ln (1 ˆ ( ' a )) ( ˆ ( ' a )), i i
i
i
whereaˆ maximizes L(α).
In the next step – using estimates from the above equation – a selectivity term is constructed.
We follow Buchinsky (1998) and calculate the selectivity term as:
( ) ( ) 1 = ˆ + ˆ - j
sj P g l m s g (12),
where:
λ - the usual inverse Mill’s ratio,
mˆ - the constant, and
sˆ - the slope coefficient from a probit regression of yi on the index g( xi, aˆ )
Decomposition
Then, we used decomposition, which permits us to explain gender differences in the earnings
gap. Since the 1970s, researchers have typically used the Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition to
divide the observed average gender gap into two components. The first is the portion
attributable to differences in endowments (or skills), and the difference in coefficients (or return
to skills) (Blinder 1973; Oaxaca 1973)

D ln W = b m (X m - X f )+ (b m - b f )X m + se (13),
where lnW represents the log earnings evaluated by an earnings equation separately for males
and females. The indices f and m represent female and male earnings respectively, X is the
average observed variables related to labor supply and labor demand characteristics , b is the
estimated returns on these characteristics and se is the selection effect.
We used a similar technique, but instead of examining the sources of the differences between
the means of two distributions, we explained the differences in quantiles between the male and
female log income distributions. The approach allows for the decomposition of differences in
different parts of the distribution in order to show that discrimination can depend on the quantile
at which it is estimated. It decomposes the observed differences in distributions into one part
that is explained by differences in characteristics (justified differentials), and another part that is
explained by differences in coefficients (usually interpreted as discrimination) and residuals.
We followed the counterfactual decomposition approach suggested by Machado and Mata
(2005) with a contribution suggested by Melly (2006). Machado and Mata first ran a quantile
regression separately for men and women, and then generated counterfactual densities: one if
women were given men’s characteristics but were paid as women, another one if women
retained their characteristics but were paid as men. Then, the decomposition of the difference
between quantiles of the unconditional distribution of males (m) and females (f) could be written
as:
ˆ (q ) ˆ (q ) [ˆ (q ) ˆ (q ) ] [ˆ (q ) ˆ (q ) ] m f m Cm Cm f q - q = q - q + q - q (14),
where qCm is the counterfactual distribution and qf and qm are unconditional quantile distributions
for women and men. The first parentheses give estimators of returns to characteristics and the
second for coefficients.
The Melly (2006) estimator is asymptotically equal to the one of Machado and Mata (2005).
Melly suggested that differences in distribution be decomposed by applying a semi-parametric
estimator of distribution functions. His approach is again a generalization of the Oaxaca/Blinder
decomposition.
19

20
4. Results
4.1. Descriptive statistics
Table 1 shows differences between formal and informal employment and between genders
within those groups. In general, women who work unofficially have on average the lowest
earnings, while the highest mean earnings are received by men from formal employment.
Earnings dispersion is greater in the informal market than in formal employment, and among
women those differences are larger than among men.
The differences are also visible with regard to other characteristics. In the informal sector, both
women and men are on average younger than their counterparts in formal employment. This
finding is in line with an explanation suggested by Jutting et al. (2008), who claims that the
informal market is a good place for younger people to gain experience and valuable skills.
Regardless of their form of labour market participation, women tend to have on average a higher
level of education than men do. Interestingly, almost the same proportion of women who work
informally have post secondary (29,4%) and vocational education (29,4%), while a huge
proportion of men in the informal sector have only a vocational level of education (44,8 %).
As far as family composition is concerned, our descriptive statistics are in line with previous
empirical analyses (Perry et al. 2007; Leonard 1998): women in informal sectors have on
average more children who are under 15 than their counterparts in the formal sector. However,
the proportion of single women in the informal sector is unexpectedly higher than in the formal
one: 28% of women in the informal sector are single, while in formal employment, 24% are
single.
Women in our sample experienced unemployment more often than men did, and more of them
had held an informal job in the past. Almost 60% of women who work in informal sector had
previous experience in unemployment (we include here all previous incidents of unemployment),
and 43% of them had worked in the informal market before. We suspect that these women are
more often forced into the informal market because of previous labour market records, and that
they might have low bargaining power, being potentially vulnerable to bad working conditions
and low earnings.

Among men, a similar pattern emerged, but its scope was more limited: respectively 46% of
informal male workers had been previously unemployed, and 38% of them had worked in the
informal sector before.
As expected, we also found a strong sectoral segregation. Unofficially working women are
underrepresented in the construction and transport sectors, while their presence is more
common in the trade, hospitality, health and education sectors. Those are the stereotypically
‘female’ sectors, in which women outnumber men in both the informal and formal sectors.
Std.
Dev. Mean
Ln(inc) 1.900 0.824 2.011 0.758 1.988 0.562 2.112 0.559
P90/P10 7.233 n.a 6.025 n.a 3.846 n.a 3.516 n.a
P90/P50 3.100 n.a 3.012 n.a 2.396 n.a 2.083 n.a
P50/P10 2.333 n.a 2.000 n.a 1.605 n.a 1.687 n.a
Age 35.098 11.242 36.992 11.477 37.820 10.669 38.090 10.802
Education (in years) 11.847 2.118 11.533 2.005 12.950 2.155 12.209 2.048
Tertiary education 0.078 0.270 0.069 0.253 0.248 0.432 0.142 0.350
Post secondary* 0.294 0.457 0.278 0.449 0.305 0.461 0.295 0.456
General secondary 0.201 0.402 0.048 0.215 0.180 0.384 0.084 0.277
Vocational education 0.294 0.457 0.444 0.498 0.215 0.411 0.411 0.492
Primary education 0.132 0.340 0.161 0.369 0.052 0.222 0.067 0.250
Single 0.289 0.455 0.298 0.458 0.240 0.427 0.245 0.430
Married 0.505 0.501 0.565 0.497 0.602 0.490 0.693 0.461
Widowed 0.137 0.345 0.081 0.273 0.136 0.343 0.040 0.197
No. children 15 years 2.302 1.367 2.010 1.129 2.054 0.976 2.216 1.134
Agriculture
0.142 0.350 0.141 0.349 0.014 0.118 0.033 0.179
Manufacturing 0.113 0.317 0.097 0.296 0.132 0.339 0.210 0.408
Construction 0.020 0.139 0.375 0.485 0.012 0.107 0.142 0.350
Trade 0.206 0.405 0.081 0.273 0.217 0.412 0.086 0.281
Hotel 0.098 0.298 0.016 0.126 0.040 0.196 0.015 0.121
Transport 0.015 0.121 0.057 0.232 0.029 0.167 0.104 0.305
Health and education 0.088 0.284 0.012 0.110 0.240 0.427 0.053 0.224
Other sectors 0.275 0.447 0.173 0.379 0.309 0.462 0.270 0.444
City 0.309 0.463 0.242 0.429 0.299 0.458 0.245 0.430
Town 0.392 0.489 0.391 0.489 0.452 0.498 0.440 0.496
Village 0.299 0.459 0.367 0.483 0.249 0.433 0.315 0.465
# observation 204 248 2334 2478
21
Table 1. Descriptive analysis
Variable Mean
Std.
Dev. Mean
Std.
Dev. Mean
Std.
Dev.
Graph 1 presents an estimated density of log wages for both genders in the informal and formal
sectors. In the informal sector, the density curve for men is steeper and higher than that for
women. Furthermore, the level of earnings with the highest density is greater for men than
women. In both sectors, we observed a higher concentration of women than men in the lowest

log of earnings. Surprisingly, in the formal market, we also observe wages below the minimal
wage. A possible explanation for this is the presence of ‘civil contracts for specific jobs’ which
are exempted from labour market regulations that apply to employees hired according to the
Labour Code.
Graph 1. Women and men’s log wage distribution (kernel density)
Formal employment Informal employment
22
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1
Density
0 1 2 3 4 5
ln(wage/h)
MEN WOMEN
0 .2 .4 .6 .8 1
Density
0 1 2 3 4 5
ln(wage/h)
MEN WOMEN
Reference line is equal to ln(minimal wage/ h), which was calculated on the basis of minimal monthly payment for full
time employment for 2007, assuming 21 working days in a month and 8 hrs of work per day .
As reported in Graph 2., a gender earnings gap in informal employment is visible mainly at the
bottom of the distribution, as it converges in the group with middle earnings, therefore we do not
observe the distinctive glass ceiling effect reported in some other EU countries (e.g. for Sweden
by Albrecht et al., 2001; for Germany by Holst and Busch, 2009)6. When comparing the gender
earnings gap in the informal economy to the one observed in the regular labour market, we
notice that the gender gap is larger in the informal market at the two tails of the distribution (for
very low earnings and very high earnings). This lower gender gap in the formal market at the
bottom of the earnings distribution might be an effect of the minimum wage legislation. We may
also expect that in the informal economy those who agreed to relatively low earnings also have
lower bargaining power and females seem to be the more disadvantaged group.
6 Although in the top of wage distribution in informal market, we again observe the increase of the gender gap.

Graph 2. Gender earnings gap in formal and informal employment (5 percentile intervals)
23
-.1 0 .1 .2 .3
Gender gap
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95
centile
INFORMAL FORMAL
*Gender gap is calculated as Ln(Mwage/h)- Ln(Wwage/h), where M stands for men, and W stands for women.
4.2. Earnings inequality
Table 2 presents the value of population and earnings share by gender in informal and formal
employment. An interesting feature is that women in our sample of informal workers represented
45 per cent of the population, while their share in overall earnings is around 41 per cent. A
similar trend is observed among registered workers. Women’s share in earnings is slightly lower
than their share in population. This again could indicate the existence of a certain gender
earnings inequality pattern (dominance of male earnings vs. female earnings) in both the formal
and informal labour markets.
Table 2. Population and earnings share by gender in informal and formal work
Population share Income share Log(mean)
Informal work
Women 0.449 0.414 2.235
Men 0.551 0.586 2.376
Formal work
Women 0.486 0.457 2.186
Men 0.514 0.543 2.301

As we expected, generalized entropy indices indicate a higher level of earnings inequality in the
informal economy than in the regulated jobs market. The Gini coefficient in the formal labour
market is 0.345, while in the informal labour market it reaches the level of 0.476.
While ‘gender inequality’ is a major contributor to overall earnings inequality in both analysed
labour markets, in the case of the informal market, its effect is more pronounced. Female
workers are more homogeneous with respect to their earnings dispersion than male workers in
the informal labour market. The value of entropy indices are lower for women than for men in all
analyzed cases, both in the case of indices sensitive for lower earnings I(-1), as well as in those
capturing inequality in higher earnings distributions I(2). The contrary results are reported for
dependent employees. According to results reported in Table 3, the male sub-group in the
formal labour market seems to experience a lower earnings inequality than the female sub-population.
It is also worth highlighting that inequality of earnings among unregistered women and men is
more pronounced at the bottom and top tails of the earnings distribution. As we can see, the
value of the I(-1) index, which is a more sensitive indicator of inequality at the bottom of
distribution, is higher than the MLD or Theil Indexes. Similarly I(2), which captures inequality
mostly in the top of the earnings distribution, is more than twice as large as the value of the Theil
Index.
Table 3. Generalized Entropy Indices and Gini coefficient
I (-1) MLD Theil Index I (2) Gini
Informal employment
All 0.535 0.395 0.483 0.987 0.476
Women 0.512 0.380 0.443 0.782 0.469
Men 0.546 0.404 0.507 1.098 0.479
Within group 0.532 0.393 0.480 0.982 n.a
Between group 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 n.a
Formal employment
All 0.210 0.200 0.256 0.496 0.345
Women 0.221 0.204 0.260 0.515 0.348
Men 0.193 0.193 0.249 0.476 0.338
Within group 0.208 0.198 0.254 0.495 n.a
Between group 0.002 0.002 0.002 0.002 n.a
The analysis above provides us with basic background information about earnings inequalities in
the informal and formal labour market. However, for a more in-depth analysis of the
determinants of earning gaps between men and women, we will apply more specific methods.
24

4.3. Quantile Regression
To use all possible information collected in our data source and to describe the dependence
between the form of employment (formal or informal) and the gender pay gap, we adopted the
following approach. First, standard Mincerian regression models for log wages were estimated
using the OLS method. Then, the results for quantile analyses (25th percentile, median and 75th
percentile) provided an overview of the relationship between the outcome and regressors at
several points of dependent variable distribution.
The explained variable was LOG INCOME from work per hour worked and the set of explanatory
variables consisted of age, age squared, family size and the following categorical variables:
- EDU, level of education, 1 for tertiary (college or university), 2 for secondary vocational
and post-secondary, 3 for general secondary, 4 for vocational primary, 5 for gymnasium,
primary and incomplete primary education,
- GEN, variable that equals 1 for women and 0 for men,
- MARR, equals 1 for a married individual and 0 otherwise
- FULL, 1 for full time job and 0 otherwise
- Dummy variables for sectors:
- AGR, value 1 in the case of work in agriculture,
- MANUF, value 1 if a person works in the manufacturing sector
- TRADE, value 1 if a person’s job is in trade
- CONSTR, if a person works in construction
- HOTEL, if a person works in the hotels and restaurants sector
- TRANS, if a person works in transport
- HEALTH, if a person works in the health or education sectors
25
CITY, value 1 if a person lives in a city
TOWN, value 1 if a person lives in a town
We did not have reliable information on tenure in the database so we assumed that individual
labour market experience can be approximated by age and years of education.

Pooled regression
In the first step, the regression on pooled data (men’s and women’s sample) was run using a
dummy gender variable (0=female, 1=male). We used this method to explain to what extent
differences between male and female characteristics explained gender disparity in log of hourly
earnings, controlling for such characteristics as: age, level of education, sectors and place of
living. In this analysis, we assumed that returns to labour market characteristics do not vary
among genders.
Table 4 presents quantile and OLS estimates of the gender dummy variable in two models.
In Model I, we included into the analysis such explanatory variables as: age, age squared, and
four levels of education. Then, in model II, we extended our analysis adding more variables: a
set of dummies for the sector of activity, a set of dummies for the place of residence, a
indicating full or part-time work and one for family size. The full set of results is presented in the
Appendix, Table A.1 and Table A.2.
Table 4. Summary of the result of pooled regression
Informal workers (n=452)
Formal workers (n=4812)
Quantile regression OLS Quantile regression OLS
q=0.25 q=0.5 q=0.75 Q=0.25 Q=0.5 q=0.75
Model I
Gender
coefficient 0.242*** 0.210*** 0.151** 0.191** 0.178*** 0.214*** 0.229*** 0.207***
Standard error 0.091 0.070 0.060 0.074 0.016 0.015 0.019 0.015
Model II
Gender
coefficient 0.214*** 0.222*** 0.114 0.180** 0.158*** 0.211*** 0.211*** 0.180**
Standard error 0.066 0.082 0.105 0.082 0.016 0.017 0.019 0.082
***statistically significant at 1% level, ** significant at 5% level
Model I (we regress ln wage on age, age2, gen, edu_1, edu_2, edu3, edu4_) basis category for education is edu_5=
primary education. Model II (Model I plus family size, full/part time work, place of living: city/ village and sector of
activity :a) sectors: agriculture, manufacturing, construction, trade, hotels, transport and health care, base category
other.)
We found that the gender variable is statistically significant in the majority of regressions,
although gender was insignificant in the sub-sample of unregistered workers in 75 percentile
regression in MODEL II. As expected, because of the higher dispersion of earnings in the
informal labour market, results from the OLS regression in comparison to the median regression
differ in the case of informal employment more than in the case of the formal labour market.
26

The gender coefficients vary across quantiles. In the informal labour market, the gender
coefficient has a much greater impact at the lower (0.25) than median conditional quantiles of
log earnings.
Consequently, the gender pay gap in the informal labour market decreases as we move up the
earnings distribution. This might suggest, as previously mentioned, that females who receive
very low hourly earnings, might suffer from larger discrimination in the absence of legal
regulations because they have lower bargaining power in the informal market than men. As
suggested by Fields (2005), they belong to a ‘lower tier,’ which consists of individuals who
cannot afford to be unemployed, and are rather ‘involuntary employees’ in the informal sector.
This effect of a higher gender gap at the bottom of the earnings distribution is often called the
‘sticky floor effect’.
A different pattern is observed in formal employment. After controlling for age and education, we
found that the gender pay gap increases as we follow the earnings distributions, and in fact the
glass ceiling effect could be reported. Newell and Reilly (2001) found a similar relationship using
Polish Labour Force statistics for 1996. They reported that the gender raw gap in the 25th
quantile was approximately 17.3%, while in the 75th quantile, the differences grow to 27.3%.
Taking into account results reported for the basic model (model I) we can interpret the gender
coefficient in the following way: being a man increases the conditional median of hourly earnings
by 1.52 PLN (0.21* 7.26) in informal employment.7 Being a male employee in the formal
employment increases the median of hourly earnings by 1.56 PLN (0.214* 7.30). If we compare
the results from a basic model (MODEL I) with those in a more extended model, we see that the
gender earnings gap in both markets diminishes while we are controlling for additional
characteristics: sectors of activity, character of work (full time, part time) and place of residence.
This pattern is common for both the informal and formal markets, although the impact of
additional explanatory variables is higher among informal employees.
In general, the gender pay gap at the top of the earning distribution (75th percentile) is greater in
the formal economy than in the informal labour market. A different pattern is observed at the
bottom of the distribution, where the female earnings disadvantage is more pronounced in the
informal market.
7 The Coefficients in Table 4 give marginal effect for lnwage. We can compute the marginal effect on wages in the
following way: Given Qq(lny/x) =x’q , we have Qq (y/x) = exp{ Qq (lny/x) } = exp(x’q). The marginal effect on y
27
( )
q qj
Q y x
q x
x
j
exp( 'b )b
/
=
¶
¶
N
- . (Cameron
i q {N exp(x' b )}b
1=
, than the average marginal effect is qj
i
1
Trivedi, 2009)

These findings give us an interesting insight into the gender pay gap in both analysed forms of
the labour market. It seems that a regulatory legal system works well in terms of eradicating
gender pay inequality among those with lower earnings. This might be an effect of the minimum
wage scheme. We can also suppose that in the case of basic, mainly manual, lower paid jobs,
the gender equality law could be more easily applied and an equal pay for an equal job is more
often the case. In contrast, it appears from the above analysis that female workers with higher
earnings are less discriminated in informal employment than in the formal labour market. One of
the characteristics of the informal labour market is its flexibility, and this factor might be useful in
explaining this phenomenon. Women who are at the top end of the earnings distribution seem to
have higher bargaining power; they can negotiate their remuneration more easily, and it is easier
for them to leave their jobs if their financial requirements are not met.
Regressions by gender
According to approach presented in the methodological part in the case of female wage
equation, we first looked at women’s labour market participation. The results of parametric and
semi parametric estimation are discussed below and presented in the Appendix (Table
A.1,Table A.2 and Table A.3).
Female labour market participation
Although the coefficients from estimations of female labour market participation vary depending
on the method used, their signs remain the same.
From the selection analysis it appears that a low level of education is an important factor for
labour market exclusion. The probability of female employment is low for women with only basic
or vocational basic education completed in comparison to those with at least post secondary
education (base category). These findings are in line with existing literature (Buchinsky 1998;
Fersterer and Winter-Ebmer, 2002; Bosio 2009).
Having controlled for other characteristics, married women had a lower propensity to work, and
again those findings are similar to other empirical studies. Surprisingly, in contrast to studies for
other countries (Fersterer and Winter-Ebmer, 2002; Connelly 1992) the presence of children
(younger than 15 years old) in a household increased the probability of labour market
participation for women. We expect that the system of after-school care centres, which are
located in the majority of schools, allows mothers to undertake professional activity, and that
expenses related to childbearing push them into the labour market. Unfortunately, the database
28

did not provide enough information to analyse the labour market participation of women with
younger children (less than 6 years old).
Table A2 in the appendix presents the results of a quantile regression with a correction for
women’s labour market selectivity. For comparison’s sake, an estimation which ignores selection
is also presented (last column). Women’s selectivity into employment only slightly influences our
results, although the direction of the bias depends on the quantile of the earnings distribution.
Age had a positive but diminishing effect on logs of earnings at any point of female earning
distribution, but had the strongest impact at the 50th percentile. An analysis of level of education
reveals an interesting pattern: having university education in comparison to vocational or lower
education increases a log earning in the informal market mostly for women in the middle of
earnings distribution. We expect that this impact is stronger at higher percentiles of earnings
distribution, and this is a fact in the case of female earnings in the formal market (Table A3).
Although in the informal market a level of education might not be the most important factor of
wage increase, which is why this relation is not so visible. An earning penalty for working
informally in agriculture is highest at the 50th percentile. While the highest positive impact of
sector variable on female earnings is observed in the case of health and education at the 75th
percentile. This is in line with our observation that most private tutorial lessons are given
informally, and it is an activity which generates rather significant income.
In the formal market, we observe slightly different patterns (Table A3 in the Annex). Age has the
strongest impact on female wages at the bottom of the earnings distribution, and is relatively
less important than in case of the previously analysed informal market. As mentioned above,
having a university degree increases the log of earning mainly for women with higher earnings
(75th percentile). Unlike in the previous analysis, employment in agriculture does not seem to
have a negative impact on the log of earnings, and returns from health and education are more
moderate than in the informal market. Interestingly, women working in the construction sector
receive a high premium in all levels of earnings distributions.
Coefficients not only differed between women working in the informal and formal markets, they
also differed from those observed for men. As the main part of our analysis is focused on
differences between genders, Table A4 presents closer estimates of quantile regression for
men. Due to the small sample size, there are only a few statistically significant coefficients in the
earnings regression for men in the informal market, and mainly at the top of the earnings
distribution (75th percentile). In the informal sector the highest returns for men are associated
with post secondary (or vocational post secondary) education. These results are different than
29

those reported for women in the informal sector for whom a university degree gives the highest
returns, and different from men’s situation in the formal market, which also rewards more higher
education. One might assume that post secondary education provides men with skills and
knowledge which is better valuated at informal market8. Contrary to the findings from the
informal sector for women, men working informally in health and education have a lower log of
earnings than if they work in a different sector.
There are also noticeable differences between males and females working in formal
employment. The majority of disparities are related to the sector of activity, while socio-demographic
characteristics have the same sign, and differ only in the size of impact. For
example men working in construction can expect lower logs of earnings than if they work in
another other sector, while for women, activity in this sector is rewarded more than their work in
a reference sector of activity.
As we mentioned before, age can be treated as an approximation of experience. The results of
our estimations suggest that returns to experience are higher in informal jobs (in all analysed
percentiles for women and in the 75th percentile for men) than in formal ones. Moreover there is
a different pattern in regards to education. A closer look at our results shows that secondary
vocational and post-secondary education of men in the informal market is more favourable than
a university degree from the point of view of wages, and this is a particular characteristic of
males in informal sector. Interestingly, working full time increases the log of earnings mainly at
the bottom of the earning distribution in informal sector, while being located in city has a positive
impact on wage distribution on both markets and for both genders.
In formal sector also working full-time in comparison to part-time is important, but a person (both
a woman and a man) in 25th quantile can expect higher wage when working full-time and in 75th
quantile one can expect lower wage.
Results of quantile regressions, separately for women and men working in formal and informal
sectors, presented in Graphs A1 to A4 in the Appendix allow for graphical comparison of
parameter estimates.
Counterfactual decomposition of quantile regression
Table 5 summarises the results of the decomposition of the gender earning gap in the formal
and informal sectors in selected percentiles. It reports a decomposition of the wage gap into the
8 This category includes professions common in the informal market: construction workers, mechanics, etc.
30

characteristics and coefficients effects. Results from all decompositions indicate that the gender
earnings gap would be even higher if women had men’s characteristics.
Table 5. Decomposition of the gender earnings gap
INFORMAL EMPLOYMENT
FORMAL EMPLOYMENT
Quantile 0.25 Effect St. Error Effect St. Error
Raw difference 0.181** 0.073 0.135*** 0.014
Characteristics -0.071 0.121 -0.014 0.012
Coefficients 0.252* 0.139 0.148*** 0.016
Quantile 0.5
Raw difference 0.133** 0.058 0.139*** 0.015
Characteristics -0.076 0.141 -0.048** 0.017
Coefficients 0.208 0.131 0.186*** 0.021
Quantile 0.75
Raw difference -0.003 0.117 0.109*** 0.025
Characteristics -0.173 0.133 -0.071** 0.027
Coefficients 0.170 0.154 0.180*** 0.031
OLS
Raw difference 0.106 0.077 0.124*** 0.016
Characteristics -0.105 0.140 -0.044*** 0.017
Coefficients 0.129 0.099 0.184*** 0.019
Interaction 0.082 0.153 -0.016 0.019
***statistically significant at 1% level, ** significant at 5% level, * significant at 10% level
The first conclusion from the presented numbers is that according to characteristics observed in
the data, women should have higher wages than men. That is in line with descriptive statistics
presented in Table 1 which show the relatively better education of women in Poland, no matter
which labour market (formal or informal) they work in. The majority of the gender log pay gap in
both types of work is due to differences in returns to labour market characteristics rather than to
differences in these characteristics.
Differences in coefficients are significant at least at 10% level mainly for the formal labour
market but the results for the informal labour market have been presented as well. The results
confirm our findings that in formal employment, a higher gender pay gap exists. Due to some
type of discrimination, it is in the higher end of the wage distribution. In informal employment,
there is a higher level of discrimination among lower paid workers.
In the informal sector, women have relatively better characteristics than men even in comparison
with the formal sector. Our models take into account education level but not type of education,
which may explain the result to some extent.
31

The negative sign at the 75th quantile may suggest that in informal work, highly paid women
have such favourable characteristics in comparison to men that even lower returns cannot
influence their lower wages. However, as this value is not significant – again due to the small
sample size – more thorough examination of this thesis could be an interesting research
question for future.
32
5. Conclusions
In this paper we used a set of cross-sectional data on both formal and informal work in Poland in
2007 to check if the gender pay gap observed in the formal market also occurs when a person
works without registration. Additionally, we examined the gender differences in earning
distribution for both types of employment. Various methodological approaches were used,
starting from measures of dispersion in earnings for women and men in both labour markets,
then adopting the quantile regression method using the Machado-Mata (2005) and Melly
decomposition (2006) developing the Blinder/Oaxaca (1973) approach. Additionally, the issue of
selectivity to employment for women was accounted for.
As we expected, an analyses of entropy indices indicated a higher level of earnings inequality in
the informal economy than in the regulated jobs market. This finding supports the argument of
Fields (2005) who suggested there is a substantial level of heterogeneity among voluntary and
involuntary workers engaged in the informal sector.
Furthermore our results confirm the existence of the gender pay gap in both informal
(unregistered) and formal employment in Poland. However its size and characteristics differ
depending on the level of earnings. The inequality of earnings between unregistered women and
men is more pronounced at the bottom of the earnings distribution. In the case of formal
employees, the inequality at the top of the distributions tends to be larger. Consequently, the
gender pay gap in the informal labour market decreases as we move up the earnings
distribution. Yet a different pattern is observed in formal employment. After controlling for age,
education and sector of activity, we found that the gender pay gap increases as we follow the
earnings distributions.

Findings from the Polish formal labour market confirm those of other European studies, in which
the existence of a strong glass ceiling effect is observed (Albrecht et al., 2004; Albrecht et al.,
2001). On the other hand, results from the informal labour market indicate that specific
characteristics of this type of employment, especially the lack of a minimum wage scheme, and
regulations of conditions and hours of work, could partially explain the unfavourable situation of
women in the ‘lower tier’.
We also found that returns to experience (approximated by the age variable) are higher in
informal jobs, but differences in these returns between men and women are significant only at
the bottom part of wage distribution. Age in formal employment has the strongest positive impact
on female wages at the bottom of earnings distribution, but it is relatively less important that in
the informal market.
Returns to education increase with wage distribution for both men and women but some of the
education levels become insignificant.
We also identified gender disparity in returns to sectors of activity. In the informal sector, women
gain if they are working in the health or education sectors, while there is an earning penalty for
working in agriculture sector. In the case of male informal workers, working in the construction
sector substantially increased their log of earning in all analyzed quantiles.
The results from a decomposition of the wage gap into the characteristics and coefficients effect
indicate that the gender earnings gap would be even higher if women had men’s characteristics.
This finding is contrary to those reported for some Western Economies and might indicate
specific characteristics of women in a post-socialist country. Women are generally better
educated than men but probably the type of education (not visible in our data) also has some
effect.
As the topic of a gender pay gap in the informal market is only meagrely covered in the
literature, there is a lot of potential for further studies. The use of longitudinal data might give an
interesting insight into the dynamics of the informal market and especially gender specific
aspects. An analysis of the macro condition of the labour market in the current economic
situation could add to knowledge of informal market mechanisms. As the main limitation of our
study is the size of our dataset (especially with regards to informal workers), the use of larger,
more developed dataset would be the most valuable extension of this study.
33

34
References
Adamchik VA, Bedi AS. Gender Pay Differentials During the Transition in Poland. Economics of
Transition 2003; 11; 4.
Albrecht J, Björklund A, Vroman S. Is There a Glass Ceiling in Sweden? Journal of Labor
Economics 2001; 21; 145-177.
Albrecht J, van Vuuren A, Vroman S. Decomposing the Gender Wage Gap in the Netherlands
with Sample Selection Adjustments. IZA Discussion Paper No. 1400 (November 2004).
Altonij JG, Blank RM 1999. Race and Gender in the Labor Market. In: Ashenfelter, OC, Card D
(Eds.). Handbook of Labour Economics., vol.3c.; Elsevier Science Publishers BV, 1999; p.
3143-3259.
Andresen KD, Ognedal T, Strom S.2005. The Shadow Economy in Norway 1980-2003: Some
Empirical Evidences from Voluntary Sample Surveys. In: Bajad Ch, Schneider F (Eds.). Size,
Causes and Consequences of the Underground Economy, Ashgate 2005, p. 139-156.
Blau FD, Kahn L. Gender Differences in Pay, Journal of Economic Perspectives 2000; 14;.75-
99.
Blau FD, Kahn L. Understanding International Differences in the Gender Pay Gap, Journal of
Labor Economics 2003; 21; 106-144.
Blinder A. Wage Discrimination: Reduced Form and Structural Estimates, The Journal of Human
Resources 1973; 7(4); 436-55.
Bosio, G. Temporary employment and wage gap with permanent jobs: evidence from quantile
regression, MPRA Paper No. 16055, University of Munich, Germany, 2009.
Bosworth D, Dawkins P, Stromback T. The Economics of the Labour Market, Longman 1996.
Brainerd E. Women in Transition: Changes in Gender Wage Differentials in Eastern Europe and
the Former Soviet Union, Industrial and Labor Relations Review 2000; 54; 1; 138-162.

Buchinsky M. Changes in U.S. Wage Structure 1963-87: An Application of Quantile Regression,
Econometrica 1994; 62; 405-458.
Buchinsky M. The Dynamics of Changes in the Female Wage Distribution in the USA: A
Quantile Regression Approach, Journal of Applied Econometrics 1998;13; 1-30.
Cahuc P, Zylberberg A. Labor Economics,, Cambridge, Mass. MIT Press, 2004.
Cameron A, Trivedi PK. Microeconometrices Using Stata, Stata Press, 2009.
Chong A, Gradstein M. Inequality and Informality, Journal of Public Economics 2007; 91; 159-
179.
Connelly R. The Effect of Child Care Costs on Married Women's Labor Force Participation, The
Review of Economics and Statistics 1992; 74; 1; 83-90.
Cunningham W 2001. Breadwinner Versus Caregiver: Labour Force Participation and Sectoral
Choice over the Mexican Business Cycle. In: Katz EG, Correia MC (Eds.). The Economics of
Gender in Mexico: World, Family, State and the Market, World Bank 2001, p. 85-132.
Dimova R, Gang I, Landon-Lane J. The Informal Sector During Crisis and Transition, UNU
WIDER, Research Paper No. 2005/18
Elvira MM, Graham ME. Not Just a Formality: Pay System Formalization and Sex-Related
Earnings Effects, Organization Science 2002; 13; 6; 601-617.
England, P, Farkas G, Kilboure BS, Dou T. Explaining occupational sex segregation and wages:
Findings from a model with fixed effects, American Sociological Review 1988; 53; 544-558.
European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions. Working
conditions and gender in an enlarged Europe, Luxembourg 2005.
Fersterer J, Winter-Ebmer R. Are Austrian returns to education falling over time? Labour
Economics 2003; 10; 73–89.
Fields G. A Guide to Multisector Labour Market Models. World Bank Social Protection
Discussion Paper Series No. 0505, The World Bank:Washington, DC; 2005.
35

Fiszbein A. Do Workers in Informal Sector Benefit from Cuts in the Minimum Wage? Policy
Research Working Paper Series No.826, The World Bank:Washington, DC; 1992.
Frey B, Weck H. Estimating the Shadow Economy: A ‘Naive’ Approach. Oxford Economic
Papers 1983; 35; 23-44.
Grajek M. Gender Pay Gap in Poland, Economics of Planning 2003;36; 23-44.
GUS. Praca nierejestrowana w Polsce w 2004 r. (Unregistered Employment in Poland in 2004).
GUS Warsaw, 2004.
Heckman J. Sample Selection Model as Specification Error, Econometrica 1979; 47; 153-161.
Henley A., Arabsheibani RG, Carneiro FG. On Defining and Measuring the Informal Sector. IZA
DP No. 2473; Nov 2006.
Holst E, Busch A. Glass Ceiling Effect and Earnings: The Gender Pay Gap in Managerial
Positions in Germany. SOEP papers 201, DIW Berlin, 2009.
ILO. ILO Compendium of Official Statistics on Employment in The Informal Sector. ILO STAT
Working Paper No. 1-2002, International Labour Organisation, Geneva, 2002.
Jarrel SB, Stanley DT. Declining Bias and Gender Wage Discrimination? A Meta-Regression
Analysis. The Journal of Human Resources 2004; 39; 3; 828-838.
Jonasson E. Regional Variation in Informal Employment: Skills, Norms, and Governance.
Working Paper No. 2009:10, Lund University, Department of Economics, 2009.
Jurajda S. Gender Wage Gap and Segregation In Enterprises and the Public Sector in Late
Transition Countries. Journal of Comparative Economics 2003; 31; 199-222.
Jütting J, Parlevliet J, Xenogiani T. Informal Employment Re-Loaded. OECD Development
Centre Working Paper No. 266-2008.
Karlinger L.The Underground Economy in the Late 1990s: Evading Taxes, or Evading
Competition? World Development 2009; 37; 10; 1600-1611.
Klein R., Spady R. An efficient semiparametric estimator of the binary response model,
Econometrica 1993; 61; 387-421.
36

Koenker R, Bassett G Regression quantiles, Econometrica 1978; 46; 33-50.
Leonard M. Invisible Work, Invisible Workers – The Informal Economy in Europe and the US.
Macmillan Press, 1998.
Machado J, Mata J. Counterfactual Decomposition of Changes in Wage Distributions Using
Quantile Regression. Journal of Applied Econometrics 2005; 20; 445-465.
Maloney WF. Informality Revisited, World Development 2004; 32; 7; 1159-1178.
Marcinkowska I, Ruzik A., Strawiński P., Walewski M. Badanie struktury i zmian rozkładu
wynagrodzeń w Polsce w latach 2000-2006. Ministerstwo Pracy i Polityki Społecznej, 2008.
Marcinkowska I. The Gender Wage Inequality among Young People in Poland, M. Sc. Thesis,
Warsaw University, 2005, unpublished.
Melly B. Estimation of Counterfactual Distributions Using Quantile Regression. Review of Labor
Economics 2006; 68; 543-572.
Milanovic, B. Income, Inequality, and Poverty during the Transition from Planned to Market
Economy. The World Bank:Washington, DC; 1998
MPiPS. Przyczyny pracy nierejestrowanej w Polsce [Determinants of the unregistered
employment in Poland]. Ministry of Labour and Social Policy, Warsaw, 2008.
Newell A, Reilly B. The Gender pay Gap in Transition from Communism, Some Emplirical
Evidence. Economic Systems 2001; 25; 287-304.
Newell A, Socha M. The Distribution of Wages in Poland. IZA Discussion Paper No. 1485ł 2005..
O’Neill J. The Gender Gap in Wages, circa 2000. The American Economic Review 2003; 93; 2;
309-314.
Oaxaca R. Male-Female Wage Differentials in Urban Labor Markets. International Economic
Review 1973; 14; 3; 693-709.
Paci P (Ed.). Gender in Transition. The World Bank: Washington, DC, 2002.
37

Perry GE, Maloney WF, Arias OS, Fajnzylber P, Mason AD, Saavedra-Chanduvi J. Informality:
Exit And Exclusion The World Bank: Washington, DC, 2007.
Pfau-Effinger B. Varieties of Undeclared Work in European Societies. British Journal of Industrial
Relations 2009; 47; 1; 79-99.
Renooy P. The informal Economy: Meaning , measuring and social significance. Geographical
Studies No. 115; 1990.
Renooy P, Ivarsson S, van der Wusten-Gritsai O, Meijer E. Undeclared Work in an Enlarged
Union an Analysis of Undeclared Work: An In-Depth Study of Specific Items (2004). Brussels,
European Commission 2004.
Schneider F, Enste D. Shadow Economies: Size, Causes, and Consequences. The Journal of
Economic Literature 2000; 38/1; 77-114.
Silveira S, Matosas A 2005. Gender And The Informal Economy in Latin America: New
Challenges and Possible Answers for Labour Training Policies. In: Maclean R, Wilson D, Singh
M (Eds.). Meeting Basic Learning Needs in the Informal Sector Integrating Education and
Training for Decent Work, Springer Netherlands, 2005; p. 91-118.
Terrell K, El Hamidi F. The Impact of Minimum Wages on Wage Inequality and Employment in
the Formal and Informal Sector in Costa Rica. William Davidson Working Paper Number 479;
2001.
Weichselbaumer D, Winter-Ebmer R. The effects of competition and equal treatment laws on
gender wage differentials. Economic Policy April 2007; CEPR, CES, MSH, 2007; p. 235–287.
Williams CC, Round J. Gender Variations in the Nature of Undeclared Work: Evidence from
Ukraine. Sociological Research Online 2008; 13, available at
http://www.socresonline.org.uk/13/4/7.html
38

39
Appendix
Table A1. Selection into labour market (female)
Probit model Semi-parametric model
Variable Coefficients Standard
error
Coefficients
Basic education -1.089*** 0.051 1.00 (default)
Vocational basic
-0.234
education -0.501*** 0.038
General secondary
education -0.221*** 0.046
-0.049
Married -0.042 0.034 -0.005
No of children 15 0.037** 0.017 0.015
Constant 0.410*** 0.033 -
No of observations 6720 No of observations: 6720
Log likelihood -4376.72 Bandwidth: 0.00734533
Correctly classified 62.02% Correctly classified:
62.94%
***statistically significant at 1% level, ** statistically significant at 5% level, * statistically significant at 10% level

40
Table A2. Estimations of quantile regressions for women in the informal sector
Semiparametric (n=204)
Parametric(n=204)
Ignoring selection (n=204)
q=0.25 q=0.5 q=0.75 q=0.25 q=0.5 q=0.75 q=0.25 q=0.5 q=0.75
Age 0.079*** 0.114** 0.103*** 0.067* 0.116** 0.102** 0.052 0.140*** 0.105***
Age sq -0.113*** -0.150** -0.133*** -0.099 -0.155** -0.131** -0.078* -0.185*** -0.135***
Edu_3 0.116 0.389** 0.354*** 0.012 0.305 0.259 0.077 0.452*** 0.295**
Edu_2 0.180* 0.006 -0.039 -0.062 -0.216 -0.194 0.134 0.024 -0.107
Edu_1 0.526*** 0.737*** 0.534*** 0.271 0.533* 0.347 0.473** 0.598** 0.458**
Married 0.096 0.182 0.022 0.003 0.109 -0.077 0.107 0.085 -0.021
Familysizee -0.069** -0.110** -0.101*** -0.074** -0.110** -0.109*** -0.068** -0.074* -0.109***
Full- time 0.081 0.229 0.251*** 0.102 0.215 0.265** 0.096 0.197 0.258**
City 0.350*** 0.342* 0.025 0.278 0.301 -0.012 0.386*** 0.345* 0.007
Town 0.149 -0.005 -0.191 0.143 -0.011 -0.205 0.207 0.069 -0.207*
Agriculture -0.470*** -0.500** -0.301** -0.469** -0.502** -0.261 -0.605*** -0.495** -0.248*
Manufacturing 0.025 -0.152 -0.292* 0.039 -0.123 -0.254 0.047 -0.038 -0.248*
Construction 0.100 -0.020 -0.292 0.097 -0.026 -0.301 0.097 -0.027 -0.286
Trade -0.203 -0.184 -0.334*** -0.144 -0.155 -0.287* -0.121 -0.137 -0.282**
Hotel 0.285* 0.431* 0.301* 0.288 0.426* 0.301 0.291* 0.383* 0.319*
Transport -0.020 -0.274 -0.550*** 0.012 -0.290 -0.547*** -0.006 -0.172 -0.513**
Health/educatio
n 0.212 0.495* 0.650*** 0.203 0.509* 0.670*** 0.229 0.436* 0.716***
Constant -0.162 -0.369 0.461 0.929 0.371 1.057 0.569 -0.667 0.725
Edu_1- tertiary education ; Edu_2 – Post secondary and secondary vocational education ; Edu_3 – General secondary education

41
Table A3. Estimations of quantile regressions for women in the formal sector
Semiparametric (n=2334) Parametric (n=2334)
Ignoring selection (n=2334)
q=0.25 q=0.5 q=0.75 q=0.25 q=0.5 q=0.75 q=0.25 q=0.5 q=0.75
Age 0.033*** 0.028*** 0.015 0.034*** 0.029*** 0.014 0.038*** 0.029*** 0.018
Age sq -0.035*** -0.026*** -0.009 -0.036*** -0.027*** -0.008 -0.041*** -0.027*** -0.013
Edu_3 0.220*** 0.257*** 0.308*** 0.192*** 0.244*** 0.263*** 0.216*** 0.248*** 0.296***
Edu_2 0.192*** 0.210*** 0.247*** 0.119*** 0.184*** 0.144*** 0.177*** 0.198*** 0.230***
Edu_1 0.516*** 0.612*** 0.790*** 0.437*** 0.583*** 0.686*** 0.504*** 0.595*** 0.775***
Married 0.023 0.029 0.039 -0.003 0.019 0.004 0.018 0.026 0.037
Family size -0.014** -0.024*** -0.019** -0.018*** -0.025*** -0.021** -0.017** -0.024*** -0.019*
Full time 0.124*** 0.053* -0.119*** 0.120*** 0.047* -0.119*** 0.104*** 0.050* -0.101**
City 0.134*** 0.189*** 0.144*** 0.114*** 0.185*** 0.117*** 0.143*** 0.188*** 0.144***
Town 0.028 0.058** 0.013 0.024 0.058** 0.016 0.024 0.055** 0.007
Agriculture 0.167** 0.241*** 0.347*** 0.161* 0.221*** 0.347*** 0.188** 0.201*** 0.328***
Manufacturing -0.006 0.017 -0.005 -0.007 0.027 -0.026 0.002 0.015 -0.001
Construction 0.303*** 0.319*** 0.291*** 0.300*** 0.330*** 0.291*** 0.293*** 0.334*** 0.291**
Trade -0.103*** -0.112*** -0.161*** -0.101*** -0.107*** -0.171*** -0.095*** -0.108*** -0.160***
Hotel 0.036 -0.011 -0.014 0.037 -0.009 -0.015 0.004 -0.010 -0.023
Transport 0.179*** 0.066 0.038 0.179*** 0.074 0.038 0.168*** 0.072 0.027441
Health/education 0.091*** 0.109*** 0.128*** 0.092*** 0.112*** 0.117*** 0.084*** 0.113*** 0.112***
Constant 0.535*** 0.892*** 1.474*** 0.803*** 0.979*** 1.856*** 0.578*** 0.939*** 1.522***
Edu_1- tertiary education ; Edu_2 – Post secondary and secondary vocational education ; Edu_3 – General secondary education

42
Table A4. Estimations of quantile regressions for men
MEN INFORMAL (n=248) FORMAL (n=2478)
q=25 q=0.5 q=0.75 q=0.25 q=0.5 q=0.75
Age 0.010 0.037 0.060** 0.037*** 0.054*** 0.052***
Age sq -0.012 -0.048 -0.073** -0.044*** -0.006*** -0.062***
Edu_3 -0.011 0.094 0.210 0.129*** 0.129** 0.139***
Edu_2 0.209* 0.153 0.337*** 0.178*** 0.152*** 0.119***
Edu_1 0.252 0.293 0.199*** 0.431*** 0.435*** 0.451***
Married 0.142 0.186 -0.002 0.098*** 0.090*** 0.122***
Family size -0.017 -0.035 -0.005 -0.021*** -0.018** -0.023***
Full time 0.172 0.170 0.110 0.127*** -0.025 -0.149***
City 0.256* 0.192 0.280*** 0.100*** 0.155*** 0.207***
Town 0.196 0.037 0.010 0.007 0.038 0.061**
Agriculture -0.266 -0.351* -0.037 -0.206*** -0.246*** -0.125*
Manufacturing 0.245 0.200 0.107 -0.058* -0.079** -0.101***
Construction 0.123 0.175 0.186** -0.029 -0.073** -0.106***
Trade 0.206 0.096 0.186 -0.065 -0.160*** -0.177***
Hotel -0.041 0.075 -0.254 -0.180* -0.258*** -0.170*
Transport 0.341* 0.307 0.009 0.017 -0.031 0.031
Health/education 0.290 -0.072 -0.431*** -0.060 0.033 -0.017
_Constant 1.016 1.027 0.805* 0.845*** 0.927*** 1.323***
Edu_1- tertiary education ; Edu_2 – Post secondary and secondary vocational education ; Edu_3 – General
secondary education

43
Graph A1. Results of quantile regression for women working in formal jobs, 25th, 50th and 75th percentiles

44
Graph A2. Results of quantile regression for women working in informal jobs, 25th, 50th and 75th percentiles

45
Graph A3. Results of quantile regression for men working in formal jobs, 25th, 50th and 75th percentiles

CASE Network Studies and Analyses 406 - The Gender Pay Gap in Informal Employment in Poland

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to CASE Network Studies and Analyses 406 - The Gender Pay Gap in Informal Employment in Poland (20)

More from CASE Center for Social and Economic Research (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

CASE Network Studies and Analyses 406 - The Gender Pay Gap in Informal Employment in Poland