Study reveals significantly higher gender pay gap

A study commissioned by the National Commission for the Promotion of Equality (NCPE) concluded that the gender pay gap in Malta amounted to 23.25%, which is substantially higher than the findings of the National Statistics Office, which set the pay gap at only 3.6%. The NCPE study observed that the pay gap is persisting largely due to women’s domestic and childcare responsibilities, but also as a result of occupational segregation and discrimination.

Background to study

In 1976, differentiated wage scales for women and men were abolished and the principle of equal pay for equal work was introduced in Article 14 of the Constitution of Malta. In 2002, through the Employment and Industrial Relations Act, the principle of equal pay for work of equal value was established. Official statistics showed that, in 2002, Malta had the narrowest pay gap (3.6%) of all the EU Member States; the average pay gap across all states was estimated at 17.5%. However, a 2006 study carried out by Allied Consultants on behalf of the National Commission for the Promotion of Equality (NCPE) – entitled the [Gender Pay Review (2.95Mb PDF)](http://www.equality.gov.mt/filebank/documents/FINAL Gender Pay Review Report 2007 02 02 .pdf) – revealed a much wider pay gap between women and men, amounting to 23.25%.

Methodology

The study was conducted through computer-assisted personal interviews (CAPI) with 608 persons in employment, allowing for a sample error limited to ±4.04%. It also included 20 in-depth interviews to supplement the quantitative findings. Of the total quantitative interviews, 21 were invalidated and hence the findings were based on the remaining 587 interview records. The sample was composed of 239 (40.7%) women and 348 (59.3%) men. Some 65% of the respondents worked in the private sector, while the remainder were employed by government institutions.

The report identified a number of weaknesses in the research related to problems in quantifying work-related costs incurred by the participants and the fact that the remuneration amounts quoted by the study respondents could not be checked against hard evidence.

Main findings

Overall, the researchers found that employees ‘often had no perception about what others earned’ (p. 28). However, the study found that average gross earnings – inclusive of commissions, performance bonuses and overtime pay, but excluding holiday and sick leave entitlements – amounted to MTL 608.92 (about €1,418 as at 13 January 2009) for men, compared with MTL 467.33 (€1,089) for women. This difference constituted a wage gap of 23.25%. The latter figure is substantially higher than the estimate of Malta’s National Statistics Office (NSO), which set the gender pay gap at just 3.6%.

The study found that men working part time also earned more than their female counterparts. In addition, while more men than women were offered a promotion, fewer men than women refused it. The study also found differences in the total time worked (including overtime), with male participants typically working ‘an estimated 267 hours annually more than their female counterparts’ (p. 27).

In spite of these gender differences, the study noted that ‘almost all workers participating in in-depth interviews, regardless of gender, occupation, social class and level of education, denied that men and women receive different earnings’ (p. 26).

Conclusions

The study confirmed that ‘gender pay differentials persist despite the various social, legislative and economic initiatives’ (p. 269). According to the study, the main reasons for these disparities are ‘women’s domestic and childcare responsibilities’ (p. 269). However, other factors such as ‘occupational segregation and discrimination also have a considerable impact’ (p. 269). The study concluded that in order to participate equally in the labour market, women cannot ‘remain burdened with the conflict of having to combine work and family responsibilities’ (p. 34), as this will continue to ‘bear a direct influence on the career prospects and consequently on the earnings of individuals’ (p. 30).

Anna Borg, Centre for Labour Studies