A groundbreaking study published in the Cambridge Journal of Economics sheds new light on the persistent gender pay gap in the United Kingdom, revealing stark disparities influenced significantly by socio-economic status. Utilizing extensive data spanning four decades, derived from the UK Household Longitudinal Study, researchers have meticulously untangled the complex factors perpetuating wage inequality between men and women, offering profound insights that challenge conventional narratives.
The analysis exposes a troubling trend: within affluent households, women earn approximately 25% less than their male counterparts. Conversely, in less wealthy or poorer households, this gap narrows dramatically to just 4%. This striking discrepancy underscores how class modulates the gender pay gap and signals that traditional policy measures primarily targeting elite professional environments may overlook—and consequently fail—the economic realities of lower-income populations.
Critically, the research elucidates how the low wages prevalent in poorer households compress the magnitude of earnings differential. Both men and women in these sectors are restricted by limited earning potential, resulting in a comparatively smaller gender pay gap. However, this context raises deeper questions about the intersection of low pay, job quality, and the structural barriers that sustain inequality beneath the surface of headline statistics.
One of the study’s lead authors, Dr. Vanessa Gash from City St George’s, University of London, emphasizes that current gender equity policies, such as executive boardroom quotas, inadequately address the lived experiences of working-class households where economic challenges are pervasive, and wage disparities manifest differently. Dr. Gash advocates for a paradigm shift that couples pay parity with a dedicated focus on elevating employment quality and conditions across all social strata.
Underlying a significant portion of the wage gap is the differentiated labor market participation patterns between men and women. The research attributes nearly 30% of the pay disparity to women’s reduced engagement in traditional full-time employment. Women disproportionately occupy part-time roles, accept reduced working hours, or temporarily withdraw from the labor force. These employment choices are not made in a vacuum but are predominantly influenced by women’s caregiving responsibilities, encompassing childcare and elder care, which remain largely unpaid and socially undervalued.
The study goes further, quantifying the punitive financial impact of non-standard employment arrangements. While an additional year of full-time employment correlates with a 4% increase in hourly wages, an equivalent tenure in part-time work results in a 3% wage decrease per hour. This dual penalty illustrates the systemic disadvantage embedded within labor structures that fail to adequately value or accommodate flexible working arrangements, disproportionately affecting women’s lifetime earnings trajectories.
Compounding this is the pervasive cultural norm that men engage far less in unpaid care labor, a reality substantiated by continuous full-time employment histories for men compared to fragmented employment for women. The entrenched gender expectations create significant economic disincentives for men to reduce working hours, as the wage penalty for part-time employment is even steeper for men, reinforcing traditional breadwinner models and perpetuating gendered divisions of labor both at home and in workplaces.
Beyond labor market dynamics, the study highlights the omnipresent role of sex discrimination as a fundamental driver of pay inequality. Even after statistically controlling for variables such as occupational segregation, caregiving duties, and work hours, women face substantial wage penalties solely based on gender. Remarkably, the researchers estimate that eliminating this “societal penalty” against women could yield a 43% uplift in their wages, signifying deeply rooted structural biases that permeate economic systems.
In the context of poorer households, the penalty attached to simply being a woman is found to be disproportionately severe, accounting for a staggering 207% of the gender pay gap. This amplifies concerns that socio-economic disadvantage intensifies the obstacles women face, pointing to the urgent necessity for intersectional policy interventions that address both gender and class-based inequities concurrently.
On a more hopeful note, the research underscores protective factors that mitigate wage disparities for women in low-income brackets. Employment in the public sector, robust union membership, and accessible parental leave emerge as critical elements that cushion women against pay inequality. These findings suggest that strengthening labor protections, social safety nets, and family-friendly policies can serve as effective tools to combat entrenched wage gaps.
Yet, unpaid care work remains a persistent and significant contributor to pay inequality among women in wealthier households, reflecting a universal challenge transcending socio-economic divides. The cultural assignment of caregiving responsibilities to women not only limits their participation in high-paying, full-time employment but also entrenches cycles of economic dependence and vulnerability.
Dr. Vanessa Gash succinctly encapsulates the study’s implications, calling for an integrated approach that acknowledges the confluence of gender and class. She warns that narrowly focused equity efforts aimed primarily at closing gaps among elite professional women risk alienating workers in households where economic hardship is shared between partners. Addressing inequalities demands nuanced strategies that bridge social divides, enhance job quality, and redistribute unpaid care responsibilities more equitably.
The urgency of these findings is magnified in today’s politically charged climate, characterized by rising populism and cultural backlash. Dr. Gash warns that the socio-economic tensions between lower-earning men and higher-earning women could be weaponized for divisive political ends unless policymakers actively promote inclusivity and solidarity across gender and class lines.
Ultimately, the study presents a compelling, data-driven narrative illustrating that dismantling the gender pay gap requires more than surface-level interventions. It demands confronting deeply ingrained social norms, labor market structures, and policy frameworks that collectively sustain inequality. Recognizing that who performs unpaid domestic labor remains central to the problem urges a societal reckoning with the distribution of care and work that undergirds economic justice.
This pioneering research, collaboratively authored by Dr. Vanessa Gash, Professor Wendy Olsen, Dr. Sook Kim, and Dr. Nadine Zwiener-Collins, is openly accessible in the Cambridge Journal of Economics. It stands as a clarion call for bold, multifaceted action to achieve genuine pay equity and economic empowerment for women across all levels of society.
Subject of Research: People
Article Title: Decomposing the barriers to equal pay: examining differential predictors of the gender pay gap by socio-economic group
News Publication Date: 15-Jun-2025
Web References: https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/beaf025
References: Cambridge Journal of Economics
Keywords: Gender bias, Public policy, Socioeconomics, Feminism, Gender roles, Women’s studies, Gender studies, Economics, Society, Social inequality, Social discrimination, Social class, Social conditions, Social change, Social welfare, Fairness
