Crompton R, Harris F
Department of Sociology, University of Leicester.
Br J Sociol. 1998 Mar;49(1):118-36.
Explanations of the persisting differences in the structure of men's and women's employment have long been debated in the social sciences. Sociological explanations have tended to stress the continuing significance of structural constraints on women's employment opportunities, which persist despite the removal of formal barriers. Neo-classical economists, in contrast, have emphasized the significance of individual choice, an argument which has been recently endorsed by Hakim who suggests that patterns of occupational segregation reflect the outcome of the choices made by different 'types' of women. In this paper, a previous debate relating to the explanatory utility of men's 'orientations to work' is used to argue that employment structures are the outcome of both choice and constraint, and that this is the case for women, as well as men. The argument is illustrated with evidence from cross-nationally comparative biographical interviews carried out in five countries.
长期以来，社会科学领域一直在探讨男女就业结构持续存在差异的原因。社会学解释往往强调结构限制对女性就业机会的持续重要性，尽管形式上的障碍已消除，但这种限制依然存在。相比之下，新古典经济学家强调个人选择的重要性，哈基姆最近支持了这一观点，她认为职业隔离模式反映了不同“类型”女性所做选择的结果。在本文中，先前关于男性“工作取向”解释效用的争论被用来论证就业结构是选择和限制的共同结果，女性和男性皆是如此。这一论点通过在五个国家进行的跨国比较传记访谈所获得的证据得以说明。
