The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Deciphering Sex Segregation: Vertical and Horizontal Inequalities in Ten National Labor Markets
Abstract
Scholars and policy-makers increasingly treat occupational sex segregation as a generic indicator of female economic disadvantage. This view is difficult to reconcile with evidence that levels of sex segregation are lower in reputably ‘gender-traditional’ countries such as Italy, Japan, and Portugal than in ‘progressive’ Sweden and the United States. Understanding such seemingly anomalous patterns requires a two-dimensional conceptualization of occupational sex segregation - in particular, an analytical distinction between vertical and horizontal gender inequalities. Based on data from 10 industrialized countries, claims regarding (1) the hybrid nature of sex segregation and (2) the cultural and structural factors that influence its various components are empirically assessed. Results confirm that unequal distributions across the manual-non-manual divide (‘horizontal segregation’) and status differentials within these sectors (‘vertical segregation’) together account for a considerable share of occupational gender inequality. Gender-egalitarian cultural norms are associated with lower levels of vertical segregation in the non-manual sector, while postindustrial economic structures coincide with greater horizontal segregation (and more vertical segregation of non-manual occupations). The complex horizontal and vertical dynamics revealed here cast further doubt on unidimensional conceptualizations of sex segregation. They also provide the key for deciphering some long-standing empirical puzzles in the field.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Gender and the Career Choice Process: The Role of Biased Self‐Assessments
Correll, S. J. (2001) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/321299 · Cited by 1,320
Interaction and the Conservation of Gender Inequality: Considering Employment
Ridgeway, C. L. (1997) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2657301 · Cited by 939 · cited 5×
“See also Connell (1987), Chafetz (1988), Epstein (1988), Ridgeway (1997), and Bourdieu (2001) on the relationship between gender roles and male dominance.”
BackgroundInfluential
Cited by
A Welfare State Paradox: State Interventions and Women’s Employment Opportunities in 22 Countries
Mandel, H., & Semyonov, M. (2006) · American Journal of Sociology · doi:10.1086/499912 · Cited by 647
A World of Difference: International Trends in Women's Economic Status
Charles, M. (2011) · Annual Review of Sociology · doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102548 · Cited by 263
Self-citationGender and Occupational Segregation
Wong, Y. L. A., & Charles, M. (2020) · Companion to Women's and Gender Studies · doi:10.1002/9781119315063.ch16 · Cited by 18
Self-citationBlock, K., olsson, M. I. T., Schmader, T., van Laar, C., Martiny, S. E., Schuster, C., Van Grootel, S., Meeussen, L., & Croft, A. (2022) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/k6g5d · Cited by 7
Metadata
- Authors
- Charles, M.
- Venue
- Acta Sociologica
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2003-12
- Volume
- 46
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 267-287
- ISSN
- 0001-6993 (ISSN-L)
- 1502-3869
- OpenAlex
- W2052700172
- Cited by
- 171
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 17.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Deciphering Sex Segregation: Vertical and Horizontal Inequalities in Ten National Labor Markets. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0001699303464001
- The paper
- Charles, M. (2003). Deciphering Sex Segregation: Vertical and Horizontal Inequalities in Ten National Labor Markets. Acta Sociologica. https://doi.org/10.1177/0001699303464001
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.