Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 454

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

The Failure of Human Capital Theory to Explain Occupational Sex Segregation

England, Paula·1982·The Journal of Human Resources

Abstract

Predictions from Polachek's theory explaining occupational sex segregation are tested and found to be false. The NLS data do not show that women are penalized less for time spent out of the labor force if they choose predominantly female occupations than if they choose occupations more typical for males. Thus, there is no evidence that plans for intermittent employment make women's choice of traditionally female occupations economically rational. It is not surprising, then, that NLS women with more continuous employment histories are no more apt to be in predominantly male occupations than women who have been employed less continuously. I conclude that human capital theory has not generated an explanation of occupational sex segregation that fits the evidence.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2307/145585

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Cited by

See all 454

Metadata

Authors
England, P.
Venue
The Journal of Human Resources
Publisher
JSTOR
Published
1982
Volume
17
Issue
3
Pages
358
ISSN
0022-166X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1577713818
Cited by
454
References
0
FWCI
23.20
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: The Failure of Human Capital Theory to Explain Occupational Sex Segregation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.2307/145585
The paper
England, P. (1982). The Failure of Human Capital Theory to Explain Occupational Sex Segregation. The Journal of Human Resources. https://doi.org/10.2307/145585

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.