Abstract:Three strictly comparable cross-section household dataset,related to 1988,1995 and 2001,are used to analyze the rapid yet unequal growth of wage and the sharp widening of wage structure.Earnings functions are compared and the increase in both the level and the inequality of wages are decomposed into their constituent elements.Distinctions are made between the variables likely to represent human capital,discrimination,and segmentation.The evidence suggests that productive characteristics were increasingly rewarded as marketization The Gini coefficient of earnings rose by 10.7 percentage points in the first phase from 1988 to 1995.Whereas the mean wage increased by 67 percent,the pay of the 10th percentile rose by only 22 percent,and that of the 90th percentile rose by 97 percent.These changes are much larger than those of the second phase from 1995 to 2001.Moreover,the returns to education rose sharply,as did the returns to occupation-specific skills.The initially slight inverse-U shape of the age-earnings profile became more pronounced: a change consistent with human capital theory.Thus the productive characteristics of workers were increasingly rewarded in the labor market.However,there were also signs of greater wage discrimination against women.Moreover,the market forces operating in the growing private sector and the relative immunity of the state sector from those forces generated greater wage segmentation among types of ownership,and provincial differences in the pace of reform and in economic growth created spatial segmentation in wages that could not be removed by the equilibrating movement of labor.Decomposition analyses were conducted in order to examine the contribution of particular characteristics to the rise in the Gini coefficient.Only a third of earnings inequality and its increase could be explained: the unobserved determinants are clearly important to the increase in earnings dispersion.The discrimination variables accounted for only a small part of the increase.The segmentation variables made the most important contribution,and that was mainly due to growing wage dispersion among provinces.This result is supported by other evidence of powerful divergence in mean earnings among provinces(Knight,Li and Zhao,2001).Some but not all components of human capital were disequalizing.These particular changes are likely to represent the stirring of labor market forces.

Les Changements Socio-Économiques À Londres. Croissance Des Catégories Tertiaires Qualifiées Ou Polarisation ?

The changing social class structure of London, 2001–2021: Continued professionalisation or asymmetric polarisation?

The changing social structure of global cities: Professionalisation, proletarianisation or polarisation

Social Polarisation in Global Cities: Theory and Evidence

Social Polarisation, Economic Restructuring and Welfare State Regimes

Social Polarisation and Inequality in London: the Earnings Evidence, 1979–95

Social change, social polarisation and income inequality in London, 1979–1993

A Tale of Two Cities: Sociotenurial Polarisation in London and the South East, 1966–1981

Social Polarization In Global Cities - Theory And Evidence

Economic and social change and inequality in global cities: the case of london

The changing occupational class composition of London

The Changing Socio-Economic Structure of London and the South East, 1961–1981

Inward and Upward: Marking Out Social Class Change in London, 1981 2001

Sociotenurial Polarisation in London and the South East: A Reply to Berge's Comments

Marketization and Unequal Growth of Wage: Their Extent and Influence Factors

The Changing Ethnic Structure of Housing Tenures in London, 1991-2001

Labour and Housing Market Change in London: A Longitudinal Analysis, 1971-1981

Social Change in London

Re-classifying London: a growing middle class and increasing inequality

Gentrification and the Middle-Class Remaking of Inner London, 1961-2001