Encyclopedia of Sociology

COMPARATIVE HEALTH-CARE SYSTEMS

Edgeworth, F. Y. 1922 ‘‘Equal Pay to Men and Women
for Equal Work.’’ The Economic Journal 32:431–56.

England, P. 1982 ‘‘The Failure of Human Capital Theo-
ry to Explain Occupational Sex Segregation.’’ Journal
of Human Resources 17:358–70.

Figart, Sarah M., and Peggy Kahn 1997 Contesting the
Market: Pay Equity and the Politics of Economic Restruc-
turing. Detroit, Mich.: Wayne State University Press.

Government of the Northwest Territories http://
http://www.gov.nt.ca/Executive/Pay_Equity, last edited
April, 1998.

Gross, E. 1968 ‘‘Plus ça change...? The Sexual Struc-
ture of Occupations Over Time.’’ Social Problems
16:198–208.

Heen, M. 1984 ‘‘A Review of Federal Court Decisions
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.’’ In H.
Remick, ed., Comparable Worth and Wage Discrimina-
tion: Technical Possibilities and Political Realities. Phila-
delphia: Temple University Press.

Jacobs, J. A. 1989 ‘‘Long Term Trends in Occupational
Segregation by Sex.’’ American Journal of Sociology
95:160–73.

Jencks, C., L. Perman, and L. Rainwater 1988 ‘‘What is a
Good Job? A New Measure of Labor-Market Suc-
cess.’’ American Journal of Sociology 93:132–257.

Kemp, A. A., and E. M. Beck 1986 ‘‘Equal Work, Une-
qual Pay: Gender Discrimination Within Work-simi-
lar Occupations.’’ Work and Occupations 13:324–347.

Marini, M. M. 1989 ‘‘Sex Differences in Earnings in the
U.S.’’ In W. R. Scott, ed., Annual Review of Sociology,
vol. 15. Palo Alto, Calif.: Annual Reviews.

McLaughlin, S. 1978 ‘‘Occupational Sex Identification
and the Assessment of Male and Female Earnings
Inequality.’’American Sociological Review 43:909–921.

Miller, Ann R., D. J. Treiman, P. S. Cain, and P. A. Roos
1980 Work, Jobs, and Occupations: A Critical Review of
the Dictionary of Occupational Titles. Washington, D.C.:
National Academy Press.

National Committee on Pay Equity, http://www.femi-
nist.com/fairpay.htm, as of February, 1999.

Ontario Pay Equity Commission, http://www.gov.on.ca/
LAB/pec/acte.htm, last modified December 28, 1998.

Remick, H. (ed.) 1984 Comparable Worth and Wage Dis-
crimination: Technical Possibilities and Political Reali-
ties. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

——— 1984 ‘‘Major Issues in a priori Applications.’’ In
H. Remick, ed., Comparable Worth and Wage Discrimi-
nation: Technical Possibilities and Political Realities 99–

117. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Sorensen, E. 1986 ‘‘Implementing Comparable Worth:

A Survey of Recent Job Evaluation Studies.’’ Ameri-

can Economic Review Papers and Proceedings 76:364–367.

Spilerman, S. 1986 ‘‘Organizational Rules and the Fea-

tures of Work Careers.’’ Research in Social Stratifica-

tion and Mobility 5:41–102.

Steinberg, Ronnie, et al. 1985 The New York State Compa-

rable Worth Study: Final Report. New York: Center for

Women in Government.

Treiman, D. J., and H. I. Hartman 1981 Woman, Work

and Wages: Equal Pay for Jobs of Equal Value. Washing-

ton, D.C.: National Academy Press.

U.S. Bureau of the Census 1987 Male-Female Differences

in Work Experience Occupation and Earnings: 1984.

Current Population Report P–70, no. 10. Washing-

ton, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.

——— 1986 Statistical Abstract of the United States: 1987,

107th ed. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Print-

ing Office.

NANCY E. DURBIN

BARBARA MELBER

COMPARATIVE HEALTH-CARE

SYSTEMS

At the dawn of the twenty-first century, access to

health-care services, their cost and quality consti-

tute key social, political, and economic issues for

virtually every country in the world. Identifying

the conditions under which health-care systems

function most effectively has become a vital, albeit

elusive, goal. One point is certain: It is impossible

to fully understand the dynamics of health-care

systems without comparative health-care research.

Knowledge of systems other than one’s own pro-

vides the observer with multiple vantage points

from which to gain a fresh perspective on strengths

and weaknesses at home. Studying other systems,

including their successful as well as failed health-

reform efforts, provides a global laboratory for

health-systems development. While some coun-

tries have been quick to draw upon the health-care

innovations of their neighbors, the United States

has been relatively slow to look internationally for

health-reform ideas. Fortunately, the proliferation

of comparative health-care studies promises that

such insularity will be much less likely in the future.

The comparative study of health-care systems

focuses on two broad types of issues. The first