DISCRIMINATIONanalyses often only camouflage the crucial issues,
as critical examination of wage differential decom-
positions reveals.
THE DECOMPOSITION APPROACHAssessments of discrimination produced by de-
composing gross race or gender differences in
wages or other social outcomes are common in
sociology (e.g., Corcoran and Duncan 1978; Farley
1984, Rosenfeld and Kalleberg 1990) as well as
in economics (e.g., Gill 1989). One segment of
the gross intergroup differential is defined by its
empirical linkage to ‘‘qualifications’’ and other
factors deemed legitimate determinants of social
rewards. The second, residual segment not de-
monstrably linked to ‘‘legitimate’’ determinants of
the outcomes often is presented as the estimate of
discrimination. However, in the absence of better
information than usually available and greater
agreement on what constitutes discrimination, no
unique estimate is possible. Through their choice
of control variables to index ‘‘legitimate’’ determi-
nants of social outcomes and their interpretation
of findings, researchers wittingly or unwittingly
shape their answers. Any appearance of scientific
certitude is an illusion. For example, estimated
proportions of the gender earnings gap caused by
discrimination in the United States range from
Sanborn’s (1969) 10 percent or less to Blinder’s
(1973) 100 percent. Predictably, each has been
challenged (Bergman and Adelman 1973; Rosensweig
and Morgan 1976).
An Illustrative Decomposition Study. An analy-
sis of gender differentials in faculty salaries at a
large university illustrates the difficulty of separat-
ing ‘‘legitimate’’ wage differentials from inequity
(Taylor 1988). About 90 percent of a $10,000
gender difference in faculty salaries was empirical-
ly linked to three factors widely considered legiti-
mate determinants of faculty pay: academic rank,
age, and discipline. Women tend to hold lower
academic rank, to be younger, and more often to
be affiliated with poorly-paid disciplines than men.
Insofar as women’s lower salaries are linked to
rank, age, and discipline, is the salary differential
untainted by gender discrimination? Convention-
al wage differentials imply an unequivocal yes. If a
simple answer is given, it should be no. But in
truth, when policy makers ask for dollar estimates
of inequity that the institution is obliged to reme-
dy, the answers are neither unequivocal nor simple.If the university’s promotion system has oper-
ated fairly, a gender gap reflecting differences in
rank may be warranted. If gender bias has existed
in the university’s promotion system, depressing
the average academic rank of women faculty, the
resulting deficit in women’s salaries reflects indi-
rect discrimination. Attention should then be di-
rected to the offending promotion processes. How-
ever, direct salary adjustments may also be in
order, because gender bias in promotions weak-
ens the link between rank and merit. Inequitable
depression of women’s ranks would not necessari-
ly lessen their actual contributions to the faculty,
just their status. Using rank as a universalistic
determinate of salary would then undermine the
goal this practice is claimed to promote—the match-
ing of rewards to contributions.Salary differences tied to the age differential
of female and male faculty also raise troublesome
questions. If the relative youth of women faculty
reflects lower retention and higher turnover as a
result of discriminatory review processes or gener-
ally inhospitable conditions, salary differentials
tied to age differences are again examples of indi-
rect discrimination. The evidence would signal a
need for institutional efforts to improve the reten-
tion of women faculty. But here it is not clear that
salary adjustments are warranted. Because faculty
contributions may be a function of experience,
application of the universalistic age criterion is
arguably reasonable. Any gender gap in salary tied
to age differentials could, then, be both a legacy of
discrimination and a reasonable conditioning of
rewards on contributions. Complicating the issue
further is the fact that affirmative action efforts
often meet with greatest success in recruiting jun-
ior candidates. Thus, without supplementary data,
it is not even clear whether an age-linked gender
gap in salary reflects continuing institutional dis-
crimination or affirmative hiring.Gender differences in salary associated with
discipline present even more complicated
interpretational problems. Women and men are
distributed across academic disciplines in a fash-
ion that mirrors the gender distribution across
occupations. Disciplinary differences in average
salary likewise mirror wage differentials across
occupations. But are the differing occupational