Hakim's Preference Theory - Essay Example

 Hakim’s Preference Theory Critically assess the usefulness of Hakim’s Preference Theory in explaining women’s employment patterns, paying particular attention to gendered composition of part-time work and management. Introduction While there have been many approaches to explaining the pay gap between genders, one of the more controversial theories presented regarding women and their professional lives has been given by Catherine Hakim which is known as Hakim’s Preference Theory. The theory is controversial since it challenges conventional ideas which have been proposed by feminist writers and analysts as to why certain employment patterns persist for women (Arndt, 2003). While the theory has found a lot of support, it has also met with opposition therefore a balanced view of the theory becomes necessary for any student of management, social sciences, gender studies and even economics. The Theory As Hakim’s Preference Theory seeks to explain the choices women appear to make between family and work, she presents the argument that women are not a single group which can be judged according to the same measure. She describes women into three groups of which only a minority is focused on having a professional career. She estimates that this minority stands somewhere between a tenth to the third of all the women in the workforce. A similar number of women are focused on their families and give preference to their children and their homes over their work (Jenkins, 2004). The remaining majority which could be anywhere from half the women in the workforce to 80% of women in the workforce try to adapt their work to their lives outside the office or they may try to work around their lives with their families. By splitting women into these three groups, Hakim also pointed out predictors for their employment patterns and their marital as well as fertility rates. The results of the study she conducted to test her theory supported her ideas and she showed that the majority of women who focused on their work were employed on a full-time basis, had not married and had low rates in terms of fertility (Arndt, 2003). On the other hand, her research also showed that women who were focused on their homes and their families were more likely to be married with more than twice the number of children as compared to women who focused on their work. The numbers for fertility and marriage rates of women who adapted their professional careers to their family situation remained in the middle of work centred and family centred women. With these ideas, Hakim dismisses years of feminist thought as myths (Jenkins, 2004). This has become the primary reason why Hakim’s Preference Theory has attracted so much attention because it is quite provocative. She acknowledges this in her own words by saying, “I thought if you are going to be provocative, be really provocative (Arndt, 2003, Pg. 1)” A New Viewpoint Jenkins (2004) reports that traditional feminists have created many myths regarding the work situation for women and those are explained away by Hakim’s Preference Theory. For example, it is a myth that government policies are increasing the number of women in the workforce. It is a myth that women are always as much committed towards work as men and that childcare problems are the central barrier to women’s entry to the work place. Finally, it is a fallacy to say that women are exploited as part-time workers since Hakim’s Preference Theory suggest that the majority of women may prefer part-time work. She further clarifies that: Hakim’s Preference Theory argues that within the twenty-first century women do have a choice and that feminists should acknowledge, through the literature on the deconstruction of woman, that women are not a homogenous group. Hakim argues that a woman who has given up a professional career to be at home with her children full-time may well have made a positive choice (Jenkins, 2004, Pg. 24). The theory is successful in certain circumstances and fails in others. Some of the supporting evidence comes from the way in which legislative controls on equality have been created to prevent wage discrimination based on gender. On the other hand, the opposition and evidence contrary to Hakim’s Preference Theory comes from cultural implements, sociological factors and even pressures from within the family groups which may prevent women from working as much as they would like to (Perrons et. al., 2006). While defending her theory, Hakim (2002) may say that, “the theory is historically-informed, empirically-based, multi-disciplinary, prospective rather than retrospective in orientation, and applicable in all rich modern societies (Hakim, 2002, Pg. 3)”, there are countries such as Japan where discrimination and other issues still remain primary concerns. To better understand the theory and its applicability, it becomes important to look at arguments from both the supporting side and the opposing side of Hakim’s Preference Theory. Those Who Say Aye Arndt (2003) quotes a Cambridge professor of economics i.e., Bob Rowthord who has said that the reason Hakim has been criticized is because she “actually looked at the facts (Arndt, 2003, Pg. 1)”. He goes on to say that, “Women's employment is such an ideological subject and a lot of people are not very interested in the actual evidence. Hakim has taken the cudgels up against what had become a monolithic consensus (Arndt, 2003, Pg. 1)”. Essentially, researchers and analysts around the world are being asked to take an objective view of the situation and not an idealistic view in which employment for men and women should be on an equal footing. In this manner, the study conducted by Kan (2005) becomes a very important supportive document since her data brings her to agree with Hakim. The data found by Kan (2005) makes her say that: “Concurring with Hakim’s arguments, women who have followed a home-career path hold consistently more home-centred attitudes over time than women who have been committed to their employment careers. Moreover, it is found that presence of dependent children has little or no negative effect on a work-centred woman’s chance of being engaged in full-time work (Kan, 2005, Pg. 2)”. It Explains a Lot These findings certainly support the theory and agree with the ideas presented by Hakim that women will make choices regarding work and family life based on their personal preferences (Kan, 2005). Even politicians and social leaders such as the Australian prime minister, John Howard have come to see things from her viewpoint and are taking steps to change the social situation keeping the Preference Theory in mind. In fact, Anne Summers, a former women’s advisor to the Australian government has called the theory, “A statement of the bleeding obvious (Arndt, 2003, Pg. 1)”. Hakim’s Preference Theory certainly appeals to common sense and neatly fills many gaps which are experienced in the data concerning the employment of women for the UK. However, there are analysts such as Tomlinson (2006) and McRae (2003) as well as Kangas (2007) amongst others who consider the theory to be weak. They suggest that the theory overlooks important aspects regarding the employment situation for women and needs to be further developed in order to become a more complete explanation of the employment patterns observed for women in the UK and elsewhere. Those Who Say Nay Kangas (2007) gives the most recent European study concerning the theory and she gives results which contradict the ideas of the Preference Theory by saying that even though women may prefer to work part-time, this preference is not an indicator of willingness since this preference is “constrained by opportunity structures which are not alike for all women across different countries (Kangas, 2007, Pg. 40)”. The research done by Kangas came to this conclusion after reviewing women’s part-time and full-time employment data from various European countries such as Denmark, Finland, Germany, Norway, Sweden and England as well as the Netherlands. Kangas (2007) supports the conventional wisdom about women in the workforce not having enough opportunities and structural support which is required for gender equality. Institutional factors, such as readily available day care services also become important for women while making a decision to work full-time or part-time or even if they are willing to accept more responsibility at higher positions within the company. Additionally, it may not be women’s preference alone which affects their position as managers within a company or their selection of working part-time or full-time in an organization. Kangas (2007) notes in addition to structural and regulatory issues, the opinion of their male partners has an effect on women selecting to work part-time or not to work at all. In this manner, the preferences of women which were seen and theorized by Hakim may be mere illusions themselves since they appear to fall apart when they are applied to a rich and modern society such as Japan. The Case of Japan Across the world, the issues faced by women in the workforce have quite a few commonalities and in many regions cultural and structural issues may cause women to be seen as lesser beings. Culturally, there are significant differences between the UK and Japan even though they are rich, technically advanced, and developed countries. However, in Japan’s case, these cultural differences translate into gender discrimination practices and create social stratification which makes it difficult to apply Hakim’s Preference Theory. Internationally, the Fortune 500 list of companies shows that in 2003, women held nearly 14% of all board seats in various top companies of the world. This situation reflected a marked improvement from the year 1995 when women only had 10% of the total board seats in Fortune 500 companies. Nearly ten percent of the same companies had a board composition where a quarter of the seats were filled by women (Lockwood, 2005). However, Japan represents a special case since female board members of top Japanese companies are very hard to find. Completely discarding the Preference Theory, the Asian Human Rights Commission (2001, Pg. 1) says with reference to Japan that, “The equality of men and women has not been fully achieved in practice, for the traditional concept that the woman is to stay at home is still deeply rooted”. Even at lower positions, when a Japanese woman can find work, she faces issues which are much more serious than the ones faced by European or British women. While a woman in the EU has the right to take legal action if she faces sexual harassment at work, a Japanese woman has no such legal rights. The Japanese government knows perfectly well that there is an issue concerning sexual harassment in their offices since government made surveys have shown that more than fifty percent of female workers in Japan have been made victims of sexual harassment. Independent surveys place the figure at 70% or higher since many women may not feel comfortable coming forward with harassment complaints due to cultural taboos (Asian Human Rights Commission, 2001). Therefore, even though Japan is a rich country which has an established democratic system, the culture of the country dominates how women are placed in the workforce. Culturally, as compared to the UK, Japan is a lot more patriarchal which means that it would be nearly impossible to find a woman as the head of a corporation or even on a position of high responsibility of the directorial board of a company (Chieko, 2001). Preference has little to do with it because women in Japan are expected by society to fulfil their duties in their traditional roles rather than the modern roles which are more acceptable in countries like America or the UK. More Issues and Concerns The case of the UK is a particularly interesting one since as described by Tomilson (2006) the preferences and choices made by women workers in the UK are merely perceived preferences. In reality, “decisions about whether to work part-time and subsequent employment trajectories are structured by care networks, work status, welfare policies as well as preferences (Tomlinson, 2006, Pg. 380)”. These preferences are not fixed by groups of women focused on careers or women focused on their families but they change as a woman goes through various stages of life. These stages of life seem to have a greater impact on the choices made by women regarding coming back to work after having a child or continuing to work while she has young children at home. Of course individual women may react differently to these constraints but calling them their preferences may be unjustified since it is commonly accepted that full-time work is far more rewarding professionally and economically than part-time situations. Women can certainly be helped in this situation since care networks for their children, welfare policies and government support can help more women return to work on a full-time basis while they continue to have children of their own (Tomilson, 2006). There is More to it than Preference As shown by the data collected by Tomilson (2006), factors such as care networks, supportive partners and government policies, “often override and undermine the carrying out of preferences (Tomlinson, 2006, Pg. 380)”. What Hakim calls preferences, might be better understood as compromises or making the best of a bad situation. The same complaints regarding the Preference Theory are made by McRae (2003) who says that, “Although support is found for Hakim's argument that employment careers are centrally important for only a minority of women, little evidence is adduced that it is preferences that distinguish the minority from the majority (McRae, 2003, Pg. 317)”. While we may have new economic realities and legal clauses which prevent gender discrimination, it is difficult to escape social realities and real world constraints. These constraints are placed on women through various social pressures and even the pressure to have children can make it appear to be a preference as a woman leaves her job to have children or gives up an opportunity to move into higher positions within the company. McRae sums up the issues with the Preference Theory quite clearly when she says: “Analysis of longitudinal data fails to support the central argument of Preference Theory that women have genuine, unconstrained choices… …a complete explanation of women's labour market choices, and of the outcomes of those choices, depends as much on understanding the constraints that differentially affect women as it does on understanding their personal preferences (McRae, 2003, Pg. 317)”. Conclusions While there are some interesting and attractive points made by Hakim (2000) regarding her Preference Theory it must be noted that it is at the end of the day a theory. Of course the idea that the earth revolves around the sun is also a theory and evolution of the species is also a theory but those theories have been strengthened with years of research and fact finding with which those theories can be proven. The Preference Theory however, still has gaps and contentious issues that need to be resolved before a firm judgement can be made with regard its validity and applicability. The data given in its support shows that some women may indeed prefer certain work situations and may prefer to give up managerial positions in their companies to have children or pursue different career trajectories but to call it a ‘preference’ might be premature. Of course women with higher social standing or those who have ample opportunities in the work place may consider it their preference to have children and maintain their homes rather than have a meteoric career but the same cannot be said for all women across all nations which are modern and rich. In fact, there are social, economic and cultural constraints that have to be considered by women while they are making decisions regarding their careers and job opportunities. Naming these constraints as preferences appears to be unjustified since they can only be preferences when women are free to select the path they wish to take. When women face pressures from family or need to satisfy their desire or their husband’s desires to have children, there is little possibility that the choices which are more or less forced upon them can be called preferences by anyone. In the final analysis, despite some level of support for this theory for women who are placed in specific circumstances, the wider body of literature and the data collected regarding the theory suggests that the Preference Theory is more reflective of the constraints placed on women rather than a measure of their preference to work in part-time jobs. After examining the evidence that has been presented and the information given by various researchers, it is difficult to see the Preference Theory as the absolute truth for the present situation of women in the workforce. At best, the theory helps in explaining certain anomalies which may persist in some cases but a lot has to be done to develop the theory before it can be taken as the final answer for the gender gap. That final answer must come from future researchers and sociologists who can build upon the Preference Theory to find a more conclusive picture. Works Cited Arndt, B. 2003, ‘Myths and misconceptions’, Sydney Morning Herald, [Online] Available at: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/06/1044498913240.html Asian Human Rights Commission, 2001, ‘Japanese Discrimination Against Women’, Asian Human Rights Commission, [Online] Available at: http://www.hrsolidarity.net/mainfile.php/1999vol09no01/788/ Chieko, K. 2001, ‘Present Situation of the Employment of Women in Japan’, Women's Online Media, [Online] Available at: http://wom-jp.org/e/JWOMEN/work.html Hakim, C. 2000, Work-lifestyle Choices in the 21st Century: Preference Theory, Oxford University Press. Hakim, C. 2002, ‘Do lifestyle preferences explain the pay gap?’, Women and Equality Unit UK, [Online] Available at: www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk/research/gender_research_forum/grf_papers_feb_june/catherine_hakim.doc Jenkins, S. 2004, Gender, Place and the Labour Market, Ashgate Publishing. Kan, M. 2005, ‘Work Orientation and Wives’ Employment Careers: An Evaluation of Hakim’s Preference Theory’, Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex, [Online] Available at: www.genet.ac.uk/workpapers/GeNet2005p12.pdf Kangas, O. 2007, ‘Preferences or institutions? Work-family life opportunities in seven European countries’ Journal of European Social Policy, vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 240-256. Lockwood, N. 2005, ‘Workplace Diversity: Leveraging the Power of Difference for Competitive Advantage’, HR Magazine, vol. 50, no. 6, pp 1-14. McRae, S. 2003, ‘Constraints and choices in mothers' employment careers: a consideration of Hakim's Preference Theory’, British Journal of Sociology, vol. 54, no. 3, pp. 317-338. Perrons, D. et. al. 2006, Gender Divisions And Working Time in the New Economy, Edward Elgar Publishing. Tomlinson, J. 2006, ‘Women’s work-life balance trajectories in the UK’, British Journal of Guidance and Counselling, vol. 34, no. 3, pp. 365-382. Word Count: 3,076 Read More