George-Levi Gayle

Gender Differences in Executive Compensation and Job Mobility

Fewer women than men become executive managers. They earn less over their careers, hold more junior positions, and exit the occupation at a faster rate. We compiled a large panel data set on executives and formed a career hierarchy to analyze mobility and compensation. We find, controlling for executive rank and background, that women earn higher compensation than men, experience more income uncertainty, and are promoted more quickly. Among survivors, being female increases the chance of becoming chief executive officer. The unconditional gender pay gap and job-rank differences are primarily attributable to female executives exiting the occupation at higher rates than men.

PROMOTION, TURNOVER, AND COMPENSATION IN THE EXECUTIVE LABOR MARKET

This paper develops a generalized Roy model with human capital accumulation, moral hazard, and career concerns. We identify and estimate the model with a large panel that matches data on publicly listed firms to information on their executives. The structural estimates obtained are used to decompose the firm‐size pay gap. We find that although total compensation and incentive pay increase with firm size, certainty‐equivalent pay decreases with firm size. In larger firms, and for more highly ranked executives, weaker signal quality about effort results in higher risk premiums. This risk premium accounts for roughly 80 percent of the firm‐size gap in total compensation. Larger firms are also willing to pay more than smaller ones to attract executives. Finally, the estimated coefficients on human capital accumulation from formal education and experience gained from different firms are individually significant, but their collective effect on firm‐size pay differentials nets out.

Optimal Taxation, Marriage, Home Production, and Family Labor Supply

An empirical approach to optimal income taxation design is developed within an equilibrium collective marriage market model with imperfectly transferable utility. Taxes distort labour supply and time allocation decisions, as well as marriage market outcomes, and the within household decision process. Using data from the American Community Survey and American Time Use Survey, we structurally estimate our model and explore empirical design problems. We consider the optimal design problem when the planner is able to condition taxes on marital status, as in the U.S. tax code, but we allow the schedule for married couples to have an arbitrary form of tax jointness. Our results suggest that the optimal tax system for married couples is characterized by negative jointness, although the welfare gains from this jointness are shown to be quite modest.

Intergenerational Mobility and the Effects of Parental Education, Time Investment, and Income on Children’s Educational Attainment

This article analyzes the mechanisms through which parents? and children?s education are linked. It estimates the causal effect of parental education, parental time with children, and parental income during early childhood on the educational outcomes of children. Estimating the causal effects of time with children, income, and parental education is challenging because parental time with children is usually unavailable in many datasets and because of the problem of endogeneity of parental income, time with children, and education. The authors, therefore, use an instrumental variables approach to estimate the causal effects. They find that once they account for the parental time input with children, parental income during the first five years is no longer statistically significant. The parental time investments of both parents in early childhood are each statistically and quantitatively significant determinants of the educational outcomes of children.

How Well Does Agency Theory Explain Executive Compensation

As the share of all income going to the top 1 percent has risen over the past four decades, so has the share of top incomes coming from labor income relative to capital income. The rise in labor income is mainly due to the explosion in executive compensation over the same period?mostly because of the increase in executives being paid with stocks, options, and bonuses. The principal-agent model explains the reason for such compensation instead of a flat salary. Yet hundreds of papers in economics, finance, accounting, and management have reached no consensus on whether executive compensation is efficient or whether empirically it conforms to the prediction of the principal-agent theory. In this article, we argue that this lack of consensus is due to two issues: The first is a measurement issue, and the second is that the exact prediction of the principal-agent model depends on many objects unobservable to the econometrician. We illustrate how using theory-based estimation together with a model-motivated measure of total compensation can help overcome these issues. Finally, using a model-consistent measure of compensation and theory-based estimation, we conclude that executive compensation broadly conforms to the principal-agent theory; however, each situation and the variables used have to be carefully modeled, identified, and estimated.