Measuring of Gender Inequality: Asymmetry of Marriage Table with respect to Educational Level

교육수준 별 혼인표의 비대칭성으로 살펴본 남녀불평등지수

  • Published : 2002.06.01

Abstract

This study examines cross-national patterns of asymmetry of marriage tables with respect to educational level and tries to measure the degree of gender inequality across nations. A Primary assumption of the study is that gender inequality inhibits symmetric marriage between men and women. As men and women differ more in status, the rate of symmetric marriage between them declines thus producing asymmetric marriage with respect to social status. More specifically, the main object of the study is to develop statistical models and index with which to assess the patterns and degree of asymmetric marriage. Additionally, it is intended to assess the appropriateness of several theoretical perspectives for explaining these variations identified by the statistical models. Two most important such perspectives are industrialism and theory of politics and culture. To answer these questions, this study relies on twenty-seven marriage tables with respect to educational level, some from published tables, and some extracted from other sources. The main findings of the study are: (1) compared to less industrialized countries, more industrialized countries have lower degrees of asymmetric marriage(gender inequality) with respect to educational level, and (2) other things being equal, differences in politics and culture seem to have the some impact on marriage pattern; for instance, social democracy and state socialism reduce the degree of asymmetric marriage while the high emphasis on gender-based hierarchy in Asian countries seems to increase it In short, these results suggest a weaker or modified version of industrialists That is, while with economic growth most nations show a decline in the degrees of asymmetric marriage with respect to social status, for some nations the degrees of asymmetric marriage are affected by their specific politics or cultures.

본 연구는 교육수준 별 혼인표에서 나타나는 남녀 결혼의 비대칭성을 조사하여 남녀불평등 정도를 측정하고자 한다. 연구의 기본가정은 남녀간의 불평등이 존재할때는 남자가 결혼하는 유형과 여자가 결혼하는 유형이 다르다는 것이다. 남녀불평 등 정도가 큰 사회에서는 여자의 지위가 남자의 지위에 비해 높다는 사실을 받아들이기가 상대적으로 더 힘들다. 구체적인 연구의 목적은 혼인표의 비대칭성을 측정하기 위한 통계모형과 지수를 개발하는 것이다. 아울러 국가별로 다르게 나타나는 남녀불평등지수의 차이에 미친 원인을 찾아보고자 한다. 이 분야에서 남녀불평등정도의 차이에 관한 중요한 이론으로 논의되는 두 가지 이론은 산업화론과 정치 /문화이론이다. 이러한 연구목적을 위해 27여개의 교육수준일 혼인표가 분석되었다. 가설검증과 같은 방법으로 엄격하게 이론의 타당성을 살펴본 것은 아니지만, 분석결과를 통해서 몇 가지 시사점을 찾아볼 수 있다. 첫째, 상대적으로 덜 산업화된 국가들에 비해. 산업화가 많이 진척된 나라일수록 남녀불평등의 정도가 작다. 둘째. 다른 조건이 같다면, 정치제도가 선택결혼의 정도에 영향을 미친다. 셋째. 이러한 정치적인 요인뿐만 아니라 문화적인 요인도 적어도 결혼과 관련하여 남녀불평등 정도에 영향을 준 것으로 보여진다 요약하자면, 본 연구는 남녀불평등과 관련요인의 관계에 대해서 일종의 수정된 산업화이론을 시사하고 있다 즉, 대부분의 국가에서는 산업화의 진척에 따라 남녀불평등 정도가 작아진다 동시에 몇몇 국가에서는 그 나라 특유의 정치제도나 문화적 경험에 많은 영향을 받는 것으로 보인다. 이러한 결과는 산업화 정도에 따른 남녀 간 사회적 지위의 감소 등을 강조하는 기존의 이론을 부분적으로 확인하는 것이다. 동시에 단순이 산업화의 정도가 그러한 경향을 보장하는 것은 아니다라는 것을 강조하고 하고 있다.

Keywords

References

  1. 김미숙(1990), '성분절 지수에 나타난 한국 취업여성의 지위: 1960-1980,' 송호근편 '노동과 불평등: 노동시장의 사회학' 서울: 나남
  2. 이명진(2000), '한국사회의 선택혼,' '한국사회학' 제34집 여름호, 297-324
  3. 조순경(1990), '한국여성노동시장 분석을 위한 시론: 생산직 여성노동력,' 송호근편 '노동과 불평등: 노동시장의 사회학' 서울: 나남
  4. 조선일보(1998), '역대 최고의 신부감은 여교사,' 10. 26
  5. (2000), '연상여 연하남 커플 급증,' 8. 16
  6. 한국사회학회(1988). '지역발전연구' 서울: 한국사회학회
  7. Archer, Margaret S.(1989), 'Cross-National Research and the Analysis of Educational Systems,' 242-262 in Cross-National Research in Sociology, edited by Melvin L. Kohn. Newbury: Sage Publications
  8. Agresti, Alan(1984), Analysis of Ordinal Categorical Data. New York: JohnWiley & Sons
  9. (1990), Categorical Data Arvdysis. New York: Wiley & Sons
  10. Becker, Gary S.(1974), 'A Theory of Marriage' 299-344 in Economics of theFamily: Marriage, Children, and Human Capital, Edited by TheodoreW. Schultz. Chicago: University of Chicago Press
  11. (1981), A Treatise on the Family. Cambridge: Harvard University Press
  12. Bishop Yvonne M., Stephen E. Fienberg, and Paul W. Holland(1975), DiscreteMultivariate Analysis: Theory and Practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press
  13. Blau, Peter M., Terry C. Blum, and Joseph E. Schwartz(1983). Crosscutting Social CircIes: Testing a Macrostructural Theory of Intergroup Relations. New York: Academic Press
  14. Clogg, Clifford D. and Scott R. Eliason(1987), 'Some Common Problems inLog-Linear Model.' Sociological Methods & Research 16, pp. 8-44 https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124187016001002
  15. Dijkstra, A. Geske(2000), A Larger Pie through a Fair Share? GenderEquality and Economic Performance, Institute of Social StudiesWorking Paper Series No. 315. The Hague: Institute of Social Studies
  16. Dijkstra, A. Geske and Lucia C. Hanmer(2000), 'Measuring Socio-EconomicGender Inequality: Toward an Alternative to the UNDP Gender-Related Development Index,' Feminist Economics Vol. 6 No. 2, July
  17. Blackburn, R.M., J. Jarman and J. Siltanen(1993), 'The Analysis of Occupational Gender Segregation Over Time and Place: Considerations of Measurement and Some New Evidence,' Work, Employment and Society, 7(3), 335-362 https://doi.org/10.1177/095001709373001
  18. Blackburn, R.M., J. Siltanen and J. Jarman(1995), 'Measuring Occupational Gender Segregation: Current Problems and a New Approach,' Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 158, pp.319-331
  19. Blau, Peter M., Terry C. Blum, and Joseph E. Schwartz(1983), Crosscutting Social Circles: Testing a Macrostructural Theory of Intergroup Relations. New York: Academic Press
  20. Guttentag, Marcia, and Paul E. Secord(1983), Too Many Women? BeverelyHills: Sage
  21. Goldthorpe, John(1980), Social Mobility and Class Structure in ModernBritain. Oxford: Clarendon Press
  22. Haberman, Shelby J.(1979), Analysis of Qualitative Data. New York: Academic Press
  23. Inkeles, Alex and David Smith(1974), Becoming Modern. Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press
  24. International Social Science Program(ISSP)(1990), International Social Science Program: Social Inequality, 1987. Ann Arbor: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research (ICPSR)
  25. Kim, Jae-On Kim and Myoung-Jin Lee(2000), 'Tabular Analysis,' pp.3107-3128 in Encyclopedia of Sociology, edited by B. F. Borgatta,New York: Macmillan
  26. Lichter, Daniel T.(1990), 'Delayed Marriage, Marital Homogamy, and the Mate Selection Process among White Women,' Social Science Quarterly 71,No. 4
  27. Oudhof, Ko(2000), 'The GDI as a Measurment Instrument on Gender Aspectof Development in the ECE Region,' Conference of European Statisticians. Working Paper No. 4
  28. Smits, Jeroen, Wout Ultee, and Jan Lammers(1998), 'Educational Homogamy in65 Countries: An Explanation of Differences in Openness UsingCountry-Level Explanatory Variables.' American Sociological Review63: 264-285
  29. Stephens, John D.(1980), The Transition from Capitalism to Socialism, AtlanticHighlands: Humanities Press
  30. Summers, Robert and Alan Heston(1991), The Penn World Table (Mark 5):An Extended Set of International Comparisons, 1950-1988. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 106: 327-368 https://doi.org/10.2307/2937941
  31. Tominaga, Ken'ichi(1979), The Structure of Socical Stratification in Japan.Tokyo: University of Tokyo Press. 'in Japanese'
  32. Treiman, Donald(1970), 'Industrialization and Social Stratification.' Pp. 207-234in Socical Stratification, edited by E. O. Lauman. Indiana polis:Bobbs-Merrill
  33. Ultee, Wout C. and Rudd Luijkx(1990), 'Educational heterogamy andFather-to-Son Occupational Mobility in 23 Industrial Nations: GeneralSocietal Openness or Compensatory Strategies of Reproduction?'European, Sociological Review 6: 125-149
  34. United Nations Development Programme(UNDP)(2000), Human Development Report 2000. NY: Oxford University Press
  35. Verba, Sidney, Norman Nie, and Jae-On Kim(1978), Participation and Political Equality, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press