WOMEN’S QUOTA IN NORWAY -
A GOOD PIONEER FOR GERMANY? |

Table of Contents 1. Introduction 3 2. Definition Women’s/ Gender Quota 3 3. Gender quota in Norway 4 3.1 The road to the quota 4 3.2 Impacts and Changes 5 4. Gender pay gap in Germany 7 4.1 Causes for the Gender pay gap 7 4.2 gender quota in germany 8 5.Conclusion 9 List of Literature 9 Books/magazines 9 Internet Sources 10 Illustrations 10

1. Introduction
The situation for women in every kind of different sectors has changed over the last centuries and decades. Nevertheless the result of an UNO- analysis in the mid 1990’s states that women have not the same chances as men in any society in the world even though that there has been made a huge progress.
As Paragraph 1 of Article 3 of the German Basic Law declares, “All persons shall be equal before the law.“ In addition Paragraph 2 of the same article states, “Men and women shall have equal rights. The state shall 
promote the actual implementation of equal rights for women and men and take steps to eliminate disadvantages that now exist.“
In contrast to this Article of the Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) describes that after a study made in 2012 Germany has one of the biggest wage gap between men and women among all countries in Europe. The study says as well that there are fewer women in management positions.
This arouses the question “What are the reasons especially in Germany for women earning less than men and why are more men working in management position than women?”
This term paper will concentrate on these problems in the world of work. The author has the focus especially on the debate about the women’s quota with regards to Norway and Germany. This work will analyse why women earn less than men and what Germany can adopt from the experiences Norway has made so far with its women’s quota.
The paper will first give a rough definition about what is meant by the term “women’s quota”. --Then it will have a closer look on Norway concerning the changes the quota has entailed and the great debate that took place there. Furthermore the process of introducing the quota will be described. In the second part the term paper will deal with Germany’s gender pay gap and the problem of reverse discrimination that the gender quota entailed. The question why there is this huge wage gap will be answered and it will be analysed why Germany has not the women’s quota so far. In the end the term paper will examine what Germany can adopt from Norway’s experiences with the quota and if Norway is a good pioneer for Germany.
2. Definition Women’s/ Gender Quota

Women’s quotas, also termed as gender quotas, are political sanctions that should remove the results of ancient societal problems as discrimination and disadvantages of women.
Furthermore it is a guideline/ requirement stating that there has to be a certain fringe percentage of women who are employed in enterprises or who are members of management boards. Thus gender quotas are supposed to realize the political objective of increasing the amount of women in leadership positions and in certain occupational groups.

3. Gender quota in Norway
In December 2003 Norway introduced an additional provision of the companies act that states that both genders have to be represented with at least 40 percent in the management. Since January 2004 this law was only binding for state-owned as well as local business at first. Then in 2006 it was also in force for public limited companies/corporations, as they had not fulfilled the quota on a voluntary basis before. Thus Norway was the first country in the world that introduced a gender quota of 40% for supervisory boards.

3.1 The road to the quota
It took about ten years that new the law was fully transposed. One reason was the many controversy discussions. The opposition was especially formed of persons responsible for industry and representatives of employer’s associations. In contrast to that a lot of important politicians declared for the quota. As a result a great debate took place.
There were three main topics, which formed the centre of the debates: the argument of justice, the argument of abilities and the democratic argument.
THE ARGUMENT OF JUSTICE:
For proponents it was very important to underline the fact of balance between men and women as a principal for justice. The dominance of men in management positions in Norwegian companies was pronounced as unacceptable. In contrast opponents stated that a gender quota would be unjust, the allocation of supervisory board positions should not take place on the basis of the candidate’s gender. Every company should have the right to choose the person that has the best qualities for that position and that fits the most into the company.
THE ARGUMENT OF ABILITIES:
There were two main reasons that spoke in favour of a gender quota. On the one hand the fact about human capital, that means that the whole potential of a population is equally allocated between men and women living in that population. Therefore the dominance of men in supervisory boards described that no use of the potential of women was made. On the other hand it was argued that a higher amount of women in management positions would make a special contribution to organisational matters as they have made other experiences than men, due to other interests. Moreover the inclusion of women would lead to new perspectives as well as solutions for problems and it would have a positive impact on the profitability.
The counterargument said that less competent women would replace more competent men since there were not enough women with high qualities. As a consequence one has to employ women at a lower position at first.
THE DEMOCRATIC ARGUMENT:
Proponents stated that the equal participation of both genders on economic decision processes is an essential factor for the Norwegian democracy.
In contrast to that the opposition declared that a quota regulation acts in contrast to a basic freedom of decision- making. In addition it would disturb the electoral freedom on general meetings of shareholders.
Despite all contra arguments the regulation gained acceptance and support especially in the Norwegian parliament.
Nevertheless it is to say that the changes the implementation of the quota brought along could only occur because the Norwegian government introduced strict sanctions if the regulation was not full-filled. As an example an infringement could lead to dissolution of the company.

3.2 Impacts and Changes
As the introduction of the gender quota in Norway was only about ten years ago and the real implementation just started in 2006 some critics say that it might be too early measuring the impacts of the quota today.
However several changes have occurred since 2003. At the end of 1990’s estimated two to four percent of women were employed in management boards that shows that there was a great dominance of men. The following graph illustrates the impact of the gender quota. It is obvious that since the implementation of the quota for corporations in 2006 the amount of women in management boards increased from 18% in 2006 to 25% in 2007. The graph also shows that the required 40 percent were achieved in 2009. All in all is to say that the quota met its requirements but the given amount of 40% was not exceeded.

Figure 1: Amount of women in Norwegian management boards 2002-2009
Figure 1: Amount of women in Norwegian management boards 2002-2009

The impacts of the gender quota with regards to profits show only marginal improvements, which is a disappointing disillusion for its supporters. The causes are that most of the women had less upper management skills and fewer experiences in this sector so that as a consequence the firm’s performances could not strongly increase. Another reason is that the economic consequences of the quota cannot be measured so far as the implementation was just some years ago. Nevertheless on the basis of information from American companies that were examined in 2003 one found out that gender diversity in management positions has a positive impact on the company’s business performance. Another study searched out that companies where at least two women are working in management boards have more success with regards to their return on equity than companies that have fewer women on the same positions. Furthermore the quota in Norway led to advancement in the firm’s human capital. One also found out that the female influence has a positive impact on the communication within the company, it also bring about better as well as more focused decision-making and declined conflicts.

4. Gender pay gap in Germany
In the introduction it was already mentioned that Germany has one of the biggest wage gaps (women earn about 23% less than men) among the European countries. Surprisingly the gap widens with regards to management positions and college graduates. One also has to mention that the gap in the western part of Germany is with 24% higher than in the eastern part with 6%.
In Germany the differences in income between men and women is called Gender Pay Gap (GPG). It describes the percentage of differences between the gross income of men and women considering all female and male employees of the whole economy. The German federal bureau of statistics determines the German GPG.

4.1 Causes for the Gender pay gap
There are three main reasons for the gap. The first one that is mentioned by the Federal Ministry of Family Affairs, Senior Citizens, Women and Youth states that women often take time outs because of family issues. The second cause is that collective wage negotiations could not improve the worse evaluation of typical female professions. The third and most important reason is that fewer women work in particular jobs, branches and higher positions, which means that the horizontal and vertical segregation still exists.
General causes for the segregation are the differences in education, different work experiences, branches and the choice of career as well as different hierarchical levels. One of the most important factors is the level of education, which was for a long time the main reason for the wage gap since women were less educated than men. But this situation has changed over the last several years and women started to overtake men. Nevertheless the gender wage gap is greater for college graduates and management positions. One can attribute that fact to the different choices of study programs men and women are making. Men tend to choose study programs with a mathematical or natural-scientific background. However women often study linguistic or cultures. These subjects often lead to lower paid jobs. It also takes longer time for women to make career. Looking now on the horizontal segregation, which means on the choice of profession and field. Most women choose to work in typical female professions in the service sector that are automatically less paid than jobs in the technical field. Moreover more men are employed in higher paid jobs than women. Thus only 9,4 percent of the big earners are women. Looking than on the vertical segregation, the hierarchy level, one can see that less women work in management positions and if they are in management boards they earn less than their male colleagues. A possible explanation is the statistical discrimination that states that women are less promoted than men because companies assume that women do not stay as long as men in one company. All in all is to say that the amount of women in management position decreases as the size of the company increases.

4.2 gender quota in germany

Since the hierarchical level is one reason for the big gender pay gap and since there are fewer women in management as the size of a company increases as it was already mentioned it is to analyse why Germany has no gender quota like Norway does.

The main arguments that speak for and against a gender quota in Germany are similar as mentioned under point 3.1 for Norway but there is another reason that speaks against a gender quota for Germany, the reverse discrimination also called positive discrimination.
Critics say that the implementation of a gender quota in Germany contravene the German law of Article 3 as mentioned in the introduction of the term paper. Thus the law prohibits a discrimination of gender. If a woman gets a job only to full-fill the gender quota even if the men has better qualifications it might contravene against the law. However this article can also speak for the necessity of a quota. It is not prohibit treating men and women differently provided that it deals with an objective differentiation. One can only speak about discrimination if the discrimination of the other gender is not justified under the German law.

5.Conclusion

Referring to the question from the beginning “ What can Germany adopt from Norway?” and answering the main question of this term paper if Norway’s gender quota is a good pioneer for Germany it is to say that Norway in general has a long history concerning the equal treatment of men in women in different sectors.

The Norwegian model illustrates that without legal requirements no successful quota had been possible.
On the one hand Norway is a good pioneer for Germany and other European countries since it is the only country that has successfully implemented quota as it followed strictly its way to a gender quota and tried to concentrate on weighting up more arguments speaking for a quota. On the other hand it seems that Norway ignored the problem of reverse discrimination.
Germany can adopt from Norway a better attitude towards tolerance for transparency since transparency mattered a lot in realizing a gender quota as Norway introduced a lot of databases of women employees. These databases were introduced for companies to identify well-qualified women that fit the most to their company.
If Germany decides one day to introduce a gender quota not only on a voluntary basis it would be necessary to adopt this idea as well to ensure that the companies needs will be satisfied and it will profit from that.
List of Literature
Books/magazines
1. Amling, Svenja (December 2010), Hausarbeit: Die gesetzliche Frauenquote in Deutschland, Hochschule Hannover (PDF-link: http://opus.bsz-bw.de/fhhv/volltexte/2011/333/pdf/Amling_Gesetzliche_Frauenquote_2010.pdf)

2. Basic Law for The Federal Republic of Germany (2010), German Bundestag, Berlin

3. Boshammer Susanne, Kayß Matthias (1999), Einleitend: Frauenquote und die Frage nach der Gerechtigkeit, in Boshammer Susanne, Kayß Matthias Halbe-Halbe? Zur Gerechtigkeit der Frauenquote, LIT Verlag Münster, p.6-14

4. Ebert-Libeskind Cilia (June 2010), Zusammenfassung, in Storvik Aagoth, Teigen Mari Das Norwegische Experiment- Eine Frauenquote Für Aufsichtsräte, Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung
, Internationale Politikanalyse, Berlin, p.3

5. Raasch Sibylle (1991), Frauenquote und Männerechte, Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft, Baden-Baden

6. Storvik Aagoth, Teigen Mari (June 2010), Das Norwegische Experiment- Eine Frauenquote Für Aufsichtsräte, Internationale Politikanalyse, Friedrich-Ebert- Stiftung, Berlin

7. Sweigart Anne, (2012) Women on Board for Change: The Norway Model of Boardroom Quotas As a Tool For Progress in the United States and Canada, in Northwestern Journal of International Law & Business 81A Volume 32 , (PDF-link: http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/njilb/vol32/iss4/6)

8. Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen & Jugend (June 2009), Entgeltungleichheit zwischen Frauen und Männern in Deutschland, Dossier, DruckVogt GmbH, Berlin

Internet Sources 1. http://www.diw.de/de/diw_01.c.412682.de/frauenquote.html 22.07.13

2. http://www.zeit.de/karriere/beruf/2012-03/schlusslicht-gehaltsunterschied-deutschland 23.07.2013

Illustrations 1. Figure 1: Storvik Aagoth, Teigen Mari (June 2010), Das Norwegische Experiment- Eine Frauenquote Für Aufsichtsräte, Internationale Politikanalyse, Friedrich-Ebert- Stiftung, Berlin, p.9

--------------------------------------------
[ 1 ]. cf. Boshammer/ Kayß (1999) p.6
[ 2 ]. cf. Basic Law for the Federal Republic of Germany (2010) p.15
[ 3 ]. cf. http://www.zeit.de/karriere/beruf/2012-03/schlusslicht-gehaltsunterschied-deutschland (23.07.2013 /12:34)
[ 4 ]. cf. Boshammer/Kayß (1999) p.6
[ 5 ]. cf. http://www.diw.de/de/diw_01.c.412682.de/frauenquote.html (22.07.13 15:05)
[ 6 ]. cf. Storvik, Teigen (2010) p. 5-6
[ 7 ]. cf. Ebert- Libeskind (2010) p.3
[ 8 ]. cf. Storvik, Teigen (2010) p.6-7
[ 9 ]. cf. Storvik, Teigen (2010) p.6
[ 10 ]. cf. Storvik, Teigen (2010) p.9
[ 11 ]. cf. Sweigart (2012) p.84A
[ 12 ]. cf. Storvik, Teigen (2010) p.9
[ 13 ]. cf. Sweigart (2012) p.84A
[ 14 ]. cf. Storvik, Teigen (2010) p.11
[ 15 ]. cf. Sweigart (2012) p. 84A
[ 16 ]. cf. Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen & Jugend (2009) p.4
[ 17 ]. cf. Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen & Jugend (2009) p.9
[ 18 ]. cf. Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen & Jugend (2009) p.6
[ 19 ]. cf. Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen & Jugend (2009) p.10
[ 20 ]. cf. Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen & Jugend (2009) p.11-12
[ 21 ]. cf. Bundesministerium für Familie, Senioren, Frauen & Jugend (2009) p. 14
[ 22 ]. cf. Amling (2010) p.14
[ 23 ]. cf. Raasch (1991) p.204-205
[ 24 ]. cf. Sweigart (2012) p.98A
[ 25 ]. cf. Ebert-Libeskind (2010) p.3
[ 26 ]. cf. Sweigart (2012) p.97A
[ 27 ]. cf. Sweigart (2012) p. 98A