Protection for Whom? The Origins of Protective Labor Laws for Women

States were more likely to pass labor laws purportedly meant to protect women when more voters stood to benefit economically from restricting women’s employment.

By Matthias Doepke, Hanno Foerster, Anne Hannusch, & Michèle Tertilt. Excerpts:

"These protective labor laws, enacted by almost all states, imposed work restrictions on women that did not apply to men. They included maximum working hours, bans on night work, seating requirements, weight-lifting limits, and minimum wage provisions. These were presented as measures to protect women’s health and well-being, but in practice, they often curtailed women’s access to employment and economic independence. Most remained in place until the civil rights era, when anti-discrimination legislation rendered gender-specific laws unconstitutional."

"the answer primarily lies not in social norms or gendered values but in economic incentives and shifting labor market dynamics. Particularly, these laws found support among specific segments of the population that benefited from reduced competition in the workforce."

"Protective labor legislation limited women’s employment, thereby increasing the income of households that depended primarily on male earnings."

"a crucial force behind the rise and fall of protective labor legislation was these changing concerns about labor market competition from women."

"we developed a model in which women and men (single or married) can participate in the labor market and vote on protective labor legislation. In this model, two household types are key: single lower-skilled men and married couples consisting of a lower-skilled husband and a stay-at-home wife. For these groups, household income depends entirely on the male earner, who benefits from the exclusion of women from competing jobs."

"households where women contribute to family income—single working women or dual-earner couples—and households with higher-skilled men are more likely to oppose protective labor laws. Higher-skilled men benefit when women enter the workforce because women often perform roles that support and enhance the productivity of higher-skilled jobs."

"the two household types favoring restrictions did constitute the majority of the voting population when protective labor laws were introduced. In contrast, when these laws were dismantled, the share of the population opposing them had regained the majority. Further analysis shows that states were more likely to pass restrictive labor laws when a larger share of their voting population consisted of households that would economically benefit from limiting women’s employment."

"states were more likely to support equal rights amendments when the proportion of households that stood to benefit from eliminating gender-based labor restrictions was larger."

"Our research does not find support for the claim that states where women gained the right to vote earlier were more likely to introduce protective legislation. This finding confirms that the primary reason protective labor laws were passed was not because women pushed for their own protection. Similarly, we found little support for the idea that organized labor played a decisive role in promoting these laws."

Matthias Doepke

London School of Economics, Northwestern University, and IZA—Institute of Labor Economics

Hanno Foerster

Boston College and IZA—Institute of Labor Economics

Anne Hannusch

University of Bonn and IZA—Institute of Labor Economics

Michèle Tertilt

University of Mannheim and IZA—Institute of Labor Economics