Promoting fathers to take parental leave is seen as a promising way to advance gender equality. However, there is still a very limited understanding of its impact on fathers’ labor market outcomes. We conducted a correspondence study to analyze whether fathers who take parental leave face discrimination during the hiring process in three different occupations. Fathers who took parental leave in a female-dominated or gender-neutral occupation are not less likely to be invited to a job interview compared to fathers who did not take leave. However, in the male-dominated occupation, fathers who have taken long parental leave are penalized. Regardless of leave-taking, fathers are treated less favorably than mothers in the female-dominated and the gender-neutral occupation, while the opposite is true for the male-dominated occupation. This suggests the presence of strong gender norms concerning the perception of ideal employees in different occupations.

Child penalties in labour market outcomes are well-documented: after childbirth, mothers’ employment and earnings drop persistently compared to fathers. Beyond gender norms, a potential driver could be the loss in labour market skills due to mothers’ longer employment interruptions. This paper estimates child penalties in adult cognitive skills by adapting the pseudo-panel approach to a single cross-section of 29 countries in the PIAAC dataset. We find a persistent drop in numeracy skills after childbirth for both parents between 0.13 (short-run) and 0.16 standard deviations (long-run), but no statistically significant difference between mothers and fathers. Estimates of child penalties in skills strongly depend on controlling for pre-determined characteristics, especially education. Additionally, there is no evidence for worse occupational skill matches for mothers after childbirth. Our findings suggest that changes in general labour market skills cannot explain child penalties in labour market outcomes, and that a cross-sectional estimation of child penalties can be sensitive to characteristics of the outcome variable.

Background Despite being two Baltic countries with similar histories, Estonia and Lithuania have diverged in life expectancy trends in recent years. We investigated this divergence by comparing cause-specific mortality trends. Methods We obtained yearly mortality data for individuals 20 + years of age from 2001-2019 (19 years worth of data) through Statistics Lithuania, the Lithuanian Institute for Hygiene, and the National Institute for Health Development (Estonia). Using ICD-10 codes, we analyzed all-cause mortality rates and created eight major disease categories: ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease, all other cardiovascular disease, cancers (neoplasms), digestive diseases, self-harm and interpersonal violence, unintentional injuries and related conditions, and other mortality (deaths per 100,000 population). We used joinpoint regression analysis, and analyzed the proportional contribution of each category to all-cause mortality. Results There was a steeper decline in all-cause mortality in Estonia (average annual percent change, AAPC = -2.55%, 95% CI: [-2.91%, -2.20%], P < .001) as compared to Lithuania (AAPC = -1.26%, 95% CI: [-2.18%, -0.57%], P = .001). For ischemic heart disease mortality Estonia exhibited a relatively larger decline over the 19-year period (AAPC = -6.61%, 95% CI: [-7.02%, -6.21%], P < .001) as compared to Lithuania (AAPC = -2.23%, 95% CI: [-3.40%, -1.04%], P < .001). Conclusion Estonia and Lithuania showed distinct mortality trends and distributions of major disease categories. Our findings highlight the role of ischemic heart disease mortality. Differences in public health care, management and prevention of ischemic heart disease, alcohol control policies may explain these differences.

Despite faster-than-expected progress in clean energy technology deployment, global annual CO2 emissions have increased from 2020 to 2023. The feasibility of limiting warming to 1.5 °C is therefore questioned. Here we present a model intercomparison study that accounts for emissions trends until 2023 and compares cost-effective scenarios to alternative scenarios with institutional, geophysical and technological feasibility constraints and enablers informed by previous literature. Our results show that the most ambitious mitigation trajectories with updated climate information still manage to limit peak warming to below 1.6 °C (‘low overshoot’) with around 50% likelihood. However, feasibility constraints, especially in the institutional dimension, decrease this maximum likelihood considerably to 5–45%. Accelerated energy demand transformation can reduce costs for staying below 2 °C but have only a limited impact on further increasing the likelihood of limiting warming to 1.6 °C. Our study helps to establish a new benchmark of mitigation scenarios that goes beyond the dominant cost-effective scenario design.

High-growth firms (HGFs) are important for job creation and productivity growth. We investigate the relationship between product and labour market regulations, as well as the quality of regional governments that implement these regulations, and the development of HGFs across European regions. Using data from Eurostat, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), World Economic Forum (WEF), and Gothenburg University, we show that both regulatory stringency and the quality of the regional government relate to the regional shares of HGFs. In particular, we find that the effect of labour and product market regulations is moderated by the quality of regional government. Depending on the quality of regional governments, regulations may have a ‘good, bad or ugly’ influence on the development of HGFs. Our findings contribute to the debate on the effects of regulations and offer important building blocks to develop tailored policy measures that may influence the development of HGFs in a region.