Economists disagree over how accurately one can estimate the rate of discrimination. 

Some argue that certain characteristics are not observable or measured, and so the effect of discrimination will look bigger than it actually is. Others note that individuals may willingly make choices that have negative effects on their salary. For example, it’s been argued that women are more likely to sacrifice salary for a job that has flexible hours, offers child care or better health benefits. Is it possible that in our setting women are more likely than men to choose roles in romance or comedy over high-budget action films? 

The other side of the coin is that the unexplained component of the gap might understate discrimination. Do women sometimes choose careers because they don’t think they’ll be hired in the areas that they are truly passionate about, or because they have been pressured to believe that they can’t be successful in some fields? Are women choosing smaller-budget films, or are they being pushed in that particular direction? 

If preexisting discrimination influences the “choices” researchers observe, then the explained difference is overstated and discrimination is understated.

I think both sides of the debate have merit. But, in the end, the evidence is clear to us: Discrimination plays a big role in Hollywood.

[ Like what you’ve read? Want more? Sign up for The Conversation’s daily newsletter. ]