The spread of gender quotas for company boards
Mar 25th 2014, 23:50 BY H.J.
The Economist
WHEN Norway introduced a 40% quota for female directors of listed companies in 2006, to come into force in 2008, it was a first. Non-complying firms could theoretically be forcibly dissolved, though none has in fact suffered such a fate. Since then gender quotas for boards have been imposed in Belgium, Iceland, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain (though with less severe sanctions: non-complying firms must generally explain in their annual reports why they fell short and what they plan to do about it). The European Commission is considering imposing quotas across the EU. Malaysia has imposed a 30% quota for new appointments to boards, and Brazil a 40% target, though only for state-controlled firms. The governments of several other countries, including Australia, Britain and Sweden, have threatened to impose quotas if firms do not appoint more female directors voluntarily. So why are gender quotas becoming more common?
One reason is a growing impatience with the glacial pace of voluntary change: women are the majority of all graduates almost everywhere in the developed world, but make up a smaller share of the workforce the further up the corporate ladder they go. Another is that Norway’s quota law has not been the disaster some predicted. “As a principle, I don’t like quotas,” Ider Kreutzer, the former chief executive of Storebrand, an insurance group, told the Financial Times the year after the law came into force. “But I have not been able to find any big problems with the legislation in practice.” Some had worried that they would actually decrease diversity by forcing companies to dive for the same small pool of eligible women, nicknamed the “golden skirts”. In fact, Norway still has more “golden trousers”—male directors are twice as likely to sit on more than one board. Nor did it obviously lead to less qualified boards: female Norwegian board members are more likely to have a degree than male ones.

That is not to say quotas are now uncontroversial. Whether you think robust measures to increase the share of women in senior management are a good thing in the first place depends partly on how convinced you are that diversity in management is important. It might improve performance by mirroring the diversity of customers—or, as our Schumpeter columnist recently argued (though about cultural rather than gender diversity), it might increase conflict, worsen communication and reduce workplace trust. Easier to dismiss is the still-common objection that quotas are anti-meritocratic: that is more true of the status quo. Oodles of research demonstrates that women are evaluated less positively than identically qualified men when applying for stereotypically male jobs, such as leadership roles. One study found that a commitment by hiring committees to shortlists with at least 25% women helped to remove anti-woman bias.

Over time, advocates of quotas hope that a sudden large increase in the number of women in leadership will change attitudes. They point to the results of a law passed in 1993 in India that reserved positions for women in randomly selected village councils. A decade later women were more likely to stand for, and win, elected positions in those villages that had by chance reserved positions for women in the previous two elections. But life is likely to be hard for the pioneers. In a review of the effects of gender targets and quotas, Jennifer Whelan and Robert Wood of Melbourne Business School found that women who were appointed to senior management under American affirmative-action policies are seen as “less qualified, less competent and less legitimate in their role” than their male colleagues, or women appointed without targets or quotas—though there is no research evidence that they actually are.
Little evidence that gender quotas for women on boards of directors improve firm performance
Nina Smith Aarhus University, Denmark, and IZA, Germany

ELEVATOR PITCH
Arguments for increasing gender diversity on boards of directors range from ensuring equal opportunity to improving firm performance, but the empirical results are mixed and often negative. Current research does not justify gender quotas on grounds of economic efficiency. Furthermore, in most countries the number of women qualified to join boards of directors is limited, and it is not clear from the evidence that quotas lead to a larger pool of qualified female candidates in the medium and long term.
KEY FINDINGS
Pros
• Quotas increase the number of women on boards of directors.
• The decision-making process improves with greater gender diversity on boards.
• Having female board members seems to improve board attendance.
• Having female top executives may have positive effects on the career development of women at lower levels of an organization.
• Boards with more female members tend to be tougher monitors of company executives.
Cons
• Boards with diverse members or members who differ from the company’s senior management may experience communication problems internally and with management.
• Quotas imply that less experienced women will join boards because the supply of qualified women in senior executive positions is thin.
• Quotas seem to have little positive effect on increasing the pool of women with senior executive experience.
• Despite some positive outcomes, the short-term performance effects of female board members are insignificant or negative, and it is too soon to establish the long-term effects.
AUTHOR’S MAIN MESSAGE
From an economic efficiency perspective, ensuring that there are good female candidates for board positions requires widening the pipeline of women progressing to senior management. Policymakers may have to change their focus from requiring quotas for the top of an organization to the much broader task of getting a more balanced gender division of careers within the family, for instance by encouraging more fathers to take advantage of parental leave schemes.

(Read the whole article by clicking on the link: http://wol.iza.org/articles/gender-quotas-on-boards-of-directors.pdf)
Gender quotas are discriminatory
Posted on March 8, 2013 by harald_czycholl
http://blog.global-economic-symposium.org/gender-quotas-are-discriminatory/
No doubt: Getting more women into top corporate positions is an important goal. But the idea of forcing companies to fulfill quotas is the wrong way to reach that goal. Quotas are a bad idea: They don’t improve the current situation. And they are discriminatory to both, men and women.
Those supporting gender quotas almost always name the Norwegian model as a positive example. In Norway, 40 percent of corporate board members are by law required to be women. This policy is unbelievably naive though. Even in large countries like Germany or the US, women haven’t had the same opportunities to gain corporate governance and management skills in the past. Far more men than women have a university-degree in business, pursued MBA programs or received on-the-job management training, so there are far more men than women in the talent pool. Being a relatively small country such as Norway, the talent pool of qualified women is even smaller. The chances that the women who get selected may be less qualified than their male counterparts are quite high. The result of this policy is pointed out in a study published by the University of Michigan: The quota law “led to decreases in firm value because new directors did not have the same monitoring or advising capabilities of the other directors before the imposed change”.

This is quite a surprise, since those supporting gender quotas also often claim that more women in top corporate positions would be the best way to pursue better business. If women really were better managers, then how come Norway’s policy didn’t improve corporate performance? Glorifying women’s business sense doesn’t serve the cause of equality – it just creates expectations that can’t be met. The gender doesn’t have any influence on the qualifications as managers. It’s a matter of education and experience.
Also, quotas are an instrument of discrimination, in either way. If a black candidate doesn’t get selected because of being black, this is discriminatory, of course. If a female candidate doesn’t get selected because of being a woman – no doubt that this is discriminatory as well. So it is also obviously discriminatory if a male candidate doesn’t get selected because of being a man. And this will inevitably happen when imposing gender quotas.
But quotas are also discriminatory to those who can benefit from them individually: Positive discrimination is discrimination as well. So it is also a case of discrimination, if a female candidate gets selected because of being a woman. The British TV presenter Kat Akingbade spoke out about what it means to those selected upon such criteria. “Positive discrimination robs an individual of drive and self-motivation”, she said after finding out that she had gotten her dream job because she was black. “It completely undermines the achievements and abilities of the hard-working and truly gifted. If employers are pressed to select candidates on the basis of race, sex or gender to diversify the workplace, they will care less about a candidate’s ability, and eventually one ‘protected characteristic’ will blur into another.”

Gender quotas treat women as if they don’t have the qualities to reach the top by themselves. They make it mandatory to select women on the basis of their gender – this does them a disservice. Women, just like men, should be chosen on the basis of their individual qualities and abilities. Gender shouldn’t play a role at all.
Women have the potential to catch up by themselves: They make up the majority of university graduates today and they have more or less closed the pay gap. The imbalances that still exist are due to the fact that women tend to take a timeout of one year or more when having children. So what we need is better support for women who want to combine their careers and their family lives. We need better public childcare and more part-time jobs. But we don’t need gender quotas.
Why Gender Quotas for Boards Can Be an Effective Tool in Promoting Balance
Dr Suzanne Doyle Morris http://femalebreadwinners.com

I have heard good arguments from men and women both for and against gender quotas – and feelings do not necessarily align with gender. I have heard women argue vociferously against them and men speak up in their favour. As this is probably the most frequently asked question I’ve been asked in the last 18 months, I thought I’d share why I’m in favour of quotas if we can’t reach parity of our own volition.

Clearly, every woman and man would like to be awarded Board positions based on merit. This has largely fed the argument against them; that ‘giving’ women these positions will undermine their credibility with colleagues and diminish their sense of accomplishment. Women would rather feel like ‘I got there on my own’. While I completely empathise with this position; let’s not cut off our nose to spite our feminist face. We think women will ‘worry’ about why they were given a senior role or if they were advantaged because of their gender. However, Edward doesn’t wonder if he was given a ‘helping hand’ into senior roles because he does favours for John or routinely has drinks with Robert. Men don’t take time to question their promotions. Rather they assume what the women who are rewarded with these promotion must also assume; ‘I got it because I’m damn good!’ They are not handing out Board positions like sweets, if you are qualified enough to be offered one; you are qualified enough to excel. No Board is going to take a huge risk on an unqualified candidate simply because she is flavour of the month. While gender based quotas are not popular as a solution, I thought I’d defend them on several grounds:

Here are my top 3 reasons why Quotas Can be a Useful Temporary Measure:

1. Women have historically been fed the line that if enough of us enter the workforce, then equal representation will ‘trickle up’. This is just not happening. Women have made up at least half of all university graduates in Western countries for the last 20 years and we are not reaching ‘the top’ in any greater numbers. Organisations can no longer say they are truly meritocratic if only the male half of their initial intake is making into senior ranks. Quotas may be the best temporary measure we need to introduce enough senior women into the most upper echelons. From here senior women can act as role models and affect the transformative culture change that 21st century organisations desperately need.

2. Ironically, the presence of more women around a senior table allows any individual woman to be heard more as individuals. I, perhaps like you, have attended meetings where I was the only woman. When you speak as the only woman, its very easy for men to perceive your comment as ‘That’s the way women see it’ rather than “That’s they way Suzanne sees it.” Having more women around the table makes it easier for each woman to speak up, without feeling the pressure of being representative of her entire gender. One woman is a token, two is a conspiracy but three women paradoxically are seen as individuals. A quota would help ensure the ‘cheese’ does not have to stand alone.

3. The presence of at least 3 women at Board level has been correlated with so many positive benefits ranging from higher profitability, increased reliability of financial reporting to more satisfied customers and employees. How does the mere presence of women affect these areas? Simple, by limiting group think which enhances corporate governance. Research shows women on Boards are more likely than their male colleagues to take notes, do the reading and even attend Board meetings. They ask the ‘obvious’ questions that no one else asks. All this leads to more robust management practices and lowers the risk of group think. Women are not better Board members than men, but they bring different skills and it is these skills that will push organisations past the ‘business as usual’ model that must change.

SEPTEMBER 5, 2014
Gender Quotas Worked in Norway. Why Not Here?
By Alice Lee in New Republic
Gender equity in the corporate world has long been a goal that’s paid much lip service, but has nothing to enforce it but good intentions. Unsatisfied with the slow progress, a handful of countries have, over the last ten years, embraced the idea of gender quotas to govern corporate boards (a potential solution to inequality Bryce Covert suggested in a piece for The New Republic this summer). According to the 2014 International Business Report, the percentage of world business leaders in favor of gender quotas has increased from 37 percent in 2013 to 45 percent in 2014. And it isn’t just in Europe, where the quota trend began. 68 percent of leaders surveyed in Latin American and 71 percent of those in Asia Pacific (not including Japan) supported gender quotas.
When looking at the statistics, this shift in favor of quotas is not wholly surprising. The number of female leaders in business and on corporate boards remains stubbornly low, despite global efforts throughout the years to promote equality. Today, only 12 percent of businesses worldwide have a female CEO. Women also only hold 24 percent of all senior roles in companies—a stat more or less consistent since 2007.
Corporate board gender quotas were first introduced in Norway in 2003. Before their implementation, the country had a long history of using quota policies to help increase female representation in public office. The Gender Equality Act in 1981 required 40 percent female representation in public appointed offices and councils, and the Municipal Act in 1993 required 40 percent female representation in for all appointed bodies in the Municipal Council. However, when quotas came into the economic sphere, there was a prolonged back-and-forth, as a wide swath of employers tried to halt the legislation. But after three years of debate, corporate board gender quotas passed the Norwegian Parliament.
The government ordered companies to have a 40 percent female board or be shut down. As the number of female board members in Norway drastically increased, jumping from 15.9 percent in 2004 to its 40 percent target in 2008, other countries in Europe followed suit, including Spain in 2007, and France and Iceland in 2010. Most recently, in 2013, the European Parliament passed a proposal for publicly listed companies to have 40 percent of non-executive board members be female by 2020. The proposal states that if these European companies fail to meet that target, they will be required to fix their selection criteria so that the hiring of women is prioritized. The proposal is now waiting for approval among the 28 E.U. member states.
Corporate titans like Renault-Nissan Alliance’s CEO Carlos Ghosn have publicly come out in support of the quotes. At the “Gender-driven Growth” panel at the 2014 World Economic Forum, Ghosn summed up the argument in favor of quotas succinctly: “When you have two percent of your management pool made by women, there is no way with big principles and good attitudes that you are going to change this radically. Quotas are important. Why? Because quotas lead to action. Action means hiring, training, coaching, and putting in the process of the company the systematic decision, forcing the selection of female potential at all levels.”
Also at the forum, Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund, admitted that while she had objections to gender quotas initially, she is now an advocate of them: “I soon realize that unless we had targets, if not quotas, there was no way we were going to make the right step.”
Part of the reason for this prolonged stagnancy is because much of the discrimination that impedes the hiring of female board members is subconscious. While employers may not actively seek to exclude women, factors such as perceived family and child-rearing responsibilities lead to deep-seated stereotypes suggesting women are not be able to take on corporate leadership roles.
“Some of the corporate board members I have spoken to hold the outdated view that discrimination occurs only when there is conscious animus, as in ‘I don’t want to hire women.’ … But the dynamics of discrimination are often, today, more subtle than that. Stereotyping (as in ‘women have kids and won’t travel’) can lead to the exclusion of qualified female candidates, and so can unconscious bias,” wrote Anne Alstott, a Yale Law professor who has studied gender quota policies, via e-mail. “Gender quotas might be one way of prompting attention to the twenty-first century dynamics of discrimination that can exclude qualified women from high-level positions.”
Despite progress, gender quotas aren’t a global solution. To have the most impact, quotas need to fit within the country’s cultural expectations of authority. In a Harvard Business Review piece about their recent study, authors Soo Min Toh and Geoffrey Leonardelli argue that countries with “tight” cultures will be more successful in promoting gender parity through gender quotas than “loose” cultures.
For their study, published originally in the journal Organizational Dynamics, Toh and Leonardelli looked at 32 countries with varying levels of cultural tightness—defined as “the degree to which cultural norms are clear and likely to be enforced by authorities through the use of sanctions.”8 (So by this definition, Norway qualified as “tight,” as well as Pakistan and South Korea, while the United States and New Zealand were deemed “loose.”) Using 2005 World Bank data, they investigated the percentage of female representation in different leadership positions (legislators, senior officials, and managers) in these countries and found that within tight cultures, authorities are more likely to strictly enforce policies and demand higher levels of compliance. Additionally, people within tight cultures are more likely to accept and adhere to top-down policies such as gender quotas.
On the other hand, “loose” countries like the United States (officially deemed “slightly loose” by Toh and Leonardelli), are less likely to reinforce egalitarian practices, despite the higher likelihood to believe in equality.
To put it simply, quotas go against many of America’s cultural norms. Kathleen Gerson, a New York University sociology professor and author ofThe Unfinished Revolution: Coming of Age in a New Era of Gender, Work, and Family, explains: “Arguing in favor of quotas goes against the notion that everyone has an equal opportunity to be represented as an individual rather than as a member of a group.”
Such arguments run close to those regarding affirmative action in the United States. Opponents of affirmative action have made the case that students would be favored because of their race rather than their academic achievements and abilities, resulting in admissions policies that would not provide equal opportunities. Similarly, some believe that gender quotas would give gender-based preferences to board candidates, leading to the possible exclusion of more highly competent male candidates and the hiring of less competent female candidates.
Beyond such cultural reservations, there is considerable skepticism that quotas actually make a significant difference in improving female representation. In Norway, a strict gender quota certainly boosted the percentage of women in senior positions, but it also caused what’s been dubbed the “golden skirt” phenomenon: Certain women hold multiple board positions, meaning that while more board positions are held by women, not as many new women are entering the board room as hoped. And, even now, Norway has fewer women CEOs than the United States. It was thought that with corporate board quotas, more women could then have access to higher senior management positions. However, only 3 percent of Norway’s large companies (with a capitalization market value over $10 billion dollars) have female CEOs, while 5 percent of U.S. Fortune 500 companies have female CEOs.
Given the skepticism as well as the cultural, social, and legal barriers, the United States will have a hard time enforcing gender quotas. One possible alternative that uses a top-down approach would be to create a system of incentives and penalties based on a company’s success in gender equity. According to Alstott, this system more closely fits the business culture of the United States, as the federal government already uses tax incentives to encourage certain business practices. Unlike the Norwegian model of liquidating a company for not meeting a quota, tax incentives are less threatening. The hiring of women would be more voluntary than forced, eliminating at least some of the bias that a woman was hired to just fill a quota.
But until a far-reaching, top down policy comes to pass, the United States will have to take steps that stem from the voluntary efforts from individual companies, female advocacy groups, and individual women.

Gender Quotas in Hiring Drive Away Both Women and Men
Meir Shemla and Anja Kreienberg 10/16/2014
Forbes
It’s no secret. Good companies need good employees. In the war for top talent, companies are looking for ways to be more competitive – that’s especially true of the underutilized female talent pool. To attract more women, some companies have instituted gender-based affirmative action measures. One of the most controversial of these is the gender quota where organizations set aside a specific percentage of leadership positions for female employees. Instead of attracting great employees, however, we found that gender quotas drive top talent away. In a study we ran using Qualtrics , we found that both women and men were less attracted to firms that instituted a gender quota and were less likely to pursue jobs there.

To begin our study, we introduced participants to two different job advertisements. The first noted that the company in question advocated gender diversity and, as a result, had set aside 40% of leadership — specifically management and supervisory board — positions for women. The second job advertisement included no information about either gender diversity or a quota.
Using the second advertisement as the control group, we found that one in four men were less likely to pursue a job at the firm employing a gender quota. Women also responded negatively to the gender quota that was meant to make the company more competitive in hiring women; 13% of women noted they would be less likely to seek a job at the company with the gender preference for hiring.
It is not that people didn’t understand the importance of gender diversity in the workforce, it was the quota itself that was most unattractive. Nearly 70% of respondents in the gender quota condition – of which 52% were female and 48% male – said that gender quotas in general were unattractive to them. Why? Respondents noted that a gender quota negated the importance of merit and led to unintended consequences.
First, when offered a job in the presence of a gender quota, female respondents were 18% more likely to attribute their success to preferential treatment rather than to their own merit. Second, when another woman was offered a job instead of the respondent at the firm with the gender quota, female respondents were 20% and male respondents 29% more likely to stigmatize that woman as incompetent, attributing her success to gender and preferential treatment rather than merit. Finally, female and male respondents felt that the values of a firm employing a gender quota fit less into their value and belief system, given that merit seemingly played a lesser role in the hiring decision than gender. Given the stigma associated with the quota and people hired under a quota, it’s no wonder that quotas have the adverse impact of actually driving away the very talent they were put in place to attract.
What does this mean for companies and policy makers? As they attempt to move toward a more diversified workforce, they may want to shift their focus away from a gender quota, which has counterproductive effects on a firm’s attractiveness to talented women and men. That doesn’t mean, however, that they should abandon the goal of diversity.
For example, one might learn from the global consulting firm, McKinsey & Company . Rather than institute a gender quota, McKinsey has demonstrated their commitment to gender diversity by organizing networking events and career-focused initiatives specifically designed for women. They also have policies in place to accommodate female employees in balancing family and career. These initiatives attract women without undermining them by introducing the stigma a gender quota can carry.

While using a gender quota might seem like an effective way to compete in the war for talent, our research found that it actually drives away the highly talented professionals they were intended to attract. Gender diversity is important, but everyone wants to be valued for what they can bring to the table. When companies and policy makers institute gender quotas, they’re inadvertently driving away the very people they sought to attract by appearing to value diversity over merit. And that’s a situation in which no one wins.

Women on boards: Are quotas really the answer
Kimberly Weisul DECEMBER 5, 2014 Fortune Magazine

Germany is the latest European country to embrace the idea. But how well have quotas been working?
Germany is about to undertake a project that has become familiar in Europe but would be unheard-of in the U.S.: To get more women onto corporate boards, the government will set legal quotas.
The current proposal, expected to be approved in January, will require that by 2016, 30 percent of the non-executive supervisory board seats at 114 German listed companies will be held by women. In 2015, smaller companies will have to set their own goals for gender diversity on their boards, and to state how they plan to meet those goals. “This law is an important step for equality because it will initiate cultural change in the workplace,” German Chancellor Angela Merkel told parliament. “We can’t afford to do without the skills of women.”
The arguments for gender diversity on corporate boards are many. Studies have linked gender-diverse boards with better financial performance, better governance, increased innovation, and improved opportunities for other women within the affected companies. Then there’s the fact that all-male, all-white boards reflect neither a large company’s customers nor its talent pool.
“There are still many companies that have zero women on their board,” says Brande Stellings, vice president of corporate board services for Catalyst, a not-for-profit that works to advance professional women. “Really, in this day and age, they should be embarrassed.” In the U.S., women hold just 17 percent of the board seats of Fortune 500 companies.

Germany is following in the footsteps of Norway, which enacted a similar law – albeit with a 40 percent quota – back in 2003. Since then, other countries, including France, Spain and the Netherlands, have followed suit. But a close look at the results of these quotas – and of Norway’s in particular, which have been in effect the longest – shows that the results might not be all that their backers intend.
In Germany, as in Norway and other countries before, lobbying against the proposed rule is expected to be fierce. BMW has already come out against the proposal, saying that “BMW as a company doesn’t believe in quotas.” In Norway, the rule was originally supposed to apply to about 500 companies. By the time the law went into effect, about 100 of those companies had changed their corporate ownership structure so that the law no longer applied to them. Marianne Bertrand, a professor at the University of Chicago’s Booth School of Business, who has studied the Norwegian law extensively, says there’s no proof that the Norwegian companies changed their ownership to avoid the law – but it sure does look that way.

In Norway, as in Germany and other European Union states that have enacted quotas, the objections have tended to be two-fold. One, as is the case with BMW, is a general revulsion at the idea of quotas. The other is that there simply aren’t enough women qualified to sit on corporate boards, and that putting more of them on boards would hurt overall board quality.
Corporate boards are presumed to be filled with CEOs and former CEOs, and there are certainly far fewer female CEOs than male ones. Entrepreneurs and partners at law firms tend to get short shrift, making it even harder for women to be considered.
On the other hand, we’re talking about a very small number of women: Stellings says that only about 250-300 board seats become available at Fortune 500 companies each year, and that there are enough women executive officers among Fortune 500 companies to fill every one of those board seats. That doesn’t even count any of the women leaders in government, academia, and consulting. Stellings further points out that half of Fortune 500 board members have never been CEOs.
When it comes to qualified women, she says, “It’s just not an issue.”
In Norway, in fact, despite all the hoopla claiming a dearth of qualified women, the women who were named to boards after the quotas were enacted were actually more qualified than the women who sat on the boards pre-quota, says Bertrand. Obviously, a number of qualified women had been overlooked. The Norwegian government actually intervened here by putting together a binder of women who were qualified and interested in serving, says Bertrand.

But many of the hoped-for results of the legislation don’t seem to have materialized in Norway, at least not in the first 10 years. Bertrand, who has recently co-authored a working paper on the subject, says, “We’re really hoping there could be some spillover for other women, and those could come in different forms.” Perhaps women on boards would push for more women in senior management. Or encourage the implementation of more family-friendly policies. Maybe female board members would prove to be inspiring to younger women.

The results suggest otherwise. “There is the possibility that there may have been some change in the C-suite,” says Bertrand. “Beyond that, we find nothing.”
Norwegian companies did experience one other change as a result of the law, one that was not anticipated. Labor expenses went up. That’s not because people were paid more or because more people were hired. It’s because there were fewer layoffs. “One possibility is that women directors care more about workers, or think about broader issues than shareholder implications. Another could be that the layoffs weren’t the right business decision in the long run. That’s something we won’t know for a long time,” says David Matsa, a professor at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management, who co-authored a paper on the subject.
In the U.S., observers agree that quotas are not a possibility. So advocates for greater gender diversity on boards are relying on sponsorships and mentoring of board-ready women, and urging companies to pledge to reach defined levels of board diversity within a set a timeframe. Says Stellings: “It’s really a matter of, are they looking for women? Because then we think progress can happen.”

Type of paper	Academic level	Subject area
Essay Term Paper Research Paper Coursework Book Report Book Review Movie Review Dissertation Thesis Thesis Proposal Research Proposal Dissertation Chapter - Abstract Dissertation Chapter - Introduction Chapter Dissertation Chapter - Literature Review Dissertation Chapter - Methodology Dissertation Chapter - Results Dissertation Chapter - Discussion Dissertation Services - Editing Dissertation Services - Proofreading Formatting Admission Services - Admission Essay Admission Services - Scholarship Essay Admission Services - Personal Statement Admission Services - Editing Editing Proofreading Case Study Lab Report Speech Presentation Math Problem Article Article Critique Annotated Bibliography Reaction Paper PowerPoint Presentation Statistics Project Multiple Choice Questions (None-Time-Framed) Other (Not listed) Press Release Website Content News Article Blogspot Website Review Product Review Multiple Choice Questions (Time-framed) Calculation Proof Research Equation Optimization Math modeling	High School Undergraduate Master Ph. D.	Art   Architecture   Dance   Design Analysis   Drama   Movies   Music   Paintings   Theatre Biology Business Chemistry Communications and Media   Advertising   Communication Strategies   Journalism   Public Relations Creative writing Economics   Accounting   Case Study   Company Analysis   E-Commerce   Finance   Investment   Logistics   Trade Education   Application Essay   Education Theories   Pedagogy   Teacher's Career Engineering English Ethics History   African-American Studies   American History   Asian Studies   Canadian Studies   East European Studies   Holocaust   Latin-American Studies   Native-American Studies   West European Studies Law   Criminology   Legal Issues Linguistics Literature   American Literature   Antique Literature   Asian Literature   English Literature   Shakespeare Studies Management Marketing Mathematics Medicine and Health   Alternative Medicine   Healthcare   Nursing   Nutrition   Pharmacology   Sport Nature   Agricultural Studies   Anthropology   Astronomy   Environmental Issues   Geography   Geology Philosophy Physics Political Science Psychology Religion and Theology Sociology Technology   Aeronautics   Aviation   Computer Science   Internet   IT Management   Web Design Tourism
Number of pages	Paper urgency	Cost per page:
1 pages/275 words 2 pages/550 words 3 pages/825 words 4 pages/1100 words 5 pages/1375 words 6 pages/1650 words 7 pages/1925 words 8 pages/2200 words 9 pages/2475 words 10 pages/2750 words 11 pages/3025 words 12 pages/3300 words 13 pages/3575 words 14 pages/3850 words 15 pages/4125 words 16 pages/4400 words 17 pages/4675 words 18 pages/4950 words 19 pages/5225 words 20 pages/5500 words 21 pages/5775 words 22 pages/6050 words 23 pages/6325 words 24 pages/6600 words 25 pages/6875 words 26 pages/7150 words 27 pages/7425 words 28 pages/7700 words 29 pages/7975 words 30 pages/8250 words 31 pages/8525 words 32 pages/8800 words 33 pages/9075 words 34 pages/9350 words 35 pages/9625 words 36 pages/9900 words 37 pages/10175 words 38 pages/10450 words 39 pages/10725 words 40 pages/11000 words 41 pages/11275 words 42 pages/11550 words 43 pages/11825 words 44 pages/12100 words 45 pages/12375 words 46 pages/12650 words 47 pages/12925 words 48 pages/13200 words 49 pages/13475 words 50 pages/13750 words 51 pages/14025 words 52 pages/14300 words 53 pages/14575 words 54 pages/14850 words 55 pages/15125 words 56 pages/15400 words 57 pages/15675 words 58 pages/15950 words 59 pages/16225 words 60 pages/16500 words 61 pages/16775 words 62 pages/17050 words 63 pages/17325 words 64 pages/17600 words 65 pages/17875 words 66 pages/18150 words 67 pages/18425 words 68 pages/18700 words 69 pages/18975 words 70 pages/19250 words 71 pages/19525 words 72 pages/19800 words 73 pages/20075 words 74 pages/20350 words 75 pages/20625 words 76 pages/20900 words 77 pages/21175 words 78 pages/21450 words 79 pages/21725 words 80 pages/22000 words 81 pages/22275 words 82 pages/22550 words 83 pages/22825 words 84 pages/23100 words 85 pages/23375 words 86 pages/23650 words 87 pages/23925 words 88 pages/24200 words 89 pages/24475 words 90 pages/24750 words 91 pages/25025 words 92 pages/25300 words 93 pages/25575 words 94 pages/25850 words 95 pages/26125 words 96 pages/26400 words 97 pages/26675 words 98 pages/26950 words 99 pages/27225 words 100 pages/27500 words 101 pages/27775 words 102 pages/28050 words 103 pages/28325 words 104 pages/28600 words 105 pages/28875 words 106 pages/29150 words 107 pages/29425 words 108 pages/29700 words 109 pages/29975 words 110 pages/30250 words 111 pages/30525 words 112 pages/30800 words 113 pages/31075 words 114 pages/31350 words 115 pages/31625 words 116 pages/31900 words 117 pages/32175 words 118 pages/32450 words 119 pages/32725 words 120 pages/33000 words 121 pages/33275 words 122 pages/33550 words 123 pages/33825 words 124 pages/34100 words 125 pages/34375 words 126 pages/34650 words 127 pages/34925 words 128 pages/35200 words 129 pages/35475 words 130 pages/35750 words 131 pages/36025 words 132 pages/36300 words 133 pages/36575 words 134 pages/36850 words 135 pages/37125 words 136 pages/37400 words 137 pages/37675 words 138 pages/37950 words 139 pages/38225 words 140 pages/38500 words 141 pages/38775 words 142 pages/39050 words 143 pages/39325 words 144 pages/39600 words 145 pages/39875 words 146 pages/40150 words 147 pages/40425 words 148 pages/40700 words 149 pages/40975 words 150 pages/41250 words 151 pages/41525 words 152 pages/41800 words 153 pages/42075 words 154 pages/42350 words 155 pages/42625 words 156 pages/42900 words 157 pages/43175 words 158 pages/43450 words 159 pages/43725 words 160 pages/44000 words 161 pages/44275 words 162 pages/44550 words 163 pages/44825 words 164 pages/45100 words 165 pages/45375 words 166 pages/45650 words 167 pages/45925 words 168 pages/46200 words 169 pages/46475 words 170 pages/46750 words 171 pages/47025 words 172 pages/47300 words 173 pages/47575 words 174 pages/47850 words 175 pages/48125 words 176 pages/48400 words 177 pages/48675 words 178 pages/48950 words 179 pages/49225 words 180 pages/49500 words 181 pages/49775 words 182 pages/50050 words 183 pages/50325 words 184 pages/50600 words 185 pages/50875 words 186 pages/51150 words 187 pages/51425 words 188 pages/51700 words 189 pages/51975 words 190 pages/52250 words 191 pages/52525 words 192 pages/52800 words 193 pages/53075 words 194 pages/53350 words 195 pages/53625 words 196 pages/53900 words 197 pages/54175 words 198 pages/54450 words 199 pages/54725 words 200 pages/55000 words	30 days 6 hours 12 hours 24 hours 48 hours 3 days 4 days 5 days 7 days 10 days 20 days	USD GBP CAD AUD EUR  Total: