27

Introduction

Poor growth performance has increased concerns for rising income dispersion and social exclusion over the past decades in Europe. Growing evidence in several member States of European Union is the impact of the economic crisis may be leading to an increase in in-work poverty and labor market segmentation. It is thus clear that poverty and social exclusion is very much framed as a problem of labor market integration. It is undoubtedly true that the risk of poverty is very high for jobless households and that unemployment greatly increases the risk of poverty. Other side risk of the poverty is much lower for those in employment. However, according to the experts reports, its clearly exhibit that, by focusing on overall figures tends, it states that those who are in work but at risk of poverty make up a very significant proportion of those at risk of poverty. Which confront against the overly simplistic concept that employment is not a sufficient condition for escaping poverty. It gives the focus on the equal importance of ensuring that employment is good quality and that work pays sufficiently to provide an income allowing a person better living. Segmented labor markets are consisting in various subgroups with little or no crossover capability. We can divide this market by two sectors: The primary sector contains the highest grade, higher-status, and better-paid jobs, with employers who offer the best terms and conditions. And the secondary sector is characterized job which is mostly low-skilled and require relatively little training. Its also true that, segmenting of the labor market is problematic, because of its links to poor job quality, inequality and discrimination, and inefficiency in resource allocations, on the other. In our research, we will try to discuss some factor of segmented labor market which directly co-related to the poor labor market condition and poverty risk.

Objectives:1. Find out the explanatory factors that have impacts on in-work poverty.2. The range of the impact of those explanatory factors in in-work poverty.3. Show the strong correlation between labor market segmentation and in-work poverty impact on labor markets, individual and household. 4. Analyze the impact on income earning in labor market based on:a. Segmentation based on sex. b. Segmentation based on skill.c. Segmentation based on ethnic origin. 5. Conditions in Europe and to provide sound information on various faces of poverty and social exclusion.

RESEARCH QUESTION: 1. What types of explanatory factor have impact on in-work poverty?2. Is the labor market segmentation liable for in work poverty?3. How segmented labor market creates in-work poverty?

Literature Review: In-work poverty in Europe has become a widely discussed issue. The EU definition of in work poverty used in the context of the Social OMC and the EES is: Individuals who are classified as employed (distinguishing between wage and salary employment plus self-employment and wage and salary employment only) and who are at risk of poverty. Individuals classified as employed according to their most frequent activity status, which is defined as the status they declare to have occupied for more than half the number of months in the calendar year; the poverty risk threshold is set at 60% of the national household equalized median income.Twenty-four percent of the EU population - or 119.6 million people - were at risk of poverty or social exclusion in 2011, according to Eurostat figures. According to (Hugh Frazer and Eric Marlier; December-2010) only a few studies focusing on this particular issue have been conducted.In-work poverty can be caused by Individual factors:Individual characteristics are in general related to the employment situation of employed poor individuals. According to (Cooke and Lawton 2008; Grimshaw2011; Nolan et al. 2010) Low wages are an important factor contributing to a high risk of being in-work poor. And according to (Pea-Casas and Latta 2004) it is widely agreed that low-wages tend to dominate among younger and female employees and that they are clearly concentrated in certain occupations, especially in unskilled blue-collar jobs. The lower the level of qualification obtained, the higher the risk of earning low-wages and, in turn, the higher the risk of being in-work poor (Commission 2011b; Cooke and Lawton 2008). According to Strengmann-Kuhn (Strengmann-Kuhn 2003) only one quarter of the risk of being in-work poor can be explained by earning low wages. Huster, Bourcarde, Schtte state that the EU data shows that particularly in Germany the income mobility is low. In comparison with the EU average, between 2006 and 2007 a) the proportion of those who remain on the same income level is higher throughout all deciles while at the same time b) the upward mobility is lower in all deciles, too.In-Work poverty because of Household related factors: Household composition appears as a key factor in determining the risk of in-work poverty and this is closely related to the work intensity of households. According to eurostat methodologies and working papers, in most of the countries, Poverty rates are higher among individuals living in single-parent households than in any other type of household. According to (Bardone and Guio 2005) the household perspective emphasizes that the individual well-being strongly depends on the sum of resources pooled by all household members and, in turn, on their needs. According to (Commission 2011b) it was proven that a high number of household members who depend on the total household income is a main factor leading into in-work poverty. Frazer (2010) argues that Single parents with dependent children face the highest, households with more than one adult without dependents the lowest in-work poverty risks. Dorothee Spannagel said that the number of household members who are younger than 18 or older than 64 their in-work poverty risk proportion is comparatively higher. Labor market Segmentation: Low quality and insecure employment combined with low wages significantly increases the risk and extent of in-work poverty in some Member States of European union. A Spanish expert said that the spread of low wages is a key factor in explaining the hard fact of the working poor (Frazer and Marlier; December-2010). Another expertise from Portugal stresses that the persistence of low-quality employment in Portugal translated into low salaries, low-qualified jobs, insecure labor relationships and a high proportion of a typical jobs is one of the well-known structuring characteristics of the Portuguese labor market which has a strong and direct impact on the characteristics of poverty in Portugal (Frazer and Marlier; December-2010). Wage agreement and unemployment both are correlated with the in-work poverty but both have fallen behind the productive growth and inflation. But its not always enough, because the employment cannot be adequate quality or form to come out from the social exclusion from highly segmented labor market. In Luxembourg, in-work poverty has strong links with labor market segmentation, educational attainment and gender equality (Frazer and Marlier; December-2010).Usually, the highly segmented labor market trap people in poorly paid jobs and result in low upward mobility. And normally those jobs are allocated to those people who are younger, less qualified, in short contracts, temporary work alternate between periods of unemployment and precarious employment. In the other case, in several countries, there has lowest chance to move upwards because of social mobility for those who are coming from vulnerable families.The impact of part-time work on in-work poverty appears rather uneven and in many cases the majority of working poor are in full-time employment. In Poland, the expert points out that the vast majority of working poor (89%) work full time, and the remaining 11% part time (Frazer and Marlier; December-2010). It is assumed that higher wage inequalities entail higher in-work poverty risks because higher wage dispersion is interrelated with higher shares of low wages (Dorothee Spannagel; In-work Poverty in Europe - Extent, Structure and Causal Mechanisms).In some case; in-work poverty doesnt create because of employment with insufficient salaries, also for not working enough hours. And sometimes they have to pay high taxes on low wages which also a burden for their household. Low education/qualificationsThe risk of in-work poverty normally increased by several personal factors like as low education, poor health, nationality; which are correlated with other risk factor. Low education and qualification leads workers toward low paid sectors and to insecure work. Those with good skills and employability will generally have good employment prospects regardless of whether they are employed on permanent or temporary contracts, whereas people with out -of-date or inadequate skills and low employability will find themselves at risk even if they are employed in permanent jobs and have high seniority(Frazer and Marlier; December-2010).

Ethnic discriminationIn many countries, risk of in-work poverty greatly influenced by migrants and ethnic minorities. Like as in Finland, employment position and labor market situation have in complex situation with this situation segregation of professions between ethnic and non ethnic varieties also influenced the in-work poverty to greatly increased (Frazer and Marlier; December-2010). According to (Grimshaw 2011) a decisive contribution to a low-wage risk is being a migrant. Normally in European Union migrants are very often employed in unskilled job. In some cases women, disabled people and members of ethnic minorities get low paid amount with lower status job even with the same qualification, which can greatly increase the in-work poverty risk. According to an Irish expertise, in Ireland on an average an immigrant earned less than 15-18% relative to native workers and is case of migrants from non speaking countries this gap raise over 30% (Frazer and Marlier; December-2010). Gender discriminationStrong labor market segregation happens based on gender. Basically, women get paid low amount thinking from low contribution in workforce. According to the Frazer and Marlier; In Germany among the 100 largest banking industries only 2.6% executive member are women and only 2.8% women has is the same position among the 62 largest insurance companies. Naturally, women discriminated based on three factors:- 1) Non-paid household activities & responsibilities (That influence society to exclude women from labor market).2) Gender segmentation in low paid and unskilled occupations.3) Gender gaps in wages and professional career.

METHODOLOGY:

The empirical analysis is based on the cross-sectional EU-SILC 2012 data. This dataset will be used to analyze within 28 EU member states. The sample is restricted to working-age individuals who are full-time and part time employed. It also consists of household members older than 18 years. Here we will collect the data for last 11 years that mean from 2003 to 2013. The potential influences the micro- and macro-level variables have on in-work poverty will also describe here. At later we will try to examine our outcome based simple regression analysis. By which we try to find out that some independent variables which influence to raise the dependent variable (In-work Poverty). As early mentioned, In-wok poverty is very young research topic and during 2003 EU-SILC conduct a research based on EU survey on income and living conditions. In this study we will try to work with the present scenario of in work poverty of EU and living condition of EU, by which we will try to provide some sound information on various faces of poverty and social exclusion. Only few countries give much attention and work on developing additional indicators and collecting/ analyzing data on in-work poverty and labour market segmentation. The overall analysis will be explained based on micro-level & macro level explanatory factors.

Micro-level variablesThe micro-level variables of in-work poverty: Individual labor market circumstances, the household compensation, especially the labor market attachment of the household members, Employment type, In-work poverty rate by month worked etc.

Macro-level variablesThe impact county-level institutions have on in-work poverty is focused on labor market segmentation, transfers and benefits.In this report we are going to present a general statistical overview of the situation in relation to in-work poverty and labour market segmentation of EU 28 member States and make comparison with others. Here we are going to derive our factors in to two category, those are:

Explanatory factors for in-work poverty: The main factors can be grouped under four categories: Structure of economy/labour market, family/household composition, poverty rate by types of contract and poverty rate by broad group of citizenship. Short term or part time worker contributes significantly to in-work poverty. Even in many cases full time employees also appears in in-work poverty. However in several countries, it can be a significant factor if the employee associated with poorly paid and insecure job. Even low wage also plays a significant role to influence in-work poverty. We will also focus on different factor like as type of contract, hourly work rate and in-work poverty rate by month worked. Household composition, and the work intensity of households, is obviously a critical factor in determining the risk of in-work poverty. In general, the higher work force of household reduces the rate of in-work poverty; here we will try to find out the real fact about household composition of EU countries. Explanatory factors for Labour market segmentation: Labour market segmentation will be explained based on three interconnected themes. These are: exploitation and discrimination, Low levels of education skill and Ethnic discrimination. Among them, ethnic discrimination is a significant factor for several EU members. Gender segregation in labour market also influences the in-work poverty. The under-valuation of womens work and occupational segregation between women and men in jobs is the major factor of gender segregation. Even the low pay is frequent when they are working in the same position in the job sector. Segmentation can also result from discrimination against disabled people. Most perilous parts of the labour market are the transition from unemployment to employment, particularly for young people, people of foreign origin and the least qualified. Even this segregation can be possible because of language and cultural barrier even in some case it develop new forms of salary relationship which directly influence the in-work poverty rate.Its little bit difficult to gather knowledge about the present scenario on In-Work poverty and labor market segmentation of EU. Although there has few research on labor market studies which relates with the problems of the working poor. Conceptual framework:Individual characteristics are in general related to the employment situation of employed poor individuals. Low wages are an important factor contributing to a high risk of being in-work poor. The lower the level of qualification obtained, the higher the risk of earning low-wages and, in turn, the higher the risk of being in-work poor.Turning to the household related aspects of being working poor, means turning to the poverty part of in-work poverty. The household perspective emphasizes that the individual well-being strongly depends on the sum of resources pooled by all household members and, in turn, on their needs. So, a single-earner household with high needs resulting from many dependents is the typical working poor household, especially if the earner is poorly educated and part-time employed.

Low wages reflect first of all the employers ability and willingness to pay higher wages and the readiness of the employees to accept low wages. The crucial labor market institutions that influence these elements are the structure of the labor force and the trade unions as they have a decisive influence on the wage levels. Industrializations segmented the labor market based on several factor among them most important factor is low quality employment. There is a broad consensus that the best effective way of reducing social exclusion in employment.We will derive the hypothesis based on independent & dependent variable. Here Dependent variable is in-work poverty and the independent variables are low skilled employees, unemployment replacement, housing cost overburden, single person earning, earnings of two or more adult with/without dependent child, full/part time employment, migrants employment. Based on these factors we would like to find out which explanatory factors influence the in-work poverty (dependent variable) and which are not. And at later we will exhibit our findings by comparing between expected impact of dependent variable and their observed impact on in-work poverty. This research paper will be analyzed to reduce the information gaps available in the labor market and suggest some policies to progress further on this issue.

Presentation of the Current Situation:In general, working poverty can be defined by individual activity and their households disposable income. And this individual activity has great impact on the labor market, which influence the in-work poverty. In a large extent, the condition of in-work poverty and social exclusion across the EU can be explained by structural differences in economies and the extent of labour market segmentation. Structure of in-work poverty across Europe: The employment rate across the EU (28 Countries) has increased in last 10 years, except 4 to 7 member countries (see Figure 1). In 2013, the employment rate of Greece was 58.6%, which was 64% in 2004. As like as, Ireland, Spain and Croatia also faced the decreasing scenario in terms of the employment rate. In-work poverty is a very extensive problem, with 9.1% of people at work in the EU (28 countries) living below the poverty risk threshold in 2012. That mean, among the 200 million workers in the EU Union almost 19 million are working poor. And alarming things is, the rate is increasing in alarming way in yearly basis. In work poverty rate increased in 2012 in EU almost 00.70% compared with 2010. There is a very wide variation in the national in-work poverty rates across the EU. The countries with the highest rates in 2012 are: Romania (19.1%), Greece (15.1%), Spain (12.3%), Italia (11%), Poland & Luxemburg (10%) and Portugal 9.9%). The countries with the lowest rates in 2012 are: Finland (3.8%), Czech Republic, Belgium, Netherlands (4.5%) and Malta, Hungary, Ireland, Denmark (around 5.2% to 5.6%). In general, countries with high at-risk of poverty rates have high in-work poverty rates and vice versa. In EU (28 countries), in 2012 almost 8 countries have overall at-risk-of-poverty rates between 30% to 49%. Unemployment also highly influence the in-work poverty rate. For instance, 5 of the 8 Member States with the highest unemployment rate has highest at-risk-of-poverty rates which is between 8% and 15%. And it seems to us that, highest unemployment rate influence to develop new form of income segregation. This segregation creates because employer has opportunities about large number labour force for his industries. At later that activities force the in-work poverty to rise up. Across the EU (28 Countries), in 2012 men (9.7%) have a higher risk of in-work poverty than women (8.5%). This higher risk for men is a common scenario in most countries where the gender differences are significant. However, these rates are increasing on a constant basis on day by day. On an average, a large number of young employees (18 to 24 years) are having in in-work poverty risk comparatively to other ages. In 2003, the rate of in-work poverty risk for young employee was 9.3% and which increasing at 2012 by 10.4%. The gap is much higher in some countries notably Denmark and Romania. However, in Finland, Check Republic and Belgium the in-work poverty rate is much lower for 18years or above. According to in work poverty rate age & sex it can be said that, The socio-democratic welfare region (Denmark, Finland, Netherlands, Norway and Sweden) tend to have the lowest in-work poverty rates. While conservative-corporative cluster (Germany, Austria, France) tend to have the moderately low and especially Belgium have very low in-work poverty shares. On the other hand, the Mediterranean countries (Italy, Portugal and Spain) have high in-work poverty shares but Malta has low in-work poverty rates from this regime. The east European cluster is facing moderate working poor rates (Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland); on the other hand Romania and Greece having in high working poor rates. There is a strong variation in the in-work poverty rate by household type. In-work poverty is highest for single person with dependent children, on an average 17% to 21% for last 11years. Whereas lowest for household consisting with two or more adult without dependent children and the average rate was 4% to 5% for last 11 years. It seems to that, Dependent children are a burden for household for each & every countries. Its notable in EU-SILC, in work poverty rate is lower for household without dependent children rather than household with dependent children. Its also interesting that; in-work poverty rate for single person is moderately high. In general, In-work poverty is linked to having children and this is particularly creating an impact on household income. Lying between the dependent children and the risk of in-work poverty is the issue of low work intensity. People living in households with very low work intensity are people aged 0-59 living in households where the adults work less than 20% of their total work potential during the past year[footnoteRef:1]. In general, the lower in-work poverty risk is linked up with the higher the work intensity of household. Two key factors influence the low work intensity, one is limited availability because of child care and another is lack of access to flexible working arrangements. [1: http://www.stat.ee/57177 ]

There is a very wide variation in the low work intensity rates across the EU. The country with the highest rate in last 11 years are: Ireland (12% to 24%), Belgium (11% to 15%), Hungary (9% to 13%), whereas there in-work poverty rate was low during that time. Thats they got good fever in in-work poverty rate because of high work intensity rates. In exceptional, some EU member state have high in-work poverty rate whereas the have high in-work intensity rate like as Greece and Spain and it seems to us that in that case some other factor influence in-work poverty by dominating high work intensity rates and it can be for market segmentation. The result for household with low work intensity rates (Fig. 2) demonstrate clear trend: Countries with low work intensity trend to have high number of working poor. Luxembourg, Poland, Cyprus, Romania, France etc. have low work intensity and in contrast they have high in work poverty rate.

Figure 2: In-work poverty by household with low work intensity In 2012, 10.36% of European households (28 countries) spent more than 40% of their disposable income on housing: they are considered as overburdened by housing costs. Here highest rate also belongs with Greece and Romania. And it is a big burden for their country and economy, and this high in-work poverty rate and overburden costing can be forced them to big economic crisis. In overall basis, Women (11%) have a slightly higher risk of housing costing overburden than men (9%). This higher risk for women is present in most countries where the gender differences are significant. In case of mean income by household type, household are two or more adult without dependent children have highest income comparatively other household, the average rate are 15500 Euro to 17000 Euro. In-work poverty rates vary significantly by type of work contract with a rate of 13.9% for those on temporary contracts and only 5.5% for those on permanent contracts. In Luxembourg (8.4%) a highest number of permanent employees have in in-work poverty risk. In contrast, in Bulgaria (25%) and Cyprus (25.8%) highest number of temporary employees has in in-work poverty. There are also significant differences in in-work poverty by duration of work. In-work poverty rate is comparatively high for those worker works for less than 1 year rather more than 1 year. The in-work poverty rate across the EU-28 is consistently higher for people working part-time (13.6%) compared to those working full-time (7.6%). However, the gap varies significantly across the EU and is generally higher in the newer Member States.

Outcomes from the Analysis based on in-work poverty:The extent of in-work poverty varies significantly across European countries. It ranges from less than 4% in the Finland to more than 19% in Romania. The Nordic countries are dominated with the lowest level of in-work poverty while Mediterranean countries exhibit the highest figures. There are some reasons/pattern according to country basis which influence to raise in-work poverty rate. Such as, In general, single wage earners are vulnerable group in in-work poverty rate. Single parents often find it difficult to combine work and care. Because of this, they work only a limited number of hours a week and thus earn a small wage. However, In household two or more adult person without dependent children has highest earing comparatively with other household types. Across the EU as a whole, men (9.0%) have a slightly higher risk of in-work poverty than women (7.9%). This higher risk for men is present in most countries where the gender differences are significant. Based on age, The in-work poverty rate is slightly higher for 18-24 year olds employees compared to other age. And its general because in early age they earn low wages which is quite feasible at their early stages, and these are not balanced by further incomes. It also seems to that, some risk factor such as low wages, insecure employment, temporary employment and part time employment are liable to influence the in-work poverty risk. And those can be mitigated by positive institutional arrangements to ensure that a households net income is adequate.According to Hugh Frazer and Eric Marlier (December-2010), In Sweden, a substantial part of the working poor are poor because they have to share their income with household unemployed person. Furthermore, working non-western migrants are relatively often poor due to low work intensity, many of them only work part of the year.Figure Fig.3 presents the interaction of the qualification structure of the female employment and the in-work poverty rate. Here it can be seen that the structure of the labour force of female employment is strongly related to the extent of in-work poverty. The results for female employment rates (Fig. 3) demonstrate a clear trend: Countries with high female employment tend to have low numbers of working poor. Figure 3: In-work poverty by Female employmentFigure 4 present the interaction between employment with low level education and the in-work poverty rate. Here it demonstrates that all Mediterranean countries have high in-work poverty rates and very high shares of low skilled in the labour force. Figure 4: In-work poverty by Employment with low level educationIt also demonstrates here, most the countries with moderately low in-work poverty of are characterized by a rather high percentage of low skilled. Figure 5 demonstrate the relationship between in-work poverty by part time employment and in-work poverty. Here it can be seen that, which countries have low in-work poverty by part time employment (18-64) are characterized by low percentage of in-work poverty rate (18-64) exceptional Belgium, Poland, Greece. Figure 5: In-work poverty by part time employment by in-work povertyFigure 6 exhibit here, most the countries with low in-work poverty by less than 1 year are characterized by a low percentage of in-work poverty rates. It also shown that, in terms of country basis in-work poverty rates are increasing with the increasing of in-work poverty by less than 1 year. Figure 6: In-work poverty by in-work poverty by less than 1 year.The GINI coefficient is defined as the relationship of cumulative shares of the population arranged according to the level of equivalised disposable income, to the cumulative share of the equivalised total disposable income received by them[footnoteRef:2]. Which countries have high wage inequalities tend along with they have high in-work poverty share. Figure 7, demonstrate that equivalised disposable income of 2003 & 2012 of EU 28 countries. It state that, Romania, Lithuania, Estonia, Italy facing decreasing ratio in case of disposable income comparatively to 2003 to 2012. However it figures out that, the highest shares of in-work poverty tends to have comparatively high wage dispersion. [2: http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details/dataset?p_product_code=TESSI190 ]

Analysis of Market segmentation:Discrimination:Discrimination, in the broadest sense, refers to differential treatment which is not justified. It is thus an inherently normative concept, applied to describe behavior deemed reprehensible because it violates the norm of equality.To abolish discrimination between workers from different Member States has been one of the core objectives of the European Communities from the very beginning. The fight against gender discrimination has an equally long history in the EU. It is only recently, however, that the scope of European anti-discrimination law and policy has been extended beyond nationality and gender.Research has revealed widespread discrimination exists in the labour market, primarily against immigrants and minorities. What's more, traditional forms of discrimination based on gender, race, ethnic origin, religion and age still persist in the European workplace.Further compounding these issues are the newly emerging forms of discrimination based on sexual orientation, disabilities, genetics and lifestyle that challenge Europe's ability to respond to these important workplace issues.The data for 2007-2013 in the European Union (EU) confirm that women's participation in the labour force, currently reaching 62%, and in paid employment, at 47.1%, has continued to rise significantly. More broadly speaking, this indicates a narrowing of the gender gap in labour force participation for women.A key measure of women's improvement in employment is the availability of good-quality jobs for women in legislative, senior official or managerial (LSOM) positions. Higher participation rates for women in LSOM jobs indicate a reduction of discriminatory barriers. Although women still represent a distinct minority in such positions throughout the world, holding only 28% of these senior jobs, there has been considerable progress. In the EU, women have increased their share of high-status positions over the past decade by 3.1% to current level of 30.6%.Given these advances, however, women in Europe still earn less than men. Throughout the EU, the difference in average gross hourly earnings between women and men has remained high at 15%. According to the European Commission, the difference in earnings levels between men and women results from "non-respect of equal pay legislation and from a number of structural inequalities". Gender discrimination is also visible in other aspects of employment.The gender pay gap, that is the difference between men's and women's average gross hourly earnings as a percentage of men's average gross hourly earnings (for paid employees), is 18% at EU level in 2008. It is less than 10% in seven Member States (BE, IT, MT, PL, PT, RO, SI) and above 20% in seven (AT, CY, CZ, DE, LT, SK, UK); because of the break in the statistical data series, we cannot satisfactorily comment on the evolution of this important indicator at EU level. Gender segregation16 reaches 26% in occupations and 20% in sectors in 2008. Migrants:Ethnic, cultural and religious diversity is a central feature of the European Union. Migration has been a major source of diversity: the number of foreign- born population in the EU has been estimated as over 40 million or 8.8 per cent of the total population of 495 million. Of these, two thirds have been born outside the European Union. National and linguistic minorities or historic minorities are another important source of ethnic and cultural diversity in the European Union. Unemployment rate for non-EU citizens notably higher than for nationals in the EU28.In 2013 in the EU28, the unemployment rate for non-EU citizens (21.3%) aged 20 to 64 was more than twice the level for citizens of the reporting country (10.0%), referred to as nationals. However, the share of people unemployed for 12 months or more was at almost the same level for non-EU citizens (48.6%) and for nationals (49.4%). As regards employment, the rate for non-EU citizens aged 20 to 64 in the EU28 stood at 56.1%, while it was 68.9% for nationals. The share of employees aged 20 to 64 with a temporary contract was higher for non-EU citizens (20.2%) than for nationals (12.4%). The pattern was the same for the proportion of part time employment, which was more widespread amongst non-EU citizens (27.5%) than amongst nationals (18.4%). Table 1 Labour market migrants integration indicators by citizenship in the EU28, age 20-64, 2013 (source: EU-SILC)Highest employment rate for citizens of another EU Member State The situation of citizens of another EU Member State was very different. In 2013 in the EU28, the employment rate for citizens of another EU Member State (70.9%) aged 20 to 64 was slightly higher than that for citizens of the reporting country (68.9%). Regarding employment conditions, the share of employees aged 20 to 64 with a temporary contract in the EU28 was higher for citizens of another EU Member State (16.4%) than for nationals (12.4%), as was the proportion of part-time employment (24.0% citizens of another EU Member State, compared with 18.4% for nationals). For unemployment, the rate for citizens of another EU Member State aged 20 to 64 in the EU28 stood at 12.2% in 2013, while it was 10.0% for nationals. The share of long-term unemployment was however notably lower for citizens of another EU Member State (40.0%) than for nationals (49.4%).

Employment rates differ the most between non-EU citizens and nationals in Sweden, Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Finland and Germany In 2013 in the EU28, the employment rate was 56.1% for non-EU citizens, compared with 68.9% for citizens of the reporting country. In nearly all EU Member States, the employment rate of nationals was higher than for non-EU citizens, except in Cyprus (66.8% for nationals compared with 74.3% for non-EU citizens), the Czech Republic (72.4% compared with 79.5%), Lithuania (69.8% compared with 70.8%) and Italy (59.5% compared with 60.1%). The pattern was more mixed when comparing the employment rate for nationals with that for citizens of another EU Member State. In 2013 across Member States, the largest differences between the employment rates for non-EU citizens and for nationals were recorded in Sweden (50.2% for non-EU citizens compared with 81.3% for nationals, or -31.1 percentage points), followed by Belgium (-28.8 pp), the Netherlands (-26.8 pp), France (-22.0 pp), Finland (-20.5 pp) and Germany (-20.2 pp).

Skills, educational attainment and employmentHuman capital factors skills and educational attainment are among the main explanatory factors for labour market outcomes. Indeed, there are marked differences in the educational levels between the foreign-born and native born population in the European Union. The immigrant population in the EU-27 is generally underrepresented in the medium-skilled group. Almost half of the native- born population has a medium educational attainment, according to the classification used, but only 41 percent of the immigrant population born in another EU-27 country and 37.9 per cent of immigrants originating from countries outside EU-27. Educational attainments of immigrants are shown in figure in appendix. There is a large body of research on the effects of educational attainment on migrants employment patterns. Indeed, comparatively low human capital endowments of particularly vulnerable migrant and minority groups is one of the most important factors explaining adverse labour market outcomes. Nevertheless, even when educational levels of migrants or minorities are taken into account, inequalities in employment remain, suggesting considerable deskilling among migrants and minorities. Those with good skills and employability will generally have good employment prospects regardless of whether they are employed on permanent or temporary contracts, whereas people with out-of-date or inadequate skills and low employability will find themselves at risk even if they are employed in permanent jobs and have high seniority.

Explanation based on theory:Here we would like judge the relative explanatory factors power on the labour market. And this will be performed by the relationship between dependent variable and independent variable, and try to connect this relationship with expected impact and observed impact on in-work poverty. The picture for the countries with the highest numbers of in-work poverty confirms that they have high/moderately high shares of low skilled and rather low female employment rates. The percentage of broad group of citizenship (foreigners) among working poor is nearly twice rather than the other employees. A high educational level decreases the in-work poverty risk while semi- and unskilled workers face higher risks. Unemployment replacement is a good option for the country on overall economic based but it has less impact in-work poverty. Actually its totally relates with the countrys economy and poverty obviously not so much with in-work poverty. Among the individual characteristics, migrants have good influence on in-work poverty rate, especially by temporary contract. Young aged (18-24) persons face the highest in-work poverty situation. Full time employment has negative impact on in-work poverty risk. Its negatively correlated with in-work poverty risk. Part time employments are positively correlated with in-work poverty risk. Higher part time employment rate increase the in-work poverty rate of household. Because of higher shares of dependents and unemployed household members increase the risk. Low skilled and the wage dispersion are positively correlated with in-work poverty. The availability of public childcare does not have a significant influence on in-work poverty. The effect of female employment is positively correlated with in-work poverty risk. The higher their rate the lower the probabilities of in-work poverty. In Table 1 expected impact demonstrate that, which independent variable has positive impact and which have negative impact on in-work poverty rate based on our expectation before the analysis. And the next column exhibit the observation, based on our analysis on in-work poverty situation across the EU (28 country). By (+), it exhibit that this independent variable has positive impact on in-work poverty, by (-), its exhibit, this independent variable has negative impact on in-work poverty and by (N.S), demonstrate that, this independent variable has not sufficient impact on in-work poverty. HYPOTHESISExpectedImpactObserved Impact on In-work poverty

Dependent VariableIndependent Variable

In-work PovertyLow skilled employees++

Unemployed replacement--

Housing cost overburden+N.S

Single person earning-N.S

Two or more adult with dependent children++

Two or more adult without dependent children-N.S

Full time employee--

Part time employee++

Public child care availability-N.S

Female employment --

Migrant employment++

Table 2: Observed influences on in-work poverty

Recommendation This chapter is prepared to give some recommendation and write conclusion about in-work poverty and labor market segmentation. Some issues such as- proper employment based on quality, ensuring the service and applying income support system can help to reduce in-work poverty. There are some short term, midterm and long term policies that should be developed by the EU countries. Successful countries under EU need to develop more ideas about economic and employment policies which can promote labor force situation in underdeveloped EU countries. In context of current situation and analysis of some experts reports, suggestion can be made by many sides such as adequate monitoring and correct reporting, raising public awareness, proper handle by political parties, enhancing data and analysis, increasing social inclusion in economic and employment policies, labor unions and government guidance. Member states could be concerned about some programs on in-work poverty and labor market segmentation and report it annually: through which many steps can be made to prevent and reduce the problems. Member states could be given the attention on their economic and financial affairs and monitor the financial crisis to in-work poverty and labor market segmentation. They need to monitor the impact of lower wage rates, reduction in working hours, decreasing job opportunity which leads to unemployment, reducing in-work benefit, gender discrimination, ethnic discrimination, which increased labor market segmentation and in work poverty (Hugh Frazer and Eric Marlier; December-2010). The system of fair wage rate should be implemented in each country of EU. Though there are some laws introduced about this aspect but still it is not followed by the employers. Most of the EU countries have minimum wage rate set by government while some countries like Austria, Finland, and Ireland etc. have set the minimum wage rate through agreement basis and there are lot of variations based on job criteria. To prevent in-work poverty, leveling the market is much needed. As we know that the issue of in-work poverty connected with labor market segmentation, some political policies could be inserted based on the situation of the country. It means some issues will be highlighted in future work that is undertaken to ensure an adequate minimum income and develop poverty and well-being. In-work poverty and labor market segmentation could also be given more attention in European Union employment process. The term In-work poverty and labor market segmentation should be given a high priority to ensure social inclusion goals that will help to keep balance between economic, employment and social policies. Much use of European Union structural fund could be made by member countries effort to counter in-work poverty and labor market segmentation. It is seen that old people are facing discriminating problem in work. To reduce in-work poverty and discrimination, policies for these people should be made that they can get actual benefit from their job (regarding physical ability and financial) and government compensation for old people could be enhanced. There are some policies that could be addressed for labor market segmentation: Policies that will ensure better working condition, working flexibility and proper working environment. Promote job retention system which means job retention is confirmed in case of economic and financial crisis. It is also implemented by several EU countries such as Austria, Poland, and UK etc. Decreasing the frequency of temporary contracts. Labor market segmentation can be reduced by increasing the access of skilled and qualified employees to low skilled but decently paid jobs. Several countries are following this policy e.g. Austria, Denmark, France, Ireland etc. Member states are much emphasizing on education and training for unemployed people. Participation of Women in labor market needs to be increased. To ensure work, training, back in work after child birth and to ensure good quality childcare and arranging adequate support in case of children ill. They also need to ensure equality and pay in relation to man. People who are immigrant in the country could be integrated. Separate law for immigrant people should not be imposed. In Germany several programs are organized in order to integrate immigrant people to the labor market. It also includes language and special training Most of the family with two or more dependent children facing at poverty risk. Job opportunity should be made for that dependent person if they are able to do work. Fund creates for the dependent person could be the proper to reduce in-work poverty. Create opportunity for young people to get proper job is another way to reduce labor market segmentation. In Spain, a national working group supports the European social fund to bring together relevant administrative authorities at national and regional level. They recommend and promote the exchange of experience on action to encourage young people to complete their education and getting job. Prevent and Overcome educational disadvantages in the work to reduce in-work poverty. New policies should be developed to promote early childhood education. Some approaches are evident in member states: Developing structures outside school to help young people who have dropped out from the school to access continuing education. Create a system of combinations that the efforts of school and other organizations can work together. Do some changes of curriculum to adapt better student skill. Provide adequate tanning for teachers on how they will teach their students. Providing support and counseling with parents.

Conclusion: In conclusion it seems to us that, employment still is the best protection against poverty. And now main mission is to make sure that it stays this way, therefore in turn to reduce the extent of in-work poverty. As well as make sure the quantity and quality of work to prevent in-work poverty. However, high skilled labour force, female employment and education are able to prevent the risk of in-work poverty rate. The report concludes that there are limitations to the comparability of existing data on discrimination and more general data on labour market outcomes of migrants and minorities, both between Member States and regarding comparability within Member States. Yet there is sample evidence that inequalities between the socioeconomic situation of the overall population and the foreign, migrant and ethnic minority population persists, including that of unemployment rates, wages, working conditions, etc.

References1) Hugh Frazer and Eric Marlier, December 2010, In-work Poverty and Labour Market Segmentation in the EU: key Lessons2) Eurostat Methodologies and working papers, 2010, In work poverty in the EU. 3) Dorothee Spannagel , In-work Poverty in Europe - Extent, Structure and Causal Mechanisms. 4) Ernst-Ulrich Huster, Kay Bourcarde, Johannes Daniel Schtte, In-work poverty and labour market segmentation- Germany5) Cooke, G. and Lawton, K.(2008): Working out of Poverty: A Study of the Low Paid and the Working Poor. London: Institute for Public Policy Research. 6) Pea-Casas, R. and Latta, M.(2004): Working Poor in the European Union. Luxembourg: European Foundation for the Improvement of Living and Working Conditions.7) Commission, E. (Ed.) (2011a): Employment and Social Developments in Europe 2011. Luxembourg: European Union.8) Cooke, G. and Lawton, K.(2008): Working out of Poverty: A Study of the Low Paid and the Working Poor. London: Insitute for Public Policy Research.9) Strengmann-Kuhn, W.(2003): Armut trotz Erwerbsttigkeit. Analysen und sozialpolitische Konsequenzen. Frankfurt am Main: Campus.10) Bardone, L. and Guio, A.-C.(2005): In-Work-Poverty. In: Statistics in Focus - Population and Social Conditions Luxembourg.11) Grimshaw, D.(2011): What do we know about Low-Wage Work and Low-Wage Workers? Analysing the Definitions, Patterns, Causes and Consequences in International Perspective. Geneva: ILO.12) Migrants, minorities and employment (2009), Exclusion and discrimination in the 27 Member States of the European Union, European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.13) http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/product_details/dataset?p_product_code=TESSI19014) http://www.stat.ee/57177