Upload
grape
View
61
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
How (Not) to Make Women Work?
How (Not) to Make Women Work?Evidence from Transition Countries
Karolina Goraus Joanna Tyrowicz Lucas van der Velde
Faculty of Economic SciencesUniversity of Warsaw
25th IAFFE Annual ConferenceGalway, 25 June 2016
How (Not) to Make Women Work?
Outline
1 Motivation
2 Data
3 Results
4 Conclusions
How (Not) to Make Women Work?
Motivation
Motivation
Literature emhasized substatial drop of women’s employment ratesin the process of transition (Brainerd 2000, Hunt 2002, Blau andKahn 2003)
women men
How (Not) to Make Women Work?
Motivation
Ratio of employment rates (women to men) increasingmuch less in transition countries
Time effects estimates in regressions with country fixed effects
How (Not) to Make Women Work?
Motivation
Questions
What factors stand behind those changes in women’semployment rates? What is the role of unemployment?
How the employment rates evolved for different cohorts?
What was the evolution of (adjusted) gender gaps inemployment rates? Did it differ between cohorts?
What was the role of the opportunity cost of working(increasing tertiary schooling attendance vs. decreasing accessto child care facilities)?
How (Not) to Make Women Work?
Data
Varius sources of micro-level data
National censuses (acquired from Integrated Public UseMicrodata Series International)
International Social Survey Program
Living Standard Measurement Surveys of The World Bank
National Labor Force Surveys
European Union Labor Force Survey
European Community Household Panel
Life in Transition Survey
How (Not) to Make Women Work?
Data
Data on transition countries
Country LFS EU LFS Census LSMS ISSP LiTS
Albania 2002-2005 1989-2006Armenia 2001 1989-2006Azerbaijan 1995 1989-2006Belarus 2008-2010 1999 1989-2006Bosnia & Herz. 2001-2004 1989-2006Bulgaria 1995-2012 2000-2012 1995-97, 2001-03 1993-1995 1989-2006Croatia 1996-2012 1989-2006Czech Republic 1998-2012 1993-1995 1989-2006Estonia 1995-2012 1997-2012 1992-1995 1989-2006FYR Macedonia 1989-2006Georgia 1989-2006Hungary 1997-2012 1990, 2001 1989-1995 1989-2006Kazakhstan 1989-2006Kyrgyzstan 1993, 1996-1998 1989-2006Latvia 1998-2012 1995 1989-2006Lithuania 1998-2012 1995 1989-2006Moldova 1989-2006Montenegro 1989-2006Poland 1995-2012 1997-2012 1991-1995 1989-2006Romania 1995-2012 1997-2012 1977, 1992, 2002 1989-2006Russia 1991-1995 1989-2006Serbia 2002-2004, 2007 1989-2006Slovakia 1998-2012 1995 1989-2006Slovenia 1996-2012 2002 1991-1995 1989-2006Tajikistan 1999, 2003, 2009 1989-2006Ukraine 1989-2006Uzbekistan 1989-2006
How (Not) to Make Women Work?
Data
Data on benchmark countries
Country EU LFS ECHP ISSP
Austria 1995-2012 1995-2001 1989-1995Belgium 1992-2012 1994-2001Denmark 1992-2012 1994-2001Finland 1995-2012 1996-2001France 1993-2012 1994-2001Germany 2002-2012 1994-2001 1989-1995Greece 1992-2012 1994-2001Ireland 1999-2012 1994-2001 1989-1995Italy 1992-2012 1994-2001 1989-1995Netherlands 1996-2012 1994-2001Norway 1996-2012 1989-1995Portugal 1992-2012 1994-2001Spain 1992-2012 1994-2001 1993-1995Sweden 1995-2012 1997-2001 1994-1995Switzerland 1996-2012UK 1992-2012 1994-2001
How (Not) to Make Women Work?
Data
Employment rate of women - time trend in OECD data
Time trends All countries Transition countriesTime 0.40*** 0.55*** 0.13*** -0.88***
(0.02) (0.08) (0.03) (0.13)Time squared -0.01* 0.03***
(0.00) (0.00)Constant 51.93*** 51.18*** 52.62*** 58.93***
(0.31) (0.50) (0.55) (0.91)No of observations 629 629 211 211R2 0.41 0.41 0.07 0.30Number of countries 29 29 12 12
Employment rate of women - time trend in our data (replication)
Time trends All countries Transition countriesTime 0.38*** 0.45*** 0.11** 0.15
(0.03) (0.12) (0.05) (0.14)Time squared -0.00 -0.00
(0.00) (0.00)Constant 54.02*** 53.66*** 53.74*** 53.54***
(3.11) (3.16) (2.85) (2.92)No of observations 901 901 422 422R2 0.87 0.87 0.84 0.84Number of countries 46 46 27 27
How (Not) to Make Women Work?
Results
Questions
What factors stand behind those changes in women’semployment rates? What is the role of unemployment?
How the employment rates evolved for different cohorts?
How (Not) to Make Women Work?
Results
Employment rate of women and overall unemployment rate
Employment rate of women (standardized) ILO OECD EUROSTATUnemployment rate (standardized) -0.5760*** -0.5684*** -0.4774***
(0.0550) (0.0304) (0.0428)Transition country dummy 0.3316** 0.0689 -0.1694**
(0.1513) (0.0746) (0.0715)Transition x unemployment rate 0.3798** 0.2293*** 0.2139***
(0.1883) (0.0569) (0.0686)Constant -0.1591*** -0.0365 0.0584
(0.0466) (0.0257) (0.0432)No of observations 515 1,338 632R2 0.266 0.310 0.250
How (Not) to Make Women Work?
Results
Women’s employment rates by age
Advanced economies Transition countries
How (Not) to Make Women Work?
Results
Women’s employment rates by age
Transition countries - NMS Transition countries - other
How (Not) to Make Women Work?
Results
Decomposition of changes in female employment rate
How (Not) to Make Women Work?
Results
Questions
What was the evolution of (adjusted) gender gaps inemployment rates? Did it differ between cohorts?
What was the role of the opportunity cost of working(increasing tertiary schooling attendance vs. decreasing accessto child care facilities)?
How (Not) to Make Women Work?
Results
How to measure discrimination?
How (Not) to Make Women Work?
Results
Research method
Oaxaca-Blinder decomposition
yM − yF = βM(xM − xF ) + (βM − βF )xF
Decomposition of Npo
δ = δM + δX + δA + δF
δM - can be explained by differences between matched andunmatched malesδX - can be explained by differences in the distribution ofcharacteristics of males and females over the common supportδA - unexplained part of the gapδF - can be explained by differences between matched andunmatched females
How (Not) to Make Women Work?
Results
Empirical analysis
Two stages
1 Obtaining comparable measures of gender discrimination inemployment rates (∆A) - Npo (2008) decompositions.
one per country-yearseparately for cohorts working under transition and those thatentered after transition (two per country-year)
2 Using gender gap estimates as explained variables, whereascountry-year characteristics as explanatory variables. Identifythe correlates (better yet: determinants) of the starkdifferentials in measured ∆A.
How (Not) to Make Women Work?
Results
Adjusted gender employment gap - time patterns
Calendar years Years from transition(1) (2) (3) (4)
Transition country -0.6922*** -0.2105***(0.0806) (0.0599)
Time -0.0366*** -0.0244*** 0.0152*** -0.0273***(0.0110) (0.0052) (0.0030) (0.0035)
x transition country 0.0586*** 0.0461*** 0.0009 0.0418***(0.0122) (0.0061) (0.0049) (0.0042)
Time2 0.0006* 0.0003 -0.0002*** 0.0001***(0.0004) (0.0002) (0.0000) (0.0000)
x transition country -0.0013*** -0.0009*** -0.0002 -0.0005***(0.0004) (0.0002) (0.0002) (0.0001)
Constant 1.0916*** 0.5734*** 0.6680*** 0.9435***(0.1121) (0.0406) (0.0989) (0.0544)
Country F.E. No Yes No YesObservations 1,184 1,184 1,184 1,184R-squared 0.287 0.754 0.268 0.754
How (Not) to Make Women Work?
Results
Time trend shapes
How (Not) to Make Women Work?
Results
Adjusted gender employment gap - institutional factors
(1) (2) (3) (4)
ln GDP per capita -0.39***(0.0428)
x transition 0.44***(0.032)
Persons with tertiary -1.28***in % of population (0.13)
x transition 1.05***(0.19)
Women with tertiary -1.92***in % tertiary (0.22)
x transition 1.71***(0.24)
Constant 0.31*** 0.73*** 0.64*** 0.97***(0.0489) (0.05) (0.05) (0.09)
Observations 1184 1087 1184 1184R-squared 0.71 0.78 0.73 0.73
How (Not) to Make Women Work?
Results
Adjusted gender employment gap - institutional factors
(5) (6) (7) (8)
% of households with 0.32**small children (0.13)
x transition -0.33(0.22)
Access to earlychildhood facilities
x transition -0.02***(0.004)
% of children inkindergardens
x transition -0.003**(0.001)
Employment rate -2.08***of women (0.11)
x transition 0.88***(0.16)
Constant 0.41*** 0.72*** 0.65*** 1.21***(0.06) (0.10) (0.10) (0.05)
Observations 870 310 327 1184R-squared 0.69 0.64 0.64 0.80
How (Not) to Make Women Work?
Results
Adjusted GEG - cohort effects in transition countries
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5)
Cohorts working before transition 0.064*** 0.16*** 0.32*** 0.19*** 0.29***(0.01) (0.03) (0.07) (0.03) (0.05)
Persons with tertiary in % of population 0.09(0.16)
x cohorts working before transition -0.56***(0.19)
Women with tertiary education in % tertiary -0.29***(0.08)
x cohorts working before transition -0.52***(0.12)
% of households with small children 0.66***(0.15)
x cohorts working before transition -0.28*(0.16)
Employment rate of women -0.84***(0.10)
x cohorts working before transition -0.50***(0.11)
Constant 0.24** 0.45*** 0.60*** 0.22** 0.81***(0.11) (0.07) (0.08) (0.09) (0.08)
Observations 1352 1352 1352 1233 1352R-squared 0.35 0.36 0.38 0.36 0.45
How (Not) to Make Women Work?
Conclusions
Conclusions
Employment rates evolution in transition countries - lowexplanatory power of unemployment rates, importance of”entries” and ”exits”
Adjusted gaps initially smaller in transition countries, but thenstable
Relation between gender gaps in employment and institutionalfactors less clear for transition countries
Younger cohorts face lower adjusted gaps, institutional factorsplay bigger role for older cohorts
How (Not) to Make Women Work?
Conclusions
Thank you for your attention