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

Gender and the Labour Market WorkshopICID, UCW and SITESRome, 12 October 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

Questions

What factors stand behind those changes in women’semployment rates?

How the employment rates evolved for different cohorts/agegroups?

What was the evolution of (adjusted) gender gaps inemployment rates?

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?

Results

Questions

How the employment rates of women evolved?

What factors stand behind those changes in women’semployment rates?

How (Not) to Make Women Work?

Results

Ratio of employment rates (women to men) increasingmuch less in transition countries

Time effects estimates in regressions with country fixed effectsUsing OECD data Our replication

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?

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

Empirical analysis

Two stages

1 Obtaining comparable measures of gender discrimination inemployment rates (∆A) - Nopo (2008) decompositions (oneper country-year-source)

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

Research method

Oaxaca (1973) and Blinder (1973) decomposition

yM − yF = βM(xM − xF ) + (βM − βF )xF

Decomposition of Nopo

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

Adjusted gender employment gap - time patterns

Calendar years (1989=0)(1) (2)

Transition country -0.6100***(0.0708)

Time -0.0322*** -0.0240***(0.0092) (0.0039)

x transition country 0.0525*** 0.0375***(0.0103) (0.0047)

Time2 0.0004 0.0002(0.0003) (0.0001)

x transition country -0.0012*** -0.0007***(0.0004) (0.0002)

Constant 1.0595*** 0.4504***(0.1060) (0.0349)

Country F.E. No YesObservations 1,544 1,544R-squared 0.184 0.758

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 -0.26***(0.04)

x transition 0.41***(0.03)

Persons with tertiary -0.69***in % of population (0.10)

x transition 0.76***(0.15)

Women with tertiary -0.88***in % tertiary (0.13)

x transition 0.99***(0.16)

Constant 0.35*** 0.43*** 0.40*** 0.49***(0.12) (0.04) (0.12) (0.13)

Observations 1544 1441 1544 1544R-squared 0.71 0.78 0.72 0.72

How (Not) to Make Women Work?

Results

Adjusted gender employment gap - institutional factors

(5) (6) (7) (8)

% of households with 0.18*small children (0.11)

x transition -0.12(0.16)

Access to earlychildhood facilities

x transition -0.02***(0.004)

% of children inkindergardens

x transition -0.002**(0.001)

Employment rate -1.53***of women (0.08)

x transition 0.77***(0.10)

Constant 0.27** 0.39*** 0.31*** 1.0***(0.11) (0.06) (0.07) (0.11)

Observations 931 424 441 1544R-squared 0.77 0.82 0.83 0.79

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

How (Not) to Make Women Work?

Conclusions

Thank you for your attention