LABOUR MARKET MOBILITY AMONG EGYPTIAN YOUTH
Dennis A. Ahlburg Industrial Relations Center University of Minnesota 321 19th Avenue South Minneapolis MN 55455 U.S.A
And
Mona Amer University of Cairo
November 2000
1
A scarcity of official data on the Egyptian labor market made it difficult to track the evolution of changes in labor force participation, employment, and unemployment. As a consequence ERF, with the assistance of the Egyptian Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (CAPMAS), carried out a detailed nationally representative labor market survey of 5000 households in 1998. This survey showed that male labor force participation decreased by four percentage points over the previous decade and female participation increased by an identical amount. Increasing school enrollments of young men and earlier retirement drove the drop in male participation by men over 50 years of age. The increase in participation by women was due to increasing educational attainment (particularly secondary education) as well as greater labor market persistence of married women. Increases in labor supply outstripped increases in labor demand, so unemployment increased. These developments occurred against a backdrop of changes in Government policy, particularly the collapse of the guaranteed employment scheme for graduates, and structural adjustment policies that had consequences for the labor market. In this paper, we use the 1998 labor market survey to study the mobility of young Egyptians among major job classes. We will first look at mobility over one, four, and eight years to gain insight into the dynamics of the Egyptian labor market. For instance, little is known about the persistence of workers in areas other than government employment. The belief is that educated workers (students) wait in a queue for a government job to open up. But is this still true given the erosion of real public sector wages and the lengthening of the queue for government jobs and the government guarantee of a job for all graduates has weakened (Assaad 1997a: 93)? Where do students go who do not succeed in obtaining a government job?
Assaad (1997b)
2
identified the informal sector as being the most important source of labor absorption since the 1980s and the private formal sector as having grown rapidly, although from a small base. Relatively little is known about the dynamics of these sectors. How stable is employment in these sectors? If workers leave these sectors where do they go? Where do the workers being absorbed by these sectors come from? The unemployed are generally graduates. For instance, in 1995 75% had earned a secondary school diploma, eight percent had earned a diploma from a two year post-secondary technical institute, and 13% were University graduates (Assaad 1997a). Although we know the characteristics of the unemployed, we do not know how persistent unemployment is in Egypt nor do we know much about where individuals who leave unemployment go. Little is known about those out of the labor market. Do they remain out of the labor market so that the population is composed of those that work in the market and those that work in the home or is there movement into and out of the labor market? The 1998 labor market survey allows us to answer such questions. Graduates have long been of particular interest in part recognized in the government’s guaranteed employment scheme. We will also investigate the mobility of students over the 1980s and the 1990s using the 1988 labor market survey and the 1998 survey. Were the mobility patterns different over the two decades? Did changes to the guaranteed employment scheme lead students to choose different paths into the labor market? We will also investigate the factors that are thought to contribute to the dynamics observed. In particular, we are interested in the extent to which education leads young workers to move from less desirable sectors to more desirable sectors. We will also
3
investigate the role played by household and residential characteristics in explaining mobility.
Mobility
We break the labor market into the following sectors: public; private protected; private unprotected; irregular wage agriculture; irregular wage non-agriculture; non-wage agriculture; non-wage non-agriculture, unemployed; out-of-the labor-force; and student. A public job includes employment in the public enterprises and in the government. Private regular wage protected job refers to a permanent or temporary job with a written contract and/or social security. Private regular wage unprotected job refers to a permanent or temporary job without a written contract or social security. Irregular wage job refers to a seasonal or a casual job. Non wage employment consists of employers, self-employed and unpaid family workers. The unemployment are those who are above 14 and who are without work, currently available for work, and who are seeking work. Out of the labor force includes those who do not want to work in the market (e.g. housewives), those permanently or temporarily disabled, those unpaid leave for a year or more and others We assume that individuals value pay and benefits (including retirement payments, medical coverage, access to subsidized commodities and services), job security, lower and flexible hours of work (including the opportunity to moonlight), and the protection of labor laws. Sectors vary substantially in the rewards they offer workers. The public sector pays substantial wage premiums (McCormick and Wahba 2000) and extensive benefits worth 85% of wages (Assaad 1996). These benefits include extensive social insurance and medical coverage, a high degree of job security, lower 4
hours than the private sector, access to subsidized commodities and services, and coverage by labor laws. The private protected sector has legal employment contracts giving workers the protection of labor laws, job security but not to the same extent as the public sector, and generally retirement benefits but not medical benefits. The private non-protected sector is not covered by labor laws and does not get social security but does have the advantage of regularity of employment. The irregular wage sectors have none of the advantages of the other sectors and lack regularity of employment but money wages are paid. In contrast, the non-wage sectors do not even have the advantage of paying a money wage. Individuals gain information about these characteristics of jobs either by working in them or by gathering it from relatives and friends or by some more formal search mechanism. We believe that the overall ranking of sectors based on these characteristics is the following: public sector; private protected; private unprotected; both irregular wage sectors tie; both non-wage sectors tie; unemployed; and finally, out-of-thelabor market. Students are a distinct group because they are engaged in building human capital to allow them to enter one of the other sectors. We assume that individuals combine information acquired about all jobs, whether through direct experience or from other sources, to forecast pecuniary and non-pecuniary returns to all jobs. The individual uses these beliefs to assign an index value to each job and under certain conditions, the optimal decision is to choose the job with the largest index (Miller 1984). Workers are predicted to stay in jobs in which their productivity is revealed to be relatively high and leave jobs in which their productivity is revealed to be relatively low. Jobs in which productivity is relatively high are said to result in a “match” and workers will not leave a job in which the match is good unless new
5
information is acquired that suggests a better match is possible. McCall (1990) has extended this model to include not only job but also occupational information that affect the quality of the match. These models can be modified to allow for differences in worker characteristics in gender, education, race and ability. Jovanovic (1979) argues that each distinct group of workers could be treated as though they belonged to a distinct market of workers of that type and Miller (1984) posits that differences in characteristics such as socioeconomic background or education may affect prior beliefs about jobs and thus turnover. Evidence suggests that in many ways, the labor market opportunities and behaviors of females and graduates in Egypt are quite different (Assaad 1997a and b, 1999). These differences may also affect mobility and so we investigate males and females separately. The Data
Data for the first part of the analysis are taken from the Egypt Labor Market Survey 1998 and for the second part from this survey and from the CAPMAS Labor Force Sample Survey of October 1988 which was a special round of the labor force survey. The structures of the two surveys are similar. The 1988 survey has been described in detail in Fergany (1990, 1991). The 1998 survey is new and so will be described briefly. The description is taken, with permission, from Assaad (1999). The Egypt Labor Market Survey (ELMS 98) is a nationally-representative household survey covering 5,000 households. Taking the rich data collected in the October 1988 round of the LFSS (Labor Force Sample Survey) as a baseline for the study, the survey aimed to assess the major changes in labor market conditions that occurred during the period from 1988 to 1998, a period of significant economic reform
6
and structural adjustment. To ensure comparability of data across this ten-year period, the study replicated the design and methodology used in the 1988 study. The survey instrument comprised three questionnaires: 1) a household questionnaire; 2) an individual questionnaire; 3) an a family enterprises questionnaire. Each household was to have at least one household questionnaire and one individual questionnaire. If any of the members of the household was self-employed or an employer, the household would also have a family enterprises questionnaire. The household questionnaire is administered to the head of the household or his spouse. It includes the roster of members of the household, each individual’s relationship to the head of the household, demographic characteristics of the household, access to public services, availability of durable goods and sources of income other than work. The individual questionnaire applies to all household members six years old and above. It includes modules on parents’ characteristics, education, detection of work in the reference week, unemployment, characteristics of employment during the reference three months, detailed work histories, and earnings from work for wage workers. Data for this questionnaire were collected from the individual him/herself. The family enterprises questionnaire applies to any activity carried out by employers or self-employed household members. Data for this questionnaire is collected from the individual responsible for the enterprise.
There were 4,816 completed household questionnaires. The net response rate was 94.2%, but because some households in multi-household dwelling units were added, the gross response rate was 96.5%.
The households interviewed contained 23,997
individuals, of whom 20,930 were over 6 years of age and therefore had individual
7
questionnaires. Of these 4,816 households, 1614 had at least one family enterprise and therefore had an enterprise questionnaire completed for them, a rate of 33.5%. Such enterprises include agricultural land that is cultivated by one or more members of the household
The results of this section are based on data from the employment module of the ELMS 98. This module gives two kinds of information. First it gives the last three employment situations (the current one in late October 1998, and the two jobs before that). Second, it gives the employment status in August 1990. As only those who ever entered the labor market answered the employment questions some assumptions have been made in order to include all the youth aged 15-29 in 1990 whatever there employment situation at that time. To calculate employment status in 1990, 1991, 1994, and 1998 the following assumptions have been made: •
For those who were ever employed, their employment status in 1990 and 1998 are given in the survey. The start dates of the current and two previous jobs allow us to determine their situation in 1991 and 1994.
•
For those who never worked in the market and thus do not have a recorded employment history, we divide them into three categories : •
Those currently unemployed (or “always unemployed”). The duration of the current
unemployment spell and the year they finished school allow us to identify the beginning of their unemployment spell and then determine whether they were unemployed or students in 1990, 1991 and 1994.
8
•
Those currently out of the labor force (or “always out of the labor force”). It is
assumed that they were also out of the labor force since the age of 6 if they were not students in 1990, 1991 and 1994. •
Those currently unpaid family workers (or “always unpaid family workers”). It is
assumed that if they were not students in 1990, 1991 or 1994, they were already unpaid family workers.
Nevertheless, even with these assumptions some transitions cannot be observed. This concerns all kind of mobility between unemployment, inactivity and participation in subsistence activities for individuals who never worked in the labor market. This implies that these individuals are considered here to be always in one of the three states identified above. As females are more likely to belong to one of these three categories, this leads us to overestimate female immobility. One concern in taking arbitrary years for investigating mobility is that we may miss moves within the time periods chosen. Our data allow us to see if we are missing moves within the fixed periods for comparison. These data are presented in Table 1 for males and Table 2 for females. Over the short-term, males and females either remain in the initial sector or make one change. Males are more than twice as likely as females to move. Over a four-year period, relatively few multiple moves occur. For females they are rare but for men 10% of the sample move more than once within the period. Over the longer-run, females are remarkably immobile. Over 70% do not change sectors and only 5% make multiple moves. For men, multiple moves are more common: about one in four move more than twice in the eight-year period. Thus when we look at long term mobility for young
9
men, they may have made other moves from 1990 to arrive in the sector in which we observe them in 1998.
MOBILITY OF 15-29 YEAR OLDS In this section of the paper we investigate the mobility of youth, that is individuals who were 15 to 29 years of age in 1990. Mobility from 1990 to 1991
Males Employment in the all sectors was quite stable with 90% or more workers in the same sector in 1990 and 1991 (Table 3). Of youth unemployed in 1990, 23% were no longer unemployed in 1991. Fully 35% of youth who left unemployment went to the private unprotected sector, 17% went to the government sector and 13% to the private protected sector. Almost one in five unemployed workers dropped out of the labor market. There was no change in the number unemployed because the large outflow from unemployment was matched by a large inflow. Almost all of the new unemployed were students. Among youth who were students in 1990, 20% had left education by 1991. Fully 42% of them did not enter the labor market. Of those who entered the labor market, 16% were unemployed, 14% found employment in non-wage agriculture, and about 7% went into each of the following: government, private unprotected, and irregular wage nonagriculture. In 1991, there were 8% more young men out of the labor force. Most of these had been students or workers in the private unprotected sector.
10
Females The employment pattern for females is less complex than for males, so we have combined employment in the private sectors and combined employment in the non-wage sectors. The short-run mobility of employed women is as low as that of men. Almost all employed women in the public and non-wage sector in 1990 were in the same sectors in 1991 (Table 4). Almost half of the women who left the private sector exited the labor market while almost one third took employment in the public sector. Fully 87% of females employed in the private sector remained in this sector. Two differences between young women and young men is that a higher percentage of women who were unemployed in 1990 remained unemployed (88% compared to 77%) and almost all women who were out of the labor force remained out whereas 30% of men re-entered the labor market. Almost one half of the women who left unemployment found employment in the public sector while the remainder moved into non-wage employment or else left the labor force. While persistence in education was similar for males and females, the sectors those who left school moved to differ. Females are more likely to leave the labor force than are males (50% compared to 40%) and are more likely to get jobs in the public sector (15% compared to 7%). Mobility from 1990 to 1994
Males The vast majority of moves for males were direct. Of the 10% of males who moved twice between 1990 and 1994, almost all were students, out of the labor force, or in regular unprotected jobs in 1990. Persistence in the government sector was very high
11
(Table 5). Over the four-year period, 95% of workers remained with the government. Persistence was also quite high in private protected, irregular, and non-wage sectors. In these sectors over 75% of the young workers were still employed in 1994. About 30% of young males left the private unprotected sector, about one-third for government employment, 16% for the private protected sector, and one-third left the labor force. A majority of young males who were unemployed in 1990 were no longer unemployed in 1994 (60%). Roughly equal shares found employment in the government sector (27%), the private unprotected sector (29%), and the private protected sector (23%). Only one-third of young men who were students in 1990 were still students four years later. One-quarter of these young men did not enter the labor force and 20% did so but failed to find employment. The remainder were spread over the other sectors: 14% in private unprotected, 8% in private protected, 15% in the government, 11% fairly evenly split between the non-wage sectors, and 7% in the irregular employment, predominantly in non-agriculture. Only 25% of young men who had been out of the labor market in 1990 were still out of the labor market in 1994. Twenty percent had found employment in the public sector, 25% in the private unprotected sector and 13% in the private protected sector. Almost one in five of these young men had found irregular employment, predominantly non-agricultural, and 10% had found jobs in the non-wage sectors. Females Female persistence in public employment in public employment is as high as it is for males (93% as shown in Table 6). The majority of young women who leave government employment leave the labor force. Females are more likely than males to
12
leave the private sector. Of the one-third that leave, 44% leave the labor force and 26% take public sector jobs. While roughly one in five men left the non-wage sector between 1990 and 1994, very few women left this sector. Female mobility from unemployment was similarly lower than that for males. While only one-third of young men were unemployed in both years, 75% of young women remained unemployed. Of those women that left unemployment 57% took public sector jobs. Female students who left school were much more likely not to enter the labor market than were young men. Slightly more than 40% of female students did not enter the labor force. More than half of the female students who did not enter the labor force were married by 1994 and of those who were not yet married, two-thirds were married within two years. The only other important destination for female students who married was government employment. Among those who did enter the labor force, 25% were unemployed in 1994 while 19% were employed in the public sector and 12% in the private sector. Fully 95% of young women who were out of the labor force in 1990 were not in the labor force in 1994. This contrasts sharply with the position for young men. Only 23% of young men were out of the labor force in both years.
Mobility from 1990 to 1998 Males Even after eight years, almost 90% of young males who had been employed in the government sector in 1990 were still in this sector (Table 7). Persistence was also high in non-wage non-agriculture (83%), and irregular-wage (74%) and non-wage agriculture (75%). Mobility was higher in private protected employment and irregular-wage non-
13
agricultural employment (these are mainly self-employed or employers and only 20% are unpaid family workers). In these sectors about one-third of the workers left between 1990 and 1998. Stability was lowest in the private unprotected sector where slightly over half of young men remained. The vast majority of young men who were unemployed in 1990 had found employment by 1998 (83%). The largest number of those who found jobs found them with the government (33%). This supports Assaad’s (1997) claim that unemployment represents, at least in part, the queue for government jobs. A considerable number of young men also found employment in the private sector (44%), with about one-third of them entering protected employment. Most young men who had been out of the labor market had re-entered it by 1998. Of these 28% were employed in the government sector, 19% in the private unprotected sector, and 12% in each of the private protected, irregular-wage non-agricultural, and non-wage non-agricultural sectors. About one-quarter of male students had entered government employment and an equal proportion private employment. Those who accepted private sector jobs were evenly split between the protected and unprotected sectors. The only other significant categories were unemployment (15%) and out of the labor force (11%). Females Persistence of young women in the public sector, the non-wage sector, and out of the labor force is still very high even after eight years (Table 8). It is not too much of an exaggeration to say that women who enter these sectors are unlikely to leave them. Fiftyfive percent of women who were in the private sector in 1998 were there in 1998. Of those that moved, almost half left the labor market and one quarter moved to the public
14
sector. The others were equally likely to have become unemployed or have moved to the non-wage sector. Almost all of the women that left government employment also left the labor market. While less than one male in five remained in the unemployment pool after eight years, one woman in two was still unemployed. This may reflect either that men are called up for government employment from the unemployment queue more rapidly that women or, as Assaad (1997a) observed, because women are less likely to leave the queue for government jobs than are men. The fact that 63% of women who leave unemployment do so to join the government while this is the case for only about 33% of males implies that the latter is more likely to be the case. A little over 40% of those who were students in 1990 were out of the labor force in 1998. About one in four female students had joined the government and the same proportion was unemployed. Only a small percentage (10%) had taken employment in the private sector. Of the 10% of women who entered the labor force who had previously been out of it, one-third were employed in the government sector, one-third in the private sector, and 20% in the nonwage sector.
Education and Mobility Males It is not clear whether more educated workers will be more mobile than less educated workers. More educated workers may make a better initial job match because their education allows them to more efficiently evaluate jobs. More educated workers may be quicker to realize that an initial job id s a bad match or, given a bad initial job match, more educated workers may have more alternative jobs they can move to.
15
We have split the data into thos e young people that attained less than preparatory education and those that attained preparatory level or above. Education has little impact on the year-to-year mobility of young males. However, it does appear to have a considerable impact on longer-term mobility. Persistence is similar in the public sector but about eight percentage points higher in the private protected sector for those with more education. In the private unprotected sector the persistence of more educated workers is considerably less (18 percentage points) as these workers move into government and private protected employment. Education also affects mobility from the irregular-wage non-agriculture sector. Fully 85% of less educated workers remain in this sector compared to 65% of more educated workers. The majority of more-educated workers move to government employment. Decomposition by education shows that almost all unemployed workers had preparatory education or better. Of the two-third of more educated unemployed workers who found jobs, one-third did so in the government sector and two-thirds in the private sector. Education also facilitates re-entry into the labor market. Only 15% of more educated workers stayed out of the labor market compared to 31% of less educated workers. While the more educated found jobs in the public and private sectors, the less educated found employment in the private unprotected sector and in irregular-wage non-agriculture. The impact of education on mobility is even more marked when we consider mobility from 1990 to 1998. There was a 19 percentage point drop in more-educated males working in the private protected sector compared to a seven percentage point drop for less educated workers. Equal numbers of workers moved into public employment but a considerable number of more educated males also moved from the private protected
16
sector to the non-wage non-agricultural sector. There were drops of similar size in persistence in the private unprotected sector. More educated workers were much more likely to move to the public and protected sectors than were less educated workers. Education also played a much greater role in moving more educated workers back into the labor market than it did for less educated workers. For women education affects only the transitions from unemployment and from the private sector. The persistence of the more educated in unemployment is much higher. The one-year difference is 30 percentage points; the four-year difference is 20 percentage points, and the eight-year difference 8 percentage points. This difference is consistent wit the belief that unemployment is de facto the queue for government jobs, especially for women. The persistence of more educated women in the private is considerably less than that of less educated women. The one-year difference of 20 percentage points grows to 40 percentage points by eight years. The majority more educated women who leave the private sector leave the labor force.
LABOR MARKET MOBILITY OF STUDENTS IN THE 1980S AND 1990S
Since education plays such a central role in the labor market in Egypt, this part of the study focuses on the movement of students in to the labor market in the 1980s and the 1990s. We focus on young people who were enrolled in school at the beginning of each period, namely 1981 or 1990 and who had basically finished their education by the end of the period, namely 1988 or 1998. The young people studied were 13-22 years old in 1981 and 12-21 years old in 1990. The most striking difference between the transitions from school in the 1980s compared to the 1990s is the large decrease in students who were not employed. In the
17
1980s, 39% of students who left school either were out of the labor force or unemployed. In the 1990s, only 22% of students were not employed. The largest decline was in the flow of students to unemployment. This may reflect the impact of lengthening of the queue for public sector jobs. As the wait time increased a smaller proportion of students waited in the unemployment queue. Another marked change is that whereas in the 1980s the private protected and unprotected sectors sector absorbed only 17% of graduates, the public sector employed 29%. By the end of the 1990s, the public and private sectors employed similar percentages of those who had left school. The irregular sector and the non-wage sector also increased their relative absorption of students in the 1990s. Since non-wage employment category is heterogeneous, it is interesting to divide it into employers and the self-employed and into unpaid family workers. Movement of students into self-employment or employers (essentially in agriculture and trade) increased from 5% to 7% and that into unpaid family worker increased from 6% to 9% (essentially in agriculture). It appears that the changes discussed above were driven much more by the behavior of younger workers than somewhat older workers. In Figures 2 and 3, the sample is divided into those who were 20-24 years of age at the end of the respective periods and those who were 25-29 years old. It is clear that the shifts from unemployment and out of the labor force were greater for younger students, as was the shift into the private unprotected sector. A decline in public employment affected only older individuals and they also had a somewhat larger shift into non-wage employment. In summary, movement into the two most valued forms of employment, the public sector and the private protected sector, was essentially constant across the 1980s and 1990s. What did change was increased movement into the private unprotected, irregular, and non-
18
wage sectors rather than students waiting for jobs in the unemployment queue or leaving the labor force.
Gender Differentials
The transitions for males and females are presented in Figures 5 and 6. Both males and females were less likely to leave school and be either unemployed or leave the labor force in the 1990s than in the 1990s. The absolute decline in unemployment for women was much larger although the relative declines were similar. The decline in being out of the labor market occurred only for males. A notable difference between men and women is the slight decline in the percentage of male students being employed in the government sector but the large percentage increase in the percentage of young women leaving school and finding employment in the government sector. Thus the most important shift that occurred is that unemployment has been replaced by unprotected or unpaid employment for both men and women and by public sector work for women. This result is clearly seen when we focus only on the distribution of employment by sector (Table 9). While the private sector is the major employer for males it is the public sector that plays that role for females. The less desirable employment sectors play a far role in the employment of men than of women.
Regression Analysis of Mobility of Youth in the 1990s. We have described the broad movements of young people from school to work and from non-work to work and from one employment status to another. Some of these moves have been from a less desirable labor market state and some have represented downward mobility, at least as judged by the criteria we have outlined in this paper. We have indicated 19
that mobility differs by sex and that educational differences may play some role, especially for young men. In this section we discuss the results of an econometric analysis of the mobility of young Egyptian men and women in the 1990s. In particular, we investigate whether their moves have led them to secure more desirable jobs. For each young person who was not enrolled in school in 1990, we define a move up in employment status from 1990 to 1998 if: the individual moved from out of the labor force to any labor market status, moved from unemployment to any labor market status, moved from non-wage to wage employment, moved from irregular to regular employment (public, private protected, or private unprotected), moved from the unprotected sector to the protected or public sectors, or moved from protected to the public sector. A decrease in the status of employment occurred if any of these moves were reversed. No change occurred if the individual was in the same sector in 1990 and 1998. The regressions were estimated using an order probit procedure. The factors thought to affect mobility were: marital status, being a female head of household, level of education (illiterate, can read and write, primary, preparatory, secondary and above), the presence of young children in the household (two or less years of age, age 3 to 6 years), presence of females 12-64 years of age in the household, a set of dummy variables for the sector of employment of other males in the household, whether the individual’s father was self-employed (a proxy for a family business), and region of the country in which the individual lived. Separate regressions were run for males and females for one-, four-, and eight-year mobility. The regressions for one-year mobility for males and females were not statistically significant. However, the variables noted did have statistically significant impacts on fourand eight-year mobility. Young men with preparatory or secondary or above levels of
20
education were more likely to move to a higher employment status. The impact of education was even more important in the longer run. From 1990 to 1998, young men with any education were more likely to move up the employment ladder than illiterates and the higher their initial level of education, the more likely they were to upgrade their employment. Over the longer term, older men were less likely to move up in employment status and men in rural Lower Egypt were more likely to improve their status than were males in other regions. For young women, the only variables that affected the probability of mobility were the employment status of males in the household and the presence of other females in the household. Relative to women with male household members in the in the public sector, women with males in the household in the protected or unprotected sectors or in irregular employment in agriculture were less likely to upgrade their employment. For longer-term mobility, having a male in non-wage non-agriculture also lowers upward mobility. The presence of other women in the household is also associated with upward mobility, presumably because these women can carry out domestic work that frees the young woman to seek more desirable employment. Region differences exist for young women. Mobility is greater in Upper and Lower Egypt than in either Greater Cairo or Alexandria and the Canal Cities.
Conclusion In the introduction to this paper we posed a number of questions that we can now answer. Persistence in the Egyptian labor market is quite high, especially for females. Over an eight year period almost three-quarters of women did not change their sector and 41% of men did not change. Only 5% of women made two or more changes but one man in four
21
made this many changes. It is rare that a worker will leave government employment once this highly valued prize has been achieved. For men. persistence is also high in the private protected, irregular and non-wage sectors.
Persistence is also high for women in the non-
wage sector. Unemployment is persistent for women but not for men. After eight years, 50% of women were still unemployed but only 17% of men. This persistence is probably explained by queuing for government jobs. Fully 63% of women who left employment did so for government employment compared to only 33% of men. Women also are far more likely to remain out of the labor market than are men. After eight years, 95% of the women who were out of the labor force are still out compared to very few men. Men who re-enter the market tend to find employment in the private sector or the irregular sector. Employment in the private protected and unprotected is important for both male and female new labor market entrants. About 35% of employed men and 27% of employed women entered these sectors. However, the public sector still absorbs the largest share of new entrants. The public sector continues to dominate employment of young women who leave school, employing 60% of them. The public sector is far less dominant for males and its importance has declined since the 1980s. Indeed, it is less important that the private protected and unprotected sectors. Irregular employment is not important for females but does employ one in ten young males moving from school into the labor market. On-wage employment plays some role in absorbing young women into employment but is far more important as a source of employment for young men. In the 1990s, non-wage employment rivaled the government in providing employment for males who left school. There were other significant changes in the labor market from the 1980s to the 1990s. Notable was a
22
decline in unemployment among new graduates, especially female graduates. Young men were also less likely to move from school to out of the labor market. We also identified some factors that were associated with young men and women moving to more desirable employment sectors. For young men, education was the dominant factor that determined whether a move they made increased the status of their employment. Young women were more likely to improve their status if a male in their household were employed in the public sector and if there were other adult females in their household who would presumably free them from household responsibilities.
23
Bibliography Assaad, Ragui. 1996. “Structural adjustment and labor market reform in Egypt.” In Hans Hopfinger, ed.. Economic Liberalization and Privatization in Socialist Arab Countries: Algeria, Egypt, Syria, and Yemen as Examples. Stuttgart: Justus Pertheses Verlag Gotha. Assaad, Ragui. 1997a. “The effects of public sector hiring and compensation policies on the The World Bank Economic Review 11: 85-118. Assaad, Ragui. 1997b. “The employment crisis in Egypt: Current trends and future Research in Middle East Economics, Volume 2. Greenwich, Conn.: JAI Press, pp.39-66. Assaad, Ragui. 1999. “The transformation of the Egyptian labor market.” Paper presented at Conference on Labor Market and Human Resource Development in Egypt, Cairo November 29-30. Fergany. N. 1990. “Design, implementation and appraisal of the October 1988 round of the
Fergany, N. 1991. “Overview and general features of employment in the domestic economy.” Final Report. Labor Information System Project. CAPMAS, Cairo, Egypt. Jovanovic, Boyan. 1979. “Job matching and the theory of turnover.” Journal of Political Economy. 87: 972-990. McCall, Brian. 1990. “Occupational matching: A test of sorts.” Journal of Political Economy. 98: 45-69. McCormick, Barry and Jackline Wahba. 2000. “Did public wage premiums fuel agglomeration in LDCs?” Discussion Papers in Economics and Econometrics No. 0020. Southampton: Department of Economics, University of Southampton. Miller, Robert. 1984. “Job matching and occupational choice.” Journal of Political Economy 92:1086-1120.
24
Figures and Tables
Figures
Figure 1 : Transitions from School : the 1980s and 1990s Figure 2 : Male Transitions from School 1980s and 1990s Figure 3 : Female Transitions from School 1980s and 1990s Figure 4 : Transitions from School for Younger Youth 1980s and 1990s Figure 5 : Transitions from School for Older Youth 1980s and 1990s
Tables
Table 1: Male Distribution of the Number of Changes in Employment Sector Table 2 : Female Distribution of the Number of Changes in Employment Sector Table 3 : Mobility of Males 1990-1991 Table 4 : Mobility of Males 1990-1994 Table 5 : Mobility of Males 1990-1998 Table 6 : Mobility of Females 1990-1991 Table 7 : Mobility of Females 1990-1994 Table 8: Mobility of Females 1990-1998 Table 9 : Employment Structure in 1988 and 1998 for Individuals who were Students in 1981 or 1990
1
Figure 1 : Transitions from School : The 1980s and 1990s
30%
Transition Rate
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Public
Reg Private Protected
Reg Private Unprotected
Irreg Wage Emp
Non Wage Emp
Unemployed
Out of LF
1981-1988
29%
9%
8%
4%
12%
20%
19%
1990-1998
28%
12%
15%
8%
16%
9%
13%
2
Figure 2: Male Transitions from School 1980s and 1990s
45%
40%
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Public
Reg Private Protected
Reg Private Unprotected
Irreg Wage Emp
Non Wage Emp
Unemployed
Out of LF
1981-1988
25%
10%
9%
7%
15%
13%
22%
1990-1998
22%
12%
16%
10%
19%
7%
13%
3
Figure 3 : Female Transitions from School 1980s and 1990s
45%
40%
35%
Transition Rate
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Public
Reg Private Protected
Reg Private Unprotected
Irreg Wage Emp
Non Wage Emp
Unemployed
Out of LF
1981-1988
34%
8%
5%
1%
7%
30%
15%
1990-1998
43%
10%
11%
1%
9%
12%
14%
4
Figure 4 : Transitions from School for Younger Youth 1980s and 1990s
25%
Transition Rate
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Public
Private Protected
Private Unprotected
Irreg Wage Emp
Non Wage Emp
Unemployed
Out of LF
1981-1988
18%
9%
8%
5%
12%
24%
24%
1990-1998
20%
10%
18%
9%
16%
10%
16%
5
Figure 5 : Transitions from School for Older Youth 1980s and 1990s
45%
40%
35%
Transition Rate
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
Public
Private Protected
Private Unprotected
1981-1988
45%
10%
7%
3%
1990-1998
40%
14%
9%
5%
Irreg Wage Emp Non Wage Emp
Unemployed
Out of LF
10%
13%
11%
16%
7%
8%
6
7
Table 1 : Male Distribution of the Number of Changes by Periods of Transitions
NUMBER OF CHANGES No change 1 Change 2 or More Changes Total Sample Size
1990-1991 86.50 13.50 100.00 2267
PERIOD OF TRANSITION 1990-1994 58.75 30.93 10.31 100.00 2313
1990-1998 40.80 32.88 26.32 100.00 2313
Table 2 : Female Distribution of the Number of Changes by Periods of Transitions
NUMBER OF CHANGES No change 1 Change 2 or More Changes Total
Sample Size
1990-1991 94.81 5.19 100.00
PERIOD OF TRANSITION 1990-1994 82.07 16.79 1.14 100.00
1990-1998 72.31 22.19 5.50 100.00
2437
2437
2437
8
Table 3 : Mobility of Males 1990-1991
EMPLOYMENT S ECTOR IN 1991 EMPLOYMENT S ECTOR IN 1990 Public Prv Protected Prv Unprotected Irreg Wage Emp Agri Irreg Wage Emp Non Agri Non Wage Agri Non Wage Non Agri Unemployed Student Out of LF ---------------------Total Sample Size
Public 95.44 1.50 2.07 0.00 1.28 0.00 0.00 5.75 1.17 3.08 ----------12.81 323
Private Private Irreg Wg Protected Unprotected Agri 0.82 91.08 1.67 0.00 0.00 0.93 1.21 3.12 0.51 1.82 ---------5.36 139
0.00 2.38 88.50 0.00 1.49 0.00 1.38 7.60 1.55 8.11 ---------13.92 325
0.00 0.00 0.66 95.88 0.00 0.00 0.28 0.68 0.00 3.14 ----------5.45 95
Irreg Wg non Agri 0.00 0.00 0.65 0.00 93.76 0.00 0.00 2.01 1.13 5.79 ----------8.27 186
Non Wage Non Wage Agri Non Agri 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.75 95.81 0.00 0.41 3.85 3.63 ---------11.22 174
0.00 1.83 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 92.74 0.00 0.78 3.97 ---------6.48 171
Unemp.
Student
Out of LF
Total (Sample Size)
0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 76.76 2.76 0.28 ----------3.26 74
0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 80.58 1.33 ----------21.31 501
3.43 3.20 6.12 4.12 1.72 3.26 4.39 3.67 7.68 68.85 ---------11.92 279
100.00 (301) 100.00 (126) 100.00 (317) 100.00 (88) 100.00 (173) 100.00 (151) 100.00 (160) 100.00 (74) 100.00 (619) 100.00 (258) ---------100.00 2267
9
Table 4 : Mobility of Males 1990-1994
EMPLOYMENT S ECTOR IN 1994 EMPLOYMENT S ECTOR IN 1990
Public
Public Prv Protected Prv Unprotected Irreg Wage Emp Agri Irreg Wage Emp Non Agri Non Wage Agri Non Wage Non Agri Unemployed Student Out of LF ---------------------Total Sample Size
94.60 6.95 10.65 2.95 8.25 7.60 1.03 15.50 8.68 16.20 ----------19.29 468
Private Private Irreg Wg Protected Unprotected Agri 2.38 81.68 4.93 0.58 0.00 0.48 2.40 12.31 5.21 8.58 ---------7.93 202
1.30 2.17 69.73 0.00 3.33 1.47 2.40 16.47 7.95 17.13 ---------14.78 365
0.00 0.43 0.65 77.66 1.39 0.00 0.00 0.67 0.81 4.49 ----------5.02 89
Irreg Wg non Agri 0.00 2.03 1.26 0.00 78.33 0.00 1.31 2.93 4.01 13.41 ----------8.94 200
Non Wage Non Wage Agri Non Agri 0.00 0.61 0.00 0.93 0.64 78.68 0.00 2.77 5.05 7.99 ---------10.40 164
0.30 2.51 2.31 4.71 2.25 2.46 85.96 1.52 3.10 7.28 ---------8.08 212
Unemp.
Student
Out of LF
Total (Sample Size)
0.59 0.61 1.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.44 13.24 2.07 ----------5.17 117
0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 33.45 0.00 ----------8.78 220
0.53 3.02 9.34 13.17 5.81 9.31 6.89 9.37 18.51 22.84 ---------11.61 249
100.00 (302) 100.00 (128) 100.00 (319) 100.00 (89) 100.00 (174) 100.00 (154) 100.00 (160) 100.00 (75) 100.00 (623) 100.00 (262) ---------100.00 2286
10
Table 5 : Mobility of Males 1990-1998
EMPLOYMENT S ECTOR IN 1998 EMPLOYMENT S ECTOR IN 1990
Public
Public Prv Protected Prv Unprotected Irreg Wage Emp Agri Irreg Wage Emp Non Agri Non Wage Agri Non Wage Non Agri Unemployed Student Out of LF ---------------------Total Sample Size
89.12 10.30 15.91 5.74 12.70 13.16 3.82 26.91 24.41 23.81 ----------26.02 634
Private Private Irreg Wg Protected Unprotected Agri 3.55 67.77 10.32 0.89 0.00 0.48 2.30 12.24 13.46 10.21 ---------10.45 252
2.08 5.21 56.53 3.29 6.99 3.19 4.16 20.79 12.09 16.41 ---------15.06 351
0.00 0.20 0.72 73.79 2.20 0.00 1.79 0.68 1.21 3.69 ----------5.15 82
Irreg Wg non Agri
Non Wage Agri
Non Wage Non Agri
Unemp.
Out of LF
Total (Sample Size)
0.00 3.21 2.62 1.15 64.96 0.87 1.71 8.57 4.81 13.87 ----------8.80 188
0.00 0.00 0.00 1.79 0.00 75.45 0.00 4.30 7.18 7.56 ---------10.56 171
3.31 8.57 5.66 3.63 4.55 2.66 83.23 5.82 8.58 8.04 ---------10.81 291
1.35 2.56 2.72 3.49 5.22 0.00 0.35 17.16 16.29 5.42 ----------6.67 161
0.58 2.17 5.52 6.24 3.39 4.19 2.65 3.53 11.95 10.99 ----------6.49 150
100.00 (304) 100.00 (129) 100.00 (321) 100.00 (92) 100.00 (176) 100.00 (154) 100.00 (160) 100.00 (75) 100.00 (624) 100.00 (245) ---------100.00 2280
11
Table 6 : Mobility of Females 1990-1991
EMPLOYMENT S ECTOR IN 1991 EMPLOYMENT SECTOR 1990 Public Private Unpaid Unemp.
Not Married Married Not Married Married Not Married Married
Student Out of LF Total
Sample Size
Public Not Married married 79.97 18.15 0.00 98.46 3.77 0.00 0.00 1.24 0.00 0.00 4.15 1.27 0.00 3.32 1.60 0.58 0.16 0.16 2.94 5.91 89 164
Private Not Married married 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 73.33 3.79 0.00 96.93 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.55 0.00 0.00 1.59 0.12 0.06 0.65 1.93 2.19 48 52
Unpaid
0.40 0.00 3.17 0.00 100.00 0.00 6.28 0.16 1.31 28.33 554
Unemployment Not Married married 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 76.50 13.15 0.00 86.36 3.63 0.28 0.00 0.00 2.06 1.96 60 60
Student
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 81.99 0.00 14.21 388
Out of the LF Not Married married 1.48 0.00 0.00 1.54 6.24 8.10 0.00 1.84 0.00 0.00 3.38 0.00 0.00 4.04 6.53 3.53 26.25 71.40 11.62 28.85 282 739
Total
100.00 (83) 100.00 (148) 100.00 (54) 100.00 (44) 100.00 (537) 100.00 (55) 100.00 (57) 100.00 (470) 100.00 (988) 100.00 2436
12
Table 7 : Mobility of Females 1990-1994
EMPLOYMENT S ECTOR IN 1994 EMPLOYMENT SECTOR 1990 Public Private Unpaid Unemp.
Not Married Married Not Married Married Not Married Married
Student Out of LF Total
Sample Size
Public Not Married married 44.43 47.85 0.00 95.68 4.67 5.10 0.00 3.66 0.00 0.00 5.42 3.79 0.00 10.09 6.91 4.55 0.25 0.76 2.87 7.94 88 226
Private Not Married married 0.92 0.92 0.00 0.00 33.96 12.03 0.00 91.07 0.00 0.17 6.68 1.86 0.00 1.73 7.38 0.56 0.48 1.28 2.37 2.70 58 66
Unpaid
0.40 0.00 3.17 0.00 99.46 0.00 6.17 0.38 2.19 28.54 559
Unemployment Not Married married 0.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.72 7.61 0.00 1.52 0.00 0.00 41.58 37.26 0.00 75.72 12.50 5.65 0.07 0.08 3.04 3.38 86 91
Student
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.01 0.09 5.23 154
Out of the LF Not Married married 2.11 2.46 0.00 4.32 1.03 29.71 0.00 3.75 0.00 0.37 0.00 3.41 0.00 6.28 13.34 18.73 14.55 80.24 8.07 35.86 201 909
Total
100.00 (84) 100.00 (148) 100.00 (54) 100.00 (44) 100.00 (537) 100.00 (55) 100.00 (58) 100.00 (470) 100.00 (988) 100.00 2438
13
Table 8 : Mobility of Females 1990-1998
EMPLOYMENT S ECTOR IN 1998 EMPLOYMENT SECTOR 1990 Public Private Unpaid Unemp.
Not Married Married Not Married Married Not Married Married
Student Out of LF Total
Sample Size
Public Not Married married 29.40 60.35 0.00 91.53 9.27 3.03 0.00 5.89 0.00 0.00 10.28 11.05 0.00 24.00 12.91 7.96 0.59 2.20 3.77 9.68 116 276
Private Not Married married 0.00 0.92 0.00 1.52 21.30 10.63 0.00 80.94 0.00 0.00 6.53 8.98 0.00 5.26 8.99 2.21 0.38 4.56 2.30 4.28 61 92
Unpaid
0.40 0.00 6.72 2.15 99.46 1.26 7.20 0.92 2.55 28.99 573
Unemployment Not Married married 0.92 1.78 0.00 0.55 1.58 8.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.09 40.62 0.00 50.83 13.73 9.75 0.52 0.70 2.94 3.97 89 97
Out of the LF Not Married married 1.47 4.77 0.00 6.41 0.00 39.39 0.00 11.03 0.00 0.54 2.16 3.03 0.00 12.71 8.99 34.53 7.84 80.65 4.69 39.38 119 1009
Total
100.0 (84) 100.0 (148) 100.0 (55) 100.0 (44) 100.0 (537) 100.0 (55) 100.0 (58) 100.0 (468) 100.0 (983) 100.0 2432
14
Table 9 : Employment Structure in 1988 and 1998 for Individuals who were Students in 1981 or 1990
EMPLOYMENT S ECTOR MALE 1988 /1998 1981-1988 1990-1998 Public sector 37.69 28.14 Regular Private Protected 15.41 15.57 Regular Private Unprotected 13.83 20.48 Irregular Wage Employment 10.28 12.28 Non Wage Employment 22.78 23.54 Total 100.00 100.00 Sample Size 378 597
FEMALE 1981-1988 1990-1998 62.23 58.24 14.79 13.27 9.64 14.90 0.99 1.05 12.35 12.54 100.00 100.00 230 195
TOTAL 1981-1988 1990-1998 46.66 35.32 15.18 15.02 12.30 19.15 6.89 9.60 18.97 20.91 100.00 100.00 608 792
15
