Flexibility in the Labour market – Certain Gender Issues Bryan McIntosh Edinburgh Napier University Presentation at Scotiabank Headquarters Toronto, Canada 16th April 2009

Structure of the presentation Background – Gender and Employment Not so much female - male as ‘Mothers versus the rest’ Employer Attitudes Conclusions

1. All Jobs 2. Agric & Fish 3. Energy & Water 4. Manufa cturing 5. Constr uct 6. Distri, Hotel, Rest 7. Trans & Comms. 8. Fin & Business Servs 9. Pub Admin, Educ, Health 10. Other Servs

Male-Female labour market differences The ‘family gap’ - differences in behaviour and labour market disadvantage are connected to the presence, and ages, of children of parents Male and female FT wages converging in UK but part-time wages diverging (e.g. Paull; Booth and van Ours). Hourly earnings of part-time females are 25% below those of full-time females (due nearly all to occupational segregation Manning and Petrongolo (2008). Part-time work especially linked to children for women

Females across EU have lower activity rates Economic activity rates (%) by gender, EU25, 2001 EA rate (male) 78.5 EA rate (female) 60.7 EA rate (total) 69.3 Source: Eurostat Regio database table UN3WPOP

Why parents work part-time or not at all? Is this a supply and/or demand phenomenon? Supply-side influences - parents wishing to remain with their children when young, cost of childcare etc. Demand-side influences –discrimination or employer preferences

Questions and methodology How to determine if employers are biased against those with childcare responsibilities, gender, age? Possible methodological problems if ask them: unconscious biases, respondents confounding various potential employee characteristics, social or legal pressures on not appearing biased So there are empirical and theoretical questions

Research Methodology Stated preference methods have been used extensively to investigate the value of non-market goods or services Hardly been used in Labour Markets (e.g. pensions/ retirement) Advantages – ‘measures’ preferences of employers, controls for ‘other’ key variables (using scenarios), including perhaps some unobserved heterogeneity

Choices for employers - gender (male/female) - childcare responsibilities for: children aged under 5 years; children aged 5 to 11; or no childcare responsibilities at all, i.e. no children under 12 - age: 25 or less; 25 to 39; 40 to 49; or 50+ Combining these characteristic together gives 24 unique applicant profiles which were paired and presented in 11 choice cards.

Summary of results Employer preferences were found to favour those who are: between the ages of 25 and 39; with no childcare responsibilities; and women. Employer preferences against those: having childcare responsibilities for children under 5 years old; and being over 50 years old. Stated Preference techniques for such labour market research proved very useful in identifying attitudes towards potential recruits.

Working for Families – Some differences between parents 4 year policy ,000 disadvantaged parents (lone parents, low income, living in an area of multiple deprivation). Over 15,000 moved into, or improved, work, training, education 80% females. 71% lone parents (compared to 7% in Scotland).

Working for Families More likely to move into work, major training or education if: the person has qualifications (SVQ level 2 or above). being in either part time or full time education having English as their first language, being a lone parent

Working for Families Less likely to move into work, major training or education if: pregnant, having more than two children; being over 45 years old; being unemployed over 2 months; having other forms of stress (such as drug dependency); living in accommodation that is not owner occupied (esp. if in hostel or supported care).

Conclusions The Tyranny of Aggregation – for equality we must separate policies to support the most disadvantaged – i.e. generally mothers of young children, rather than treating all females the same (although this is not to deny that some discrimination still takes place). Even among mothers however, in terms of employment there seem to be some groups that are particularly disadvantaged.

Thank you for listening

Illustration: Example of a Choice Card presented to respondents Card Candidate ACandidate BNeither GenderFemale Leave the position vacant Age years old less than 25 years old Care Duties Child(ren) aged 4 or less Child(ren) aged 5 to 11

Random parameters logit model. 52 respondents, N = 572. McFadden Psuedo-R2 = 0.18.