Improving Labour Market Outcomes for Youth: A Review of Evidence - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Improving Labour Market Outcomes for Youth:

A Review of Evidence from Public Employment Programmes

:

20 August 2015 Maikel Lieuw-Kie-Song (With Mito Tsukamoto and Susana Puerto Gonzalez)

Review followed structure of Interagency Public Works Assessment Tool (ILO, WB, WFP)

1. Targeting and Eligibility 2. Benefits and wage levels 3. Projects and Services

• 4. Institu-

tions

• 5. M & E

6. Harmoni- zation

• 7. Skills

8. Condition s of Work

Cross cutting: labour markets, Access to education, social cohesion

1

2

Programmes reviewed

General Observations

• Few youth focused evaluations available
• Impact assessments do not compare youth to

non-youth

• Many questions relevant to youth policy remain

largely unexplored:

• What factors influence youth participation?
• How do youth use their income?
• What is the profile of youth that participates in these

programmes?

• What are the impacts on youth in terms of employability, skills

development, poverty etc.?

3

Key Findings

Youth Participation in PEPs

5

6

Country Programme Youth a target group? (Target) Target (Individuals or households) % youth or available age bracket participation Targeting strategy

South Africa EPWP

Yes (40%)

Individual

49%

Categorical (Youth) + Community (poor +unemployed) + Self Targeting Liberia YES-CWP

Yes (75%)

Individual

67%

Categorical (Youth) + Community (Vulnerable) Sierra Leone YESP

Yes (100%)

Individual

92%

Categorical + Self Targeting El Salvador PATI

Yes

Individual

39 %

Geographical, Categorical (16+), Self Targeting Cote d’Ivoire PEJEDEC- THIMO

Yes (100%)

Individual

100%

Categorical (Youth) + Self Targeting Mexico PET No Individual

29%

Geographical (Small towns and village) Liberia CfWTEP No Individual

59%

Community (Vulnerable)/Lottery Latvia WWS No Individual

9%

Registered Unemployed with Ministry of Labour + Self Targeting Argentina Jefes No

Household 38%

Categorical (Households with school age dependents) + Self Targeting India MGNREGA No

Household 15%

Universal in Rural Areas + self- targeting Yemen LIWP No

Household 15%

Geographical (Remote villages) + Community (Poorest)

WWS, Latvia

Participation by education Participation by age groups

7 22% 31% 28% 26% 37% 40% 13% 3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% All registered unemployed WWS participants Higher Professional Secondary general Basic or less

14% 9% 21% 15% 22% 22% 27% 35% 13% 16% 3% 3%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

All registered unemployed WWS participants Age 60+ Age 55-59 Age 45-54 Age 35-44 Age 25-34 Age 15-24

Youth Participation in MGNREGA, India

8

Rural Population Registered for MGNREGA Working on MGNREGA Number (Millions) Percentage Number (Millions) Percentage

• f rural

population Number (Millions) Percentage

• f rural

population Age group 18-89

504,9 100.0% 317,5 62.9% 80,1 16.0%

Age group 18-30

194,2 38.5% 58,2 29.9% 11,1 6.0%

Age group 31-89

310,7 61.5% 259,4 83.5% 69,0 22.2%

9

LIWP, Yemen

Wage and and benefit levels

10

Wage and and benefit levels

• Do youth respond differently to

wage rates: do their reservation wages differ?

• How do youth spend their

income? Are they more likely to: Save? Invest? Consume? Share with their household?

• And should this influence how we

set the wage rate?

Interesting questions for youth: Interesting questions for youth:

11

12

Reservation Wages (Cambodia)

20000 40000 60000 Total spending Personal spending Contribution to household spending Basic Needs spending (total) Investment spending (total) Leisure and Temptation goods spending (personal) Mean in Control Group Mean in Beneficiary Group

Spending of PEP income by youth

Liberia:

Category

Share

• f

Funds Education 31 Living expenses 28 Health care 8.4 Farm investment 8.2 House repair 8.2 Non-farm investment 6.0

Sierra Leone: Participants (Treatment group) more likely to:

• Spend on education and health care
• Start new businesses
• Buy livestock

Cote d’Ivoire:

Impacts on Savings (Cote d’Ivoire)

20000 40000 60000 Total savings amount Amount saved in cash Amount saved in ROSCAs Amount saved in bank Amount saved in mobile money Amount saved in microcredit structure Control Group Beneficiary Group Impact

Monitoring & Evaluation

15

Some Elements of Cost Effectiveness

How much does it cost to create a year of employment?

• Range of unit costs /

Full Time Equivalent: $387- $12,000

• Daily wage rates: USD

0.91 to USD20.00

• Labour intensity 19%

to 83% Net wage gain: Income from participating - costs of participating

• Averages range from

30% to 93%

• Indications net wage

gain is higher for youth

• Some evidence that

net wage gain is higher for young women

16

Differential wage gains for men and women

20000 40000 60000 80000 Total monthly earnings Men Total monthly earnings Women Wage occupation monthly earnings Men Wage occupation monthly earnings Women Control Group Beneficiary Group Impact

Harmonization

18

Harmonization

Cash Transfers (PSNP)

• Poverty programmes/

subsidies) (Malawi)

• Household Assets (PSNP)

(Local) Governance

• Transparencey and

Accountability

• Capacity Building

Employ ment

• Skills and Technology

(Kenya)

• SME Developemnt

(Kenya)

• PES (Latvia)
• Land/ Agricultural

Development (India)

Public Servies and Assets

• Education
• Rural Transport

(India)

• Environmental

Rehabilitation (South Africa)

• Health Care (South

Africa)

• Climate Change

Adaptation

Other Area

• Disaster Risk

Reduction

• Youth Development

19

Labour Markets

20

Labour Markets

Increased participation of women in the labour market

• Women in India and

Argentina who were not active in the labour market decided to participate in the programmes:

• India: female share of work

under MGNREGA is greater than their share of work in the casual wage labour market across all states

• Argentina: 23 % of

participants previously inactive in the labour market Programmes that are large can impact on the local labour market:

• Offer additional options for

employment and so create competition in the local labour market

• Establish a local wage floor
• r push up market wages

21

Labour Markets

• Offering part-time work
• Work close to home
• (Culturally) Suitable work activities
• Access to child-care
• Equal pay for men and women

Design features that facilitate increased participation in particular for women: Design features that facilitate increased participation in particular for women:

• PEP wage rate is desired minimum
• Sufficient scale
• Easy access to programme (Universal)

Design features that facilitate PEP as a local wage floor: Design features that facilitate PEP as a local wage floor:

22

Education and school attendance

23

Education and school attendance

• PWPs can have either negative or positive effect on

school attendance:

• Increased labour demand on the household can result in lowering

attendance

+

Increased income can result in increased affordability and thus increased attendance

• Thus effect on attendance is an empirical question!
• Evidence from eight countries: in seven the effect is

positive and in one no effect was found

• No evidence of negative effects!
• Result of a combination of factors
• Programme design: no participation of those of school going age,

enrolment of children as an eligibility requirement

• Overall: general improved access to education and awareness of

benefits of education

24

Social Cohesion

25

Social Cohesion

• PWPs can have impacts on social

cohesion

• Different people working together, perceptions of being

treated fairly and equally, improving the community

• However, corruption, biased programmes or unfinished

works can also undermine social cohesion!

• South Africa
• Indication of very positive impacts on reduced violence

through stronger relationships and empowerment

• Cote d’Ivoire
• Statistically significant evidence of reduction in assaults

committed by participants

26

Conclusions, Recommendations and Policy Implications

What influences youth participation?

• Targets for youth participation, quotas, communication

Youth as an explicit target group: Youth as an explicit target group:

• Age boundaries, employment status, geographical regions

Definition of targeting and eligibility criteria: Definition of targeting and eligibility criteria:

• Individuals or households (and household characteristics)

Targeting Unit: Targeting Unit:

• Poverty levels, food security, unemployment, gender, self-

targeting

How is targeting youth integrated with other targeting criteria? How is targeting youth integrated with other targeting criteria?

• Skilled- unskilled, construction, social, environmental

The kind of work offered The kind of work offered

• What is more significant among youth: skill level or work

experience?

• Are skilled youth more or less likely to work that skilled non-

youth?

What we have not looked at: How these factors differ between youth and non-youth,

• r between youth?

What we have not looked at: How these factors differ between youth and non-youth,

• r between youth?

28

Recommendations for Designing Youth PEPs

29

Incorporate definitions and indicators that allow for the monitoring of youth participation Be clear on the profile of youth you are targeting: youth are diverse and all are not likely to be interested Incorporate participation

• f youth as part of the

programme objective, and chose a name that also reflects this, and set a quota or target Select work activities that are attractive to youth through having youth participate in selection In households targeted programmes , make it easier for youth: Extra work days for youth members Communication and targeting Quotas for youth-headed households or households with young children

Some questions to be explored further

30

On Participation:

How do levels of education, income and poverty impact on youth participation? How does communication of programmes and perceptions of youth affect their participation? What activities are more attractive to youth and which are not? And why?

Do youth respond differently to self- targeting using the wage rate?

How do proximity to work, flexibility of working hours, duration and working conditions impact on youth participation?

On impacts:

What are the long-term impacts (Post-PEP) on employability? How do PEPs impact on youth in terms of expenditure, poverty and vulnerability?

Youth spend their income wisely, what happens if you increase it further?

What are the most effective complementary interventions: vocational training, job search support, micro credit, life skills, entrepreneurship training?

And Policy Implications

PEPs can be used to reach youth to provide income support, work experience and do productive work, if they are designed to reach youth PEPs can be used to reach youth to provide income support, work experience and do productive work, if they are designed to reach youth PEPs strengthen school attendance, not put it at risk PEPs strengthen school attendance, not put it at risk Strong indications that PEPs can be used to enhance social cohesion Strong indications that PEPs can be used to enhance social cohesion PEPs also can indirectly benefit youth by tightening labour markets, increasing wages and improved quality of life and market functioning PEPs also can indirectly benefit youth by tightening labour markets, increasing wages and improved quality of life and market functioning Less evidence on how effective PEPs on their own are as an ALMP in terms of enhancing employability or increasing the chances of finding employment Less evidence on how effective PEPs on their own are as an ALMP in terms of enhancing employability or increasing the chances of finding employment PEPs can be “harmonized” with other youth development policies and programmes to create synergies and complementarities, including with other ALMPs PEPs can be “harmonized” with other youth development policies and programmes to create synergies and complementarities, including with other ALMPs ISPA Assessment Tool needs to incorporate youth indicators and have a stronger youth focus ISPA Assessment Tool needs to incorporate youth indicators and have a stronger youth focus

31