Job Quality in Turkey between 2005 and 2010 HIVA-KU Leuven Adrien - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Job Quality in Turkey between 2005 and 2010

HIVA-KU Leuven

Adrien FRONTENAUD PhD candidate in international economics, ÉRUDITE, University of Paris-Est Mame-la-Vallée (UPEM), Institute for Labour Studies and Public Policies (Tepp institute, FR n°3126 CNRS).

Definition of Emerging Countries (1)

• According to Julien Vercueil (2012), more than 50

countries, economies, and/or political entities comprise the emerging markets of the world contributing over 60 percent of the world’s population and at least 45 percent of its gross domestic product (GDP). Brazil, Russia, India, China, Mexico, Indonesia, Turkey, and Poland are among the largest emerging market economies.

Definition of Emerging countries (2)

• Emerging economies have as common traits:
• implementing economic reforms;
• stabilizing the political climate;
• shifting balance of economic power from sellers to

buyers.

Emerging countries sample

s and Losch (2008) criteria

—

Source: Reslinger (2013), adapted to Gabas et Losch (2008).

— Source: Reslinger (2013), adapted to Gabas et Losch (2008). — Vercueil (2012) criteria : GDP per capita between 10 and 70% of GDP

per capita of OECD members (PPP).

• Construct a job quality index in Turkey in 2005 and 2010.
• Why? Because I want to compare:
• Over time
• Between countries
• Between formal and informal workers
• Between educational level
• What kind of index ? How can I construct this index ?

Exploration of 5 different indexes

Aims

Job Quality: new approach

• From 1999 : the broadly concept of Decent Work (ILO).
• Quality of employment seems to be associated with the

multidimensional

• perationalization
• f

the political

• bjective of decent work (Osterman 2013; Burchell et al.

2014).

• Macro-institutional comparisons with the concept of QoE

(Gallie 2007; Goos, Maning and Salomons 2009; Green et

• al. 2013).

Job Quality: an interpretation of labor institutions

9 Dimensions of Job Quality in Turkey

• Nine dimensions are included by using EWCS data:

1) Income Level 2) Ergonomic risks 3) Bio-chemical risks 4) Ambient risks 5) Fixed workplace 6) Work Time and Family Time 7) Stability 8) Flexibility 9) Other job

5 approaches to job quality

Job Characteristics Preferences Aspirations Fully Subjective Job Quality Indicator ü ü ü Fully Objective Job Quality Indicator (Equal Weights) ü Two-level factor analysis ü Average Preference Objective Job Quality Indicator ü +/- Equivalent Income Job Quality ü ü

Option 1. Fully subjective job quality index

—

: fully subjective job quality, which is self-reported individual

job satisfaction.

— This subjective approach takes into account that workers can have

different preferences for certain job characteristics.

— For example: two workers with similar preferences for well-paying,

meaningful jobs might still rate the job quality differently, due to different aspirations rooted in parental class background.

Option 2. Fully objective job quality index

—

, : fully objective job quality, constructed from equally-

weighted job characteristics.

— It is an example of a normative weighting approach. — All dimensions are of equal importance. — Fully objective job quality indicator does not take into account

individual preferences nor aspirations.

Option 3. Second Stage Factor analysis

Variables Are you exposed at work to: 1) Vibrations from hand tools, machinery, etc.?

Does your main job involve:

2) Painful or tiring

positions 3) Carrying or moving heavy loads

STAGE 1 MCA Dimensions 1) Ergonomic risks STAGE 2 Factor Analysis Factor Analysis Job quality index

Second Stage: Factor analysis (1)

Factor Eigenvalue Difference Proportion Cumulative Factor1 1,59698 0,66607 0,6530 0,6530 Factor2 0,93091 0,38584 0,3807 1,0337 Factor3 0,54507 0,41347 0,2229 1,2566 Factor4 0,13160 0,09737 0,0538 1,3104 Factor5 0,03423 0,10528 0,0140 1,3244 Factor6

• 0,07105

0,11101

• 0,0291

1,2954 Factor7

• 0,18206

0,02527

• 0,0744

1,2209 Factor8

• 0,20733

0,12562

• 0,0848

1,1361 Factor9

• 0,33294

.

• 0,1361

1,0000

Second Stage: Factor analysis (2)

Variable Factor1 Uniqueness Bio Chemical Risks 0,7016 0,5078 Ergonomic Risks 0,6418 0,5881 Ambient Risks 0,7731 0,4023 Fixed Workplace 0,162 0,9738 Standard Working Time 0,1451 0,9789 Having another Job

• 0,004

1 Flexibility 0,1082 0,9883 Stability 0,029 0,9992 Wage 0,188 0,9647 Rotated factor loadings (pattern matrix) and unique variances

Option 4. Average preference objective job quality index

—

, : Average preference objective job quality, which uses a

regression coefficients interacted with group characteristics as weights.

— Dependent variable (Job satisfaction) = Independent variables (job

characteristics + worker characteristics + interaction).

— Assume

preferences ~ worker characteristics (age, gender, education).

— Average preference JQ: simulate JS with (fixed) mean worker

characteristics.

Option 5. Equivalent income job quality index

—

: Equivalent income job quality, which “puts a price on job

quality”, assuming that an individual is willing to trade his salary for a basket of job characteristics.

— The

general idea is that (worker preferences for) job characteristics can be reformulated in terms of equivalent income, i.e. the wages of a worker is willing to trade for better (worst) job characteristics.

— We

create a counterfactual by changing (fixing) the job characteristics and then restore the equation by adjusting the wage variable.

Indifference curve

A D Y

A B C Y D

A B D Y

Figure: Equivalent incomes

Source: Schokkaert, E., Ootegem, L. V. & Verhofstadt, E. (2011). Preferences and Subjective Satisfaction: Measuring Well-being on the Job for Policy

• Evaluation. CESifo Economic Studies, 57(4), 683-714.

5 approaches to job quality

J

• b Characteristics

Preferences Aspirations

Fully Subjective J

• b Q uality index

ü ü ü

Fully O bjective J

• b Q uality index

(EqualW eights)

ü

Average Preference O bjective J

• b

Q uality index

ü

+/- Equivalent Income J

• b Q uality

ü ü

Two-level factor analysis

ü

Graphic Job Quality correlations

3 HIVA-KU Leuven, December 07

Spearman's rank correlation coefficient between job quality indexes

Factor analysis job quality Fully subjective job quality Fully

• bjective job

quality Average preference

• bjective job quality

Equivalent income job quality Factor analysis job quality 1 Fully subjective job quality 0,15 1 Fully objective job quality 0,84 0,22 1 Average preference

• bjective job quality

0,43 0,30 0,69 1 Equivalent income job quality 0,35 0,31 0,58 0,89 1

Employment status types according to job quality indexes

Status Factor analysis job quality Fully subjective job quality Fully objective job quality Average preference

• bjective job quality

Equivalent income job quality Contract 0,064 0,139 0,320 0,504 0,423 No contract

• 0,041
• 0,085
• 0,039
• 0,150
• 0,139

Self- employed 0,004 0,003

• 0,198
• 0,210
• 0,157

Summary of education according to Job Quality indexes

Education Factor analysis job quality Fully subjective job quality Fully objective job quality Average preference objective job quality Equivalent income job quality 0,22

• 0,68
• 0,39
• 0,74
• 0,65

1

• 0,18
• 0,22
• 0,31
• 0,42
• 0,39

2

• 0,26
• 0,03
• 0,31
• 0,31
• 0,26

3 0,09 0,04 0,13 0,14 0,17 5 0,42 0,36 0,73 0,93 0,73

ISCED codes: 0) Pre-primary education 1) Primary education or first stage of basic education 2) Lower secondary or second stage of basic education 3) (Upper) secondary education 5) First stage of tertiary education

Other Issues

• By using multinomial logit model, we want to explore

if the proportion of formal, informal, self-employed workers has increased or decreased between 2005 and 2010 in Turkey according to the nine dimensions of job quality.

• Has the quality of working life improved in Turkey,

Croatia, between 2005 and 2010? By using multilevel analysis and my job quality index.

Thank you for your attention