Economic Development and Female Labour Force Participation: The Case of European Union Countries
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Theoretical Considerations and Previous Research
3. Data and Methodological Framework
3.1. Data
3.2. Model Specifications and Estimation Techniques
4. Results
5. Conclusions and Discussion
Author Contributions
Funding
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
Appendix A
Test for Model 1 OLS | Test for Model 2 OLS with Controls | Test for Model 3 FE | Test for Model 4 FE with Controls | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Slope at GDPpc min | –50.65 ** | 49.77 ** | –215.27 *** | –120.31 *** |
Slope at GDPpc max | 5.05 * | –5.50 ** | 31.67 *** | 17.75 *** |
SLM test for inverse U shape | 1.25 | 1.72 (a) | 5.97 | 3.22 |
p value | 0.10 | 0.04 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
Fieller 90% confidence interval | (10.01; 52.82) | (5.75; 11.12) | (9.87; 10.21) | (9.73; 10.40) |
Test for Model 5 OLS | Test for Model 6 OLS with Controls | Test for Model 7 FE | Test for Model 8 FE with Controls | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Slope at GDPpc min | 275.35 *** | –44.39 | –88.18 | –34.59 |
Slope at GDPpc max | –18.6024 *** | –5.93 | 18.43 *** | 12.73 ** |
SLM test for U shape | 3.19 (a) | (b) | 1.19 | 0.54 |
p value | 0.0012 | - | 0.118 | 0.296 |
Fieller 90% confidence interval | (10.55–10.91) | (–Inf; +Inf) U (10.25; +Inf) | (–Inf; 14.67) U (10.30; +Inf) | (–Inf; 11.88) U (10.26; +Inf) |
Test for Model 9 OLS | Test for Model 10 OLS with Controls | Test for Model 11 FE | Test for Model 12 FE with Controls | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Slope at GDPpc min | –111.51 | –153.75 ** | –256.14 *** | –136.96 ** |
Slope at GDPpc max | 15.062 | 45.73 *** | 42.53 *** | 30.74 ** |
SLM test for U shape | 0.71 | 1.72 | 3.43 | 1.78 |
p value | 0.239 | 0.046 | 0.000 | 0.0412 |
Fieller 90% confidence interval | (–Inf; +Inf) | (2.12; 9.38) | (9.64; 10.22) | (6.57; 10.43) |
Test for Model 13 GMM | Test for Model 14 GMM with Controls | |
---|---|---|
Slope at GDPpc min | –95.06 ** | –255.55 ** |
Slope at GDPpc max | 27.98 *** | 62.07 *** |
SLM test for U shape | 2.32 | 2.12 |
p value | 0.0112 | 0.0182 |
Fieller 90% confidence interval | (7.69; 9.37) | (8.15; 9.56) |
EU-15 | EU-13 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
Test for Model 15 GMM | Test for Model 16 GMM with Controls | Test for Model 17 GMM | Test for Model 18 GMM with Controls | |
Slope at GDPpc min | –101.52* | –125.32 * | –204.41 ** | –223.01 * |
Slope at GDPpc max | 10.82** | 13.20 * | 42.14 ** | 44.26 * |
SLM test for U shape | SLM test for U shape | SLM test for U shape | ||
SLM test for U shape | 1.45 | 1.41 | 2.24 | 1.64 |
p value | 0.0755 | 0.0814 | 0.0148 | 0.0538 |
Fieller 90% confidence interval | (–Inf; 14.58) U (11.01; +Inf) | (–Inf; +Inf) | (8.95; 9.82) | (6.57; 10.43) |
References
- International Monetary Fund. World Economic Outlook, Cyclical Upswing, Structural Changes. 2018. Available online: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2018/03/20/world-economic-outlook-april-2018 (accessed on 15 March 2019).
- Eurostat. Database on Economic and Finance. Available online: https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/data/database (accessed on 14 March 2019).
- Montero, J.M.; Regil, A. The Cyclical Resilience and Determinants of the Participation Rate in Spain; Economic Bulletin; Bank of Spain: Madrid, Spain, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Hijzen, A.; Kappeler, A.; Park, M.; Schwellnus, C. Labour Market Resilience: The Role of Structural and Macroeconomic Policies; Economics Department Working Papers 1406; OECD: Paris France, 2017; Available online: http://www.oecd.org/officialdocuments/publicdisplaydocumentpdf/?cote=ECO/WKP(2017) 38 (accessed on 15 March 2019).
- Sinha, J.N. Dynamics of female participation in economic activity. In Proceedings of the World Population Conference, Belgrade, Serbia, 30 Augus–10 September 1965; 4, pp. 336–337. [Google Scholar]
- Boserup, E. Women’s Role in Economic Development; St. Martin’s Press: New York, NY, USA, 1970. [Google Scholar]
- Durand, J. The Labour Force in Economic Development: A Comparison of International Census Data, 1946–1966; Princeton University Press: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1975. [Google Scholar]
- Pampel, F.C.; Tanaka, K. Economic development and female labor force participation: A reconsideration. Soc. Forces 1986, 64, 599–619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldin, C. The U-Shaped Female Labor Force Function in Economic Development and Economic History; Working Paper No. 4707; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1994. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldin, C. The U-shaped female labor force function in economic development in economic history. In Investment in Women’s Human Capital; Schultz, T.P., Ed.; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1995. [Google Scholar]
- Çağatay, N.; Özler, Ş. Feminization of the labor force: The effects of long-term development and structural adjustment. World Dev. 1995, 23, 1883–1894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Luci, A. Female labour market participation and economic growth. Int. J. Innovat. Sustain. Dev. 2009, 4, 97–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tam, H. U-shaped female labor participation with economic development: Some panel data evidence. Econ. Lett. 2011, 110, 140–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lechman, E.; Kaur, H. Economic growth and female labor force participation -verifying the U-feminization hypothesis. New evidence for 162 countries over the period 1990–2012. Econ Sociol. 2015, 8, 246–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaddis, I.; Klasen, S. Economic development, structural change, and women’s labor force participation. J. Popul. Econ. 2014, 27, 639–681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lahoti, R.; Swaminathan, H. Economic Development and Women´s Labor Force Participation in India. Fem. Econ. 2016, 22, 168–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fatima, A.; Sultana, H. Tracing out the U-shape relationship between female labor force participation rate and economic development for Pakistan. Int. J. Soc. Econ. 2009, 36, 182–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Olivetti, C. The Female Labor Force and Long-Run Development: The American Experience in Comparative Perspective; Working Paper No. 19131; National Bureau of Economic Research: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tansel, A. Economic Development and Female Labor Force Participation in Turkey: Time Series Evidence and Cross-Province Estimates; Working Papers in Economics; ERC—Economic Research Center, Middle East Technical University: Çankaya/Ankara, Turkey, 2002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tilly, L.A.; Scott, J.W. Women, Work and Family; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
- Tsani, S.; Paroussos, L.; Fragiadakis, C.; Charalambidis, I.; Capros, P. Female labour force participation and economic growth in the South Mediterranean countries. Econ. Lett. 2013, 120, 323–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Verme, P. Economic Development and Female Labor Participation in the Middle East and North Africa: A Test of the U-Shape Hypothesis; The World Bank: Washington, DC, USA. [CrossRef]
- International Monetary Fund. 25 Years of Transition Post-Communist Europe and the IMF; Regional Economic Issues; Special Report; International Monetary Fund: Washington, DC, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- International Monetary Fund. World Economic Outlook: Subdued Demand: Symptoms and Remedies; International Monetary Fund: Washington, DC, USA, October 2016. [Google Scholar]
- European Commission. Five Years of an Enlarged EU: Economic Achievements and Challenges; Office for Official Publications of the European Communities: Luxemburg, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Psacharopoulos, G.; Tzannatos, Z. Female labor force participation: An international perspective. World Bank Res. Obser. 1989, 4, 187–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schultz, T.P. International Differences in Labor Force Participation in Families and Firms, Economic Growth Center; Working Paper No. 634; Yale University: New Haven, CT, USA, 1991; Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/160556 (accessed on 20 November 2018).
- Vlasblom, J.D.; Schippers, J.J. Increases in Female Labour Force Participation in Europe: Similarities and Differences. Eur. J. Popul. 2004, 20, 375–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ozerkek, Y. Unemployment and labor force participation: A panel cointegration analysis for European countries. Appl. Econ. Int. Dev. 2013, 13, 67–76. [Google Scholar]
- Tasseven, O. The Relationship between Economic Development and Female Labor Force Participation Rate: A Panel Data Analysis; Hacioglu, Ü., Dincer, H., Eds.; Global Financial Crisis and its Ramification on Capital Market, Contributions to Economics; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 2017; pp. 555–568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldin, C. The Quiet Revolution That Transformed Women’s Employment, Education, and Family. Am. Econ. Rev. 2006, 96, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akerlof, G.A.; Kranton, E. Economics and Identity. Q. J. Econ. 2000, 115, 715–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mammen, K.; Paxson, C. Women’s work and economic development. J. Econ. Perspect. 2000, 14, 141–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Suh, M. Determinants of Female Labor Force Participation in South Korea: Tracing out the U-shaped Curve by economic growth. Soc. Indic. Res. 2016, 131, 255–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mehrotra, S.; Parida, J.K. Why is the Labour Force Participation of Women declining in India? World Dev. 2017, 98, 360–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dildar, Y. Patriarchal Norms, Religion, and Female Labor Supply: Evidence from Turkey. World Dev. 2015, 76, 40–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Heston, A.; Summers, R.; Aten, B. Penn Word Table Version 6.3. Center for International Comparisons of Production. Income and Prices; University of Pennsylvania: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Heston, A.; Summers, R.; Aten, B. Penn. Word Table Version 7.1. Center for International Comparisons of Production. Income and Prices; University of Pennsylvania: Philadelphia, PA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Arellano, M.; Bover, O. Another Look at the Instrumental Variable Estimation of Error-Components Models. J. Econ. 1995, 68, 29–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blundell, R.; Bond, S. Initial Conditions and Moment Restrictions in Dynamic Panel Data Models. J. Econ. 1998, 87, 115–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bussmann, M. The effect of trade openness on women´s welfare and work life. World Dev. 2008, 37, 1027–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Klasen, S.; Pieters, J. Push or Pull? Drivers of Female Labor Force Participation during India’s Economic Boom; Institute for the Study of Labor: Bonn, Germany, 2012; p. 6395. [Google Scholar]
- Cerrutti, M. Economic Reform, Structural Adjustment and Female Labor Force Participation in Buenos Aires, Argentina. World Dev. 2000, 28, 879–891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Starr, M.A. Gender, added-worker effect, and the 2007–2009 recession: Looking within the household. Rev. Econ. Household 2014, 12, 209–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mankart, J.; Oikonomon, R. The rise of the added work effect. Econ. Lett. 2016, 144, 48–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gray, M.M.; Kittilson, M.C.; Sandholtz, W. Women and globalization: A study of 180 countries, 1975–2000. Int. Organ. 2006, 60, 293–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kornai, J. The Socialist System. The Political Economy of Communism; Princeton University: Princeton, NJ, USA, 1992. [Google Scholar]
- Lind, J.T.; Mehlum, H. With or Without U? The Appropriate Test for a U-Shaped Relationship. Oxford B Econ. Stat. 2010, 72, 109–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Mean | SD | Min | Max | |
---|---|---|---|---|
FLFP | 50.0 | 7.2 | 27.9 | 64.6 |
GDPpc | 30,236.6 | 14,379.0 | 8001.7 | 97,864.2 |
Life expectancy | 80.0 | 2.9 | 72.6 | 86.3 |
Fertility rate | 1.6 | 0.2 | 1.1 | 2.4 |
Tertiary education | 22.3 | 9.4 | 3.9 | 43.2 |
Secondary education | 43.8 | 13.0 | 11.6 | 70.4 |
Female unemployment rate | 9.6 | 4.9 | 1.5 | 31.4 |
Model 1 OLS | Model 2 OLS | Model 3 Fixed Effects | Model 4 Fixed Effects | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
lnGDP_pc | –52.148 (30.49) | * | 51.258 (29.79) | –221.917 (26.39) | *** | –124.02 (29.78) | *** | |
lnGDP_pc2 | 2.496 (1.49) | * | –2.477 (1.40) | 11.067 (1.36) | *** | 6.187 (1.52) | *** | |
Life expectancy | –.450 (0.37) | –.258 (0.49) | ||||||
Fertility rate | –1.548 (2.20) | –1.298 (2.27) | ||||||
Secondary education | 0.154 (0.06) | *** | 0.212 (0.06) | *** | ||||
Tertiary education | 0.455 (0.07) | *** | 0.353 (0.09) | **** | ||||
Unemployment rate | –0.378 (0.11) | *** | –0.072 (0.08) | |||||
Constant | 318.991 (318.99) | ** | –190.145 (114.23) | 1158.14 (128.16) | *** | 676.20 (148.56) | **** | |
N | 163 | 148 | 163 | 148 | ||||
F (7,155); F (12,135) F (7,128); F (12,108) | 1.71 | 13.37 | 20.70 | 16.30 | ||||
Prob > chi2 | 0.090 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | ||||
Rho | 0.886 | 0.848 | ||||||
N groups | 28 | 28 | ||||||
R-sq | 0.074 | 0.499 | ||||||
R-sq: within | 0.530 | 0.644 | ||||||
R-sq: between | 0.006 | 0.294 | ||||||
R-sq: overall | 0.024 | 0.339 | ||||||
Turning point | 34,417.3 | 31,156.9 | 22,608.2 | 22,530.6 |
EU-15 | EU-13 | |||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model 5 OLS | Model 6 OLS | Model 7 Fixed Effects | Model 8 Fixed Effects | Model 9 OLS | Model 10 OLS | Model 11 Fixed Effects | Model 12 Fixed Effects | |||||||||
lnGDPpc | 283.26 (105.26) | *** | –45.42 (99.82) | –91.04 (76.03) | –35.87 (66.20) | –114.92 (125.87) | –159.12 (92.34) | * | –264.18 (58.20) | *** | –141.46 (79.23) | * | ||||
lnGDPpc2 | –13.17 (4.91) | *** | 1.72 (4.58) | 4.78 (3.58) | 2.12 (3.10) | 5.67 (6.40) | 8.94 (4.73) | * | 13.38 (3.05) | *** | 7.51 (4.13) | * | ||||
Life expectancy | –1.01 (.63) | 0.71 (0.90) | –2.38 (0.51) | *** | –0.314 (0.83) | |||||||||||
Fertility rate | –4.68 (3.19) | 3.26 (4.51) | –6.97 (4.25) | –4.17 (3.75) | ||||||||||||
Secondary education | 0.13 (0.06) | ** | 0.19 (0.07) | ** | 0.24 (0.051) | *** | 0.30 (0.15) | * | ||||||||
Tertiary education | 0.59 (0.11) | *** | 0.31 (0.12) | ** | 0.39 (0.061) | *** | 0.48 (0.19) | *** | ||||||||
Unemployment rate | –0.63 (0.14) | *** | 0.03 (0.10) | –0.08 (0.17) | 0.04 (0.21) | |||||||||||
Constant | –1473.61 (562.31) | ** | 410.86 (522.84) | 475.93 (403.66) | 116.24 (363.50) | 631.14 (615.82) | 929.39 (459.28) | ** | 1353.04 (278.06) | *** | 0.722.76 (407.84) | * | ||||
N | 90 | 86 | 90 | 86 | 73 | 62 | 73 | 62 | ||||||||
F(7,82); F(12,73) F(7,68) F(12,59) F(7,65) F(11,50); F(7,53) F(11,38) | 3.37 | 17.31 | 17.91 | 15.53 | 0.61 | 10.07 | 5.47 | 2.79 | ||||||||
Prob > chi2 | 0.003 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.7479 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.009 | ||||||||
Rho | 0.896 | 0.906 | 0.845 | 0.709 | ||||||||||||
N groups | 15 | 15 | 13 | 13 | ||||||||||||
R-sq | 0.223 | 0.638 | 0.06 | 0.689 | ||||||||||||
R-sq: within | 0.648 | 0.7595 | 0.419 | 0.446 | ||||||||||||
R-sq: between | 0.002 | 0.1335 | 0.017 | 0.509 | ||||||||||||
R-sq: overall | 0.068 | 0.2376 | 0.042 | 0.523 | ||||||||||||
Turning point | 46,663.7 | 542,253.2 | 13,732.50 | 4703.90 | 25,185.90 | 7327.1 | 19,298.3 | 12,239.7 |
EU-28 | EU-15 | EU-13 | ||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model 13 | Model 14 | Model 15 | Model 16 | Model 17 | Model 18 | |||||||
Female Labour Force Participation (t − 1) | 0.77 (0.14) | *** | 0.70 (0.19) | *** | 0.76 (0.08) | *** | 0.84 (0.13) | *** | 0.61 (0.22) | *** | 0.24 (0.13) | * |
lnGDPpc | –98.38 (42.39) | ** | –264.10 (124.50) | *** | –104.54 (71.80) | –129.05 (82.78) | –211.04 (94.35) | ** | –230.19 (140.39) | * | ||
lnGDPpc2 | 5.51 (2.25) | ** | 14.23 (6.48) | ** | 5.03 (3.31) | 6.21 (3.95) | 11.049 (4.86) | ** | 11.98 (7.26) | * | ||
Life expectancy | 0.92 (0.97) | 0.45 (0.35) | 0.415 (0.66) | |||||||||
Fertility rate | 19.13 (15.62) | 1.72 (2.48) | –0.545 (3.77) | |||||||||
Secondary education | 0.12 (12.56) | 0.01 (0.06) | 0.203 (0.15) | |||||||||
Tertiary education | –0.06 (15.25) | –0.04 (0.12) | 0.162 (0.17) | |||||||||
Unemployment rate | 0.07 (0.24) | –0.06 (0.05) | –0.057 (0.13) | |||||||||
N | 112 | 119 | 60 | 60 | 52 | 49 | ||||||
Wald Chi2(9)(14)(9)(14)(9)(14) | 153.0 | 307.4 | 469.8 | 5167.7 | 57.43 | 1330.48 | ||||||
Prob > chi2 | 0.000 | 0.0000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | ||||||
N groups | 28 | 28 | 15 | 15 | 13 | 13 | ||||||
Number of instruments | 13 | 18 | 13 | 14 | 10 | 11 | ||||||
2nd order autocorrelation | 0.610 | 0.675 | 0.105 | 0.174 | 0.510 | 0.324 | ||||||
Hansen test of over identifying. restrictions | 0.177 | 0.136 | 0.408 | 0.335 | 0.244 | 0.313 | ||||||
Turning point | 7472.9 | 10,682.9 | 32,328.1 | 32,660.7 | 14,047.3 | 14,899.4 |
© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Altuzarra, A.; Gálvez-Gálvez, C.; González-Flores, A. Economic Development and Female Labour Force Participation: The Case of European Union Countries. Sustainability 2019, 11, 1962. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11071962
Altuzarra A, Gálvez-Gálvez C, González-Flores A. Economic Development and Female Labour Force Participation: The Case of European Union Countries. Sustainability. 2019; 11(7):1962. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11071962
Chicago/Turabian StyleAltuzarra, Amaia, Catalina Gálvez-Gálvez, and Ana González-Flores. 2019. "Economic Development and Female Labour Force Participation: The Case of European Union Countries" Sustainability 11, no. 7: 1962. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11071962
APA StyleAltuzarra, A., Gálvez-Gálvez, C., & González-Flores, A. (2019). Economic Development and Female Labour Force Participation: The Case of European Union Countries. Sustainability, 11(7), 1962. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11071962