SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Sosyoekonomi / 2014 / Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 21

The Uncounted Who Wish to Work – Distinct to the Unemployed or Similar?

Seçil KAYA BAHÇE
Emel MEMİŞ
Pages
—
Publication Date
2014-06-01
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

These findings hold for one, two and three-year transitions between different labor force states over the period 2006-2009 in Turkey.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:In this study, we examine whether the job search criterion is appropriate for defining the unemployed in Turkey or an alternative standard such as wish to work should be used instead of the conventional criteria.
📊
Key Findings & Data:For this purpose, we explore transition probabilities between different labor states particularly of those who express their will for work although they are not looking for a job.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:These findings hold for one, two and three-year transitions between different labor force states over the period 2006-2009 in Turkey.
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:2006-2009 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

In this study, we examine whether the job search criterion is appropriate for defining the unemployed in Turkey or an alternative standard such as wish to work should be used instead of the conventional criteria. For this purpose, we explore transition probabilities between different labor states particularly of those who express their will for work although they are not looking for a job. Using the four year rotational panel data from Survey of Income and Living Conditions (SILC) we test whether they form a distinct group to the officially defined unemployed or not. We re-classify the population out of labor force according to their degree of attachment to labor market as marginally attached and not attached/inactive. Evidence obtained shows that the marginally attached are a distinct group to the unemployed however we’ve also found that they are distinct to the not attached group as well. The latter result is stronger for women at prime age. These findings hold for one, two and three-year transitions between different labor force states over the period 2006-2009 in Turkey.

Özet

In this study, we examine whether the job search criterion is appropriate for defining the unemployed in Turkey or an alternative standard such as wish to work should be used instead of the conventional criteria. For this purpose, we explore transition probabilities between different labor states particularly of those who express their will for work although they are not looking for a job. Using the four year rotational panel data from Survey of Income and Living Conditions (SILC) we test whether they form a distinct group to the officially defined unemployed or not. We re-classify the population out of labor force according to their degree of attachment to labor market as marginally attached and not attached/inactive. Evidence obtained shows that the marginally attached are a distinct group to the unemployed however we’ve also found that they are distinct to the not attached group as well. The latter result is stronger for women at prime age. These findings hold for one, two and three-year transitions between different labor force states over the period 2006-2009 in Turkey.

🔖

Cite This Article

BAHÇE, S. K., MEMİŞ, E. (2014). The Uncounted Who Wish to Work – Distinct to the Unemployed or Similar?. Sosyoekonomi, Cilt: 21 - Sayı: 21. https://ajindex.com/articles/139520

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Antonopoulos, R. & I. Hirway, (2010), Unpaid Work and the Economy: Gender, Time Use and Poverty in Developing Countries. Palgrave Macmillan. Bahce, S.A. & E. Memis, (2013), “Estimating the Impact of 2008-09 Economic Crisis on Work Time in Turkey’, Feminist Economics, 19 (2) Special Issue on Critical and Feminist Perspectives on Financial and Economic Crises, April. Bahce, S.A. & E. Memis, (2014), “The Impact of the Economic Crisis on Joblessness in Turkey”, The Economic and Labour Relations Review, Vol. 25(1), 130–153.
  2. Bittman, M. & T. Hill & C. Thomson (2007), “The Impact of Caring on Informal Carers’ Employment, Income and Earnings: A Longitudinal Approach”, Australian Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 42(2), 255-277.
  3. Bora, A. & I. Ustun & N. Erdogan & T. Bora (2011), Boşuna mı Okuduk? Turkiye’de Beyaz Yakalı Işsizligi, Iletisim Yayinevi: Ankara.
  4. Borbely, J.M. (2009), “U.S. Labor Market in 2008: Economy in Recession” in The 2008
  5. Employment Story, Monthly Labor Review, Vol.132(3), 3-19,, 28.08.2011.
  6. Bulutay, T. & Enver Taştı (2004), “Informal Sector in the Turkish Labor Market”, Turkish Economic Association Discussion Papers, No: 2004/22. Byrne, D. & E. Strobl, (2004) “Defining Unemployment in Developing Countries: The Case of Trinidad and Tobago”, Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 73, 465– 476. Centeno, M. & P.A. Fernandes (2004), “Labor Market Heterogeneity: Distinguishing between Unemployment and Inactivity”, Banco de Portugal Economic Bulletin, March 2004, 61-68.
  7. Centeno, M. & J.R. Maria & A.A. Novo (2010), The NAIRU and the Marginally Attached,, 15.07.2012.
  8. Elson, Diane (1993), “Gender-aware Analysis and Development Economics”, Journal of International Development, 5(2): 237-247.
  9. Gray, M. & A. Heath & B. Hunter (2005), “The Labor Force Dynamics of the Marginally Attached”, Australian Economic Papers, Vol. 44(1), 1-14.
  10. Gürsel, S. (2009), “Krizin Türkiye’de İşgücü Piyasalarına Etkisi, presented at Küresel Ekonomik Kriz ve Türkiye Ekonomisi’nin Geleceği”, Uluslararası İktisatçılar Zirvesi, 22 Mayıs 2009.
  11. Hunter, B.H. & M.C. Gray (2012), “Determinants of Indigenous Labor Supply Following a Period of Strong Economic Growth”, CAEPR Working Paper, No. 81/2012.
  12. ILO (2012), World of Work Report,, 19.12.2013.
  13. Ilkkaracan, İ. & S. Polat & H. Levent (2013), “Exploring different measures of wage flexibility in a developing economy context: The case for Turkey”, International Review of Applied Economics, Vol. 27 (3). Jones, S.R.G. & W.C. Riddell (1999), “The M