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 Cross and cutting: 2. Eligibility labour Benefits markets, Access to and wage education, levels social cohesion 3. 8. Projects Condition and s of Work Services 4. Institu- 7. Skills tions 6. Harmoni- 5. M & E zation 1
Programmes reviewed 2
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
Youth a % youth or target Target available age group? (Individuals or bracket Country Programme (Target) households) participation Targeting strategy South Africa EPWP Yes Individual 49% Categorical (Youth) + Community (poor +unemployed) + Self (40%) Targeting Liberia YES-CWP Individual Categorical (Youth) + Community Yes 67% (Vulnerable) (75%) Sierra Leone YESP Individual Categorical + Self Targeting Yes 92% (100%) El Salvador PATI Yes Individual 39 % Geographical, Categorical (16+), Self Targeting Cote d’Ivoire PEJEDEC- Yes Individual 100% Categorical (Youth) + Self Targeting THIMO (100%) Mexico PET No Individual Geographical (Small towns and 29% village) Liberia CfWTEP No Individual 59% Community (Vulnerable)/Lottery Latvia WWS No Individual Registered Unemployed with 9% Ministry of Labour + Self Targeting Argentina Jefes No Household 38% Categorical (Households with school age dependents) + Self Targeting India MGNREGA No Universal in Rural Areas + self- Household 15% targeting Yemen LIWP No Household 15% Geographical (Remote villages) + 6 Community (Poorest)
WWS, Latvia Participation by age groups Participation by education 100% 100% 3% 3% 3% 13% 13% 16% 80% 80% 40% 27% 37% 35% Age 60+ 60% 60% Age 55-59 Higher Age 45-54 Professional 22% 26% Age 35-44 Secondary general 40% 40% Age 25-34 28% Basic or less 22% Age 15-24 21% 20% 20% 15% 31% 22% 14% 9% 0% 0% All registered WWS participants All registered WWS participants 7 unemployed unemployed
Youth Participation in MGNREGA, India Rural Population Registered for MGNREGA Working on MGNREGA Percentage Percentage Number Number of rural Number of rural (Millions) Percentage (Millions) population (Millions) population Age group 504,9 100.0% 317,5 62.9% 80,1 16.0% 18-89 Age group 194,2 38.5% 58,2 29.9% 11,1 6.0% 18-30 Age group 310,7 61.5% 259,4 83.5% 69,0 22.2% 31-89 8
LIWP, Yemen 9
Wage and and benefit levels 10
Wage and and benefit levels • Do youth respond differently to wage rates: do their reservation wages differ? Interesting Interesting • How do youth spend their questions questions income? Are they more likely to: Save? Invest? Consume? Share for youth: for youth: with their household? • And should this influence how we set the wage rate? 11
Reservation Wages (Cambodia) 12
Spending of PEP income by youth Cote d’Ivoire: 60000 40000 20000 0 Total Personal Contribution Basic Needs Investment Leisure and spending spending to household spending spending Temptation spending (total) (total) goods spending (personal) Mean in Control Group Mean in Beneficiary Group Liberia: Category Share of Sierra Leone: Funds Education 31 Participants (Treatment group) more likely to: Living expenses 28 • Spend on education and health care Health care 8.4 • Start new businesses Farm investment 8.2 • Buy livestock House repair 8.2 Non-farm investment 6.0
Impacts on Savings (Cote d’Ivoire) 60000 40000 20000 0 Total savings Amount Amount Amount Amount Amount amount saved in cash saved in saved in saved in saved in ROSCAs bank mobile microcredit money structure Control Group Beneficiary Group Impact
Monitoring & Evaluation 15
Some Elements of Cost Effectiveness How much does it cost Net wage gain: Income to create a year of from participating - employment? costs of participating • Range of unit costs / • Averages range from Full Time Equivalent: 30% to 93% $387- $12,000 • Indications net wage • Daily wage rates: USD gain is higher for 0.91 to USD20.00 youth • Labour intensity 19% • Some evidence that to 83% net wage gain is higher for young women 16
Differential wage gains for men and women 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 Total monthly Total monthly Wage occupation Wage occupation earnings Men earnings Women monthly earnings monthly earnings Men Women Control Group Beneficiary Group Impact
Harmonization 18
Harmonization Cash •Poverty programmes/ •Transparencey and (Local) Transfers subsidies) (Malawi) Accountability Governance (PSNP) •Household Assets (PSNP) •Capacity Building •Skills and Technology (Kenya) •SME Developemnt Employ (Kenya) ment •PES (Latvia) •Land/ Agricultural Development (India) •Education •Rural Transport (India) Public •Environmental •Disaster Risk Servies Rehabilitation (South Other Reduction and Africa) Area •Youth Development Assets •Health Care (South Africa) •Climate Change 19 Adaptation
Labour Markets 20
Labour Markets Programmes that are large can Increased participation of impact on the local labour women in the labour market market: • Women in India and • Offer additional options for Argentina who were not employment and so create active in the labour market competition in the local decided to participate in the labour market programmes: • Establish a local wage floor • India: female share of work or push up market wages 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 21
Labour Markets Design features Design features • Offering part-time work that facilitate that facilitate • Work close to home increased increased • (Culturally) Suitable work activities participation in participation in • Access to child-care particular for particular for • Equal pay for men and women women: women: Design features Design features • PEP wage rate is desired minimum that facilitate that facilitate • Sufficient scale PEP as a local PEP as a local • Easy access to programme (Universal) wage floor: 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? Youth as an explicit target Youth as an explicit target •Targets for youth participation, quotas, communication group: group: Definition of targeting and Definition of targeting and •Age boundaries, employment status, geographical regions eligibility criteria: eligibility criteria: Targeting Unit: Targeting Unit: •Individuals or households (and household characteristics) How is targeting youth How is targeting youth •Poverty levels, food security, unemployment, gender, self- integrated with other targeting integrated with other targeting targeting criteria? criteria? The kind of work offered The kind of work offered • Skilled- unskilled, construction, social, environmental What we have not looked at : What we have not looked at : •What is more significant among youth: skill level or work How these factors differ How these factors differ experience? between youth and non-youth, between youth and non-youth, •Are skilled youth more or less likely to work that skilled non- youth? or between youth? or between youth? 28
Recommend
More recommend
