Hazera-Tun- Nessa and Katsushi S. Imai
Existence of working poverty reduces the effectiveness of the strategy of “increasing employment to reduce poverty”. Developed countries are already concerned about it but…
Abstract
Purpose
Existence of working poverty reduces the effectiveness of the strategy of “increasing employment to reduce poverty”. Developed countries are already concerned about it but insufficient attention has been made by developing countries. Focusing on developing countries this study identifies (1) the effects of trade openness (TO) on working poverty and (2) whether the working poverty trap exists or not in developing countries. Both objectives are also analyzed for three subsamples of low income, lower-middle income and upper-middle income developing countries.
Design/methodology/approach
Panel data for 98 developing countries over the period of 2000–2016 have been collected for the study. Fixed effect and GMM methods are applied for static and dynamic analysis, respectively.
Findings
The study finds that TO significantly reduces working poverty rate (WPR) (mainly driven up by upper-middle income developing countries). The positive association between WPR with its previous year's rate proves the existence of working poverty trap.
Research limitations/implications
The study's outcome is subject to selected time, countries and methods. Future research should use more improve methods and should identify the channels through which TO could affect working poverty.
Practical implications
Middle income and upper-middle income developing countries should increase TO to reduce the working poverty. Low income developing countries that have the highest working poverty should search the way to derive beneficial effects of trade on working poverty.
Social implications
Working poverty is not only a developed country issue rather it is a global phenomenon. Hence, it is expected that the study will raise the social consciousness about this phenomenon in developing countries too.
Originality/value
The study fulfills the gaps of identifying the effects of TO on working poverty and existence of in-work poverty trap in developing countries.
Details
Keywords
Mudaser Ahad Bhat and Mirza Nazrana Beg
This paper documents a robust empirical regularity: higher trade openness is associated with a lower unemployment rate. This paper also examines whether or not the effects of…
Abstract
Purpose
This paper documents a robust empirical regularity: higher trade openness is associated with a lower unemployment rate. This paper also examines whether or not the effects of trade liberalisation depend on countries' income levels. Further, the dynamic causation between trade openness and unemployment is also examined.
Design/methodology/approach
In order to obtain insight into the openness–unemployment nexus, following empirical methods were utilised - static panel models, dynamic panel models and a novel panel Granger causality approach proposed by Juodis et al. (2021).
Findings
Results suggest that openness negatively affects unemployment; the extent to which trade liberalisation affects unemployment depends on the income level of each country. The Juodis, Karavias, and Sarafidis (JKS) test confirmed that the past values of trade openness, inflation, foreign direct investment and gross domestic product per capita contain information that helps to predict unemployment in a more robust manner. To simply put, opening upto trade may eventually become a requirement for creating more job opportunities, but this alone may not be enough. The extent to which nations benefit from trade liberalisation is largely dependent on the overall economic conditions and their capability to move up the income scale.
Originality/value
A major difference between this study and those performed previously is that this study does not only examine the impact of trade openness on unemployment, but also investigates whether the unemployment effect of liberalisation is affected by countries' income levels – an issue that has received little attention in the past. Additionally, the unique panel non-causality approach put forth by Juodis et al. (2021) is used in the first instance to look into the causal link between trade openness and unemployment. This method has advantages in that the method enables capturing Granger-causality in homogeneous or heterogeneous panels amongst multiple variables.
Details
Keywords
This paper examines the relationship between flexicurity and employment inflows in the EU28 countries over the 2007–2019 period. Flexicurity is defined as the mix of flexible…
Abstract
Purpose
This paper examines the relationship between flexicurity and employment inflows in the EU28 countries over the 2007–2019 period. Flexicurity is defined as the mix of flexible contractual arrangements, social security systems, active labor market policies and lifelong learning strategies.
Design/methodology/approach
Using two-way fixed effects two-stage least squares, we estimate the employment inflows as a function of an equal-weighted flexicurity composite indicator and other labor market, economic and business environment characteristics. To ensure the robustness of results, in additional specifications, we test the sensitivity of the flexicurity’s coefficient to: (1) the change of instruments; (2) the removal of different non-core variables and (3) the consideration of recessionary periods European regions. In addition, we estimate regressions with separate flexicurity components and with differently constructed flexicurity indices.
Findings
In all the estimations, increased flexicurity efforts are positively related to employment inflows. Increased flexicurity efforts benefit Eastern European countries more than the Northern and Anglo-Saxon groups. Not only a synergistic policy action that uses an equal combination of the four pillars of flexicurity has a positive impact on the employment inflow rate. Strategies that give more weight to the formation of skills seem to favor the labor market reinsertion most.
Originality/value
To our knowledge, this is the first comprehensive study in the flexicurity–employment inflows literature since it: (1) follows all the European Union countries over more than a decade; (2) brings some tentative findings on the socio-cultural moderation of flexicurity’s impact on employment inflows and (3) explores different country-level flexicurity indices.