Following lives from birth and through the adult years Paper for Gender, Class, Employment and...
-
Upload
samuel-pereira -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
1
Transcript of Following lives from birth and through the adult years Paper for Gender, Class, Employment and...
following lives from birth and through the adult years www.cls.ioe.ac.uk
Paper for ‘Gender, Class, Employment and family’ Conference
Erzsebet Bukodi, Shirley Dex and Heather Joshi
Institute of Education, University of London
Gender differences in the effect of initial occupation on early career mobility in
Britain
following lives from birth and through the adult years www.cls.ioe.ac.uk
Introduction
Part of IoE Gender Network project – using 1946, 1958, 1970 birth cohorts
Focus on women’s and men’s occupational mobility over their early careers
The research problems:- gender and cohort differences in the impact of
individuals’ initial occupational position on their future mobility chances
- Special focus on the implication of ‘bad entry’, i.e. taking up a position with low occupational status
following lives from birth and through the adult years www.cls.ioe.ac.uk
Overview of the presentation Background: first job: ‘stepping-stone’ vs. ‘trap’ About data we use How are we going to examine occupational mobility? Amounts of occupational mobility over life-course – a
descriptive overview How do we define low quality jobs? Transition out of first job: the effects of low level entry
jobs Later career mobility: any effect of ‘bad entry’? Conclusions
following lives from birth and through the adult years www.cls.ioe.ac.uk
Low quality entry job: ‘stepping-stone’ vs. ‘trap’? ‘Stepping-stone’:
economic theory of career mobility (Sicherman and Galor, 1990) for relatively highly-educated employees low quality entry jobs
(e.g. low paid jobs) may be temporary these jobs may provide them with skills to be used later at a
higher occupational level → fast upward mobility at the beginning of careers
‘Trap’: ‘core’ and ‘periphery’ of the LM (e.g. Doeringer and Piore, 1971) ‘periphery’: lower skill requirements, fewer chances for further
training, fewer career prospects, lower wages Limited flows between the two segments of LM
→ employees in the ‘periphery’ stuck there
following lives from birth and through the adult years www.cls.ioe.ac.uk
Any gender differences? Selectivity issues: in certain low level entry positions
women may have lower qualifications women may have fewer opportunities for further training
Career prospects may be affected by employees’ work contracts (part-time, temporary work)
increased participation in part-time work for British women Gender differences in the effect of ‘psychological capital’
a ‘bad entry’ may discourage women more from applying for better jobs
Gender differences in preferences women may be less concerned with a rapid job promotion
→ Women make fewer ‘good’ job changes and more between ‘bad’ jobs
following lives from birth and through the adult years www.cls.ioe.ac.uk
Gradually improving position of women in the British LM Men’s LM opportunities have been worsening since the
early eighties → diminishing gender differences in the effects of initial
occupational placement on career trajectories Polarisation of employment structure (e.g. Goos and
Manning, 2007): growing demands for highly educated employees growing demands for more ‘feminized’ low paid service jobs
with few career prospects → increasing gender differences in the effects of initial
occupational placement on career trajectories
Any cohort differences?
following lives from birth and through the adult years www.cls.ioe.ac.uk
Data: NCDS and BCS70 The National Child Development Study
- census of babies born in a certain week of 1958 in Great Britain - 7 main interview waves up to 2004 (age 46)
The British Cohort Study- census of babies born in a certain week of 1970 in Great Britain- 6 sweeps up to 2004 (age 34)
In both surveys:- retrospective histories of employment - women’s and men’s occupational histories
This paper:- makes use of the sweeps conducted at age 23, 33-34 in the case of NCDS and at age 26, 30 and 34 in the case of BCS70- reconstructs cohort members’ job histories between age 16 and 34 (relatively early career)- only ‘significant’ jobs are considered (lasted at least 6 months)
following lives from birth and through the adult years www.cls.ioe.ac.uk
Examining occupational mobility: creating an occupational scale We devise a ranking schema based on occupational wage
rates earnings data from the UK New Earnings Survey ranked the occupations using the 77 SOC codes according to the
mean hourly wage rates of full-timers in each occupation (Men + women)
the scores represent relative positions within occupational distribution
high correlation (above 0.800) with scales commonly in use internationally in sociological research (ISEI, SIOPS)
following lives from birth and through the adult years www.cls.ioe.ac.uk
Occupational mobility over whole of the early career: a descriptive view
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
Women,cohort1958
Women,cohort1970
Men,cohort1958
Men,cohort1970
Downward mobility
No mobility
Upward mobility
following lives from birth and through the adult years www.cls.ioe.ac.uk
Low quality jobs at LM entry
Quintiles of first Women Men
occupation Cohort-58
Cohort-70
Cohort-58
Cohort-70
1st (lowest) 21 26 14 16
2nd 27 23 24 14
3rd 15 8 24 22
4th 20 22 19 23
5th (highest) 17 21 19 25
Total (%) 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
following lives from birth and through the adult years www.cls.ioe.ac.uk
Entering the low quality jobs: the determinants
Logit estimates. ** significant at p < 0.01
Cohort-1958 Cohort-1970
Women Men Women MenEducation (ref.: O level)
less than O level .489 ** .364 ** .536 ** .391 **
A level or equivalent -.262 .299 -.432 ** -.088
sub-degree -.311 -1.680 ** -.807 ** -1.103 **
degree -1.502 ** -.699 ** -1.421 ** -.745 **
Father’s social class (ref.: Class I)
Class II -.330 .299 -.064 -.066
Class III -.463 .193 .200 -.232
Class IV .306 1.330 ** .122 .145
Class V -.110 .240 .038 -.294
Class VI -.259 .219 .158 -.151
Class VII .083 .741 ** .169 -.031
following lives from birth and through the adult years www.cls.ioe.ac.uk
Upward mobility out of first job: the effect of low quality entry
Note: Piecewise constant exponential models. Models controls for age, education, part-time employment . **: significant at p < 0.01
Levels of first occupational score Women Men
(ref.: 3rd quintile ) Cohort 1958 Cohort 1970 Cohort 1958 Cohort 1970
1st (lowest) 1.460 ** 1.132 ** 1.591 ** 1.372 **
2nd .878 ** .759 ** 1.000 ** .805 **
4th -.606 ** -.480 ** -.199 -.423 **
5th (highest) -4.682 ** -3.552 ** -3.485 ** -3.416 **
- Positive effect of lowest occupations: merely a floor effect?
following lives from birth and through the adult years www.cls.ioe.ac.uk
Later career mobility: any effect of ‘bad entry’? (1) All job moves up to age 34 are considered Piecewise exponential models (with control for unobserved
heterogeneity) Other covariates:
job tenure (in months) cumulative work experience (in months) % of work career in part-time employment until current job occupational mobility history up to current job (no mobility, only
upward, only downward, both types) qualifications at entry the current job current job:
occupational score part-time/full-time job
following lives from birth and through the adult years www.cls.ioe.ac.uk
Later career mobility: any effect of ‘bad entry’? (2)
Lowest occupational quintile at
LM entry
Cohort-1958 Cohort-1970
(ref.: 3rd quintile ) Upwardmobility
Downwardmobility
Upwardmobility
Downwardmobility
WOMEN -.070 .184 ** -.287 ** .330 **
MEN .016 .182 -.093 .095
following lives from birth and through the adult years www.cls.ioe.ac.uk
Any difference by qualifications? (1) The chances of upward moves and risks of downward
moves for those with ‘bad start’ may vary by qualifications
We take a hypothetical person and calculate the probability of her/his being upwardly and downwardly mobile if her/his entry job at the lowest occupational quintile she/he has 5 years of work experience no part-time job over her/his career experienced at least one upward move up to the point entering the
current job holds a current job with the mean occupational score
following lives from birth and through the adult years www.cls.ioe.ac.uk
Any difference by qualifications? (2)
Figure 1: Predicted hazard of career mobility by qualifications for our hypothetical person
Women Men
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.009
0.01
1958 1970 1958 1970
Upward Downward
O level
Sub- degree/degree
0
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
0.008
0.009
0.01
1958 1970 1958 1970
Upward Downward
O level
Sub- degree/degree
following lives from birth and through the adult years www.cls.ioe.ac.uk
Conclusions British women’s career opportunities improved a lot in the 1980s and
1990s Women’s occupational trajectories, at least up to age 34, have
become more similar to those of men However, considerable differences according to occupational level at
LM entry: Women face the greatest and growing hindrance to career
advancement from the low quality entry jobs LM entry at the bottom of occupational hierarchy:
for women: more like a ‘trap’ for men: more like a ‘stepping-stone’
Policy implication: Gender inequalities at the lower hierarchical level appear to be strengthening
following lives from birth and through the adult years www.cls.ioe.ac.uk
www.cls.ioe.ac.ukRegister online for email alerts about CLS news, events and publications.