Post on 21-Dec-2015
transcript
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements –
A microeconometric analysis for Self-employed and Employees with German Time Use Diary Data
Joachim Merz and Paul Böhm*
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements –
A microeconometric analysis for Self-employed and Employees with German Time Use Diary Data
Joachim Merz and Paul Böhm*
*Prof. Dr. Joachim Merz, Dipl.-Vw. Paul Böhm, University of Lüneburg, Department of Economics and Social Sciences, Research Institute on Professions (Forschungsinstitut Freie Berufe, FFB), Chair 'Statistics and Professions', Campus Scharnhorststr. 1, 21335 Lüneburg, Germany, Tel: 04131/78-2051, Fax: 04131/78-2059, e-mail: merz@uni-lueneburg.de; http://ffb.uni-lueneburg.de
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Central question:
About consequences of working hour arrangements
with regard to daily timing and fragmentation of work time
on income/wages
for
self-employed: (Liberal) Professions (Freie Berufe)
Entrepreneurs (Tradesmen)
employees
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements – A microeconometric analysis for Self-employed and Employees with German Time Use Diary Data Joachim Merz and Paul Böhm
1 Some background
2 Data: The German Time Budget Survey 2001/02
3 Daily Working Hour Arrangements – Timing and Fragmentation of Work
4 Timing and Fragmentation of Work and Earnings/Wages: Microeconomic Model Microeconometrics by a Treatment Effects Approach
5 Results
6 Conclusions
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Dayli working hours Hamermesh (2002, 1999, 1996)
German and American time use data, GSOEP
Harvey/Fisher/Gershuny/Akbari 2000
Canada, The Netherlands, Norway, Sweden
Callister/Dixon 2001 New Zealand
Merz/Burgert 2004,
Merz/Böhm/Burgert 2005
Timing and fragmentation of work, participation and income, self-employed and employees, German Time Use Study, diaries)
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Self-Employment Income Hübler 1991 Professions (Freiberufler), tradesmen (entrepreneurs,
Gewerbetreibende) and employees Parker 1997 Self-employment income in the U.K. Hamilton 2000 Rreturns of self-employment Hirschel 2003, Hirschel/Merz 2004 High income, panelanalysis, Germany Merz 2004 High income, self-employed and employees, German Federal
Poverty and Wealth Report) Merz/Paic 2005 Income determinants, FFB-Onlinesurvey 2004, Germany) Merz/Zwick 2005 High income, professions, entrepreneurs and employees,
Germany)
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Working hour arrangements, income and self-employment Erosion of ‚normal’ work day: disintegration of hierachies, loosening of the ‚male breadwinner’ model, growth of part time work, new flexibilities of working time … Alternative working hour arrangements:
firm side argument: flexibility on duration, timing and distribution of working time allows cost efficient reaction due to demand deviations (Gunderson 2002)
employee side: better/harder coordination of social and family life
Self-employment: per se (more) time sovereignity and choice possibilities (Wales 1973)
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
General Hypotheses Time sovereignity of self-employment result in minor differences with regard to working pattern compared to employees Higher risks of self-employment yields a higher income (Hamilton 2000)
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Working hour arrangements and wages
Working hour arrangements result in different income/wage patterns because of
Cost argument: Premium for non-normal working pattern because of extra efforts for atypical working pattern (night and shift work)
Productivity argument: ‚cicardian rhythm’ (Steinhausen, M. 1991) with particular prodictivities at certain times in a day
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Hypotheses Less time sovereignity results in higher premia;
more time sovereignity allows better coordination of productive time
Fragmented working days result in higher wages/income
Employees: Atypical working pattern result in higher wages
Self-employment: wage difference between atypical and typical working pattern small
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Zeitverwendung in Deutschland 2001/02
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
The German Time Budget Survey 2001/02
Respondents: Persons ten years and older, German population in private households
Quoted sample, four times the year
No. of households: 5,171
No. of persons with diaries: 11,962
Method: Time diaries in three consecutive days, ten minutes interval
No. of diaries: 35.813
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
The German Time Budget Survey 2001/02
Main activity with additional information about…
Simultaneous activity
Location of main activity
With/without children
With/without other household members
With/without other person
Personal questionnaire
Household questionnaire
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Working hour arrangement dimensions
Timing of daily work
• Mainly within core working time• Mainly outside core working time
→ core working time: 7:00 – 17:00
Fragmentation of daily work
• Not fragmented → one episode, without breaks• Fragmented → two and more episode, with breaks→ Breaks: min. 60 minutes
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Working Hour Arrangement Categories 2001/2002 7 am 5 pm
examples n %
0 no work 61.4% 1 mainly core, one episode 25.1% 2 mainly core, more than one episode 9.7% 3 mainly non-core, one episode 2.5% 4 mainly non-core, more than one episode 1.3% Source: German Time Use Study 2001/02
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Working Hour Arrangement Categories by Timing of work and Fragmentation in Germany 2001/2002
Timing of work mainly core mainly non-core Total I III one 65.1% 6.5% episode n = 6,884 n = 716
71.6%
N = 40,503,406 N = 4,037,688
Fragmentation
II IV
two or more 25.1% 3.3% episodes n = 2,698 n = 350
28.4%
N = 15,605,547 N = 2,026,132
n=10,648 Total 90.2% 9.8% N = 62,172,772
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Core one episode (category I)
0
20
40
60
80
100
04
:00
06
:00
08
:00
10
:00
12
:00
14
:00
16
:00
18
:00
20
:00
22
:00
00
:00
02
:00
Arbeit FreizeitCore fragmented (category II)
0
20
40
60
80
100
04:00
06:00
08:00
10:00
12:00
14:00
16:00
18:00
20:00
22:00
00:00
02:00
Arbeit Pause Freizeit
Non-core one episode (category III)
0
20
40
60
80
100
04:00
06:00
08:00
10:00
12:00
14:00
16:00
18:00
20:00
22:00
00:00
02:00
Arbeit FreizeitNon-core
fragmented (category IV)
0
20
40
60
80
100
04:0
0
06:0
0
08:0
0
10:0
0
12:0
0
14:0
0
16:0
0
18:0
0
20:0
0
22:0
0
00:0
0
02:0
0
Arbeit Pause Freizeit
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Kernel density estimates of monthly net income 0
.000
1.0
002
.000
3.0
004
.000
5de
nsity
0 2000 4000 6000 8000netincom
All working Category I
0.0
001
.000
2.0
003
.000
4.0
005
dens
ity
0 2000 4000 6000 8000netincom
All working Category III
0.0
001
.000
2.0
003
.000
4de
nsity
0 2000 4000 6000 8000netincom
All working Category II
0.0
001
.000
2.0
003
.000
4de
nsity
0 2000 4000 6000 8000netincom
All working Category IV
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Net Income: Distributive Measures by Working Hour Arrangement
Working Cat,I
Cat. II Cat. III Cat. IV core core non-core non-core one
episode #episodesss>1)
one episode
#episodes>1 Gini 0.3256 0.3149 0.3348 0.3672 0.2987
Theil Index 0.1817 0.1698 0.1885 0.2322 0.1641
Inequality shares %
59.94 29.82 6.93
3.31
90/10 13.5 12.4 12.4 25.0 13.5 n 10,607 6,859 2,689 712 347 N 61,962,57
8 40,360,17
4 15,581,4
94 4,014,101 2,006,809
N in % 100.00 65.14 25.15 6.48 3.24
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Net Income: Person Shares by Category within Overall Net Income Deciles (%)
0
5
10
15
20
25
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Deciles
Category I Category II Category III Category IV
Reading: 21% of Category III people have less than 511 € (First Decile limit)
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Participation in Working Hour Arrangements (%)
Timing of work
core Non-core
Cat I Cat III
One Professions 34,4 4,4
Episode Entrepreneurs 38,4 2,5
Employees 69,0 6,9
Fragmentation Cat II Cat IV
Multiple Professions 56,2 5,0
Episodes Entrepreneurs 52,8 6,2
Employees 21,2 2,9 Source: German Time Budget Survey 2001/2002
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Mean Monthly Net Income, Weekly Working Hours and Working Hour Arrangements
All Category I Category II
Category III Category IV Categori
es Non-Core/ Core/ Non-Core/ Non-Core/
One episode
fragmented
One episode fragmented Professions Net Income 2.792 2.631 2.991 2.420 1.982 Weekly Hours 49,5 48,4 50,0 46,2 53,3 Entrepreneur
s
Net Income 1.958 2.047 1.861 1.836 2.277 Weekly Hours 53,7 52,1 54,8 44,1 57,5 Employees Net Income 1.514 1.501 1.616 1.266 1.686 Weekly Hours 37,7 37,3 40,1 33,3 41,1 Source: German Time Budget Survey 2001/2002
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Economics: Extended labour supply model Standard labour supply model:
max ( , ), . . ( , )u h y s t y wh v h h w v
h= working hours, y=income, w=wages, v=non-labour income Extensions by main four characteristics:
( | , , ) ' '
( | , , 0)
( | , ) ( | , , 0)*Pr( 0 | , )
Pr( 0 | , )
E h w v structural approach
E h w v h with potential wage
E h w v E h w v h h w v
h w v participation
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Endogenous wages (Moffitt 1984)
max ( , ), . . ( )
( , ), ( )
u h y s t y w h h v
h h w v w w h
(Tummers and Woittiez 1991 with a specific utility function)
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Pronouncing the ‚extensive margin’ with choice for category j (j=1,…,m)
max ( , ), . . ( )
Pr( ) Pr( , ), ( )
u j y s t y w h h v
j w v w w j
Optimal allocation for arrangement specific choice j (j=1,…,m)
Pr( ) Pr( , , , )
( , , )
j
j j
j w v z
w w j x
with s and x as further socio-economic variables.
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Economics: Human capital earnings function
Basic human capital model:
20ln lnt s p pE E r S ar T br T
tE : capacity earnings in year t
0E : ‚original’ capacity earnings S: years of schooling T: years of job experience
sr : rate of return to schooling
pr : rate of return of job experience
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Economics: Human capital wage function
Human capital earnings equation (with observed wages w)
20 1 2ln tw rS T T
Extension of the earnings function (with additional socio-economic vector X)
20 1 2ln t iw rS T T X
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Econometrics: Evaluation of social programs
Heckman, LaLonde and Smith 1999
1 0(1 )Y DY D Y D=1 observing oucome 1Y with treatment, D=0 observing 0Y without treatment Effect of treatment of the treated (non-experimental studies)
1 0
1 0 1 0
( | , 1) ( | , 1)
( ) ( | , 1)
E X D E Y Y X D
X E U U X D
0
0 1 0 1 0
[ ( | , 1)]
{ [( ) ( | , 1)]}
Y X D E X D
U D U U E U U X D
U0 and U1 are the before and after treatment error terms
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
0 1 0 1 0
0 1 0 1 0
[ ( ) ( | , 1)]
{ [( ) ( | , 1)]}
Y X D X E U U X D
U D U U E U U X D
non-standard problem: combination of structural parameters with means of the unobservables The coefficient on D is the average outcome gain for participants compared to what they would have experienced in the base state. Simplification by assuming: 1 0U U Everyone with the same X has the same treatment effect (common effect treatment) – yields to Y1-Y0=X(ß1-ß0) and with Y1-Y0=constant (α) to
( ) 0, . . : ,Y X D U E U sel probl corr D U
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Treatment effects model
Participation (treatment) from an unobserved latent variable *D as:
*
*
,
1 0, 0 .
D Z V
D if D D otherwise
Outcome Y X D U
assuming Z independent of error V. D should replaced with something which is not correlated with U => ‘Exclusion restriction’: instrument Z include in the participation equation but excluded from the outcome equation (‘Distance from the training center’, Card 1995).
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Treatment effects model with selectivity
Heckman model with common effects The selection bias problem (non-random sampling) occurs if
( | , ) 0E U X D
Rewriting the outcome equation of the treatment model yields
( | , , ) [ ( | , , )]Y X D E U X D Z U E U X D Z
*( | , , )Y X D E U X D Z U
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Assuming (U,V) is distributed 2(0, )N yields the selectivity corrected outcome
*( / )UV VY X D U
U* independent and normally distributed and
( ) /[1 ( )]Z Z
as the selectivity correction. Now D may correlate with the outcome equation.
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Problems and extensions
- common effect treatment => - heterogeneous impacts (U0 unequal U1) - Indirect effects of programs on non-participants - multiple state model … - semi-parametric versions
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Our model:
Heckman type common treatment effects approach
Endogenously chosen binary treatment (selection of working hour arrangement) on endogenous wages
Participation in category j (j=1,…,4)
from an unobserved latent variable *D as:
*
*
,
1 0, 0 .
ij ij j ij
ij ij ij
D Z V
D if D D otherwise
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Outcome Category j specific earnings (wage) function with socio-economic variables and endogenous participation decision:
2
0 1 2
20 1 2
ln | 1, , , ,
| 1, , , ,
( )
ij ij ij ij ij ij
j j ij j ij j ij i j j j i j ij ij ij ij ij ij
j j ij j ij j ij i j j j i j j j j ij j
E w D S T X Z
r S T jT X D E U D S T X Z
r S T T X D Z
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Bivariate Probit equation for category choice with covariance matrix:
cov( , * )1
j j
ij ijj
V U
Difference in expected ln wages between participants and non participants:
ln | 1 ln | 0
(1 )ij
ij ij ij ij j j Ujij ij
E w D E w D
.
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Working hour arrangement Participation probability (Bivariate Probit, j=1,…,4)
Personal Variables Hausehold/Family Variables Age Age2 Family / Social Variables Woman Married Education Number of hh members Elementary Young kids Intermediate Receiving help (in h) Spec. upper or upper Income/wealth situation University Own house Residual hh income Region Partner’s employment East Partner full time work Partner part time work Weekend Constant
Results: Significant different market and non-market impacts
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Wage estimates by a treatment effects model – Employees (EM), Entrepreneurs (E) and Professions (P)
Category
I Category
II Category
III Category
IV Core Core Non-core Non-core ln WAGE One episode # episodes One episode # episodes
EM -0,398 ** 0,586 *** -0,470 *** -0,571 ** E -0,752 0,706 -0,780 0,679 Category
j αj P 0,323 -0,040 -0,136 -0,294 EM 0,238 ** -0,336 *** 0,238 *** 0,239 ** E 0,464 -0,505 0,481 -0,225 Hazard
lambda P -0,159 0,057 -0,088 0,026 EM 4654 *** 4264 *** 4969 *** 5135 *** E 96,2 *** 75,5 *** 87,0 *** 101,3 *** Wald
chi2 P 108,8 *** 110,6 *** 112,3 *** 109,0 ***
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Wage estimates by a treatment effects model – Employees (EM), Entrepreneurs (E) and Professions (P)
Category
I Category
II Category
III Category
IV
Core Core Non-core Non-core ln WAGE One episode # episodes One episode # episodes
Human Capital EM 0,106 *** 0,100 *** 0,103 *** 0,104 *** E 0,038 0,042 * 0,030 0,025 School
years (S) P 0,006 0,010 0,011 0,012 EM 0,067 *** 0,069 *** 0,065 *** 0,066 *** E 0,004 0,008 0,019 0,014 Experience
(T) P 0,064 *** 0,062 *** 0,061 *** 0,061 *** EM -0,001 *** -0,001 *** -0,001 *** -0,001 *** E 0,0001 0,00002 -0,0002 -0,0001 Experience²
(T²) P -0,0009 ** -0,0008 ** -0,0008 ** -0,0008 **
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Wage estimates by a treatment effects model – Employees (EM), Entrepreneurs (E) and Professions (P)
Category I
Category II
Category III
Category IV
Core Core Non-core Non-core ln WAGE One episode # episodes One episode # episodes
Personal Variables EM -0,241 *** -0,238 *** -0,271 *** -0,278 *** E -0,193 * -0,145 -0,153 * -0,200 Woman
P -0,127 -0,099 -0,094 -0,096 EM 0,013 0,017 0,009 0,006 E -0,009 -0,023 -0,018 -0,0009 Married
P 0,211 *** 0,221 *** 0,224 *** 0,218 *** Multiple Jobs
EM -0,080 *** -0,073 *** -0,076 *** -0,079 *** E 0,006 0,005 -0,017 0,008 Second
Job P 0,014 0,023 1,158 *** 1,150
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Wage estimates by a treatment effects model – Employees (EM), Entrepreneurs (E) and Professions (P)
Category
I Category
II Category
III Category
IV Core Core Non-core Non-core ln WAGE One episode # episodes One episode # episodes
Demand Side (Ref: Agriculture) EM 0,126 *** 0,127 *** 0,063 *** 0,076 *** E 0,426 ** 0,356 ** 0,250 ** 0,309 Industry
P -0,251 * -0,196 -0,183 -0,196 EM 0,095 *** 0,080 *** 0,063 *** 0,072 *** E 0,562 *** 0,505 *** 0,485 *** 0,534 Services
P 0,044 0,091 0,104 0,094
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Wage estimates by a treatment effects model – Employees (EM), Entrepreneurs (E) and Professions (P)
Category
I Category
II Category
III Category
IV Core Core Non-core Non-core ln WAGE One episode # episodes One episode # episodes
Region EM -0,298 *** -0,288 *** -0,332 *** -0,339 *** E -0,209 * -0,245 ** -0,332 *** -0,301 East
Germany P -0,630 *** -0,623 *** -0,620 *** -0,609 *** EM 0,513 *** 0,170 *** 0,395 *** 0,347 *** E 1,401 *** 0,699 1,158 *** 1,150 Constant
P 1,193 ** 1,265 ** 1,236 ** 1,254 **
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Overall results Our treatment effects model with the endogenous binary decision to participate in a working hour arrangement category j (treatment) on the continuous wage variable i jY is
highly significant both for self-employed and employees (Wald-Chi²-Test) Daily working hour arrangements and wages results Employees: Timing and fragmentation of work have significant impacts; fragmented core days have positive premia ( j and hazard lambda (λ) are significant)
Self-employment: no significant direct impacts (but further indirect impacts) – higher time sovereignity result in no particular wage impacts
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Schooling In general, according to the human capital approach:
Higher education (schooling) will raise income/wage chances: Professions: higher education is required for many professions, thus wage variance should be small.
Entrepreneurs: successful entrpreneurs need particular capabilities (like risk and decision willingness) which might not correlate with the number of school years (Hübler 1991)
Higher education (schooling) will have impacts mainly on employees and to a lesser extent to self-employment
Schooling results Employees: significant (+) Self-employed: not significant
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Occupational experience In general, according to the human capital approach:
Higher occupational experience will raise income/wage
Self-employment: reputation and management qualification will raise with growing occupational experience
Positive impacts of a longer/higher experience are expected in particular for self-employment
Occupational experience results Employees: significant (+) Professions: significant (+) Entrepreneurs : not significant
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Gender Many personal, firm side and societal factors might result still in lower wages for women; wage discrimination might be lesser for self-employment than for employees (Hübler 1991):
Wage is lower for women than for men Wage differences between men and women are
smaller for the self-employed than for employees Gender results Employees: significant lower wages for women (-) Self-employment : not significant (but entrpreneurs, not fragmented *)
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Family To support a family needs higher income; thus individuals might choose better paid jobs than singles:
Wage of married persons is higher than for singles Family status (married) results Employees: not significant Professions: significant (+) Entrepreneurs: not significant
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Multiple Jobs Because of a lower specialization workers with multiple jobs are less productive:
Multiple jobs result in lower wages Multiple jobs results Employees: significant (-) Self-employment: not significant
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Economic branch, demand side The farming sector is diminishing in favour for the industry and mainly fort he service sector:
Wage in the industry and service sector is higher than in the farming sector
Demand side results Employees: industry and service section significant (+) Professions: not significant Self-employed: industry and service section significant (+) (not cat. IV)
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Region Productivity differences between East and West Germany result in different wages:
Wages in East Germany are lower than in West Germany
Region results Employees: significant East Geman lower wages (-) Professions: significant East German Lower Wages (-) Entrepreneurs: only significant in (-) in cat. II and III
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Concluding remarks (1)
Economic well-being by adding insights into particular work effort characteristics
- daily timing of work and its fragmentation –
and its resulting wage/income distributive effects
- Employees
- Self-employed as professions and entrepreneurs
- Treatment effects approach
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Concluding remarks (2)
Descriptive results (all workers)On average: Working hour arrangements with fragmented work days, categories II and IV): they work longer, have a higher wage rate and thus an above–average income
Distribution: All non-normal working hour arrangements (categories II,II,IV) compared to he normal situation (category I) show higher inequalities with regard to hours worked, wage paid, and income; one exception: the most irregular working hour arrangement (category IV) shows the most equally distributed income.The most unequal net income distribution: category III (non-core/one episode) with the most unequal working hours distribution. The descriptive distributive analysis thus has shown that timing and fragmentation of work time do have distinct consequences on the earnings distribution.
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Concluding remarks (3)Microeconometric results Estimates with endogenous self-selection (treatment effects approach) explaining
wages and participation (bivariate probit-approach) in different daily working hour arrangements support our interdependent two stage modelling strategy with the overall result:
• Employee wages in Germany are dependent on and significant different with regard to the daily working hour arrangement capturing timing and fragmentation of work.
• Self-employment: higher time sovereignity result in no particular wage impacts
• The participation probability for the core/non-core and number of episodes working time categories follow different explanatory pattern with regard to
personal characteristics (demographics, human capital, education, occupational status, multiple jobs, non-market time use), demand side (business sectors), partner’s employment,household characteristics (composition, wealth) as well as a regional indicator.
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Concluding remarks (4)
Further Wage results
Human capital, schoolingEmployees: Higher education raises wages significantly (+)Professions: Higher education is required for many professions (no
effect)Self-employment: Particular capabilities (like risk and decision willingness)
might not correlate with schooling (not sgnificant)
Human capital, occupational experienceEmployees: Higher occupational experience will raise income/wage
(significant (+))Professions: Reputation and management qualification will raise with
growing occupational experience (significant (+))Entrepreneurs : … (not significant)
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Concluding remarks (5)
Gender
Employees: Significant lower wages for women (-)
Self-employment: Not significant (but entrpreneurs, not fragmented *)
Family status (married)
Employees: No family status influence (not significant)
Professions: Family background important (significant (+))
Entrepreneurs: … not significant
Multiple jobs results
Employees: Lower specialisation with multiple jobs is less productive: lower wage (significant (-))
Self-employment: Not specific, not significant
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Concluding remarks (6)
Economic branch, demand sideEmployees: Iindustry and service section significant (+)Professions: Not significantSelf-employed: Industry and service section significant (+) (not cat. IV)
RegionEmployees: Different productivities result in lower wages: significant East
Geman lower wages (-)Professions:…significant East German Lower Wages (-)Entrepreneurs: …only significant in (-) in cat. II and III
• The detailed findings support targeted modern economic and social policy with regard to non-traditional labour market situation and flexibility.
• Further research should deepen these findings and compare them with German time use data of the beginning 90s to disentangle dynamics of flexible labour market situations.
F F B
J. Merz and P. Böhm, Research Institute on Professions (FFB), University of Lueneburg
Earnings and Working Hour Arrangements
Overall: Significant differences in working hour arrangements and dependent wages between the Self-employed - with Professions and Entrepreneurs - and Employees
… Many thanks !
Contact: Prof. Dr. Joachim Merz merz@uni-lueneburg.de Dipl.-Vw. Paul Böhm boehm@uni-lueneburg.de
http://ffb.uni-lueneburg.de