Download
myths real i t i es of the turk i sh labor market n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Myth 1: Growth without employment PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Myth 1: Growth without employment

Myth 1: Growth without employment

12 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Myth 1: Growth without employment

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. MYTHS & REALITIESOF THE TURKISH LABORMARKETSeyfettin GürselBahçeşehir University Center for Economic and Social Research (BETAM)18.04.2008, İstanbul Boğaziçi University Demir Demirgil Conference, April 18, 2008

  2. Myth 1: Growth without employment Right, but this was only the case in 2003 Table 1 Non agricultural growth (%) and non agricultural employment (thousands): 2000-2003 NA Emp.* Change Growth 2000 12.960 2001 12.607- 2,7 % - 5,4 % 2002 13.0403,4 % 5,8 % 2003 13.1210,6 %6,3 % 2000/2003 Increase of employment 1,2 %/ GDP growth 6,3 % Growth elasticity of employment = 0,2 *recalculated by BETAM acc. to TURKSTAT’s 2006-2007 revised figures Boğaziçi University Demir Demirgil Conference, April 18, 2008

  3. Non agricultural GDP & Non-farm Employment (2000-2007, seasonally adjusted) Boğaziçi University Demir Demirgil Conference, April 18, 2008

  4. Myth 1: Growth withoutemployment Absolutely wrong since 2004: High employment involved high job creation Table 2 Non agricultural growth (%) and non agricultural employment (thousands): 2003-2007 NA Emp.* 2003 13.121 2004 13.505 2005 14.595 2006 15.241 2007 15.588 Change (03/07) 18,8 % Growth (03/07) 36,1 % Increase of employment 18,8 %/GDP growth 36,1 % Growth elasticity of employment = 0,52 (Long term elasticity estimation = 0,5 TÜSİAD, 2004) *recalculated by BETAM acc. to TURKSTAT’s 2006-2007 revised figures Boğaziçi University Demir Demirgil Conference, April 18, 2008

  5. Myth 2: Unemployment does not decrease despite growth Yes Table 3 The unemployment rate: 2000-2007 Unemployed* Global U. Rate 2000 1.405.000 6,8 2001 1.846.000 8,7 2002 2.312.000 10,3 2003 2.339.000 10,5 2004 2.344.000 10,3 2005 2.365.000 10,3 2006 2.295.000 9,9 2007 2.333.000 9,9 Yes, if one takes into consideration the number of unemployed people and the global unemployment rate. *recalculated by BETAM acc. to TURKSTAT’s 2006-2007 revised figures Boğaziçi University Demir Demirgil Conference, April 18, 2008

  6. Myth 2: Unemployement does not decrease despite growth No Table 4 The non agricultural unemployment rate: 2000-2007 2000 9,3 2001 12,4 2002 14,5 2003 13,8 2004 14,3 2005 13,6 2006 12,3 2007 12,3 No, if one takes into consideration the nonagricultural unemployment rate. Boğaziçi University Demir Demirgil Conference, April 18, 2008

  7. Why Does Not the Number ofUnemployedDecrease Despite Growth? Because Labor Force is very flexible Table 4 Non agricultural employment and labor force (thousands): 2000-2007 Employment* Labour force* 2000 12.960 14.293 2001 12.607 14.392 2002 13.040 15.251** 2003 13.121 15.221 2004 13.505 15.758 2005 14.595 16.892 2006 15.241 17.439 2007 15.588 17.835 **Strong added worker effect: Increase from 2001 to 2002 is 6,2 %. Non-farm Labor Force Elasticity (2003-2007) Labor Force Growth / Employment Growth = 0.92 *recalculated by BETAM acc. to TURKSTAT’s 2006-2007 revised figures Boğaziçi University Demir Demirgil Conference, April 18, 2008

  8. Non-farmLabor Force & Non-farm Unemployed (2000-2007, seasonally adjusted) Boğaziçi University Demir Demirgil Conference, April 18, 2008

  9. Myth 3: Participation rate(s)decreases Yes Yes, if one takes into consideration the nation wise aggregate level. LFPR 2001 49,8 2002 49,6 2003 48,3 2004 48,7 2005 48,3 2006 48,0 2007 47,8 The main reason of this decrease is the decrease of the female LFPR LFPR 2001 27,1 2002 27,9* 2003 26,6 2004 25,4 2005 24,8 2006 24,9 2007 24,8 *Strong added worker effect Boğaziçi University Demir Demirgil Conference, April 18, 2008

  10. Myth 3: Participation rate(s)decreases No No, if one takes into consideration the nonagricultural LFPR (approx. by the urban rate). LFPR 2001 43,3 2002 43,8 2003 43,8 2004 44,5 2005 45,5 2006 45,5 2007 45,4 The main reason of this increase is the increase of the female LFPR. LFPR 2001 16,8 2002 18,7* 2003 18,5 2004 18,3 2005 19,3 2006 19,9 2007 20,2 *Strong added worker effect Boğaziçi University Demir Demirgil Conference, April 18, 2008

  11. We have another story for 2007; but.. Boğaziçi University Demir Demirgil Conference, April 18, 2008

  12. Myth 3: Participation rate(s)decreases The story can be simplified as follows: At the aggregate level LFPR is basically driven bytwo adverse effects related to the female labor: • While the female labor decreases in Agriculture, where the participation rate is high, • it increases outsidethe Agriculturewhere the participation rateis low (this increase is due to the effect ofeducational level). Boğaziçi University Demir Demirgil Conference, April 18, 2008

  13. Labor Force Participation by Gender and Education; Male & Education Boğaziçi University Demir Demirgil Conference, April 18, 2008

  14. Labor Force Participation by Gender and Education; Female & Education Boğaziçi University Demir Demirgil Conference, April 18, 2008

  15. The unpleasant reality • Non Agricultural Labor Force is driven by a trend increase of more than 3 %. Our estimation is 3,3 %; (TÜSİAD, 2002). From 2002 to 2007 non agricultural LF increased by 3,6 %. • The minimum number of net jobs to be created outside of agriculture in order to keep constant the unemployment level at 2.300.000equals 500.000. • In this case the unemployment rate will be steadily decreasing. • Otherwise, unemployment will increase and/or labor force participation will decrease, more likely both. Boğaziçi University Demir Demirgil Conference, April 18, 2008

  16. The unpleasant reality • This level of job creation means an increase of 3,2 % in the non agricultural employment. • If we consider the growth elasticity of employment as 0,5, the required growth rate of non agricultural GDP equals 6,4%. Boğaziçi University Demir Demirgil Conference, April 18, 2008

  17. The unpleasant reality Turkish economy did not get over this thresholdduring the past two years. Shall it be capable to perform such an ambitious growth rate in the future? Boğaziçi University Demir Demirgil Conference, April 18, 2008

  18. Selected Labor Market Indicators Boğaziçi University Demir Demirgil Conference, April 18, 2008

  19. Selected Labor Market Indicators Boğaziçi University Demir Demirgil Conference, April 18, 2008

  20. Selected Labor Market Indicators Boğaziçi University Demir Demirgil Conference, April 18, 2008

  21. Selected Labor Market Indicators Boğaziçi University Demir Demirgil Conference, April 18, 2008

  22. Selected Labor Market Indicators Boğaziçi University Demir Demirgil Conference, April 18, 2008

  23. Selected Labor Market Indicators Boğaziçi University Demir Demirgil Conference, April 18, 2008

  24. Selected Labor Market Indicators Boğaziçi University Demir Demirgil Conference, April 18, 2008

  25. Selected Labor Market Indicators Boğaziçi University Demir Demirgil Conference, April 18, 2008