1 / 16

Relative employment positions of partners and gender relations in Russia and France

Relative employment positions of partners and gender relations in Russia and France. Ariane Pailhé (INED) Oxana Sinyavskaya (IISP). Research objectives. To compare employment status professional position of each cohabitant partner Differences between Russia and France:

ananda
Download Presentation

Relative employment positions of partners and gender relations in Russia and France

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Relative employment positions of partners and gender relations in Russia and France Ariane Pailhé (INED) Oxana Sinyavskaya (IISP) ECODEF/CI, Moscow, November 28-29, 2007

  2. Research objectives • To compare • employment status • professional position of each cohabitant partner • Differences between Russia and France: • Economic conditions, labour market situation • Household composition: presence of children, presence of other adults • Differences in gender relations • Relative resources of partners: age gap and education gap • Values: gender attitudes & religiosity ECODEF/CI, Moscow, November 28-29, 2007

  3. Data & Sample • GGS, Wave 1st: Russia (2004), France (2005) • Sample: • Co-resident couples with both partners aged 20-60 • Exclusion of students and disabled • Russia: 5155 obs.; France: 4499 obs. • Employed = R’s and P’s main activity - paid work or entrepreneurship/self-employment or maternity leave • & working pensioners (Russia only) ECODEF/CI, Moscow, November 28-29, 2007

  4. A comparable distribution of couple employment status ECODEF/CI, Moscow, November 28-29, 2007

  5. Much more female part-time in France (wage earners) ECODEF/CI, Moscow, November 28-29, 2007

  6. France Males = 39 h (FT: 40h) Females = 35 h (FT: 36) Median = 5 h Russia Males = 41 h Females = 40 h Median = 1 h Longer working time in Russia medians of working hours Working hours gap (male – female) Both partners employed; wage earners + self-employed; main job only ECODEF/CI, Moscow, November 28-29, 2007

  7. More men in public employment in Russia 63% 42% Both employed; wage earners + self-employed; main job ECODEF/CI, Moscow, November 28-29, 2007

  8. More gender segregation in Russia • Duncan index • ISCO classification 2 digits (29 cat.) • France: 47.0 • Russia: 55.7 ECODEF/CI, Moscow, November 28-29, 2007

  9. France Mean = 2.06 Median = 1.36 Russia Mean = 2.24 Median = 1.44 More income difference between working partners in Russia Labor income ratio (male / female) Both employed; wage earners; main job incomes (incl. bonuses, etc.) ECODEF/CI, Moscow, November 28-29, 2007

  10. Couple labour market participation: Estimation procedure • Multinomial logit model • Couple employment status: • both employed, • man employed only, • woman employed only, • both not-employed ECODEF/CI, Moscow, November 28-29, 2007

  11. Variables of interest • Partners’ relative resources • Age gap : man 3 + years older /woman 3 + years older / same age • Educational gap: man 2 + levels higher / woman 2 + levels higher / same level • Values • Gender values index • Religiosity: country specific (frequency of religious services attendance/ values + attendance) ECODEF/CI, Moscow, November 28-29, 2007

  12. France Mean = 22.2 Median = 23.0 Russia Mean = 15.4 Median = 16.0 Gender value index Index = sum of 8 variables Ex: When parents are in need, daughters should take more caring responsibility than sons Min 0 (traditional), max 32 (progressive) quartiles (1, 2-3, 4) ECODEF/CI, Moscow, November 28-29, 2007

  13. Other explanatory variables • Human capital • Male age, agesq • Male education • Household compositions • Number of children (0-2, 3-5, 6-13, 14-19) • Number of adults (Russia only) • Partners are immigrant/not • Regional characteristics • Settlement • Regional unemployment rate • Other • Non labor incomes (Russia only) ECODEF/CI, Moscow, November 28-29, 2007

  14. Estimation results (1/2) • Different effect of gender values: • Non significant in Russia • In France, most traditional - • Relative resources of partners: • Different effect of age gap • not significant in Russia, • men older + in France • Same effect of education gap • women more educated than men +, less educated – • Stronger effect for Russia ECODEF/CI, Moscow, November 28-29, 2007

  15. Estimation results (2/2) • Household composition: • Common feature: presence of children – • Stronger effect for children < 14 in Russia but lower effect for children >14 • Effect of regional unemployment rate • - in Russia & France, stronger effect in France • Other factors • Common features: Age and education + • Differences: immigrants – in France ECODEF/CI, Moscow, November 28-29, 2007

  16. Conclusions • Similar couple participation patterns in France and Russia • Women work a little less in Russia • Household composition (having young children) matters in both countries, more in Russia • Russian people have more traditional gender attitudes comparing to French people • But gender values do not play on participation in Russia while they do in France • The relative resources of partners matter in both countries, more in Russia Russia: objective resources, not attitudes, matter for labour market participation In France both matter • Next steps: • Different types of jobs for men and women in Russia and France • More gender wage inequality in Russia ECODEF/CI, Moscow, November 28-29, 2007

More Related