封锁严格程度与就业形式:南非 COVID-19 大流行的证据。

IF 1.6 Q2 INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR Journal for Labour Market Research Pub Date : 2023-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-01-11 DOI:10.1186/s12651-022-00329-0
Timothy Köhler, Haroon Bhorat, Robert Hill, Benjamin Stanwix
{"title":"封锁严格程度与就业形式:南非 COVID-19 大流行的证据。","authors":"Timothy Köhler, Haroon Bhorat, Robert Hill, Benjamin Stanwix","doi":"10.1186/s12651-022-00329-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In response to COVID-19 most governments used some form of lockdown policy to manage the pandemic. This required making iterative policy decisions in a rapidly changing epidemiological environment resulting in varying levels of lockdown stringency over time. While studies estimating the labour market effects of lockdown policies exist in both developed and developing countries, there is limited evidence on the impact of variation in lockdown stringency, particularly in developing countries. Such variation may have large heterogenous effects both on aggregate and between worker groups. In this paper, we estimate the causal effect of lockdown stringency on employment probabilities, adopting a quasi-experimental design on unique labour force panel data from South Africa. South Africa is a useful case study given its upper-middle-income status and relatively small informal sector, thus serving as an example to a variety of developing and developed country economies. We find that the negative employment effects of the country's lockdown policy were driven by effects on the informal sector. Furthermore, we observe important effect heterogeneity by employment formality as the stringency of the country's lockdown regulations changed over time. We find that more stringent lockdown levels negatively affected informal, but not formal sector employment, while less stringent levels negatively affected formal, but not informal sector employment. From a policy perspective, evidence of such heterogeneity can inform decisions around the optimal targeting of support as the pandemic progresses and lockdown policies are reconsidered.</p>","PeriodicalId":45469,"journal":{"name":"Journal for Labour Market Research","volume":"57 1","pages":"3"},"PeriodicalIF":1.6000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9832258/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Lockdown stringency and employment formality: evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic in South Africa.\",\"authors\":\"Timothy Köhler, Haroon Bhorat, Robert Hill, Benjamin Stanwix\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12651-022-00329-0\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>In response to COVID-19 most governments used some form of lockdown policy to manage the pandemic. This required making iterative policy decisions in a rapidly changing epidemiological environment resulting in varying levels of lockdown stringency over time. While studies estimating the labour market effects of lockdown policies exist in both developed and developing countries, there is limited evidence on the impact of variation in lockdown stringency, particularly in developing countries. Such variation may have large heterogenous effects both on aggregate and between worker groups. In this paper, we estimate the causal effect of lockdown stringency on employment probabilities, adopting a quasi-experimental design on unique labour force panel data from South Africa. South Africa is a useful case study given its upper-middle-income status and relatively small informal sector, thus serving as an example to a variety of developing and developed country economies. We find that the negative employment effects of the country's lockdown policy were driven by effects on the informal sector. Furthermore, we observe important effect heterogeneity by employment formality as the stringency of the country's lockdown regulations changed over time. We find that more stringent lockdown levels negatively affected informal, but not formal sector employment, while less stringent levels negatively affected formal, but not informal sector employment. From a policy perspective, evidence of such heterogeneity can inform decisions around the optimal targeting of support as the pandemic progresses and lockdown policies are reconsidered.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":45469,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal for Labour Market Research\",\"volume\":\"57 1\",\"pages\":\"3\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9832258/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal for Labour Market Research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12651-022-00329-0\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/1/11 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal for Labour Market Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12651-022-00329-0","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/1/11 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在应对 COVID-19 的过程中,大多数政府都采用了某种形式的封锁政策来管理大流行病。这就需要在瞬息万变的流行病环境中反复做出政策决定,导致随着时间的推移,封锁的严格程度各不相同。虽然发达国家和发展中国家都有对封锁政策的劳动力市场影响进行估计的研究,但关于封锁严格程度变化的影响的证据有限,特别是在发展中国家。这种差异可能对总体和工人群体之间产生巨大的异质性影响。在本文中,我们采用准实验设计,对南非独特的劳动力面板数据进行了估计,从而得出了封锁严格性对就业概率的因果效应。南非属于中上收入国家,非正规部门规模相对较小,因此是一个有用的案例研究对象,可为各种发展中国家和发达国家经济体提供借鉴。我们发现,南非封锁政策对就业的负面影响主要来自于对非正规部门的影响。此外,由于该国封锁法规的严格程度随着时间的推移而变化,我们观察到就业形式的重要效应异质性。我们发现,更严格的封锁水平会对非正规部门的就业产生负面影响,但不会对正规部门的就业产生负面影响;而更宽松的封锁水平会对正规部门的就业产生负面影响,但不会对非正规部门的就业产生负面影响。从政策角度来看,随着大流行病的发展和封锁政策的重新考虑,这种异质性的证据可以为确定最佳支持目标提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

摘要图片

摘要图片

摘要图片

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Lockdown stringency and employment formality: evidence from the COVID-19 pandemic in South Africa.

In response to COVID-19 most governments used some form of lockdown policy to manage the pandemic. This required making iterative policy decisions in a rapidly changing epidemiological environment resulting in varying levels of lockdown stringency over time. While studies estimating the labour market effects of lockdown policies exist in both developed and developing countries, there is limited evidence on the impact of variation in lockdown stringency, particularly in developing countries. Such variation may have large heterogenous effects both on aggregate and between worker groups. In this paper, we estimate the causal effect of lockdown stringency on employment probabilities, adopting a quasi-experimental design on unique labour force panel data from South Africa. South Africa is a useful case study given its upper-middle-income status and relatively small informal sector, thus serving as an example to a variety of developing and developed country economies. We find that the negative employment effects of the country's lockdown policy were driven by effects on the informal sector. Furthermore, we observe important effect heterogeneity by employment formality as the stringency of the country's lockdown regulations changed over time. We find that more stringent lockdown levels negatively affected informal, but not formal sector employment, while less stringent levels negatively affected formal, but not informal sector employment. From a policy perspective, evidence of such heterogeneity can inform decisions around the optimal targeting of support as the pandemic progresses and lockdown policies are reconsidered.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal for Labour Market Research
Journal for Labour Market Research INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS & LABOR-
CiteScore
2.60
自引率
5.90%
发文量
17
审稿时长
15 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal for Labour Market Research is a journal in the interdisciplinary field of labour market research. As of 2016 the Journal publishes Open Access. The journal follows international research standards and strives for international visibility. With its empirical and multidisciplinary orientation, the journal publishes papers in English language concerning the labour market, employment, education / training and careers. Papers dealing with country-specific labour market aspects are suitable if they adopt an innovative approach and address a topic of interest to a wider international audience. The journal is distinct from most others in the field, as it provides a platform for contributions from a broad range of academic disciplines. The editors encourage replication studies, as well as studies based on international comparisons. Accordingly, authors are expected to make their empirical data available to readers who might wish to replicate a published work on request. Submitted papers, who have passed a prescreening process by the editors, are generally reviewed by two peer reviewers, who remain anonymous for the author. In addition to the regular issues, special issues covering selected topics are published at least once a year. As of April 2015 the Journal for Labour Market Research has a "No Revisions" option for submissions (see ‘Instructions for Authors’).
期刊最新文献
Literature review of comparative school-to-work research: how institutional settings shape individual labour market outcomes The COVID-19 pandemic: a threat to higher education? Evidence from a large university in Northern Italy The response of labour demand to different COVID-19 containment measures: evidence from online job postings in Austria Continuing vocational training in times of economic uncertainty: an event-study analysis in real time Income and consumption inequality trends: a comparative analysis between paid employees and the self-employed
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1