EKONOMİK İNAKTİVİTE: AVRUPA'DA VE TÜRKİYE’DE POTANSİYEL İŞGÜCÜ HAVUZUNDAN YARARLANMAK İÇİN ÖNERİLER

Yıl 2024, Sayı: 69, 129 - 136, 30.12.2024

Gönül Dinçer , Hüseyin Ağır

https://doi.org/10.18070/erciyesiibd.1541334

Öz

İş gücüne katılmayan önemli büyüklükte bir insan havuzu mevcut olmasına rağmen Avrupa'nın ve Türkiye’nin kalıcı iş gücü piyasası sorunları arasında iş gücü kıtlığı bulunmaktadır. Aktif nüfusun toplam nüfusa oranla büyüklüğü ve iş gücüne katılımdaki değişimler ekonomik büyümenin temel belirleyicileri arasındadır. Dolayısıyla bir ülkede çalışma çağındaki nüfusun 'iş gücü dışında olma' statüsünün her yönünü analiz etmek; iş gücü piyasası döngülerini izlemek ve hedefli politikaları uygulamak için büyük önem taşımaktadır. Alan literatürü genellikle, büyüme ile doğrudan bir nedenselliğe sahip olan iş gücünün ‘işsizlik’ kesimine odaklanmakta, oysa iş gücüne katılmayan inaktif kişiler bazı ülkelerde işsizlere yakın sayıda iken, Türkiye’de işsizlerden daha fazla sayıda bulunmaktadır. Bu nedenle, insanların ‘aktif olmayan ancak çalışmaya istekli’ statüsünden aktif iş gücüne geçişi büyük bir öneme sahiptir. Bu düşüncelerden yola çıkarak, bu çalışmada inaktiviteye dair literatürdeki kıtlığı gidermeye katkıda bulunmayı amaçlanmaktadır ve panel veri teknikleri kullanılarak 2010-2022 yılları arasında Avrupa ülkelerinde ve Türkiye’de kişi başına düşen sosyal koruma harcamalarının ve kişi başına GSYH'nin beş farklı ekonomik inaktivite göstergesi üzerindeki etkileri analiz edilmiştir. Bulgularımız, inaktivitenin ülkeden ülkeye farklılaşan nedenlerine odaklı ve ince ayarlanmış kamu refah politikalarıyla, inaktif nüfusun önemli bir kısmının aktif iş gücüne geçişinin sağlanabileceğini göstermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

İşgücüne Katılım, Ekonomik İnaktivite, Panel Veri.

ECONOMIC INACTIVITY: SUGGESTIONS FOR TAPPING THE POOL OF POTENTIAL LABOUR FORCE IN EUROPE AND TÜRKİYE

Öz

Labour force shortages are persistent labour market problems of both Europe and Türkiye although there is a significant pool of inactive people not participating in the labour force. Analyzing every aspect of ‘being out of labour force’ status of working age population in a country has great importance for monitoring labour market cycles, since shifts in participation in the labour force is a key determinant of economic growth. Having a direct causality with growth, empirical field literature generally focuses on unemployment segment of the labour force whereas people that are out of labour force are in some cases close in numbers to the unemployed and even more than unemployed in some other cases. Therefore the transition of people from ‘inactive but willing to work’ status to ‘active’ labour force is of vital importance. This study, motivated by these considerations, aims to fill a gap in the literature employing a model where we tested the effects of social protection expenditures per capita and GDP per capita on five different economic inactivity indicators across European countries and Türkiye in 2010-2022 using panel data techniques. Our findings indicate that cause-specific and fine-tuned policies can induce transition from inactive status to active labour force.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Labour Force Participation, Economic Inactivity, Panel Data

Kaynakça

• Acemoglu, D., Autor, D., Dorn, D., Hanson, G. H., & Price, B. (2016). Import competition and the great US employment sag of the 2000s. Journal of Labor Economics, 34(1), 141-198.
• Arulampalam, W., Booth, A. L., & Taylor, M. P. (2000). Unemployment persistence. Oxford Economic Papers, 52(1), 24-50.
• Arulampalam, W., Gregg, P., & Gregory, M. (2001). Introduction: unemployment scarring. The Economic Journal, 111(475), F577-F584.
• Autor, D. H. & Dorn, D. (2013). The growth of low-skill service jobs and the polarization of the US labor market. American Economic Review, 103(5), 1553-97.
• Baltagi, B. H. (2013). Econometric analysis of panel data, Fifth Edition. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, UK.
• Barford, A., Coutts, A., & Sahai, G. (2021). Youth employment in times of COVID: a global review of COVID-19 policy responses to tackle (un) employment and disadvantage among young people. ILO: Geneva.
• Bell, D. N., & Blanchflower, D. G. (2011). Youth unemployment in Europe and the United States. Nordic Economic Policy Review, 1(2011), 11-37.
• Bell, D., & Blanchflower, D. G. (2010, October). Young people and recession: A lost generation?. In: Fifty-Second Panel Meeting on Economic Policy, Einaudi Institute for Economics and Finance, October (pp. 22-23).
• Bicáková, A. (2005). Unemployment versus inactivity: An analysis of the earnings and labor force status of prime age men in France, the UK, and the US at the end of the 20th century. Luxembourg Income Study, Working Paper Series, 412.
• Blundell, R., and Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of econometrics, 87(1), 115-143.
• Borisova-Marinova, K. (2015). Economic inactivity of population: Bulgaria's key matter of public concern. BAS. Papers of BAS. Humanities and Social Sciences, 2(1-2), 139-156.
• Business Europe (2023). Reducing inactivity rates in Europe. Policy Orientation Note. https://www.businesseurope.eu/sites/buseur/files/media/position_papers/social/2023-05-10_reducing_inactivity_rates_in_europe.pdf
• Cameron, L., Suarez, D. C. & Rowell, W. (2019). Female Labour Force Participation in Indonesia: Why Has it Stalled?. Bulletin of Indonesian Economic Studies, 55:2, 157-192, DOI: 10.1080/00074918.2018.1530727
• Cappellari, L., Dorsett, R., & Haile, G. A. (2005). Labour market transitions among the over-50s (Vol. 296). Corporate Document Services.
• Christl, M., & De Poli, S. (2021). Trapped in inactivity? Social assistance and labour supply in Austria. Empirica, 48(3), 661-696.
• Danner, M., Guégnard, C., & Maguire, S. (2021). Understanding economic inactivity and NEET status among young women in the UK and France. Journal of Education and Work, 34(7-8), 839-854.
• Deaton, A. (1997), The Analysis of Household Surveys: A Microeconometric Approach to Development Policy. Baltimore, MD: The John Hopkins University Press and The World Bank.
• Eurostat (2024). Inactive population not seeking employment by sex, age and main reason. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/lfsa_igar__custom_12581044/default/table?lang=en
• Eurostat (2024). Labour force participation rate. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/tipslm60/default/table?lang=en
• Eurostat (2024). Supplementary indicators to unemployment - annual data. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/databrowser/view/lfsi_sup_a__custom_12558470/default/table?lang=en
• Franzen, E. M., & Kassman, A. (2005). Longer-term labour-market consequences of economic inactivity during young adulthood: a Swedish national cohort study. Journal of youth studies, 8(4), 403-424.
• Freeman, R. B., & Wise, D. A. (1982). The youth labor market problem: its nature causes and consequences. In: The youth labor market problem: Its nature, causes, and consequences (pp. 1-16). University of Chicago Press.
• Gammarano, R. (2019). Persons outside the labour force: how inactive are they really? delving into the potential labour force with ILO harmonized estimates. ILO: Geneva.
• Greenwood, A. M. (1999). International definitions and prospects of underemployment statistics. Proceedings for the Seminario sobre Subempleo, Bogota, 8-12.
• Grigoli, F., Koczan, Z., & Topalova, P. (2018). Drivers of Labor Force Participation in Advanced Economies: Macro and Micro Evidence. International Monetary Fund.
• Grigoli, F., Koczan, Z., & Topalova, P. (2020). Automation and labor force participation in advanced economies: Macro and micro evidence. European Economic Review, 126, 103443.
• Haardt, D. (2006). Transitions out of and back to employment among older men and women in the UK (No. 2006-20). ISER Working Paper Series.
• ILO (2020a). COVID-19 and the world of work: Impact and policy responses. ILO Monitor 1st Edition. Geneva.
• ILO (2020b). COVID-19 and the world of work: Impact and policy responses. ILO Monitor 4th Edition. Geneva.
• ILO (2021). An update on the youth labour market impact of the COVID-19 crisis. ILO Statistical Brief. Accession: www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/--ed_emp/documents/briefingnote/wcms_795479.pdf
• ILO ICLS (2013). 19th International Conference of Labour Statisticians. Report II Statistics of work, employment and labour underutilization. Geneva.
• Jones, Stephen R. G. & Riddell, W. C. (1999). The Measurement of Unemployment: An Empirical Approach. Econometrica, 67(1),147–162.
• Joyce, M., Jones, J., & Thomas, J. (2003). Non-employment and labour availability. Bank of England Quarterly bulletin, autumn.
• Lattimore, R. (2007). Men not at work: An analysis of men outside the labour force. Australian Government. Productivity Commission. Staff Working Paper.
• Lauzadyte, A. (2007). Unemployment, employment and inactivity in Denmark: an analysis of event history Data. University of Aarhus Economics Working Paper, (2007-18).
• Little, A. (2007). Inactivity and labour market attachment in Britain. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 54(1), 19-54.
• Little, A. (2009). Spatial pattern of economic activity and inactivity in Britain: People or place effects?. Regional Studies, 43(7), 877-897.
• Lopez-Acevedo, G., Devoto, F., Morales, M. & Roche Rodriguez, J. (2021). Trends and Determinants of Female Labor Force Participation in Morocco: An Initial Exploratory Analysis. IZA Discussion Paper No. 14218, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3813645
• Maloney, T., & Parau, A. (2004). Isolating the scarring effects associated with the economic inactivity of youth in New Zealand: evidence from the Christchurch health and development study. Report to the Labour Market Policy Group New Zealand Departement of Labour, Oakland.
• Marcus, R. & Gavrilovic, M. (2010). The Impacts of the Economic Crisis on Youth: Review of Evidence. Overseas Development Institute.
• Martins, F. & Seward, D. (2020). The measurement of labour market slack: An empirical analysis for Portugal. Banco de Portugal, 53-72.
• Newey WK, West KD (1987). A Simple, Positive-Definite, Heteroskedasticity and Autocorrelation Consistent Covariance Matrix. Econometrica, 55, 703–708.
• Nickell, S. (1981). Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects. Econometrica: Journal of the econometric society, 1417-1426.
• Niedergesäss, M. (2012). Duration dependence, lagged duration dependence, and occurrence dependence in individual employment histories (No. 26). University of Tübingen working papers in economics and finance.
• Nieuwenhuis, R. (2014). Family policy outcomes: combining institutional and demographic explanations of women's employment and earnings inequality in OECD countries, 1975-2005. Rense Nieuwenhuis.
• Ordine, P. (1992). Labour market transitions of youth and prime age Italian unemployed. Labour, 6(2), 123-143.
• Park, S., & Cho, J. (2022). Young people are medically invulnerable to COVID-19 but vulnerable in the labor market: Korean evidence. Health Economics Review, 12(1), 1-16.
• Pesaran, H. (2006). Estimation and inference in large heterogeneous panels with a multi-factor error structure. Econometrica 74:967–1012.
• Quarina, Q. (2017). An analysis of the determinants and scarring effects of economic inactivity and unemployment in the UK. Lancaster University (United Kingdom).
• Ralston, K., Everington, D., Feng, Z., & Dibben, C. (2022). Economic inactivity, not in employment, education or training (NEET) and scarring: The importance of NEET as a marker of long-term disadvantage. Work, Employment and Society, 36(1), 59-79.
• Reeves, A., Fransham, M., Stewart, K., Reader, M., & Patrick, R. (2024). Capping welfare payments for workless families increases employment and economic inactivity: Evidence from the UK's benefit cap. International Journal of Social Welfare.
• Romer, P. M. (1986). Increasing returns and long-run growth. Journal of political economy, 94(5), 1002-1037.
• Turkstat (2024). Labour Force Statistics, 2023. https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Bulten/Index?p=Isgucu-Istatistikleri-2023-53521