Schooling is associated not only with long-run wages, but also with wage risks and disability risks: the Pakistani experience.
Hyder, Asma ; Behrman, Jere R.
Many studies document significantly positive associations between
schooling attainment and wages in developing countries. But when
individuals enter occupations subsequent to completing their schooling,
they not only face an expected work-life path of wages, but a number of
other occupational characteristics, including wage risks and disability
risks, for which there may be compensating wage differentials. This
study examines the relations between schooling on one hand and mean
wages and these two types of risks on the other hand, based on 77,685
individuals in the labour force as recorded in six Labour Force Surveys
of Pakistan. The results suggest that schooling is positively associated
with mean total wages and wage rates, but has different associations
with these two types of risks: Disability risks decline as schooling
increases but wage risks, and even more, wage rate risks increase as
schooling increases. The schooling-wage risks relation, but not the
schooling-disability risks relation, is consistent with there being
compensating differentials.
JEL classification: J31, J28, O53
Keywords: Wages, Risks, Labour Markets, Job Disabilities,
Compensating Differentials, Developing Country, Schooling
1. INTRODUCTION
Many studies document significantly positive associations between
schooling attainment and wages in developing countries [see the reviews
in Psacharopoulos (1985, 1994); Psacharopoulos and Patrinos (2004)].
Based in part on these associations, there has been widespread advocacy
for increasing schooling in developing countries to increase
productivity and income and, if targeted towards poorer households,
reduce poverty and inequality.
But when individuals enter occupations subsequent to completing
their schooling, they not only face an expected work-life path of wages,
but also other occupational characteristics, including wage risks and
disability risks, for which there may be compensating wages
differentials. This has been recognized in some of the recent (as well
as older) literature on schooling and labour markets in developed
economies. Christiansen, et al. (2006), for example, estimated the
risk-return trade-off for different schooling attainment and types of
schooling based on the Danish Labour Force Survey and identified
"efficient" and "inefficient" (inferior based only
on risks and returns) schooling combinations. Tuor and Backes-Gellner
(2010) used the Swiss Labour Force Survey to estimate risk and returns
for different types of schooling paths--all leading to a tertiary
degree--by distinguishing among a purely academic path, a purely
vocational path and a mixed path with loops through both systems, with
entrepreneurs separated from employees in order to examine whether for
the same schooling the labour market outcomes differ between these two
groups. Their empirical results suggest that mixed schooling paths are
well-rewarded in the Swiss labour market and for entrepreneurs high
returns are associated with high income variance. Diaz-Serrano and
Hartog (2006) used the 1995 Spanish Encuesta de Estructura Salarial
(Salary Structure Survey) of 1995 to estimate the earnings variance and
skewness and found compensating wage differentials for schooling as a
risky investment. There are studies which have employed cross sectional
data for finding risk as the dispersion of earnings [for instance
McGoldrick (1995); McGoldrick and Robst (1996)]. Low, Meghir, and
Pistaferri (2008) specify a structural life-cycle model of consumption,
labour supply and job mobility in an economy with search frictions that
allows them to distinguish among different sources of risks (shocks to
productivity, job destruction, processes of job arrival when employed
and unemployed and match level heterogeneity) and to estimate their
effects and the impact of altemative governmental policies to mitigate
risks.
However there is very little evidence in the literature on the
associations between schooling attainment and these risks
characteristics of occupational choices in developing country contexts,
where labour markets may operate much differently than in more developed
economies due to, for example, different degrees of mobility and labour
market segmentation. The present paper contributes to the literature on
developing country labour markets by estimating the associations between
schooling and wage risks and between schooling and disability risks in
addition to those between schooling and expected wages. These estimates
are conditional on the maintained assumption that individuals enter
broad occupational categories in specific geographical locations
subsequent to their schooling and there is relatively little subsequent
mobility. Data on workers in the most recently available six rounds of
the Pakistan Labour Force Survey with 77,685 observations are used for
the empirical analysis. The occupational and regional categories used
are broad so that, in the context of Pakistan, the assumption of limited
mobility seems warranted.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes
the key data from the Labour Force Surveys used in this study. Section 3
discusses how wage risks and disability risks are defined. Section 4
presents the results. Section 5 concludes.
2. DATA
We use pooled data from the six most recent available
cross-sectional nation-wide Labour Force Surveys of Pakistan for the
years 2001-02, 2003-04, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09. The
Labour Force Survey of Pakistan is conducted by the Federal Bureau of
Statistics (FBS), Islamabad. The FBS (1) collects data throughout the
country from all rural/urban localities in four provinces of Pakistan
based on the 1998 Population Census, excluding the Federally
Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) and the military restricted areas. The
population of these excluded areas constitutes about 2 percent of the
total population.
The analysis includes 77,685 observations on individuals of
working-age (10-65 years) (2) involved in any economic activity in these
six surveys for whom we have data on the critical variables for the
analysis. The variables for each worker include wages, hours worked,
work disability, occupation, residence (in urban or rural area and in
one of the four provinces), schooling attainment, gender and age. Table
1 gives summary statistics for these data. The mean age is 33.8 years.
The sample is predominantly male (89.6 percent), reflecting the very
limited female labour force participation rate in Pakistan. Durrant
(2000) discuss that mostly females in Pakistan are not economically
active and even if they are active their work is largely unpaid and
hidden. Ahmed and Azim (2010) also conclude that probabilities of women
in Pakistan to be economically active become low special after marriage
and traditional culture is the main reason for low economic activity at
women's part. Occupation is defined according to the International
Standard Classification of Occupations (ISCO) at the level of nine
categories. The highest proportions of workers are in
elementary/unskilled occupations (19.5 percent), technicians and
associate professionals (19.1 percent), service and sales workers (15.4
percent) and craft and related trade occupations (14.5 percent). There
are seven schooling categories, with 22 percent illiterate having less
than primary education and 11.3-19.5 percent in the five categories
ranging from completed primary education (seven years) to graduation
(15-16 years) and a smaller proportion (6.8 percent) having attained the
post-graduate level. (3)
3. MEASUREMENT OF WAGES RISKS AND DISABILITY RISKS
We assume that subsequent to schooling, working individuals enter
into one of 144 labour market groups defined by occupation, gender,
urban/rural, province and gender (144 = 9 occupational categories * 2
gender categories * 2 urban/rural categories * 4 provinces). We use
these groups to define the wage risks and the disability risks that the
individuals face upon entering into one of these groups subsequent to
schooling. That is, we assume that the residuals in relations that we
estimate below are, from the point of view of individuals, short-term
random shocks, not persistent longer-run factors. To the extent that
there are long-run persistent factors known by individuals, our
procedures may result in overestimates of the actual risks, but with the
time series of cross sections that we have we are not able to explore
such a possibility.
Wage Risks: To estimate the wage risks we use the standard
deviation of the residuals in a wages (4) (or earnings) equation for
each of the 144 groups defined above. To do so, we first estimate In
wages relations with right-side variables for nine occupational
dichotomous variables, one gender dichotomous variable, one urban/rural
dichotomous variable, three provincial dichotomous variables, age,
age-square (5) and interactions of all the other variables with age and
age-squared to allow life-cycle wages patterns to vary with occupation,
gender, urban/rural and province: (6)
Ln(Wages) = [alpha] + [beta] + [[beta].sub.i] +
[[beta].sub.i][X.sub.i]) + [[mu].sub.i], [mu] ~ (0, [[sigma].sup.2]) (1)
where X is a vector with the right-side variables described above.
We then calculate the standard deviations of the residuals from the
estimated In wages relation for each of the 144 groups defined above and
refer to these standard deviations as the "wages risks." (7)
Because wages are the product of average hourly wage rates and
hours worked, we also follow a similar procedure for wage rates and
hours worked by estimating:
Ln(Wage Rate) = a + [b.sub.i][X.sub.i] + [u.sub.i] u ~ (0,
[[sigma].sup.2]) (2)
Ln(Hours Worked) = [xi] + [[lambda].sub.i] + [X.sub.i] + [v.sub.i]
~ (0, [[sigma].sup.2]) (3)
We then define "wage rate risks" and "hours worked
risks" parallel to "wages risks", defined above.
Table 2 presents OLS estimates of relations (1)-(3). The graphical
presentation of life-time earnings profiles based on gender, provinces,
urban/rural and occupations are presented in Figures 1-4. The estimated
coefficients of occupational, regional, gender, provincial categories,
age and age square confirm an inverted u-shaped life-time earning
profile, as has usually been reported in the previous literature. The
gender earning gap favoring males is evident from this regression
analysis, with this gap increasing over the life cycle. Among the
occupational categories, 'Managers, senior officials and
legislators' remain the highest earnings category over the life
cycle. The earnings of 'Professionals' increase sharply
initially with age but there is steep decline as well for older ages.
'Clerks' is one occupational category whose mean earnings
remain almost stable throughout the working life.
The first three columns of Table 3 present summaries of our
estimated wages risks, wage rate risks, and hours worked risks by
occupation, gender, urban/rural and province. The means for wages risks
and wage rate risks are fairly stable for those with low levels of
schooling but increase for those with the highest two or three schooling
levels. In the case of gender, wages risks are very high for females as
compared to their male counterparts, with both wage rates risks and
hours worked risks higher. The higher wages risks for females may
reflect that a large proportion of working women are in the informal
sector without any legally-binding agreements between employers and
employees.
[FIGURE 1 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 2 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 3 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 4 OMITTED]
Disability Risks: Work accidents are widespread. According to the
International Labour Organisation (ILO, 2010), (9) there are 340 million
occupational accidents and 160 million victims of work-related illnesses
annually, overall in the world. Moreover in the Middle East and Asia ILO
region that includes Pakistan (but excludes China and India),
work-related accident fatality rates are four-fold more than those
observed in industrialized countries.
For our empirical work we define "disability risks" to be
the incidence of injuries or illness at the work-place for the same 144
groups defined above. (10) The fourth column of Table 3 presents
summaries of the estimated disability risks by occupation, schooling,
gender, urban/rural and province. The disability risks tend to have
patterns opposite to the wage risks for schooling, occupations and
gender. Occupational disability rates are highest in 'Skilled,
Agricultural, Forestry and Fishery Workers', 'Craft and
Related Trade Workers' and 'Plant/Machine Operators and
Assemblers.'
Correlations Among Risks Measures: The more correlated are the
risks measures, of course, the less is gained by including multiple
risks measures in our analysis. On the other hand, the more correlated
are the risks the harder it would be to identify the associations of
schooling with any one particular type of risks rather than other
highly-correlated types. Table 4 gives the correlations among our
measures. Note that the wages risks measure and the wage rate risks
measure are highly correlated, but--though both are significantly
correlated with the hours worked risks--for neither of the two are the
correlations with hours worked risks all that high. On the other hand
disability risks are negatively and significantly correlated with both
the wages risks and wage rate risks, though the absolute magnitudes of
these correlations are small and the correlation with hours worked risks
is insignificant.
4. RESULTS
The primary results of interest for this study are estimates of
associations between schooling attainment and wages, wage risks and
disability risks. Therefore we estimate relations of the form of
[Y.sub.i] = [alpha] + [[beta].sub.i][Z.sub.i] + [[mu].sub.i], [mu]
~ (0, [[sigma].sup.2]) (4)
International Labour Organisation (2010), World Statistics: The
Enormous Burden of Poor Working Condition.
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/region/eurpro/moscow/areas/safety/statistic.htm Accessed on April, 8th 2011.
Where [Y.sub.i] is a seven-element vector of labour market outcomes
(mean wages, mean wage rates, mean hours worked, wages risks, wage rate
risks, hours worked risks, and disability risks) for each individual
based on his/her being in one of the 144 labour market categories as a
function of the vector Z, which includes three dichotomous variables for
provinces (with Punjab the omitted category), a dichotomous variable for
female, a dichotomous variable for rural and seven dichotomous variables
for different schooling levels.
The first three variables in [Y.sub.i]--mean wages, mean wage
rates, and mean hours worked--have been included because these are the
work life-cycle equivalents of the variables that are the outcomes of
usual emphasis in studies on associations between schooling and labour
market outcomes. In addition we include various risks variables that
have been defined and described above.
Table 5 presents estimates for the first three variables in
[Y.sub.i]. Ln mean wages are lower in Punjab than in the other three
provinces, particularly than in Balochistan. This reflects that In mean
wage rates are higher in the three other provinces than in Punjab,
indeed enough higher in Balochistan and in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa to
more than offset the significantly lower In mean hours worked in these
two provinces. The mean In wages are 0.17 ln points lower in rural than
in urban areas, primarily reflecting that the significantly lower In
wage rates are reinforced slightly by lower In hours worked. The mean In
wages are 0.52 ln points lower for females than for males, reflecting a
combination of 0.32 ln points lower ln wage rates and 0.20 lower ln
points hours worked. (11) The coefficient estimates for the schooling
levels indicate significant positive associations between schooling and
In wages and more strongly with In wage rates. The latter more than
offset the increasing significantly negative association between
schooling levels and mean In hours worked, perhaps because those with
higher full incomes use part of their incomes to purchase more leisure.
The patterns in the coefficient estimates for schooling attainment,
thus, are consistent with the usual emphasis on positive associations of
schooling with wages and wage rates, with the latter more than
offsetting possibly negative associations with hours worked.
Table 6 presents the estimates for the last four components of
[Y.sub.i], those related to wages risks (including the two components of
wage rate risks and hours worked risks) and disability risks. For almost
all of the alternative risks variables, risks are significantly greater
in the Punjab than in the other three provinces, and least of all in
Balochistan. (12) The single exception to this statement is that the
hours worked risks are greatest in the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa. The risks are
significantly less in rural than in urban areas for wages, but are
significantly greater in rural areas than in urban areas for wage rates,
hours worked and disabilities. Thus in terms of geography, both with
reference to provinces and rural/urban areas, there is a tendency
ceteris paribus for lower wages to be associated with greater risks--the
opposite of what one might expect if wages included compensating
differentials for risks. Females experience significantly higher wages
risks than males by about 0.16 ln points, reflecting primarily higher
wage rate risks but also significantly higher hours worked risks. But
females experience significantly lower disability risks.
Of central interest for this paper are the associations between
schooling and wages risks and disability risks, the estimated values of
which are plotted in Figure 5. As compared with no schooling, having
primary school does not significantly change the risk experience except
for significantly slightly less hours worked risks. Having middle
schooling, however, significantly reduces both wages risks (and both of
its components) and disability risks. Having still higher levels of
schooling increasingly reduces disability risks, but increases wages
risks (and even more wage rate risks that offsets slight declines in
hours worked risks). Therefore the increased average wages and wage
rates with more schooling noted in Table 5 may in part be due to
compensating differentials for increased wages risks and wage rate
risks--but there certainly is not evidence of compensating differentials
for disability risks, which are negatively associated with schooling.
[FIGURE 5 OMITTED]
Figures 6 and 7 show how the mean return and risks estimates vary
for male and female workers. Female workers are more exposed than male
workers to disability risks and wage risks at the three lower levels of
schooling and still have relatively low mean wages.
[FIGURE 6 OMITTED]
[FIGURE 7 OMITTED]
Table 7 presents alternative estimates in which the observations
are the mean values for the subset of 106 of the 144 labour market
categories for which there are sufficient numbers of observations
(minimum number of observations in each category is at least 15), rather
than the individuals, for the same specifications as in Tables 5 and 6.
The estimates in Table 7 generally are consistent with the results in
Tables 5 and 6 (i.e., positive associations of schooling with wages
risks but negative association of schooling with disability risks),
though with some minor differences and a tendency towards less
precision.
5. CONCLUSION
Schooling is widely associated with wages in developing country
labour markets. However other characteristics of these markets also may
be importantly associated with schooling. Subject to the caveats about
our assumptions above, we have examined what are the associations
between schooling attainment and "wages risks" and
"disability risks" in Pakistani labour markets. Our estimates
suggest that more schooling is not only significantly positively
associated with higher work life-cycle mean wages and wage rates, but
also with higher wages risks and lower disability risks. These patterns
also differ significantly by gender, moreover, with women with low
schooling facing higher wages risks and lower disability risks than men
with low schooling. Considering the wage level-schooling association
alone, therefore, may be misleading regarding the associations of
schooling with labour market outcomes and gender differentials in those
associations.
REFERENCES
Ahmed, R. and P. Azim (2010) Youth Population and the Labour Market
of Pakistan: A Micro Level Study. Pakistan Economic and Social Review
48:2, 183-208.
Albrecht, J., A. Bjorklund, and S. Vroman (2001) Is There a Glass
Ceiling in Sweden? Institute for the Study of Labour, Germany. (IZA
Discussion Papers, No. 282)
Ashraf, J. and B. Ashraf (1993) An Analysis of the Male-Female
Earnings Differential in Pakistan. The Pakistan Development Review 32:4,
895-904.
Arnould, Richard J. and Len M. Nichols (1983) Wage-Risk Premiums
and Worker's Compensation: A Refinement of Estimates of
Compensating Wage Differentials. Journal of Political Economy 91:2,
332-340.
Albrecht, J., A. Vuuren, and S. Vroman (2004) Decomposing the
Gender Wage Gap in the Netherlands with Sample Selection Adjustments.
Institute for the Study of Labour, Germany. (IZA Discussion Papers, No.
1400).
Ben-Porath, Yoram (1967) The Production of Human Capital and the
Life Cycle of Earnings, Journal of Political Economy 75, 352-378.
Blinder, Alan S. and Y. Weiss (1976) Human Capital and Labour
Supply: A Synthesis. Journal of Political Economy 84, 449-472.
Christiansen, Charlotte, J. S. Joensen, and H. S. Nielsen (2006)
The Risk-Return Trade-Off in Human Capital Investment. Institute for the
Study of Labour (IZA) in its Series IZA. (Discussion Paper 1962).
Denny, K. and C. Hormon (2007) Education Policy Reform and the
Return to Schooling from Instrumental Variables. The Institute for
Fiscal Studies (Working Paper. 00/07). Diaz-Serrano, I, and J. Hartog
(2006) Is there a Risk-Return Trade-Off in Educational Choices? Evidence
from Spain. Investigaciones Economicas 30:2, 353-380.
Dillingham, Alan E. (1985) The Influence of Risk Variable
Definition on Value-of-Life Estimates. Economic Enquiry 24:2, 277-294.
Dorsey, Stuart, and N. Walzer (1983) Workers' Compensation,
Job Hazards, and Wages. Industrial and Labor Relation Review 36:4,
642-654.
Dorman, P. and P. Hagstrom (1998) Wage Compensation for Dangerous
Work Revisited. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 52:1, 116-135.
Dolado, J. J. and V. Llorens (2004) Gender Wage Gaps by Education
in Spain: Glass Floors vs. Glass Ceilings. Madrid. (Working Paper,
CEPRDP 4203).
Duncan, Greg J. and Bertil Holmlund (1983) Was Adam Smith Right
After All? Another Test of the Theory of Compensating Wage
Differentials. Journal of Labor Economics 1, 366-379.
Durrant, Valerie L. (2000) Adolescents Girls and Boys in Pakistan:
Opportunities and Constraints in Transitions to Adulthood. Islamabad:
Population Council. (Research Report No. 12).
Harmon, C., V. Hogan, and I. Walker (2001) Dispersion in the
Economic Return to Schooling. (Center for Economic Research Working
Paper Series, 01/16).
Herzog, Henry W., Jr. and Alan M. Schlottmann (1990) Valuing Risk
in the Workplace: Market Price Willingness to Pay, and the Optimal
Provision of Safety. Review of Economics and Statistics 72:3, 463-470.
Hersch, J. (1998) Compensating Differentials for Gender-Specific
Job Injury Risk. The American Economic Review 88:3, 598-607.
Heckman, James (1976) A Life-Cycle Model of Earnings, Learning, and
Consumption. Journal of Political Economy 84, 211-244.
Hyder, A. (2007) Wage Differentials, Rate of Return to Education,
and Occupational Wage Share in Labour Market of Pakistan. Pakistan
Institute of Economic Development, Islamabad. (Working Paper No. 2007:
17).
Khan, S. R. and M. Irfan (1985) Rate of Returns to Education and
Determinants of Earnings in Pakistan. The Pakistan Development Review
34:(3&4).
Krueger, Alan B. and Lawrence H. Summers (1987) Reflections on
Inter-Industry Wage Structure, In Kevin Lang and Jonathan S. Leonard
(eds.) Unemployment and Structure of Labour Markets. New York: Basil
Blackwell.
Low, H, Meghir, C. and L.Pistaferri (2008) Wage Risk and Employment
Risk Over the Life Cycle, Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labour (IZA).
(Working Paper No. 1700).
McGoldrick, K. (1995) Do Women Receive Compensating Wages For
Earnings Risk? Southern Economic Journal 62:1, 210-222.
McGoldrick, Kim Marie, and John Robst (1996) Gender Differences in
Over Education: A Test of the Theory of Differential Over Qualification.
American Economic Review 86, 280-284.
Moore, Michael and W. Kip Viscusi (1990) Compensation Mechanisms
for Job Risks: Wages, Workers' Compensation and Productive
Liability. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Pereira, P. T. and P. S. Martins (2002) Is there a Return-risk Link
in Education? Economic Letters 75:1, 31-37.
Polachek, Solomon William (1981) Occupational Self-Selection: A
Human Capital Approach to Sex Differences in Occupational Structure. The
Review of Economics and Statistics 63:1, 60-69.
Psacharopoulos, George (1985) Returns to Education: A Further
International Update and Implications. Journal of Human Resources 20:4,
583-604.
Psacharopoulos, George (1994) Returns to Investment in Education: A
Global Update. World Development 22, 1325-1344.
Psacharopoulos, George and Harry Patrinos (2004) Returns to
Investment in Education: A Further Update. Education Economics 12:2,
111-134.
Robinson, James C. (1991) Toil and Toxics: Workplace Struggles and
Political Strategies for Occupational Safety and Health. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Serrano, L. D., J. Hartog, and H. S. Neilson (2003) Compensating
Wage Differentials for Schooling Risk in Denmark. (IZA Discussion Paper
Series, 963).
Siddiqui, R. and R. Siddiqui (1998) A Decomposition of Male-Female
Earnings Differentials. The Pakistan Development Review 37:4, 885-898.
Shabbir, Tayyab (1993) Productivity-Enhancing vs. Credentialist
Effects of Schooling in Rural Pakistan. International Food Policy
Research Institute.
Shabbir, Tayyab (1994) Mincerian Earning Functions for Pakistan.
The Pakistan Development Review 33:1.
Tuor, S. N. and U. Backes-Gellner (2010) Risk-Return Trade-Offs to
Different Educational Paths: Vocational, Academic and Mixed.
International Journal of Manpower 31:5, 495-519.
Asma Hyder <
[email protected]> is Assistant Professor,
Karachi School for Business and Leadership, Pakistan. Jere R. Behrman
<
[email protected]> is William R. Kenan, Jr. Professor of
Economics and Sociology and a Research Associate of the Population
Studies Centre at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
Comments
The paper has examined that schooling is associated not only with
long-run wages, but also with wage risk and disability risk. It is a
good effort to analyse this important relationship. However, I have made
some observations/comments on the research paper. These are:
(i) The concept of wage risk is not explained properly, what are
the sources of wage risk? What are theoretical justifications for using
the measure of wage risk? These need to be explained in some detail.
(ii) Pooled data has been used in the study. What is the rational
of using pooled data? Each of the Labour Force Survey has a big enough
sample to be analysed on its own.
(iii) The data is used from Labour Force Survey (LFS). Since in
each survey sample is changed, how it is possible to estimate model on
the basis of such data?
(iv) The paper used OLS for analysis, which is questionable in the
given circumstances. Evidence suggests that there is very often a degree
of heterogeneity due to different data sets, representing different
conditions generally unknown to the analyst and completely beyond
her/his control. It is essential to investigate heterogeneity on such
data.
(v) The analysis could have been made more robust by well thought
out methodology. For instance, to allow for differences across the
years, how variables are related in such analysis. We may go for dummy
variable analysis e.g. time dummies.
Scholars may like to incorporate these observations/comments to
improve the quality of research study.
Imtiaz Ahmad
Planning Commission, Islamabad.
(1) The FBS uses a stratified two-stage random sample design for
data collection. Each area is divided into urban and rural domains. The
enumeration blocks for urban domains and village/mouzas/dehs for rural
domains are considered as Primary Sampling Units (PSU). The listed
households of sample PSUs are taken as Secondary Sampling Units (SSUs).
A specified number of households (i.e., 12 from each urban sample PSU,
16 from each rural sample PSU) are selected with equal probability using
a systematic sampling technique with a random start.
(2) The Labour Force Survey of Pakistan collects data on economic
activity for those above 10 years of age. Only 1.4 percent of the
observations in the data that we use for our analysis below is in the
10-14 age range. Our estimates do not change substantially if these
individuals are excluded.
(3) According to the Pakistan Education Statistics Pakistan follows
three tier education systems which include Elementary Education (8
years), Secondary Education (4 years) and Higher Education (4 years).
There are two scenarios in case of higher education either go for two
year graduation degree (BA/BSc) then later on two year masters degree
(MA/MSc) or four year professional degree in Engineering, Computer
sciences, Business Administration etc. In case of degree in Medical
science there are 5 years. In case of PHD there are five more years of
study after 4 years of higher education. According to the National
Education Policy enrolment of students is the lowest in elementary level
of education in Pakistan as compared to other reference countries
including India, Bangladesh, Thailand, South Korea, Malaysia and Iran.
Pakistan spends relatively less in education in terms of GDP (2.3
percent) as compared to the countries like Iran (4.7 percent), Malaysia
(6.2), Thailand (4.2 percent), South Korea (4.6 percent), India (3.8
percent), and Bangladesh (2.5 percent). It further tells that on the
Education Development index, which combines all educational access
measures Pakistan lies at the bottom with Bangladesh and is considerably
below in comparison to Sri Lanka. A similar picture is presented by the
gross enrolment ratios that combine all education sectors, and by the
adult literacy rate measures. The overall Human Development Index (HDI)
for Pakistan stands at 0.55, which is marginally better than for
Bangladesh and Nepal but poorer than other countries in the region.
Although Pakistan's HD1 has improved over the years but the rate of
progress in other countries has been higher. Bangladesh, starting at a
lower base has caught up, while other countries have further improved
upon their relative advantage. These developments do not augur well for
Pakistan's competitive position in the international economy. As
the Global Competitiveness Index (GCI) shows, Pakistan's
performance is weak, on the health and education related elements of
competitiveness, when compared with its major competitors like India,
China, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka and Malaysia.
(4) Wages used in the paper are real wages. The nominal wages
provided in the Labour Force Surveys are deflated by the consumer price
index provided by the Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan
(Economic Survey of Pakistan 2009-10, Chapter 10).
(5) Age-sqaure is used as a proxy for experience; this proxy has
been widely used in literature. [For example: Serrano, et al. (2003);
Danny and Harmon (2007), Harmon, et al. (2001)].
(6) The extended form of this equation is:
ln(Wage [s.sub.i]) = [alpha] + [[beta].sub.1j]age +
[[beta].sub.2j]agesq + [[beta].sub.3j]gender + [[beta].sub.4j]gender *
age + [[beta].sub.5j]gender * agesq + [[beta].sub.1j]region +
[[beta].sub.7j]region * age + [[beta].sub.8j]region * agesq +
[[beta].sub.9ij]age [[summation].sup.4.sub.j=1] province +
[[beta].sub.1Dij] [[summation].sup.4.sub.j=1]province * age +
[[beta].sub.11ij] [[summation].sup.4.sub.j=1]province * age sq +
[[beta].sub.12ij] [[summation].sup.9.sub.j=1]occupation +
[[beta].sub.13ij] [[summation].sup.9.sub.j=1]occupation * age + agesq +
[[mu].sub.j]
(7) Wages risks [MATHEMATICAL EXPRESSION NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]
where i refers to the ith individual in the jth group and n is number of
observations in each group.
(8) The labour market diability risk rate is calculated as: number
of injuries faced by every individual during one year/Total number of
hours worked by every worker during one year*200,000; where 200,000 =
base for 100 full-time equivalent workers (40 hours per week, 50 weeks
per year).
(9) International Labour Organisation (2010), World Statistics: The
Enormous Burden of Poor Working Condition.
http://www.ilo.org/pubIic/english/regio Accessed on April, 8th 2011.
(10) Hersch (1998) used the same measure of disability risks for
different industries.
(11) Khan and Irfan (1985), Shabbir (1993, 1994) and Nasir (1999)
present similar findings.
(12) Punjab is the largest province of Pakistan, both in terms of
population and economic activity, with a large proportion of the
workforce engaged in agriculture-based employment. During the period
under study there were considerable fluctuations in agricultural
production (Economic Survey of Pakistan 2006-07), consistent with
relatively high risks in this province. Siddiqui and Siddiqui (1998) and
Ashraf and Ashraf (1993) present related results for earning equations.
Asma Hyder <
[email protected]> is Assistant Professor,
Karachi School for Business and Leadership, Pakistan. Jere R. Behrman
<
[email protected]> is William R. Kenan, Jr. Professor of
Economics and Sociology and a Research Associate of the Population
Studies Centre at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA.
Table 1
Summary Statistics
Means/
Variables Categories (S.D)
Age (Years) 33.8
(11.6)
Ln Monthly Wages 8.26
(0.78)
Ln Hourly Wage Rates 2.95
(0.85)
Hours Worked Per Week 49.4
(12.2)
Disability Risks 1.3
(11.9)
Male 89.6%
Rural 40.3
Province Punjab 44.3%
Sindh 28.2%
Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 14.7%
Balochistan 12.8%
Schooling Illiterate 22.0%
Primary (7 grades) 15.7%
Middle (9 grades) 11.3%
Matric (11 grades) 19.5%
Intermediate (13 grades) 11.3%
Graduation (15-16 grades) 13.4%
Above Graduation (more than 16 grades) 6.8%
Occupations Managers 6.4%
Professionals 6.4%
Technicians and Associate 19.1%
Professionals
Clerical Support workers 7.2%
Service and Sales Workers 15.4%
Skilled, Agricultural, Forestry and 1.5%
Fishery Workers
Craft and Related Trade Workers 14.5%
Plant and Machine Operators, 9.7%
Assemblers
Elementary Occupations 19.5%
Total Number of Observations= 77685
Table 2
Regression Results for In Monthly Wages, In Hourly Wage Rate and
In Hours Worked per Week
In Monthly
Wages
Variables Coefficient Standard
Estimate Error
Age 0.14 *** 0.005
Age (2) -0.001 *** 0.00007
Occupation
Professionals -0.34 * 0.14
Technicians -0.06 0.11
Clerks 1.42 *** 0.14
Services 0.177 0.11
Skilled Agri 0.45 * 0.19
Craft 0.66 *** 0.11
Plant and Machine 1.54 *** 0.13
Elementary/Unskilled 0.77 *** 0.11
Occupations*Age
Professionals*Age 0.02 * 0.008
Technicians*Age -0.02 ** 0.006
Clerks*Age -0.09 *** 0.008
Services*Age -0.03 *** 0.006
Skilled Agri*Age -0.05 *** 0.010
Craft*age -0.06 *** 0.006
Plant & Machine*Age -0.11 *** 0.007
Elementary*Age -0.07 *** 0.006
Occupation*Age (2)
Professionals*[Age.sup.2] -0.0003 ** 0.0001
Technicians*[Age.sup.2] 0.0001 * 0.0001
Clerks*[Age.sup.2] 0.0009 *** 0.0001
Services*[Age.sup.2] 0.0002 * 0.0001
Skilled Agri*[Age.sup.2] 0.0005 *** 0.0001
Craft*[Age.sup.2] 0.0006 *** 0.0001
Plant and Machine*[Age.sup.2] 0.001 *** 0.0001
Elementary*[Age.sup.2] 0.0007 *** 0.0001
Region
Rural 0.006 0.04
Rural*Age -0.006 * 0.002
Rural*[Age.sup.2] 0.00004 0.00003
Gender
Female -0.752 *** 0.06
Female*Age 0.022 *** 0.004
Female*[Age.sup.2] -0.0003 *** 0.00005
Province
Sindh 0.045 0.045
KPK -0.032 0.062
Balochistan 0.41 *** 0.069
Province*Age
Sindh*Age 0.0026 0.0028
KPK*Age 0.0011 0.0035
Balochistan*Age -0.011 * 0.004
Province*[Age.sup.2]
Sindh*[Age.sup.2] -0.00002 0.00003
KPK*[Age.sup.2] 0.00001 0.00005
Balochistan*[Age.sup.2] 0.0001 ** 0.00005
Constant 5.87 *** 0.11
F(41, 77643) 1142.92
Prob > F 0.0000
R-squared 3764
Adj R-squared 3760
N 77685
In Hourly
Waee Rate
Variables Coefficient Standard
Estimate Error
Age 0.15 *** 0.006
Age (2) -0.001 *** 0.00007
Occupation
Professionals 0.05 0.16
Technicians 0.09 0.12
Clerks 1.58 *** 0.15
Services 0.20 0.12
Skilled Agri 0.55 ** 0.20
Craft 0.87 *** 0.12
Plant and Machine 1.81 *** 0.13
Elementary/Unskilled 0.83 *** 0.11
Occupations*Age
Professionals*Age 0.003 0.008
Technicians*Age -0.01 * 0.007
Clerks*Age -0.09 *** 0.008
Services*Age -0.04 *** 0.006
Skilled Agri*Age -0.06 *** 0.01
Craft*age -0.07 *** 0.006
Plant & Machine*Age -0.13 *** 0.007
Elementary*Age -0.08 *** 0.006
Occupation*Age (2)
Professionals*[Age.sup.2] -0.0001 0.0001
Technicians*[Age.sup.2] 0.0001 0.00009
Clerks*[Age.sup.2] 0.001 *** 0.0001
Services*[Age.sup.2] 0.0002 * 0.00008
Skilled Agri*[Age.sup.2] 0.0005 *** 0.0001
Craft*[Age.sup.2] 0.0007 *** 0.00008
Plant and Machine*[Age.sup.2] 0.001 *** 0.00009
Elementary*[Age.sup.2] 0.0007 *** 0.00008
Region
Rural 0.007 0.04
Rural*Age -0.006 * 0.002
Rural*[Age.sup.2] 0.00004 0.00003
Gender
Female -0.50 *** 0.07
Female*Age 0.02 *** 0.004
Female*[Age.sup.2] -0.0002 *** 0.00006
Province
Sindh 0.02 0.05
KPK -0.09 0.06
Balochistan 0.4 *** 0.07
Province*Age
Sindh*Age 0.004 0.003
KPK*Age 0.007 * 0.004
Balochistan*Age -0.01 * 0.005
Province*[Age.sup.2]
Sindh*[Age.sup.2] -0.00004 0.00004
KPK*[Age.sup.2] -0.00008 0.00005
Balochistan*[Age.sup.2] 0.0001 0.00006
Constant 0.26 *** 0.11
F(41, 77643) 1215.54
Prob > F 0.0000
R-squared 3909
Adj R-squared 3907
N 77685
In Hours Worked per Week
Variables Coefficient Standard
Estimate Error
Age -0.01 *** 0.002
Age (2) 0.0001 *** 0.00002
Occupation
Professionals -0.39 *** 0.05
Technicians -0.15 *** 0.04
Clerks -0.15 ** 0.05
Services -0.02 0.04
Skilled Agri -0.10 0.07
Craft -0.21 *** 0.04
Plant and Machine -0.25 *** 0.04
Elementary/Unskilled -0.06 0.04
Occupations*Age
Professionals*Age 0.01 *** 0.003
Technicians*Age -0.0005 0.002
Clerks*Age 0.003 0.003
Services*Age 0.005 ** 0.002
Skilled Agri*Age 0.005 0.003
Craft*age 0.011 *** 0.002
Plant & Machine*Age 0.02 *** 0.002
Elementary*Age 0.003 0.002
Occupation*Age (2)
Professionals*[Age.sup.2] -0.0001 *** 0.00003
Technicians*[Age.sup.2] 0.00003 0.00003
Clerks*[Age.sup.2] -0.00001 0.00003
Services*[Age.sup.2] -0.00003 0.00003
Skilled Agri*[Age.sup.2] -0.00005 0.00005
Craft*[Age.sup.2] -0.0001 *** 0.00003
Plant and Machine*[Age.sup.2] -0.0002 *** 0.00003
Elementary*[Age.sup.2] -3.65E-06 0.00002
Region
Rural 0.0008 0.01
Rural*Age -0.0002 0.0008
Rural*[Age.sup.2] 3.64E-06 0.00001
Gender
Female -0.2 *** 0.02
Female*Age 0.005 *** 0.001
Female*[Age.sup.2] -0.00007 *** 0.00002
Province
Sindh 0.02 0.02
KPK 0.06 * 0.02
Balochistan -0.03 0.02
Province*Age
Sindh*Age -0.001 0.001
KPK*Age -0.006 *** 0.001
Balochistan*Age -0.001 0.001
Province*[Age.sup.2]
Sindh*[Age.sup.2] 0.00002 * 0.00001
KPK*[Age.sup.2] 0.00009 *** 0.00001
Balochistan*[Age.sup.2] 0.00002 0.00002
Constant 4.16 *** 0.03
F(41, 77643) 491.51
Prob > F 0.0000
R-squared 2061
Adj R-squared 2056
N 77685
Notes: * t significant at p<.05.
** t significant at p<,01.
*** t significant at p<.001.
Table 3
Summary Statistics for Wages Risks, Wage Rate Risks,
Hours Worked Risks and Disability Risks
Wages Wage Rate
Variable Risks Risks
Gender
Male .57 .63
(.09) (.09)
Female .77 .76
(.10) (.08)
Region
Rural .58 .65
(.09) (.08)
Urban .60 .65
(.12) (.11)
Province
Punjab .63 .67
(.11) (.09)
Sindh .59 .64
(.11) (.11)
KPK .58 .64
(.11) (.10)
Balochistan .52 .57
(.08) (.08)
Schooling
Illiterate .57 .62
(.10) (.08)
Primary (5 grades) .57 .62
(.09) (.08)
Middle (8 grades) .56 .61
(.08) (.07)
Matric (10 grades) .58 .63
(.10) (.09)
Intermediate (12 grades) .59 .64
(.11) (.11)
Graduation (14-16 grades) .67 .71
(.13) (.13)
Above Graduation (more than 16 grades) .71 .75
(.13) (.13)
Occupations
Managers .79 .84
(.04) (.05)
Professionals .52 .87
(.06) (.06)
Technicians and Associate Professionals .61 .67
(.10) (.08)
Clerical Support Workers .51 .55
(.05) (.05)
Service and Sales Workers .56 .62
(.05) (.04)
Skilled, Agricultural, Forestry and .52 .62
Fishery Workers (.61) (.61)
Craft and Related Trade Workers .58 .61
(.08) (.06)
Plant and Machine Operators, Assemblers .50 .56
(.03) (.03)
Elementary Occupations .56 .63
(.08) (.06)
Number of Observations=77685
Hours Worked Disability
Variable Risks Risks
Gender
Male .22 1.4
(.04) (12.3)
Female .27 .45
(.05) (7.05)
Region
Rural .23 1.7
(.04) (14.8)
Urban .22 1.02
(.04) (9.3)
Province
Punjab .24 1.6
(.04) (12.0)
Sindh .21 1.17
(.04) (11.0)
KPK .26 .96
(.04) (9.29)
Balochistan .20 0.93
(.04) (15.4)
Schooling
Illiterate .24 1.78
(.05) (12.4)
Primary (5 grades) .23 2.12
(.04) (18.7)
Middle (8 grades) .22 1.56
(.04) (11.0)
Matric (10 grades) .22 .97
(.04) (8.96)
Intermediate (12 grades) .22 0.83
(.04) (10.4)
Graduation (14-16 grades) .23 0.63
(.04) (7.64)
Above Graduation (more than 16 grades) .23 0.45
(.05) (6.49)
Occupations
Managers .19 0.69
(.02) (7.4)
Professionals .26 0.55
(.04) (7.44)
Technicians and Associate Professionals .25 0.63
(.03 (7.95)
Clerical Support Workers .17 0.86
(.03) (11.29)
Service and Sales Workers .22 .80
(.02) (8.27)
Skilled, Agricultural, Forestry and .23 2.55
Fishery Workers (.11) (2.44)
Craft and Related Trade Workers .19 2.44
(.04) (13.84)
Plant and Machine Operators, Assemblers .23 2.48
(.02) (20.13)
Elementary Occupations .26 1.41
(.03) (12.68)
Number of Observations=77685
Table 4
Correlations among Wages Risks and Disability Risks
Wages Wage Rate Hours Disability
Type of Risk Risks Risks Worked Risks Risks
Wages Risks 1 -- -- --
Wage Rate Risks 0.96 * 1 -- --
(0.00)
Hours Worked Risks 0.32 * 0.38 * 1 --
(0.00) (0.00)
Disability Risks -.025 * -.025 * -0.008 1
(0.00) (0.00) (0.014)
Note: * Significant at .01 level.
Table 5
Regressions for Mean In Wages, Mean In Wage Rates and Mean In Hours
Worked
Mean ln Wages Mean ln Wage Rate
Coefficient Standard Coefficient Standard
Estimate Error Estimate Error
Province
Sindh 0.12 *** 0.002 0.12 *** 0.002
KPK 0.06 *** 0.003 0.10 *** 0.003
Balochistan 0.27 *** 0.003 0.34 *** 0.003
Region
Rural 0.002 -0.15 *** 0.002
Gender
Female -0.52 *** 0.004 -0.32 *** 0.004
Schooling
Primary 0.06 *** 0.003 0.07 *** 0.002
Middle 0.10 *** 0.003 0.11 *** 0.004
Matriculation 0.25 *** 0.003 0.31 *** 0.003
Intermediate 0.39 *** 0.003 0.51 *** 0.004
Degree 0.60 *** 0.004 0.74 *** 0.004
Above Degree 0.72 *** 0.005 0.87 *** 0.005
Constant 8.06 *** 0.002 2.65 *** 0.002
F(11,77673) 7566.36 8579.84
Prob > F 0.0000 0.0000
Adj R-squared 0.56 0.53
N 77685 77685
Mean ln Hours Worked
Coefficient Standard
Estimate Error
Province
Sindh 0.006 *** 0.0007
KPK -0.03 *** 0.0009
Balochistan -0.06 *** 0.0009
Region
Rural -0.01 *** 0.0006
Gender
Female -0.20 *** 0.001
Schooling
Primary -0.005 *** 0.0009
Middle -0.01 *** 0.001
Matriculation -0.06 *** 0.0009
Intermediate -0.11 *** 0.001
Degree -0.13 *** 0.001
Above Degree -0.14 *** 0.001
Constant 3.96 *** 0.0007
F(11,77673) 8350.88
Prob > F 0.0000
Adj R-squared 0.54
N 77685
Table 6
Estimates of Associations of Schooling with Wages Risks and Disability
Risks
Wages Risks Wage Rate Risks
Coefficient Standard Coefficient Standard
Estimate Error Estimate Error
Province
Sindh -0.03 *** 0.0007 -0.03 *** 0.0007
KPK -0.04 *** 0.0009 -0.04 *** 0.0009
Balochistan -0.09 *** 0.0009 -0.09 *** 0.001
Region
Rural -0.0001 * 0.0006 0.01 *** 0.0006
Gender
Female 0.16 *** 0.001 0.10 *** 0.0009
Schooling
Primary -0.0001 0.0008 -0.0007 0.0007
Middle -0.003 *** 0.0009 -0.003 *** 0.001
Matriculation 0.006 *** 0.0008 0.007 *** 0.001
Intermediate 0.02 *** 0.001 0.02 *** 0.001
Degree 0.09 *** 0.001 0.09 *** 0.001
Above Degree 0.12 *** 0.001 0.12 *** 0.001
Constant 0.58 *** 0.0007 0.64 *** 0.0007
F(11.77673) 5506.27 4190.13
Prob > F 0.0000 0.0000
R-squared 0.4262 0.3330
Adj.R-Squared 0.4261 0.3330
N 77685 77685
Hours Worked Risks Disability Risks
Coefficient Standard Coefficient Standard
Estimate Error Estimate Error
Province
Sindh -0.02 *** 0.0003 -0.31 *** 0.10
KPK 0.02 *** 0.0004 -0.57 *** 0.13
Balochistan -0.04 *** 0.0004 -0.73 *** 0.14
Region
Rural .001 *** 0.0002 0.53 *** 0.09
Gender
Female 0.04*** 0.0004 -0.81 *** 0.14
Schooling
Primary -0.009 *** 0.0004 0.27 * 0.14
Middle -0.01 *** 0.0005 -0.28 * 0.16
Matriculation -0.01 *** 0.0004 -0.77 *** 0.13
Intermediate -0.01 *** 0.0005 -0.83 *** 0.16
Degree -0.01 *** 0.0004 -0.96 *** 0.15
Above Degree -0.01 *** 0.0006 -1.08 *** 0.19
Constant 0.24 *** 0.0003 1.88 *** 0.11
F(11.77673) 3102.92 25.13
Prob > F 0.0000 0.0000
R-squared 0.3053 0.0035
Adj.R-Squared 0.3053 0.0035
N 77685 77685
Table 7
Estimates of Association of Schooling with Mean In Wage, Mean In Wage
Rate, Mean In Hrs Worked, Mean In Wage Risks), Mean In Wage Rate
Risks, Mean In Hours Worked Risks, Mean Disability Risks [Note:
Standard Errors in Parenthesis]
Mean ln Mean ln Mean ln Hrs
Wages Wage Rate Worked
Province
Sindh 0.14 *** 0.09 ** 0.06 **
(0.05) (0.05) (0.02)
KPK 0.04 0.04 0.0001
(0.05) (0.05) (0.02)
Balochistan 0.32 *** 0.33 *** -0.01
(0.05) (0.05) (0.02)
Region
Rural -0.10 *** -0.08 ** -0.02
(0.04) (0.04) (0.02)
Gender
Female -0.46 *** -0.40 *** -0.08 ***
(0.05) (0.05) (0.02)
Schooling
Primary -0.21 -0.16 -0.05
(0.43) (0.38) (0-19)
Middle 1.6 ** 0.89 0.72 **
(0.61) (0.55) (0.26)
Matric 0.22 0.18 0.04
(0.30) (0.27) (0.13)
Intermediate 0.65 * 0.92 *** -0.28 *
(0.37) (0.32) (0.15)
Graduate 1.08 *** 1.14 *** -0.07
(0.27) (0.23) (0.11)
Above Degree 2.21 *** 2.36 *** -0.15
(21) (0.18) (0.09)
Constant 7.17 *** 1.98*** 3.84 ***
(0.09) (0.08) (0.05
N 106 106 106
F(11.94) 69.30 103.65 15.55
Prob>F 0.00 0.00 0.00
R-Square 0.89 0.92 645
Adj. R-S4guare 0.87 0.91 603
Mean In Mean In Wage
Wages Risks Rate Risks
Province
Sindh -0.04 -0.05 **
(0.03) (0.03)
KPK -0.07 ** -0.07 ***
(0.03) (0.03)
Balochistan -0.13 *** -0.12 ***
(0.03) (0.03)
Region
Rural 0.07 ** 0.07 ***
(0.02) (0.02)
Gender
Female 0.12 *** 0.05 *
(0.03) (0.03
Schooling
Primary -0.35 -0.11
(0.27) (0.24)
Middle -0.24 -0.32
(0.37) (0.34)
Matric 0.13 0.14
(0.18) (0.16)
Intermediate -0.83 *** -0.72 ***
(0.22) (20)
Graduate 0.39 ** 0.48 ***
(0.16) (0.14)
Above Degree -0.08 -0.03
(0.12) (0.11)
Constant 0.89 *** 0.83 ***
(0.06) 0.05
N 106 106
F(11.94) 11.29 9.60
Prob>F 0.00 0.00
R-Square 0.56 0.52
Adj. R-S4guare 0.51 0.47
Mean
Mean In Hours Disability
Worked Risks Risks
Province
Sindh -0.03 * -0.20
(0.02) (0.32)
KPK 0.01 -0.38
(0.01) (0.30)
Balochistan -0.06 *** -0.39
(0.02) (0.32)
Region
Rural 0.02 0.69 *
(0.01) (0.25)
Gender
Female 0.01 -0.49
(0.02) (0.31)
Schooling
Primary -0.28 ** -2.78
(0.13) (2.65)
Middle -0.17 6.35 *
(0.18) (3.69)
Matric -0.12 -2.36
(0.09) (1.79)
Intermediate -0.23 ** -1.63
(0.11) (2.18)
Graduate -0.06 -0.76
(0.08) (1.58)
Above Degree -0.19 *** -0.76
(0.06) (1.22)
Constant 0.37 *** 1.81 **
(90.03) (0.72)
N 106 106
F(11.94) 6.34 3.84
Prob>F 0.00 0.00
R-Square 0.43 0.31
Adj. R-S4guare 0.36 0.23