Atypical Work and Employment Continuity

Atypical employment arrangements such as agency temporary work and contracting have long been criticized as offering more precarious and unstable work than regular employment. Using data from two datasets Ð the CAEAS and the NLSY79 Ð we determine whether workers who take such jobs rather than regular employment, or the alternative of continued job search, subsequently experience greater or lesser employment continuity. Observed differences between the various working arrangements are starkest when we do not account for unobserved individual heterogeneity. Controlling for the latter, we report that the advantage of regular work over atypical work and atypical work over continued joblessness dissipates.atypical work, open-ended work, employment continuity, unemployment, inactivity

Atypical Work and Employment Continuity

Atypical employment arrangements such as agency temporary work and contracting have long been criticized as offering more precarious and unstable work than regular employment. Using data from two datasets – the CAEAS and the NLSY79 – we determine whether workers who take such jobs rather than regular employment, or the alternative of continued job search, subsequently experience greater or lesser employment continuity. Observed differences between the various working arrangements are starkest when we do not account for unobserved individual heterogeneity. Controlling for the latter, we report that the advantage of regular work over atypical work and atypical work over continued joblessness dissipates.employment continuity, open-ended work, atypical work, unemployment, inactivity

‘Atypical Work’ and Compensation

Atypical work, or alternative work arrangements in U.S. parlance, has long been criticized in popular debate as providing poorly-compensated employment. Although the early U.S. literature seemed to confirm this perception, more recent cet. par. analysis has offered a partial but somewhat more optimistic evaluation. The present paper builds on the latter body of research with a view to providing improved estimates of the effect of the full range alternative work arrangements on worker compensation. The improvements are basically two-fold. First, we account for the skewness in atypical worker earnings while retaining the Mincerian human capital earnings function. Second, we deploy additional waves of the main dataset on atypical workers (the CAEAS), while supplementing this cross-section analysis with longitudinal data from the NLSY. Our analysis covers earnings and (access to) health benefits. We report that although one group of atypical workers (contractors) seems to enjoy a wage premium, cross-section results from the CPS and NLSY for the better-known category of temporary workers point to a negative wage differential of some 6-15 percent. It emerges that much of the disparity stems from unobserved worker heterogeneity, accounting for which still supports a wage advantage for contracting work. As far as fringes are concerned, the appearance in cross section of a potentially large deficit in access to health benefits is again reduced after accounting for the permanent unobserved individual heterogeneity, although in this case the attenuation is much more modest.atypical/contingent work, alternative work arrangements, wage differentials, employer-related health insurance

Atypical Work: Who Gets It, and Where Does It Lead? Some U.S. Evidence Using the NLSY79

Atypical work arrangements have long been criticized as offering more precarious and lower paid work than regular open-ended employment. In an important paper published in this journal, Booth et al. (2002) were among the first to recognize that notwithstanding their potential deficiencies, such jobs also functioned as a stepping stone to permanent work. This conclusion proved prescient and has received increasing support in Europe. In the present note, we provide a parallel analysis to Booth et al. for the United States – somewhat of a missing link in the evolving empirical literature – and obtain not dissimilar similar findings for the category of temporary workers as do they for fixed-term contract workers.

Atypical Work: Who Gets It, and Where Does It Lead? Some U.S. Evidence Using the NLSY79

Atypical work arrangements have long been criticized as offering more precarious and lower paid work than regular open-ended employment. In an important paper, Booth et al. (2002) were among the first to recognize that notwithstanding their potential deficiencies, such jobs also functioned as a stepping stone to permanent work. This conclusion proved prescient and has received increasing support in Europe. In the present note, we provide a parallel analysis to Booth et al. for the United States – somewhat of a missing link in the evolving empirical literature – and obtain not dissimilar similar findings for the category of temporary workers as do they for fixed-term contract workers.atypical work, temporary jobs, contracting/consulting work, regular open-ended employment, earnings development

Aid to conflict-affected countries : lessons for donors

The first section looks at the implications of conflict for aid effectiveness and selectivity. We argue that, while aid is generally effective in promoting growth and by implication reducing poverty, it is more effective in promoting growth in post-conflict countries. We then consider the implications of these findings for donor selectivity models and for assessment of donor performance in allocating development aid among recipient countries. We argue that, while further research on aid effectiveness in post-conflict scenarios is needed, existing selectivity models should be augmented with, inter alia, post-conflict variables, and donors should be evaluated on the basis, inter alia, of the share of their aid budgets allocated to countries experiencing post-conflict episodes. We also argue for aid delivered in the form of projects to countries with weak institutions in early post-conflict years. The second section focuses on policies for donors operating in conflict-affected countries. We set out five of the most important principles: (1) focus on broad-based recovery from war; (2) to achieve a broad-based recovery, get involved before the conflict ends; (3) focus on poverty, but avoid &lsquo;wish lists&rsquo;; (4) help to reduce insecurity so aid can contribute more effectively to growth and poverty reduction; and (5) in economic reform, focus on improving public expenditure management and revenue mobilisation. The third section concludes by emphasising the fact that there is no hard or fast dividing line between &lsquo;war&rsquo; and &lsquo;peace&rsquo; and that it may take many years for a society to become truly &lsquo;post&rsquo;-conflict&rsquo;. Donors, therefore, need to prepare for the long haul.<br /