GEM IWG INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE 2009

Transcription

1 GEM IWG INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE 2009 PRECARIOUS WORK, PRECARIOUS LIFE: INTERACTIONS BETWEEN PAID AND UNPAID WORK FOR `` WOMEN IN ECUADOR BEFORE AND DURING RECENT ECONOMIC CRISIS Alison Vásconez Rodríguez 1

2 Reproduction of the labour force - Sexual division of work - Time poverty - Unequal decisions - Unequal power / entitlements Labour Force (includes unpaid transferred value) No labour supply of domestic workers Longer unemployment spells Higher mobility < Op. Cost Transferred assumed roles Expensive demands on employers Subsistence Wage under its real value Non-active in lab. market - Entrance barriers - Precarious conditions - Discrimination 2

3 3

4 4

5 Gap widens 5

6 97% are women, 60% >15 is also involved in market labour. hours-per week: women s domestic care work is 3 times that of men. Women dedicate more time to work (paid and unpaid domestic) during their whole lifetime. 6

7 Not clear trade-off Ecuador: Dedication to work per income level Hours per week Unpaid domestic Market work Income Quintiles Relation with poverty 7

8 2 Models (dependent): 1. Distribution of work load: gap carer /others 2. Own time restriction: work load/disposable time 8

9 9

10 Women unemployment 1,2% - 4% peak September 6,5% Formality of men: reduced gap in 2005, increases after, deepen in crisis Employment children (16-17): entering as substitute labour force, increases gap: 5,9% (due to absence) Underemployment: 3 4% Income: 2005, no differentiation, during crisis: reduction in 5 th quintile (1,4%) Own income: reduces gap, consistent but low, 0,2-0,7% Agriculture head: increases in 10%(growing) related with rural families and to precarious jobs of men Agriculture carer: decreases (but less in crisis) House work (woman): increases, consistently: 2 6% No place: increases consistently 10

11 11

12 Adding cultural, location and demographic reduces impact but significance remains Women unemployment 1,2% - 4% peak September 5% Formality of men: trends are the same, but effect reduces to half Employment children (16-17): entering as substitute labour force, increases gap: 6,9% (due to absence), major effect when controlling for other situation variables (shows substitution and sharing) Income and Own income: reduces gap, consistent and effect are the same Agriculture head: increases in 10%(growing) labour intensification Agriculture carer: decreases (but less in crisis) Children under 5: same as in 2005 (structural factor remains, services haven t changed) Coast: increases and growing (cultural factor, crisis-related?) Indigenous: reduces and decreasing (communitary, time-vision, data?) 12

13 13

14 In general: gap is more sensible to variables, own time restriction varies less (basic care load needed, assumed by women): they do not switch their time use easily, even other share it (hypothesis) Major differences: Income variables become more important: 5% increase by being in a poor household, 0.8% increase for own income Working of children reduces load (support for the mother?) Head/spouse working at home increases load (before it was ambiguous) 14

15 15

16 Major differences: Urban and coast become irrelevant (effect of crisis) Income becomes more important 0.8% (own income), and differences with rich women deepen Head/spouse Underemployment appears as important, increasing load In Crisis period: Unemployment highly associated with intrahousehold gaps and time restriction (transmission of market crisis): more intensity but less people dedicated (systemic crisis is a care crisis as well) Important poverty at household level (even more than own income). Domestic own load (in favor of disposable time) is hard to be reduced in critical periods. Cultural factors important for gaps mostly Income related crisis, pollarization, potential precariousness circle (care crisis) 16

17 Thank you 17