University of Kent
Human Capital Mismatch in the Labour Market
An innovative Measure
Low-skilled employees may enjoy greater returns to Human Capital than more skilled workforce participants, signalling their potential displacement in the labour market. This paper constructs a multi-dimensional indicator of individual Human Capital mismatch by exploring 25-years data. The analysis shows that (i) the mis-match rate is significantly low varying among regions; (ii) despite the predominance of men’s mismatch, in recent years, the gender gap has considerably narrowed. (iii) Taking care of any a priori discrimination against the female workers, the incidence takes a double-digit form. (iv) Finally, occupational mobility and gender are the major determinants of entering and exiting the mismatch status; number of (dependent) children in the household or partnership play a less important role.
Work in a man’s shoes: Determinants of female Human Capital mismatch in the UK
This paper looks at the extent of and reasons for labour market mismatch of female employees. It utilises a novel indicator of miss-match that can take account of differences across workers in more than one dimension of skill and uses data from the British Household Panel Study and its successor ‘Understanding Society’ covering the years 1991-2016. We estimate the incidence of miss-match at 13% to 34% – the proportion changes depending on our specifications. Preliminary work shows that individual and job-specific features drive the effect of female workforce misallocation in the market. The number of children, employment in the public sector and flexibility increase the probability of female mismatch. Recent entrants in the market may experience an expected higher likelihood of mismatch, as well. The risk of unemployment has a significant positive impact. The impact of lone motherhood is hard to pin down, on the other hand, since different specifications give different results.
Female HCM: An extension for the British public sector
This paper looks at the extent of labour market mismatch of public-sector female employees. It contributes to earlier findings for the British labour market by taking into account the endogenous self-selection into jobs. Estimates are based on data from the British Household Panel Study and the ‘Understanding Society’ covering the years 1991-2016. The analysis verifies that the public sector offers a few low-skilled jobs and employs, mostly, high-educated (female) workers. Regarding the market flows, findings show the greater mobility of the female workforce, which moves proportionately between sectors. Greater in-/out-flows to/from private sector are observed regardless the gender of the employee. Once comparing women to the median employee, a sizeable incidence of mismatch arises due to negative selection. Specifications using the selection model for the public sector illustrate a systematically higher magnitude of mismatch. Pooled results seem to dominate when women seen in the male labour market or in a restricted subsample. Finally, the map of occupations in mismatch supports that the public sector is more attractive as a waiting room for highly-qualified graduates. They queue less time until they find a good job. Hence, policy implications regarding the allocation of jobs for women may arise.
See more details, here
Unobserved Productivity and Mismatch: Evidence from the British Cohort Study 1970
This paper examines the intersection of unobserved productivity and mismatch in the British labour market. Using the British Cohort Study 1970 (BCS70) data, individual unobserved heterogeneity is measured by the cognitive and non-cognitive skill test scores throughout childhood. Replicating the identification strategy of Galanakis (2019), I derive the incidence of mismatch for cohort participants. A comparison to earlier estimates follows. Results show that the incidence does not fluctuate significantly over time and increases when accounting for skills of those born in 1970. Evidence suggests that unobserved productivity does not generate mismatch in the market.