Local unemployment changes the springboard effect of low pay: Evidence from England

Autoři: Alexander Plum aff001;  Gundi Knies aff002
Působiště autorů: New Zealand Work Research Institute, Auckland University of Technology, Auckland, New Zealand aff001;  Institute for Social and Economic Research, University of Essex, Colchester, England, United Kingdom aff002
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(11)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224290


There is considerable debate on whether the employment and earnings prospects are better for those on low pay or for the unemployed. Low-pay work tends to be undertaken more locally but no empirical analysis has focused on how local opportunities alter prospects. Using Understanding Society data for England matched with local unemployment rates, we estimate dynamic random effects panel models, which show robust evidence that the future unemployment risk is lower for those who are currently on low pay compared to those who are currently unemployed. The low-paid also have a higher chance than the unemployed of becoming higher-paid. These findings are most marked in neighbourhoods with high unemployment.

Klíčová slova:

Employment – England – Human capital – Jobs – Labor markets – Salaries – Social systems – Unemployment rates


1. Layard R, Nickell S, Jackman R. Unemployment: Macroeconomic Performance and the Labour Market, Oxford University Press, Oxford; 1991.

2. Mayhew K. The changing shape of the UK job market and its implications for the bottom half of earners. London: Resolution Foundation; 2012.

3. Devins D, Bickerstaffe T, Mitchell B, Halliday S. Improving progression in low-paid, low-skilled retail, catering and care jobs. 2014.

4. Anger S. Unpaid Overtime in Germany: Differences Between East and West. Journal of Applied Social Science Studies (Schmollers Jahrbuch). 2005;125: 17–21.

5. Galster GC. The mechanism (s) of neighbourhood effects: Theory, evidence, and policy implications. In: Neighbourhood effects research: New perspectives 2012 (pp. 23–56). Springer, Dordrecht.

6. Arnott R, Rowse J. Peer group effects and educational attainment. Journal of Public Economics. 1987;32: 287–305.

7. Wilson W. The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy, Chicago: The University of Chicago. 1987.

8. Selod H, Zenou Y. City structure, job search and labour discrimination: Theory and policy implications. The Economic Journal. 2006;116: 1057–1087.

9. Bayer P, Ross SL, Topa G. Place of work and place of residence: Informal hiring networks and labor market outcomes. Journal of Political Economy. 2008;116: 1150–1196.

10. Zenou Y, and Boccard N. Racial discrimination and redlining in cities. Journal of Urban Economics. 2000;48: 260–285.

11. Patacchini E, Zenou Y. Spatial dependence in local unemployment rates. Journal of Economic Geography. 2007;7: 169–191.

12. Hoynes HW. Local labor markets and welfare spells: Do demand conditions matter? Review of Economics and Statistics. 2000;82: 351–368.

13. Van der Klaauw B, Van Ours JC. From welfare to work: does the neighborhood matter? Journal of Public Economics. 2003;87: 957–985.

14. Åberg Y, Hedström P, Kolm AS. Social interactions and unemployment. Nationalekonomiska institutionen; 2003.

15. OECD. OECD Employment Outlook 2013. OECD Publishing; 2013.

16. Veen A, Barratt T, Goods C. Platform-Capital’s ‘App-etite’for Control: A Labour Process Analysis of Food-Delivery Work in Australia. Work, Employment and Society. 2019;5.

17. Peticca-Harris A, deGama N, Ravishankar MN. Postcapitalist precarious work and those in the ‘drivers’ seat: Exploring the motivations and lived experiences of Uber drivers in Canada. Organization: 2018.

18. Taylor M, Marsh G, Nicol D, Broadbent P. Good work: The Taylor review of modern working practices: 2017. Retrieved from (9 August 2019): https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/good-work-the-taylor-review-of-modern-working-practices

19. Webster J. Microworkers of the gig economy: separate and precarious. New Labor Forum. 2016;25: 56–64.

20. Stewart M. The interrelated dynamics of unemployment and low-wage employment. Journal of Applied Econometrics. 2007;22: 511–531.

21. Plum A. The British low-wage sector and the employment prospects of the unemployed. Applied Economics. 2019;51: 1411–1432.

22. Van Ham M, Manley D, Bailey N, Simpson L, Maclennan D. Understanding neighbourhood dynamics: New insights for neighbourhood effects research. Springer Netherlands. 2013: 1–21.

23. Manski C. Identification of endogenous social effects: The reflection problem. The Review of Economic Studies. 1993;60: 531–542.

24. Galster GC. Quantifying the effect of neighbourhood on individuals: challenges, alternative approaches, and promising directions. Journal of Applied Social Science Studies (Schmollers Jahrbuch). 2008;128: 7–48.

25. Heckman JJ. Heterogeneity and state dependence. In: Studies in labor markets (pp. 91–140). University of Chicago Press.

26. Heckman JJ. The incidental parameters problem and the problem of initial conditions in estimating a discrete time-discrete data stochastic process and some Monte Carlo evidence. University of Chicago Center for Mathematical studies in Business and Economics; 1987.

27. Knies G, Burgess S, Propper C. Keeping up with the Schmidt’s: An empirical test of relative deprivation theory in the neighbourhood context. Schmollers Jahrbuch: Journal of Applied Social Science Studies. 2008;128: 75–108.

28. Vishwanath T. Job search, stigma effect, and escape rate from unemployment. Journal of Labor Economics. 1989;7: 487–502.

29. Blanchard O, Diamond P. Ranking, unemployment duration, and wages. The Review of Economic Studies. 1994;61: 417–434.

30. Acemoglu D. Public policy in a model of long-term unemployment. Economica. 1995;1: 161–78.

31. Pissarides C. Equilibrium unemployment theory, MIT Press, Cambridge: 1990.

32. Heckman JJ, Borjas G. Does unemployment cause future unemployment? Definitions, questions and answers from a continuous time model of heterogeneity and state dependence. Economica. 1980;47: 247–283.

33. Arulampalam W, Booth A, Taylor M. Unemployment persistence. Oxford Economic Papers. 2000;52: 24–50.

34. Mühleisen M, Zimmermann K. A panel analysis of job changes and unemployment. European Economic Review. 1994; 38: 793–801.

35. Doiron D, Gørgens T. State dependence in youth labor market experiences, and the evaluation of policy interventions. Journal of Econometrics. 2008;145: 81–97.

36. Ayllón S. Unemployment persistence: not only stigma but discouragement too. Applied Economics Letters. 2013;20: 67–71.

37. Raaum O, Røed K. Do business cycle conditions at the time of labor market entry affect future employment prospects? Review of Economics and Statistics. 2006;88: 193–210.

38. Plum A, Ayllón S. Heterogeneity in unemployment state dependence."Economics Letters. 2015:136: 85–87.

39. Oberholzer-Gee F. Nonemployment stigma as rational herding: A field experiment. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization. 2008;65: 30–40.

40. Kroft K, Lange F, Notowidigdo M. Duration dependence and labor market conditions: Evidence from a field experiment. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2013;128: 1123–1167.

41. Eriksson S, Rooth D. Do employers use unemployment as a sorting criterion when hiring? Evidence from a field experiment. American Economic Review. 2014;104: 1014–1039.

42. Van den Berg GJ, Van Ours JC. Unemployment dynamics and duration dependence. Journal of Labor Economics. 1996;14: 100–25.

43. Imbens GW, Lynch LM. Re-employment probabilities over the business cycle. Portuguese Economic Journal. 2006;5: 111–34.

44. McCormick B. A theory of signaling during job search, employment efficiency, and “stigmatized” jobs. The Review of Economic Studies. 1990;57: 299–313.

45. Hurrell A. Starting out or getting stuck: An analysis of who get trapped in low-paid work–and who escapes. London: Resolution Foundation; 2013.

46. Uhlendorff A. From no pay to low pay and back again? A multi-state model of low pay dynamics. IZA Discussion Papers, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA): 2006.

47. Knabe A, Plum A. Low-wage jobs–springboard to high-paid ones? Labour: Review of Labour Economics and Industrial Relations. 2013;27: 310–330.

48. Mosthaf A. Do scarring effects of low-wage employment and non-employment differ between levels of qualification? Scottish Journal of Political Economy. 2014;61: 154–177.

49. Mosthaf A, Schank T, Schnabel C. Low-wage employment versus unemployment: Which one provides better prospects for women? IZA Journal of European Labor Studies. 2014;3: 1–21

50. Buddelmeyer H, Lee WS, Wooden M. Low-paid employment and unemployment dynamics in Australia. Economic Record. 2010;86: 28–48.

51. Cappellari L. Earnings mobility among Italian low-paid workers. Journal of Population Economics. 2007;20: 465–482.

52. Clark K, Kanellopoulos N. Low pay persistence in Europe. Labour Economics. 2013;23: 122–134.

53. Galster GC, Killen SP. The geography of metropolitan opportunity: a reconnaissance and conceptual framework. Housing Policy Debate. 1995;6: 7–43.

54. Akerlof GA. A theory of social custom, of which unemployment may be one consequence. The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 1980;94: 749–75.

55. Streufert P. The effect of underclass social isolation on schooling choice. Journal of Public Economic Theory. 2000;2: 461–482.

56. University of Essex: 2015: Institute for Social and Economic Research and National Centre for Social Research, Understanding Society: Waves 1–5, 2009–2014 [computer file].

57. Knies G. Understanding Society—UK Household Longitudinal Study: Wave 1–5, 2009–2014. User Manual, Colchester: University of Essex; 2015.

58. OECD. OECD Employment Outlook 1997—Low-wage jobs: stepping stones to a better future or traps? OECD Publishing; 1997.

59. Sutherland A, Brunton-Smith I, Jackson J. Collective Efficacy, Deprivation and Violence in London. The British Journal of Criminology. 2013;53: 1050–1074.

60. Murphy E. Measuring Employment and Unemployment. In: Northern Ireland Assembly (ed) Research and Information Service Briefing Note. 2013

61. Knies G, Menon S. Understanding Society: Waves 1–3, 2009–2012: Special license access, Geographical Accessibility, User Guide. Technical report, Understanding Society at the Institute for Social and Economic Research; 2014. Published online: https://goo.gl/kAERBO

62. Wooldridge J. Simple solutions to the initial conditions problem in dynamic, nonlinear panel data models with unobserved heterogeneity. Journal of Applied Econometrics. 2005;20: 39–54.

63. Train KE. Discrete Choice Methods with Simulation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge: 2009.

64. Alessie R, Hochguertel S, van Soest A. Ownership of stocks and mutual funds: A panel data analysis. Tilburg University; 2001.

65. Plum A. bireprob: An estimator for bivariate Random-Effects Probit Models. Stata Journal: 2016;16: 96–111.

66. Open Society Foundations. Europe’s White working class–Manchester. Open Society Foundations: New York. Online: http://goo.gl/7jMo7s: 2014.

Článek vyšel v časopise


2019 Číslo 11