DRAFT FOR DISCUSSION DO NOT CITE

Labor Market Outcomes of Higher Education in East Asia

Chris Sakellariou Department of Economics Humanities and Social Sciences Nanyang Technological University Singapore E-mail: acsake@pacific.net.sg

February, 2010

1.

Introduction

East Asian countries have been growing quite fast over the last decades. However, if East Asian economies want to make the jump from being MICs to high income status, they have to make some major structural shifts -- otherwise there may be a 'glass ceiling' of development beyond which they would not be able to go.1 One of these shifts is a shift in higher education. Current diagnostics show that higher education systems are not keeping track with the changing skill needs contributing to increasing skill gaps in the region, and do not have the capacity yet to undertake R&D and produce highly skilled graduates to support the regional and country innovation agenda. The current international crisis may have some short-run deterrent effect on higher education by reducing the dynamism of labor markets and private sector demand for innovation, but is likely to further enhance its role in the mediumrun through increasing pressure to diversify the economic and productive structure. In all cases, the region cannot sacrifice long-term productivity and growth as it meets the immediate needs of the crisis. In fact, going further, the current crisis may even be an opportunity to address major development and structural reforms which have remained unaddressed in buoyant times, including structural weaknesses in the way higher education systems are organized, managed and financed in the region. The study will address the main overarching question: how the demand for skills is changing in the region. This report focuses on labor market outcomes of higher education graduates looking at employment/unemployment/rates of return and job/industry profile, overall and across population groups. In particular, focal points are: (a) employment and unemployment rates of higher education graduates, by type and level when available and their changes time; (b) rates of return across types and levels of higher education (when possible), and across age cohorts; (c) occupation and field of study premiums and their changes over time; (d) heterogeneity of economic benefits from additional education by socioeconomic background. 2. Data

Table 1 lists the surveys used for different countries. Unemployment rates were estimated using information on job search for those in the labor force. Information on occupation was used to construct broad occupation dummies. Other relevant information for the analysis includes personal and socioeconomic characteristics such as, gender, urbanity, ethnicity, parents education and family income/expenditure quantile. Table 1: Datasets by Country Survey VLSS, VHLSS Socioeconomic Survey Socioeconomic Survey Susenas/Sakernas LSMS LFS-FIES

Country Vietnam Cambodia Thailand Indonesia Mongolia Philippines

1

Country 1998, 2006 1999, 2007 1996, 2006 1998, 2006 1998, 2007 2000, 2006

Gill, Kharas and others (2007): An East Asian Renaissance: Ideas for Economic Growth.

China

China Urban Labor Survey (CULS)

1999, 2005

3. 3.1

University Graduates in the Labor Market Unemployment rates of University Graduates

Table 2 (and Charts 1 and 2) present statistics on unemployment rates for all adults (age 2265), adults with university education, youth (below the age of 35) and youth with university education (age 24-35). In Vietnam, Cambodia and Thailand unemployment rates among adults as well as adults with university education were low in both points in time, with the exception of university graduates in Cambodia in 1999. The highest overall unemployment rates were found for urban China and Mongolia, while the highest rates for university graduates were found for the Philippines and Indonesia. Overall, youth unemployment rates exceeded those in the adult population. This was especially the case for Indonesia (17 vs. 3.3 percent) and urban China (19 vs. 14 percent), and less so in the case of Vietnam (2.8 vs. 0.4 percent in 2006) and Cambodia (1.4 vs. 0.7 in 2007). When overall youth unemployment rates are compared to youth unemployment rates for university graduates, in all countries except Vietnam and Indonesia the rates for university graduates are lower compared to overall youth unemployment. Over time, unemployment rates of university graduates significantly declined in Cambodia, Indonesia and Mongolia and increased in the Philippines.

Table 2: Unemployment Rates over Time Country Earlier Year Latest Year Vietnam (1998, 2006) 0.41 0.64 - All 1.22 0.96 - University Graduates 2.80 - Youth unemployment (All) 9.88 - Youth unemployment (University) Cambodia 0.75 0.81 - All (1999, 2007) 2.11 5.38 - University Graduates 1.43 - Youth unemployment (All) 1.59** - Youth unemployment (University) Thailand (1996, 2006) 1.64 0.73 - All 2.11 2.77 - University Graduates 7.62 - Youth unemployment (All) 2.69 - Youth unemployment (University) Indonesia (1998, 2007) 3.27 4.08 - All 6.84 12.71 - University Graduates 16.92 - Youth unemployment (All) 30.84 - Youth unemployment (University) Mongolia (1998, 2007) 2

Change (%) -35.9 27.1

-7.4 -60.8

124.6 -23.8

3.2 -32.7

- All - University Graduates - Youth unemployment (All) - Youth unemployment (University) Philippines (2000, 2006) - All - University Graduates - Youth unemployment (All) - Youth unemployment (University) China (2005) - All - University Graduates - Youth unemployment (All) - Youth unemployment (University) ** Less than 5 obs.

10.61 10.68

8.17 6.71 15.46 5.95 5.85 11.55 16.44 11.55 9.13 5.22 15.32 5.94

-23.0 -37.2

6.24 8.92

-6.2 29.5

Charts 3a and 3b presents the predicted probabilities of being unemployed for various characteristics, based on the probit regressions given in the appendix. The comparative 3

predictions in the charts are the within sample predicted probabilities of being unemployed conditional on education attainment of the individual. Unemployment rates are significantly higher in urban compared to rural areas in all countries. Differences by gender vary between countries; it is higher for males in Vietnam, Thailand, Mongolia and Philippines and higher for females in China. Unemployment rates for the more educated (upper secondary and university) are higher in Cambodia, Indonesia the Philippines and to a certain extent in Vietnam, while the opposite is the case in China. The pattern is less clear for Thailand and Mongolia.

Chart 3c illustrates the estimates of the unemployment rate by field of study for Vietnam and Thailand. Similarities are the relatively lower unemployment rates for teacher training and health/medical related fields. On the other hand, one difference is the relatively high unemployment rate for fields related to the service sector in Thailand, as opposed to no or negligible unemployment for these fields in Vietnam.

3.2

The Effect of Graduate/Post Graduate Degrees and TVET/University on employment and Earnings Premiums

This section looks at the occupational composition of workers with university versus postgraduate degrees and university versus higher vocational diplomas, as well as differences in occupation premiums for these qualifications. Data allows for the first comparison can be done only for Thailand and the Philippines, while the second comparison as well as the occupation premiums can be done for Thailand, Indonesia and Mongolia. Table 3a: Occupational Distribution and Occupation Premiums by University (Undergraduate) vs. Post-Graduate Degrees University Post-graduate Country Share (%) Premium* Share (%) Premium* Thailand ** 28.90 9.88 0.896 Managers/Officials Professionals/ Assoc. Profess. Clerical Service/Sales Skilled Workers Unskilled Workers Philippines+ Managers/Officials Professionals/Assoc. Profess. Clerical 60.00 14.48 10.93 3.81 0.90 0.729 0.519 0.454 0.362 65.19 3.28 2.12 0.38 0.13

20.39 39.24 17.30 5

1.05 0.850 0.606

38.62 53.10 4.14

1.46 1.33 0.960

Service/Sales Skilled Workers Unskilled Workers

9.38 8.28 5.41

0.386 0.385 -

0 2.75 1.38

Dropped -0.180 -

Note: Premiums are based on regression which also controlled for personal characteristics. * Relative to unskilled workers. ** Results were not meaningful because the cells for those with reported earnings in the clerical, service/Sales and production workers were empty. + Post-graduate occupation premiums for the Philippines were based on 112 observations; thus the estimates are imprecise, for example, the negative premium for skilled workers was insignificant and the large premium for clerical work is was nearly insignificant.

Table 3a indicates that in Thailand, nearly 95% of workers with post-graduate qualifications were employed in Managerial and Professional occupations, compared to about 70% of those with undergraduate degrees. Less than 4% of workers with undergraduate degrees were employed in production and other mostly skilled manual labor, as were a negligible proportion of workers with post-graduate degrees. The occupational breakdown in the Philippines is qualitatively similar to that of Thailand, with over 90% of workers with postgraduate qualifications employed in Managerial and Professional occupations, compared to less than 60% of those with undergraduate qualifications. However in the Philippines, nearly 14% of workers with undergraduate degrees were employed in production and other manual labor, compared to just over 4% of those with post-graduate degrees. Comparing the occupational breakdown between university (undergraduate) and higher vocational qualifications (Table 3b), in Thailand the major differences are that 60% of university graduates were Professionals/Associate Professionals compared to just over 20% of those with higher vocational qualifications, while over 30% of workers with higher TVET were employed in production and other manual labor, compared to less than 5% of workers with university degrees. In Mongolia, while the breakdown is qualitatively similar to than in Thailand, the distinction is less clear: for example, 58% of workers with higher TVET were managers and professionals, compared to 60% for workers with university degrees. Similarly, 25% of workers with higher TVET were employed in skilled and unskilled labor, compared to about 16% of workers with university degrees. The breakdown for Indonesia, however, is to an extent unexpected. There are two significant differences between the 2 groups: while 45% of workers with higher TVET are Professionals/Associate Professionals (compared to only 33% of university educated workers), nearly one-third of university educated workers are in clerical jobs (compared to less than 20% for those with higher TVET).

Table 3b: Occupational Distribution and Occupation Premiums by Higher Vocational vs. University Qualifications-Latest Year+ Higher Voc./Diploma University Country Share (%) Premium* Share (%) Premium* Thailand Managers/Officials 9.28 0.471 9.88 0.896 Professionals/Assoc. Profess. Clerical Service/Sales Skilled Workers Unskilled Indonesia Managers Professionals/Assoc. Profess. Administrative/Clerical Service/Sales Skilled Workers Unskilled Mongolia Managers/Officials Professionals/Assoc. Profess. Clerical Service/Sales Skilled Workers in Agric. Other skilled workers 20.85 19.60 19.13 27.80 3.26 0.788 0.499 0.567 0.364 60.00 14.48 10.93 3.81 0.90 0.729 0.519 0.454 0.362 -

2.83 45.58 19.94 20.41 8.39 2.85

0.627 0.403 0.374 0.165 0.124 -

2.94 32.77 32.11 21.14 8.56 2.48

0.654 0.419 0.464 0.051 0.325 -

13.59 44.49 3.44 12.42 8.54 10.02

0.831 0.701 0.384 0.167 1.029 0.090

14.51 54.63 4.17 11.10 6.23 6.17

0.580 0.370 -0.064 -0.036 0.488 -0.019

Unskilled 6.82 3.19 Note: Premiums based on regression which also controlled for personal characteristics. * Relative to unskilled workers. + 2006 Susenas for Indonesia.

Only one comparison between undergraduate and post-graduate occupation premiums that for the Philippines was possible (see Table 3a). It suggests that occupation premiums are generally larger for workers with post-graduate degrees. Comparing occupation premiums for workers with higher TVET vs. university qualifications (Table 3b) suggests that in Thailand, with the exception of premiums for Managers, which are significantly higher for university graduates, other premiums are of similar size. Similarly in Indonesia, premiums for Managerial, Professional and Clerical occupations are of similar magnitude, while the differences in the premiums for service/sales and production workers are of minor significance. The more striking results are for Mongolia, where workers with higher TVET qualifications enjoy consistently higher premiums (with unskilled labor the reference group) compared to university graduates. Differences are particularly large for skilled workers in the agricultural sector, as well as in professional occupations. This finding, along with the earlier finding that higher TVET graduates experience lower unemployment rates compared to university graduates, may indicate that in Mongolia, higher TVET studies provide more relevant skills for the labor market compared to skills acquired in university, and possibly an oversupply of university graduates relative to demand in the labor market. 3.3 The Effect of Occupation University Graduates

This section provides more detailed evidence on the occupational distribution, occupation premiums, and their change over time for university graduates. Chart 4 illustrates the occupational distribution of university graduates in the most recent year. In every country, the highest proportion of graduates was employed in Professional and Technical occupations; this is especially the case in Vietnam, where over 70 percent of graduates were employed in such occupations and less so in the Philippines. When the higher paying Professional and Managerial occupations are combined, 84% of Vietnamese graduates, 70% of Thai graduates, 69% of Mongolian graduates and 60% of Philippino graduates were employed in such occupations. In Indonesia, Cambodia and to a certain extent in the Philippines, a significant proportion of graduates worked in Clerical jobs.

The nature of occupation premiums for university graduates (Table 3) and their over time changes differ between Vietnam and Cambodia on the one hand and the rest of the countries on the other. Over time, with the transformation of labor markets in Vietnam and Cambodia, along with rationalization in the reward of skills and increases in the return to skill, occupation premiums increased significantly over time. The labor market could easily absorb more university graduates, with increasing rewards relative to unskilled labor. In Thailand, Indonesia, the Philippines and Mongolia (in recent years) on the other hand, market forces had been guiding the rewards for skilled occupations. In the Philippines and Thailand, occupation premiums are high, with Professionals and Managers enjoying almost double the earnings of unskilled workers on average. In all 4 countries, earnings increase with increases in the skill of occupation. Over time, however, the interaction of demand and supply of skills lead to stagnation and slight decline in occupation premiums in Indonesia and the Philippines.

Country

Table 4: Occupation Premiums+ for University Graduates over Time Earlier Year Latest Year Age: 22-34 Age: 35-65 Latest Year Latest Year Vietnam (1998, 2006) - Manager/Official -0.886 0.245 0.516* 0.252 - Professional/Assoc. Profess. -1.01 0.416** 0.508* 0.448* - Clerical - Service/Sales -1.41 0.088 0.148 0.324 - Skilled Labor -1.36 0.06 0.219 -0.067 Cambodia (2003-4, 2007) -0.366 0.575** - Manager/Official/Professional/ 0.492** 0.377 Assoc. Profess. # - Clerical -1.10** 0.296 - Service/Sales 0.123 0.230 -1.10 0.179 - Skilled Labor -0.081 0.239 Thailand (1996, 2007) - Manager Not 0.896** 0.827** 0.950** - Professional/Assoc. Profess. Comparable 0.729** 0.530** 0.809** - Associate Professionals 0.696** 0.523** 0.782** - Administrative/Clerical 0.519** 0.341* 0.643** - Service/Sales 0.454** 0.295 0.515** - Skilled Labor 0.362** 0.295 0.301 Indonesia (1998, 2007) 0.172** - Manager 0.671** 0.171 0.122 0.567** - Professional/Assoc. Profess. 0.250** 0.704** 0.471** 0.315** - Administrative/Clerical 0.287** 0.405** 0.193* 0.148* - Service/Sales 0.218** 0.215* 0.044 -0.132 - Skilled Agric. Workers 0.197 0.613* -0.695** 0.308** - Skilled Labor 0.341** 0.335** 0.252* Mongolia (1998, 2007) 0.580** - Manager/Official Not 0.401 0.946** 0.380* - Professional Comparable 0.261 0.686** 0.320 - Assoc. Profess. 0.231 0.545* -0.064 - Clerical -0.206 0.373 -0.036 - Service/Sales -0.227 0.473 -0.019 - Skilled Labor -0.060 0.071 Philippines (2000, 2006) 1.04** 0.867** 1.25** - Manager/Official 1.14** 0.836** 0.720** 1.03** - Professional/Assoc. Profess. 1.01** 0.582** 0.491** 0.725** - Clerical 0.571** 0.366** 0.226** 0.615** - Service/Sales 0.509** 0.359** 0.322** 0.433** - Skilled Labor 0.342** + Excluded category: unskilled labor. ** Significant at the 1% level. * Significant at the 5% level. # Categories combined due to small number of observations. Comparing occupation premiums between young and older workers, another divide emerges. In Vietnam and Cambodia, young Professionals and Manages are rewarded significantly more than older workers in the same occupations, suggesting that the skills of older workers are outdated. The opposite is the case in the rest of the countries, where skilled occupation 10

premiums are significantly lower for younger workers, possibly as a consequence of pay structures based on seniority. Finally, Table 5 gives estimates of field of study premiums for Vietnam and Thailand using 2006 data. In both cases the reference group is studies related to the service sector. In Vietnam, estimates are generally negative but mostly insignificant except for health/medical related field and teacher training. The premium for Science is positive but statistically insignificant. In Thailand, on the other hand, premiums are generally positive and statistically significant; the highest premiums are found for health/medical fields, law, followed by Arts/Humanities/Social Sciences and Science. The premium for technology related fields (Engineering) is low, while the premium for science is moderate as was the case for Vietnam. Table 5: Field of Study Premiums for Vietnam and Thailand Latest Year Country Vietnam Thailand Arts/Humanities/Social Science -0.054 0.200* Business/Management Law Science Engineering/Agricultural studies Health related -0.115 -0.052 0.074 -0.050 -0.220* 0.024 0.244* 0.109* -0.051 0.398* 0.116*

Teacher Training -0.195* (excluded: Service related) Note: based on regression which included basic characteristics. * Significant at the 5% level.

3.3

Heterogeneity in the return to Schooling: the effect of socioeconomic background

In this section we explore to what extent the economic benefit of additional schooling depends on an individuals socioeconomic background. The assumption is that individuals from lower socioeconomic background benefit less from more education, be it due to lower quality of schooling or due to benefiting less from a given school quality compared to individuals from more privileged background. Given that it is not possible to explore this question for university graduates only using multivariate analysis, we look at how family background affects the marginal return to an additional year of schooling, assuming that conclusions apply to university graduates as well. One set of Mincerian earnings functions were estimated (see appendix), in which years of schooling are interacted with family income/expenditure, while in another set of earnings functions years of schooling are interacted with fathers education (less than Primary, Primary or Lower Secondary and Upper Secondary or Tertiary). Results are combined in Table 6 and illustrated in Charts 5 and 6.

11

The degree of heterogeneity of returns to schooling varies widely between countries. The assumption that higher socioeconomic background is associated with greater benefits from education is generally confirmed. An exception is Vietnam. Before the renovation reforms took hold in Vietnam, the premium of an additional year of schooling was generally nonexistent or negative and more so for those of lower socioeconomic background. By 2006, the premium was positive and significant. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the benefits from additional education differ by either family income or fathers education. In other countries, there is clear evidence that the marginal return to schooling increases by both family income and fathers education. In some countries the heterogeneity is startling. In Cambodia, returns have increased significantly over time, however, the heterogeneity by family background remained, with the earnings premium for those in the highest economic quintile being more than double that for those in the lowest quintile. In Thailand, the heterogeneity by economic quintile is staggering (but less so by fathers education): Those from the lowest quintile experienced a negative and significant premium to an additional year of schooling, while those from the highest quintile enjoyed premiums in excess of 10 percent. Similarly in the Philippines, the Q5/Q1 ratio in premiums was over 6, while the premium for those whose father had completed secondary or tertiary education was 40 percent higher than the corresponding premiums for those whose father had less than Primary education. Significant heterogeneity in benefits derived from education is also observed for Indonesia and Mongolia. Table 6: Return to Schooling (any level) by Family Income/Expenditure Quintile and Fathers Education by Country and Year Country Vietnam (1998, 2006) Return by Family quintile Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Return by fathers education Father < Primary Father Prim/Low Sec Father Sec/Univ. Cambodia (1999, 2007) Return by Family quintile Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Return by fathers education Father < Primary Earlier Year Latest Year

-0.058** -0.047** -0.036** -0.029** 0.002 -0.001 0.006 0.015*

0.047** 0.015** 0.034** 0.051** 0.066** 0.045** 0.039** 0.047**

-0.015 0.004 0.016* 0.039** 0.044** 0.028** 12

0.040** 0.046** 0.069** 0.065** 0.088** 0.029**

Father Prim/Low Sec Father Sec/Univ. Thailand (1996. 2006) Return by Family quintile Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Return by fathers education Father < Primary Father Prim/Low Sec Father Sec/Univ. Indonesia (1998, 2006) Return by Family quintile Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Return by fathers education Father < Primary Father Prim/Low Sec Father Sec/Univ. Mongolia (1998, 2007) Return by Family quintile Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Return by fathers education Father < Primary Father Prim/Low Sec Father Sec/Univ.

0.025** 0.006

0.055** 0.051**

-0.143** -0.002 0.071** 0.110** 0.131** 0.132** 0.132** 0.149**

-0.016** 0.037** 0.063** 0.082** 0.106** 0.084** 0.098** 0.114**

0.064** 0.080** 0.093** 0.105** 0.123** 0.111** 0.117** 0.124**

0.060** 0.077** 0.086** 0.100** 0.123** 0.075** 0.093** 0.118**

0.043** 0.048** 0.053** 0.055** 0.068** 0.054** 0.060** 0.064**

0.083** 0.114** 0.122** 0.132** 0.150** 0.108** 0.123** 0.142**

Philippines (2006) Return by Family quintile n/a Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q5 Return by fathers education 0.077** Father < Primary 0.079** Father Prim/Low Sec 0.096** Father Sec/Univ. ** Significant at the 1% level. *Significant at the 5% level. 13

0.014** 0.030** 0.046** 0.059** 0.084** 0.080** 0.083* 0.102**

3.4

Summary

This report evaluates specific labor market outcomes for higher education graduates in various S.E Asian countries, such as unemployment rates, rates of return and occupational profile, overall and across population groups. The main focal point is: how the demand for skills is changing in the region. The lowest unemployment rates for university graduates as well as overall is found in Vietnam, Cambodia and Thailand and the highest rates for university graduates were found in the Philippines and Indonesia. Overall, youth unemployment rates exceeded those in the adult population, especially in Indonesia. Within young workers, in all countries except Vietnam, youth unemployment rates for those with university education are lower compared to overall youth unemployment. Predictions using probit regressions show that unemployment rates are 14

significantly higher in urban compared to rural areas in all countries, while unemployment rates for the more educated are higher in Cambodia, Indonesia and the Philippines, while the opposite is the case in China. When the better paying Professional and Managerial occupations are combined, 84% of Vietnamese graduates, 70% of Thai graduates, 69% of Mongolian graduates and 60% of Philippino graduates were employed in such occupations. In Indonesia, Cambodia and to a certain extent in the Philippines, a significant proportion of graduates worked in Clerical jobs. Workers with post-graduate qualifications are even more concentrated in high paying occupations; thus in Thailand and the Philippines (for which estimates could be obtained), over 90% of workers with post-graduate qualifications employed in Managerial and Professional occupations, compared to less than 60% of those with undergraduate qualifications. Comparing the occupational breakdown between university (undergraduate) and higher vocational qualifications, in Thailand only 20% of those with higher vocational qualifications were in Professional occupations, while over 30% were employed in production and other manual labor, compared to less than 5% of workers with university degrees. In Indonesia, however, results show that while 45% of workers with higher TVET are in Professional occupations (compared to only 33% of university educated workers), nearly one-third of university educated workers are in clerical jobs (compared to less than 20% for those with higher TVET). In Thailand, Indonesia and the Philippines, market forces had all along been guiding the rewards of skilled occupations. In these countries occupational premiums (relative to unskilled labor) are high and increase with the skill of the occupation. Over time, however, we observe a stagnation and slight decline in occupation premiums in Indonesia and the Philippines. In Vietnam and Cambodia, on the other hand, the transformation of labor markets over time has led to significant increases in the return to skill and occupation premiums. In Vietnam, however, field of study premiums suggest that technology related fields such as Engineering and Science do not command higher premiums compared to the reference group (Services related fields), while premiums for studies related to the Medical field as well as Law are negative and statistically significant. In Thailand, premiums for the Medical field and Law are substantial, but not so for Engineering. In Vietnam and Cambodia, young Professionals and Manages are rewarded significantly more than older workers in the same occupations, while the opposite is true in the rest of the countries, where skilled occupation premiums are significantly lower for younger workers. One result worth noting is that in Mongolia (2007), workers with higher TVET qualifications enjoyed consistently higher premiums (relative to unskilled labor) compared to university graduates. Differences are particularly large for skilled workers in the Agriculture, as well as in Professional occupations. This finding may indicate that higher TVET studies provide more relevant skills for the labor market. Lastly, the heterogeneity of the benefits of additional education by socioeconomic status are evaluated, using Mincerian earnings functions with years of schooling-socioeconomic status 15

interactions. The assumption that higher socioeconomic background is associated with greater benefits from education is generally confirmed, with the exception of Vietnam. Clear evidence is found that the marginal return to schooling increases by both family income and fathers education. In other words, individuals from less privileged backgrounds benefit

16

Appendix Vietnam Vietnam: Unemployment rates (%) by selected characteristics Age 22-65 1998 2006

Urban 1.28 1.33 Rural 0.34 0.17 Male 0.87 0.48 Female 0.43 0.34 Majority Kinh 0.70 0.46 Ethnic minority 0.31 0.10 Education level - Primary or less 0.60 0.30 1.71 - Lower Secondary 0.44 0.19 1.92 - Secondary general 1.20 0.69 6.34 - TVET* 1.08 0.83 2.59 - College* n/a 1.78 7.84 - University* 0.96 1.22 9.88 (not Field of study (for university grads) comparable) 0.00 0.00 - Teacher training 1.09 2.00** - Arts/Human/Social science 2.51+ 4.39 - Business/Management + 7.14** - Law 3.33 1.79** - Science 0.78 0.84** - Engineering 0.50 0.00 - Health related 0.00 0.00 - Service related 0.00 Province 1.56 0.30 0.38 - Red River Delta 1.08 0.15 0.19 - North East 0.52** 0.19 0.00 - North West 2.96 0.35 0.48 - North Central 2.14 0.67 0.72 - South Central 0.00 0.0 0.00 - Central highlands 1.90 1.14 1.17 - South East 1.56 0.43 0.79 - Mekong Delta Overall 0.64 0.41 2.80 * Youth defined as the age group 24-35 for tertiary education graduates. ** Less than 5 obs + All unemployed in with business/management and law background are in the 22-34 age group (unemployment rates of 4.35% and 7.14% respectively).

2006-Youth Age 15-24 6.40 1.97 3.16 2.32 3.39 0.40

17

Vietnam: Probit regression Probability of being unemployed in 2006 Age 22-65 Marginal effect z-value Age/100 -0.072 7.0 Age/100 squared 0.078 6.0 Male 0.0004 1.3 Urban 0.006 8.6 Ethnic Minority -0.001 1.6 Lower secondary -0.001 1.1 TVET 0.0004 0.7 Upper secondary 0.0003 0.4 Junior College 0.002 1.5 University 0.0002 0.2 North East -0.001 1.3 North West -0.0000 0.0 North Central 0.001 1.1 South Central 0.001 1.8 Central highlands South East 0.002 3.1 Mekong Delta 0.001 1.2 (excluded: Red River Delta) Pseudo-Rsq 0.159 N 30,742

Figure : Predicted probability of being unemployed by selected characteristics: 2006

1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 Gender Urban/rural Ethnicity Education level Male Female Urban Rural Minority Majority Primary or less Low sec. TVET Upper sec. College

18

Vietnam: Probit regression Probability of being unemployed in 1998 Age 22-65 Marginal effect z-value Age/100 0.000 0.0 Age/100 squared -0.029 0.7 Male 0.003 3.1 Urban 0.006 4.9 Ethnic Minority -0.002 1.7 Lower secondary -0.002 1.5 TVET 0.002 0.8 Upper secondary 0.001 0.6 Junior College n/a University -0.0006 0.3 North East -0.001 0.3 North West North Central 0.003 1.0 South Central 0.003 1.2 Central highlands South East 0.006 2.7 Mekong Delta 0.005 2.2 (excluded: Red River Delta) Pseudo-Rsq 0.090 N 12,083

Figure : Predicted probability of being unemployed by selected characteristics: 1998

19

Vietnam: Occupation of Employment for University Graduates by year Occupation 1998 Officials/Managers 11.44 Professionals/Associate Prof. 59.72 Service/Sales 12.13 Skilled workers 16.25 Unskilled workers 0.46 N 437

2006 9.49 74.30 1.97 5.44 8.80 864

20

Vietnam: Tertiary education graduates - Effect of occupation on earnings Dep. Var.: log of hourly 1998 2006 2006 2006 wage Age 22-34 Age 35-65 4.46 5.81 10.02 Age/100 -3.53 (0.9) (0.6) (7.0) (1.0) -5.13 -6.29 -11.38 Age/100 squared 2.40 (1.0) (0.4) (6.5) (0.6) -0.020 0.170 0.082 Male 0.074 (0.4) (4.1) (2.6) (0.8) -0.000 0.066 0.015 Married 0.174 (0.0) (1.4) (0.4) (1.4) -0.125 0.229 0.063 Urban 0.360 (2.4) (5.6) (1.9) (2.9) -0.442 -0.131 -0.324 -0.649 Ethnic minority* (4.0) (1.0) (3.9) (0.9) 0.007 0.015 0.009 0.020 Job Tenure (2.1) (1.7) (3.3) (2.9) 0.252 0.516 0.245 -0.886 Leaders (1.2) (1.9) (1.5) (1.2) 0.448 0.508 0.416 -1.01 Professionals (2.1) (2.1) (2.6) (1.4) 0.324 0.148 0.088 -1.41 Service/Sales (1.0) (0.5) (0.4) (1.8) -0.067 0.219 0.060 -1.36 Skilled labor (0.2) (0.9) (0.3) (1.7) (excluded: unskilled) R-sq adj. 0.061 0.220 0.174 0.091 F-value 2.60 30.0 12.8 5.75 (p-value) (0.004) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) N 273 1,136 614 522 Note: t-values in parentheses * Excluded: Minh and Chinese.

21

Vietnam: Tertiary education graduates - Effect of post-graduate degree, 2006+ Dep. Var.: log of hourly wage 2006 Age/100 7.11 (4.2) -8.73 Age/100 squared (4.3) 0.046 Male (1.2) 0.058 Married (1.1) 0.031 Urban (0.7) -0.482 Ethnic minority* (4.6) 0.014 Job Tenure (4.7) 0.394 Post-Graduate degree (3.5) (compared to Bachelors) R-sq adj. 0.156 F-value 19.4 (p-value) (0.000) N 800 Note: t-values in parentheses * Excluded: Minh and Chinese. + Not enough observations with post-graduate qualifications for 1998.

22

Vietnam: Tertiary education graduates - Effect of occupation on earnings by age group - 2006 Dep. Var.: log of hourly Age 15-29 Age 30-45 Age 46-65 wage Age/100 28.61 25.47 15.50 (1.0) (1.9) (1.1) -51.08 -31.70 -16.19 Age/100 squared (0.9) (1.7) (1.2) 0.127 0.020 0.150 Male (2.7) (0.3) (2.3) 0.076 0.055 -0.128 Married (1.4) (0.6) (1.3) 0.235 -0.049 -0.02 Urban (5.2) (0.8) (0.3) -0.185 0.088 -0.645 Ethnic minority* (1.4) (0.5) (5.5) 0.023 0.001 0.010 Job Tenure (1.7) (0.1) (3.1) Leaders 0.489 0.480 -0.205 (1.7) (1.9) (0.7) Professionals 0.584 0.543 0.014 (2.5) (2.5) (0.1) Service/Sales Dropped 0.289 -0.105 (1.0) (0.3) Skilled labor 0.336 0.029 -0.611 (excluded: unskilled) (1.4) (0.1) (1.3) R-sq adj. 0.141 0.056 0.205 F-value 8.4 3.0 8.2 (p-value) (0.000) (0.001) (0.000) N 454 375 307 Note: t-values in parentheses * Excluded: Minh and Chinese. [Not enough observations to do the above table for 1998]

23

Vietnam: University education graduates - Effect of field of study on earnings by age group, 2006 Dep. Var.: log of hourly wage All Age 22-34 Age 35-65 8.60 14.94 Age/100 9.04 (1.5) (1.6) (5.8) -9.82 -22.61 Age/100 squared -10.71 (1.6) (1.3) (5.6) 0.008 0.008 Male 0.009 (0.1) (0.2) (0.2) 0.115 0.070 Married 0.107 (1.2) (1.3) (2.2) -0.131 0.212 Urban 0.060 (2.1) (4.7) (1.6) -0.669 0.210 -0.425 Ethnic minority* (4.8) (1.2) (3.9) 0.013 0.023 0.014 Job Tenure (3.9) (2.4) (4.9) -0.220 -0.133 -0.195 Teacher training (2.2) (1.4) (2.3) 0.134 -0.112 -0.054 Arts/Human/Social science (1.1) (1.1) (0.7) -0.169 -0.037 -0.115 Business/Management (1.7) (0.4) (1.7) -0.167 0.199 -0.052 Law (1.0) (1.3) (0.4) 0.414 -0.062 0.074 Science (3.3) (0.7) (1.0) -0.281 0.101 -0.050 Engineering (2.5) (1.2) (0.7) -0.211 -0.016 -0.220 Health related (1.5) (0.1) (2.1) (excluded: Services related ) R-sq adj. 0.211 0.165 0.196 F-value 18.7 8.1 8.5 (p-value) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) N 930 501 429 Note: t-values in parentheses * Excluded: Minh and Chinese.

24

Vietnam: Tertiary education graduates - Effect of age group on earnings Dep. Var.: log of hourly wage 1998 Age 22-34 -0.073 (0.2) -0.206 Age 35-49 (0.9) -2.26 Age/100 squared (1.6) 0.109 Male (1.2) 0.212 Married (1.7) 0.335 Urban (2.7) 0.591 Ethnic minority* (2.5) 0.022 Job Tenure (3.3) R-sq adj. 0.069 F-value 3.5 (p-value) (0.001) N 273

2006 -0.192 (1.3) 0.054 (0.6) -1.00 (1.4) 0.064 (1.7) 0.114 (2.3) 0.030 (0.7) -0.500 (4.7) 0.014 (4.9) 0.140 17.3 (0.000) 800

25

Vietnam: Return to education (all levels) by Family Income/Expenditure QuantileEmployees in the 22-65 age group
Dep. Var: log of hourly wage Years of schooling * q1 Years of schooling * q2 Years of schooling * q3 Years of schooling * q4 Years of schooling * q5 Experience Experience squared Male Married Urban R-sq F-value (p-value) N 1998 -0.058 (7.0) -0.047 (7.0) -0.036 (6.3) -0.029 (6.1) 0.002 (0.6) 0.016 (3.0) -0.0004 (3.5) 0.166 (5.7) 0.000 (0.0) 0.074 (2.2) 0.087 25.0 (0.000) 2,516 2006 0.047 (17.7) 0.015 (6.2) 0.034 (15.9) 0.051 (27.1) 0.066 (36.1) 0.029 (14.2) -0.0006 (14.2) 0.158 (13.3) 0.042 (2.9) 0.125 (9.3) 0.258 309.7 (0.000) 8895

Vietnam: Return to education (all levels) by Fathers Education- Employees in the 22-65 age group Dep. Var: log of hourly wage 1998 2006
Years of schooling * Father < Primary Years of schooling * Father Prim/Low Sec Years of schooling * Father Sec/Univ. Experience Experience squared Male Married Urban R-sq F-value (p-value) N 0.001 (0.1) 0.006 (0.9) 0.015 (2.0) 0.010 (1.0) -0.0002 (1.0) 0.149 (3.3) -0.048 (0.7) 0.221 (4.7) 0.038 6.3 (0.000) 1,077 0.045 (11.8) 0.039 (15.7) 0.047 (22.2) 0.024 (8.8) -0.0005 (10.0) 0.146 (9.8) 0.095 (4.6) 0.267 (16.2) 0.179 173.5 (0.000) 6,345

26

Cambodia Cambodia: Unemployment2 rates (%) by selected characteristics Age 22-65 1999* 2003-4 Urban 0.98 Rural 0.68 Male 0.87 Female 0.75 Majority Khmer 0.82 Ethnic minority 0.59 Education level - Primary or less 0.70 - Lower Secondary 0.95 - Secondary general 2.28 - TVET - Some University* - University* 5.38 Overall 0.81 * Age group is 24-35 for those with tertiary education ** Less than 5 obs. 1.54 0.53 0.75 0.74 0.76 0.38 0.65 0.89 1.84 1.56 8.47 1.64 0.75

2007 1.33 0.42 0.74 0.77 0.74 1.32 0.60 1.00 1.09 2.91 2.11 0.75

2007-Youth Age 15-24 3.32 0.59 1.65 1.21 1.28 6.67 1.20 1.74 3.54 3.57** 1.59** 1.43

Unemployed in 1999 are those who reported yes to Seeking work or available for work or Awaiting results of job applications 27

Cambodia: Probit regression Probability of being unemployed in 2007 Age 22-65 Marginal effect z-value Age/100 -0.058 1.1 Age/100 squared 0.032 0.5 Male -0.001 0.4 Urban 0.007 3.9 Ethnic Minority 0.002 0.5 Primary -0.002 1.1 Lower secondary -0.001 0.4 TVET 0.009 1.2 Upper secondary -0.001 0.4 At least some University 0.002 0.6 Pseudo-R-sq 0.065 N 8,471

Figure : Predicted probability of being unemployed by selected characteristics: 2007

28

Cambodia: Probit regression Probability of being unemployed in 2003-4 Age 22-65 Marginal effect z-value Age/100 -0.038 1.5 Age/100 squared 0.018 0.6 Male -0.001 1.0 Urban 0.008 6.6 Ethnic Minority -0.003 1.4 Primary 0.002 1.8 Lower secondary 0.001 0.9 TVET 0.001 0.2 Upper secondary 0.004 2.2 At least some University 0.006 1.8 Pseudo-R-sq 0.043 N 32,186

Figure : Predicted probability of being unemployed by selected characteristics: 2003-4

29

Cambodia: Tertiary education graduates - Effect of occupation on earnings by age group Dep. Var: log of hourly 2003-4 2007 2007 2007 wage Age 22-34 Age 35-65 -10.67 55.41 -3.04 Age/100 -9.06 (0.4) (1.3) (0.4) (1.8) 13.72 -98.80 4.43 Age/100 squared 10.64 (0.5) (1.2) (0.5) (1.6) 0.012 -0.056 -0.022 Male -0.053 (0.1) (0.3) (0.1) (0.3) -0.288 0.303 0.142 Married 0.027 (0.8) (0.8) (0.6) (0.2) -0.057 0.351 0.272 Urban 0.187 (0.1) (0.7) (0.7) (1.0) 2.53 (dropped) 2.40 -0.012 Ethnic minority (2.5) (2.4) (0.0) Managers/Professionals -0.366 0.575 0.492 0.377 (1.1) (2.9) (2.4) (1.1) Service/Sales -1.10 0.296 0.123 0.230 (2.7) (1.4) (0.5) (0.6) Skilled workers -1.10 0.179 -0.081 0.239 (excluded: unskilled) (1.8) (0.7) (0.3) (0.7) R-sq adj. 0.071 0.043 0.078 0.068 F-value 1.9 2.1 3.8 1.3 (p-value) (0.056) (0.034) (0.001) (0.262) N 213 251 145 106 [Not enough observations to disaggregate by age group]

Cambodia: Tertiary education graduates - Effect of post-graduate degree Dep. Var: log of hourly wage 2003-4 2007 -4.92 Age/100 -9.26 (0.9) (1.4) 6.39 Age/100 squared 11.23 (0.9) (1.3) -0.069 -0.178 Male (0.5) (1.0) 0.027 0.066 Married (0.2) (0.4) 0.233 0.161 Urban (1.5) (0.9) 2.33 0.143 Ethnic minority (1.5) (0.3) 0.523 0.380 Post-Graduate degree (3.0) (1.4) R-sq adj. 0.001 0.030 F-value 1.02 2.0 (p-value) (0.419) (0.057) N 201 238 30

Cambodia: Occupation of Employment for University graduates by year 2003-4 Managers/Officials 18.70 Professionals 52.88 Associate Professionals 11.51 Clerical 0.72 Service/Sales 8.27 Skilled workers 4.32 Unskilled laborers 3.60 N 278

2007 4.17 36.11 11.81 29.51 14.24 2.09 0.35 288

31

Cambodia: Tertiary education graduates - Effect of age group on earnings Dep. Var: log of hourly wage 2003-4 Age 22-34 0.612 (1.0) 0.328 Age 35-49 (0.7) 1.89 Age/100 squared (0.7) -0.209 Male (1.2) 0.006 Married (0.0) 0.164 Urban (0.9) 0.161 Ethnic Minority (0.3) R-sq adj. -0.014 F-value 0.58 (p-value) (0.768) N 201

2007 1.32 (2.2) 0.859 (2.0) 6.28 (2.2) -0.092 (0.6) -0.057 (0.4) 0.253 (1.0) 2.40 (1.5) 0.008 1.28 (0.261) 231

32

Cambodia: Return to education (all levels) by Family Income/Expenditure QuantileEmployees in the 22-65 age group Dep. Var: log of hourly wage 1999 2003-4 2007
Years of schooling * q1 Years of schooling * q2 Years of schooling * q3 Years of schooling * q4 Years of schooling * q5 Experience Experience squared Male Married Urban R-sq F-value (p-value) N -0.015 (1.6) 0.004 (0.5) 0.016 (1.9) 0.039 (5.2) 0.044 (7.7) -0.004 (0.9) 0.0001 (0.8) 0.002 (0.1) 0.045 (1.1) 0.102 (2.5) 0.052 13.2 (0.000) 2,427 0.024 (2.9) 0.047 (6.6) 0.061 (9.4) 0.070 (13.1) 0.090 (20.4) 0.011 (2.2) -0.0002 (2.7) 0.125 (4.4) -0.011 (0.3) 0.245 (7.8) 0.167 91.1 (0.000) 4,953 0.040 (3.1) 0.046 (3.8) 0.069 (6.6) 0.065 (6.8) 0.088 (10.4) 0.011 (1.1) -0.0003 (1.3) 0.103 (2.0) 0.043 (0.7) 0.128 (2.1) 0.103 23.8 (0.000) 2,195

Cambodia: Return to education (all levels) by Fathers Education- Employees in the 22-65 age group Dep. Var: log of hourly wage 1999 2003-4 2007
Years of schooling * Father < primary Years of schooling * Father Prim/Low Sec. Years of schooling * Father Sec/Univ. Experience Experience squared Male Married Urban R-sq F-value (p-value) N 0.028 (3.5) 0.025 (3.6) 0.006 (1.0) -0.004 (0.5) 0.0001 (0.5) 0.023 (0.6) -0.014 (0.3) 0.162 (3.7) 0.019 5.4 (0.000) 1,846 0.051 (8.7) 0.053 (11.3) 0.054 (13.2) -0.006 (1.2) -0.0000 (0.2) 0.105 (3.5) -0.037 (1.1) 0.331 (10.6) 0.130 90.0 (0.000) 4,770 0.029 (2.9) 0.055 (6.0) 0.051 (6.8) -0.009 (0.9) -0.0000 (0.0) 0.095 (1.7) 0.023 (0.4) 0.196 (3.3) 0.078 23.3 (0.000) 2,107

33

Thailand Thailand: Unemployment rates (%) by selected characteristics Age 22-65 1996 2006

Urban 1.08 1.83 Rural 0.35 1.33 Male 0.89 2.12 Female 0.57 1.15 Majority n/a 1.62 Ethnic minority 2.15 Education level - Primary or less 0.23 0.95 6.24 - Lower Secondary 1.29 3.04 7.68 - Secondary general 1.94 2.28 7.21 - TVET 2.81 2.69 8.43 - Higher Vocational* 2.18 2.27 1.75 - University* 2.77 2.11 2.69 - Post-graduate* 1.57 0.88 2.31 n/a Field of study (for university grads) 1.94 0.66 - Teacher training 4.20 4.36 - Arts/Human 2.94 2.31 - Social science 2.54 2.41 - Business/Management 3.51 2.70 - Law 2.55 2.57 - Science 2.63 2.55 - Engineering 2.88 2.36 - Agricultural studies 0.96 0.51 - Health related 2.25 5.07 - Service related Province - Bangkok 0.85 2.82 7.35 0.60 1.79 6.73 - Central - North 1.31 1.13 7.40 - Northeast 0.57 1.37 7.90 - South 0.80 2.01 9.87 Overall 0.73 1.64 7.62 * Youth defined as the age group 24-35 for tertiary education graduates. Note: While overall unemployment in 2006 for the 15-24 group is high at 7.62%, the corresponding unemployment for the 22-35 age group (at 1.80%) is comparable to the overall unemployment rate for the 22-65 age group.

2006-Youth Age 15-24 7.91 7.12 8.67 6.34 7.59 7.96

34

Thailand : Probit regression Probability of being unemployed in 2006 Age 22-65 Marginal effect z-value Age/100 -0.294 27.5 Age/100 squared 0.299 27.1 Male 0.005 7.7 Urban 0.002 2.9 Ethnic Minority 0.004 1.9 Lower secondary TVET Upper secondary general Higher Vocational University Post-graduate Central region North region Northeast region South region (excluded: Bangkok) Pseudo-Rsq N 0.003 0.011 0.001 0.007 0.014 0.003 -0.002 -0.005 -0.003 -0.001 0.135 117,487 3.0 5.1 0.8 3.5 9.7 0.8 2.5 5.0 3.2 0.9

Figure : Predicted probability of being unemployed by selected characteristics: 2006

3.5 Male 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Gender Urban/rural Ethnicity Education level Female Urban Rural Minority Majority Primary or less Low sec. TVET Upper sec. Higher Voc. University Post-graduate

35

Thailand: Probit regression Probability of being unemployed in 1996 Age 22-26 Marginal effect z-value Age/100 -0.011 11.2 Age/100 squared 0.116 8.7 Male 0.002 5.3 Urban 0.001 4.0 Lower secondary TVET Upper secondary Higher Vocational University Post-graduate Central region North region Northeast region South region (excluded: Bangkok) Pseudo-Rsq N 0.003 0.010 0.005 0.008 0.017 0.017 -0.0004 -0.0005 -0.0006 0.0003 0.212 43,402 4.8 7.0 5.5 6.1 13.3 3.3 0.9 0.9 1.4 0.7

Figure : Predicted probability of being unemployed by selected characteristics: 1996

36

Thailand: Tertiary* education graduates - Effect of occupation on earnings Dep. Var.: log of monthly 1996 2006 2006 2006 earnings Age 22-34 Age 35-65 6.82 -3.68 Age/100 5.31 (1.8) (0.4) (4.2) -5.34 11.34 Age/100 squared -3.64 (1.3) (0.7) (3.3) 0.022 0.146 Male 0.099 (0.6) (3.8) (3.6) 0.082 -0.205 Married -0.068 (1.9) (5.4) (2.3) 0.112 0.181 Urban 0.144 (2.9) (4.4) (5.0) 0.162 0.020 0.052 Ethnic minority (1.3) (0.1) (0.5) Not Occupation 0.950 0.827 Managers/Officials comparable 0.896 (6.9) (4.1) to 2006 (7.6) 0.809 0.530 0.729 Professionals (6.8) (3.0) (7.1) 0.782 0.523 Associate Professionals 0.696 (6.3) (2.9) (6.6) 0.643 0.341 Clerical 0.519 (5.1) (1.9) (4.9) 0.515 0.295 0.454 Service/Sales (3.3) (1.6) (4.0) -0.507 0.457 0.023 Skilled Agric. workers (1.2) (1.6) (0.1) 0.301 0.295 0.362 Trades/skilled workers (1.8) (1.5) (2.8) (excluded: unskilled) R-sq adj. 0.229 0.134 0.142 F-value 46.8 14.4 13.9 (p-value) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) N 5,135 2,151 2,984 Note: t-values in parentheses * Covers University graduates including those with post-graduate degrees.

37

Thailand: Tertiary education graduates - Effect of graduate degree on earnings Dep. Var.: log of monthly 1996 2006 earnings Age/100 13.46 7.66 (15.6) (14.2) -13.30 -6.65 Age/100 squared (12.8) (10.4) 0.126 0.104 Male (5.2) (5.7) 0.139 -0.031 Married (5.2) (1.6) 0.503 0.166 Urban (10.6) (8.8) n/a 0.183 Ethnic minority (2.2) 0.282 0.148 Post-Graduate degree (9.2) (3.8) R-sq adj. 0.222 0.174 F-value 165.6 165.2 (p-value) (0.000) (0.000) N 3,471 5,446

38

Thailand: Occupation of Employment by year 1996 Manager/Official - University - Post-grad Professional - University - Post-grad Associate Professional - University - Post-grad Clerical - University - Post-grad Service/Sales - University - Post-grad Skilled workers - University - Post-grad Unskilled workers - University - Post-grad N * Includes Associate Professionals 7.52 21.81 61.02* 69.15* 13.64 3.72 13.76 3.72 3.53 1.60 0.53 0.0 188

2006 9.88 28.90 45.66 56.97 14.34 8.22 14.48 3.28 10.93 2.12 2.81 0.38 0.90 0.13 15,365

39

Thailand: University graduates - Effect of occupation on earnings by age group Dep. Var.: log of monthly earnings 2006 2006 2006 Age 15-29 Age 30-44 Age 45-65 Age/100 49.94 27.13 6.32 (2.3) (3.3) (0.4) -92.98 -33.50 -5.03 Age/100 squared (2.2) (3.0) (0.4) 0.162 0.096 -0.013 Male (3.3) (2.3) (0.3) -0.228 -0.031 0.085 Married (4.6) (0.7) (1.4) 0.242 0.108 0.101 Urban (5.1) (2.3) (2.0) Occupation Managers/Officials 0.663 0.802 1.261 (2.2) (5.4) (5.8) Professionals 0.411 0.653 1.033 (1.5) (5.3) (5.2) Associate Professionals 0.421 0.596 1.027 (1.5) (4.7) (5.0) Clerical 0.255 0.405 0.953 (0.9) (3.1) (4.5) Service/Sales 0.164 0.446 0.529 (0.6) (3.1) (2.1) Skilled Agric. workers 0.393 -0.918 0.841 (1.1) (2.9) (2.6) 0.294 0.261 0.296 Trades/skilled workers (1.0) (1.6) (1.3) (excluded: unskilled) R-sq adj. 0.124 0.143 0.099 F-value 10.8 13.7 7.5 (p-value) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) N 1,332 2,134 1,660 Note: t-values in parentheses

40

Thailand: University education graduates - Effect of field of study on earnings by age group, 2006 Dep. Var.: log of hourly wage 1996 All Age 22-34 Age 35-65 11.75 10.34 Age/100 6.33 (7.0) (4.7) (14.0) -10.10 -11.80 Age/100 squared -4.54 (5.7) (2.8) (7.7) -0.008 0.058 Male 0.059 (0.4) (2.4) (3.5) 0.104 -0.145 Married -0.076 (4.4) (6.9) (4.8) 0.076 0.117 Urban 0.221 (2.8) (5.0) (14.9) -0.043 -0.243 -0.120 Ethnic minority (0.3) (2.6) (1.6) Field of study Not available Arts/Humanities/Social science in 1996 0.200 0.084 0.113 (4.0) (1.3) (2.0) Business/Management 0.024 -0.106 0.018 (0.5) (1.8) (0.3) Law 0.244 0.134 0.270 (3.8) (1.4) (3.9) Science 0.109 0.003 0.209 (2.1) (0.1) (2.9) -0.051 -0.154 -0.088 Engineering (1.1) (2.6) (1.6) 0.398 0.348 0.346 Health related (6.9) (5.1) (5.7) 0.116 -0.121 0.162 Teacher training (2.3) (1.8) (3.1) (excluded: Service related) R-sq adj. 0.238 0.126 0.109 F-value 217.0 50.9 42.7 (p-value) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) N 8,961 4,515 4,446 Note: t-values in parentheses

41

Thailand: Tertiary education graduates - Effect of age group on earnings Dep. Var.: log of hourly 1996 wage Age 22-34 -0.071 (0.7) 0.223 Age 35-49 (3.0) 2.01 Age/100 squared (5.2) 0.163 Male (6.6) 0.182 Married (6.9) 0.525 Urban (11.2) n/a Ethnic minority R-sq adj. F-value (p-value) N 0.186 132.1 (0.000) 3,443

2006 -0.140 (2.1) 0.051 (1.2) 2.34 (8.2) 0.103 (5.6) -0.023 (1.2) 0.169 (8.9) -0.150 (1.8) 0.157 142.9 (0.000) 5,334

42

Thailand: Return to Education (all levels) by Family Income/Expenditure Quantile age 22-65 Dep. Var: log of monthly 1996 2006 earnings
Years of schooling * q1 Years of schooling * q2 Years of schooling * q3 Years of schooling * q4 Years of schooling * q5 Experience Experience squared Male Married Urban R-sq F-value (p-value) N -0.143 (24.2) -0.002 (0.4) 0.071 (19.0) 0.110 (38.7) 0.131 (69.5) 0.058 (21.5) -0.0008 (20.5) 0.686 (43.1) -0.121 (6.5) 0.372 (25.5) 0.407 1,619 (0.000) 36,744 -0.016 (4.1) 0.037 (14.7) 0.063 (30.3) 0.082 (43.7) 0.106 (69.4) 0.023 (13.6) -0.0003 (10.1) 0.004 (0.4) -0.019 (1.5) 0.263 (25.3) 0.462 1,080 (0.000) 26,591

Thailand: Return to education (all levels) by Fathers Education- Employees in the 22-65 age group Dep. Var: log of hourly wage 1996 2006
Years of schooling * Father < secondary Years of schooling * Father Secondary Years of schooling * Father Tertiary Experience Experience squared Male Married Urban R-sq F-value (p-value) N 0.132 (50.9) 0.132 (35.9) 0.149 (68.5) 0.075 (33.5) -0.001 (30.0) 0.624 (52.1) -0.083 (5.5) 0.626 (46.0) 0.285 1,746 (0.000) 35,027 0.084 (53.3) 0.098 (67.9) 0.114 (96.7) 0.027 (21.8) -0.0003 (14.2) -0.027 (3.3) 0.003 (0.3) 0.356 (41.2) 0.389 2,137 (0.000) 26,863

43

Indonesia Indonesia: Unemployment rates (%) by selected characteristics Age 22-65 1998 2007 Urban 7.41 4.77 Rural 2.30 1.88 Male 3.33 3.28 Female 5.32 3.25 Education level - Primary or less 1.62 1.48 - Lower Secondary 4.55 3.65 - Secondary general 11.21 5.90 - TVET 6.56 6.69 - Diploma I/II/III* 9.23 7.22 - University* 12.71 6.84 Region 5.77 10.96 - Jakarta 4.83 5.54 - West Java 2.75 3.08 - Central/East Java 2.77 4.05 - Sumatra 2.23 3.47 - Kalimantan 2.80 5.36 - Sulawesi 2.47 3.04 - Eastern Indonesia Overall 4.08 3.27 * Youth defined as the age group 24-35 for tertiary education graduates.

2007-Youth Age 15-24 21.55 12.33 16.49 17.58 9.34 15.40 25.39 26.44 26.43 30.84 21.88 26.43 15.78 13.03 11.23 12.21 10.45 16.92

44

Indonesia: Probit regression Probability of being unemployed in 2006 Age 22-65 Marginal effect z-value Age/100 -0.781 35.4 Age/100 squared 0.007 23.6 Male -0.001 0.8 Urban 0.011 11.1 Lower secondary TVET Upper secondary general Diploma I/II/III University West Java Central/East Java Sumatra Kalimantan Sulawesi Eastern Indonesia (excluded: Jakarta) Pseudo-Rsq N 0.010 0.038 0.042 0.044 0.046 0.013 -0.003 -0.008 -0.009 -0.007 -0.009 0.203 125,765 7.3 21.5 18.4 13.2 15.7 6.5 1.7 4.9 5.2 3.8 5.2

Figure : Predicted probability of being unemployed by selected characteristics: 2007

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Gender Urban/rural Education level Male Female Urban Rural Primary or less Low sec. TVET Upper sec. Diploma University

45

Indonesia: Probit regression Probability of being unemployed in 1998 Age 22-65 Marginal effect z-value Age/100 -0.96 56.7 Age/100 squared 0.99 47.1 Male -0.013 23.4 Urban 0.016 24.1 Lower secondary TVET Upper secondary general Diploma I/II/III University West Java Central/East Java Sumatra Kalimantan Sulawesi Eastern Indonesia (excluded: Jakarta) Pseudo-Rsq N 0.009 0.017 0.034 0.036 0.061 -0.001 -0.011 -0.006 -0.008 -0.000 -0.008 0.215 311,541 9.2 13.5 31.8 17.6 29.0 1.3 11.1 6.7 7.7 0.2 8.3

Figure : Predicted probability of being unemployed by selected characteristics: 1998

46

Indonesia: University graduates - Effect of occupation on earnings Dep. Var.: log of hourly 1998 2007 2007 2007 wage Age 22-34 Age 35-65 Age/100 Age/100 squared Male Married Urban Occupation Managers Professionals Administrative/Clerical Service/Sales Skilled Agric. workers Trades/skilled workers (excluded: unskilled) R-sq adj. F-value (p-value) N Note: t-values in parentheses 6.65 (6.2) -5.05 (3.8) 0.141 (5.9) 0.036 (1.2) 0.199 (7.4) 0.671 (7.4) 0.250 (3.0) 0.287 (3.4) 0.218 (2.4) 0.197 (1.6) 0.341 (3.6) 0.179 88.5 0.000 6,762 5.56 (11.1) -0.038 (6.1) 0.083 (8.0) 0.076 (4.9) 0.155 (11.4) 0.172 (2.6) 0.567 (8.4) 0.315 (4.6) 0.148 (2.2) -0.132 (0.7) 0.308 (4.0) 0.205 357.4 0.000 15,206 -1.28 (0.3) 0.081 (0.9) 0.049 (2.5) 0.082 (3.8) 0.239 (9.4) 0.171 (1.8) 0.704 (6.8) 0.405 (4.1) 0.215 (2.2) 0.613 (2.0) 0.335 (2.9) 0.094 52.1 0.000 5,389 6.37 (5.1) -0.047 (3.4) 0.122 (8.6) 0.091 (3.7) 0.106 (6.8) 0.122 (1.3) 0.471 (4.8) 0.193 (2.0) 0.044 (0.5) -0.695 (3.1) 0.252 (2.3) 0.116 118.3 0.000 9,817

47

Indonesia: University graduates Effect of type of tertiary education on earnings Dep. Var.: log of hourly wage 1998 2006 Age/100 6.84 2.36 (14.1) (5.6) -5.44 -0.668 Age/100 squared (9.2) (1.3) 0.125 -0.205 Male (10.3) (17.8) 0.043 0.050 Married (2.7) (3.2) 0.137 0.251 Urban (10.0) (18.5) 0.112 0.162 University (9.7) (13.8) 0.292 0.373 Post-Graduate degree (7.7) (12.7) (excluded: Diploma) R-sq adj. 0.177 0.076 F-value 400.2 310.5 (p-value) (0.000) (0.000) N 13,012 26,388 Note: 2006 data are used as the 2007 SUSENAS doesnt have a comparable earnings variable while the 2007 SAKERNAS does not allow identification of those with post-graduate degrees.

48

Indonesia: University graduates - Effect of occupation on earnings by age group Dep. Var.: log of hourly 1998 2007 1998 2007 1998 2007 wage Age 15-29 Age 15-29 Age 30-44 Age 30-44 Age 45-65 Age 45-65 Age/100 Age/100 squared Male Married Urban Occupation Managers Professionals Administrative/Clerical Service/Sales Skilled Agric. workers Trades/skilled workers 23.16 (0.8) -35.47 (0.6) 0.123 (2.7) 0.002 (0.0) 0.486 (7.9) 0.638 (3.8) 0.274 (2.0) 0.380 (2.8) 0.257 (1.8) -0.014 (0.0) 0.282 (1.8) -8.35 (0.6) 0.230 (0.8) 0.058 (2.3) 0.012 (0.5) 0.219 (6.7) 0.119 (0.9) 0.558 (4.0) 0.415 (3.2) 0.220 (1.7) 0.806 (1.4) 0.241 (1.6) 0.062 19.9 (0.000) 3,176 3.23 (0.5) -0.081 (0.0) 0.150 (4.8) 0.086 (2.2) 0.106 (3.2) 0.610 (4.6) 0.185 (1.6) 0.197 (1.7) 0.119 (0.9) 0.072 (0.5) 0.313 (2.4) 0.090 23.3 (0.000) 3,972 1.58 (0.5) 0.014 (0.3) 0.094 (5.7) 0.178 (7.7) 0.164 (8.7) 0.170 (1.9) 0.582 (6.5) 0.310 (3.4) 0.114 (1.3) 0.323 (1.4) 0.331 (3.2) 0.105 86.3 (0.000) 7,973 4.28 (0.4) -2.63 (0.3) 0.159 (2.5) -0.054 (0.4) 0.151 (2.5) 0.915 (4.8) 0.504 (2.7) 0.502 (2.7) 0.450 (2.0) 0.678 (2.5) 0.565 (2.4) 0.081 7.1 (0.000) 1,305 4.93 (1.2) -0.034 (0.9) 0.122 (5.7) -0.007 (0.2) 0.066 (2.9) 0.081 (0.4) 0.413 (2.0) 0.041 (0.2) -0.029 (0.1) -1.95 (5.4) 0.201 (0.9) 0.101 42.5 (0.000) 4,089

(excluded: unskilled) R-sq adj. 0.104 F-value 12.2 (p-value) (0.000) N 1,493 Note: t-values in parentheses

49

Indonesia: Occupation of Employment for University Graduates by year 1998 2006 Manager - University 5.83 4.72 - Post-grad 9.09 8.70 Professional/Assoc. Professional - University 39.48 40.25 - Post-grad 64.28 49.47 Administrative/Clerical - University 33.85 29.91 - Post-grad 18.83 31.95 Service/Sales - University 11.64 14.97 - Post-grad 3.57 6.26 Skilled worker - University 7.18 7.89 - Post-grad 2.60 2.65 Unskilled laborer - University 2.02 2.25 - Post-grad 1.62 0.95 N 8,273 17,445 Note: 2006 data are used as the 2007 SUSENAS doesnt have a comparable earnings variable while the 2007 SAKERNAS does not allow identification of those with post-graduate degrees.

50

Indonesia: University graduates - Effect of age group on earnings by year Dep. Var.: log of hourly 1998 2007 wage Age 22-34 0.025 0.013 (0.6) (0.3) 0.128 0.116 Age 35-49 (4.1) (4.2) (excluded 50-65) Age/100 squared Male Married Urban R-sq adj. F-value (p-value) N 2.96 (14.7) 0.148 (12.0) 0.095 (6.0) 0.157 (11.3) 0.161 413.2 (0.000) 12,889 3.17 (16.8) 0.146 (12.7) 0.113 (7.5) 0.184 (13.6) 0.170 520.9 (0.000) 15,206

51

Indonesia: Return to Education (all levels) by Family Income/Expenditure Quantile Employees in the 22-65 age group Dep var: log of hourly wage 1998 2006 Years of schooling * q1 0.064 0.060 (55.2) (41.2) 0.080 0.077 Years of schooling * q2 (82.8) (63.2) 0.093 0.086 Years of schooling * q3 (111.7) (81.5) 0.105 0.100 Years of schooling * q4 (144.6) (109.2) 0.123 0.123 Years of schooling * q5 (194.8) (155.1) 0.039 0.016 Experience (53.1) (16.8) -0.0005 -0.00004 Experience squared (38.2) (2.4) 0.255 -0.154 Male (54.2) (26.6) 0.130 -0.005 Married (22.8) (0.8) -0.013 0.047 Urban (2.8) (7.8) R-sq 0.397 0.245 F-value 6,228 3,652 (p-value) (0.000) (0.000) N 94,675 112,259 Note: 2006 data are used as the 2007 SUSENAS doesnt have a comparable earnings variable, while the 2007 SAKERNAS doesnt have information on family income/expenditure.

52

Indonesia: Return to education (all levels) by Fathers Education- Employees in the 22-65 age group Dep. Var: log of hourly wage 1998 2006 Years of schooling * Father < secondary 0.111 0.075 (147.5) (75.6) 0.117 0.093 Years of schooling * Father Secondary (173.4) (114.4) 0.124 0.118 Years of schooling * Father Tertiary (157.3) (154.7) 0.039 0.004 Experience (51.5) (4.8) -0.0005 0.0001 Experience squared (34.4) (9.1) 0.231 -0.198 Male (48.1) (39.2) 0.109 -0.049 Married (18.6) (7.6) 0.069 0.111 Urban (14.8) (21.6) R-sq 0.366 0.201 F-value 6,839 4,635 (p-value) (0.000) (0.000) N 94,675 153,109

53

Mongolia Mongolia: Unemployment rates (%) by selected characteristics Age 22-65 1998 2006 Urban 16.17 10.70 Rural 1.80 5.30 Male 11.10 8.85 Female 10.13 7.47 Education level - Primary or less 4.30 6.61 - Lower Secondary 12.10 8.44 - Secondary general 12.77 10.87 - TVET 11.35 6.20 - Diploma* 10.23 4.89 - University* 10.68 6.71 Region 10.34 20.03 - Ulan Bator 8.60 Not comparable - West 7.34 Not comparable - Highlands 5.21 Not comparable - Central 9.71 Not comparable - East Overall 10.61 8.17 * Youth defined as the age group 24-35 for tertiary education graduates.

2006-Youth Age 15-24 24.73 8.73 15.58 15.30 9.93 13.84 19.84 14.19 7.58 5.95 22.76 10.78 14.18 11.15 18.23 15.46

54

Mongolia: Probit regression Probability of being unemployed in 2006 Age 22-65 Marginal effect z-value Age/100 -0.834 5.0 Age/100 squared 0.836 3.9 Male 0.006 1.5 Urban 0.058 10.9 Lower secondary TVET Upper secondary general Diploma University West Highlands Central East (excluded: Ulan Bator) Pseudo-Rsq N 0.021 -0.004 0.025 -0.030 -0.029 0.013 -0.003 -0.026 0.024 0.045 17,716 2.6 0.5 3.1 3.3 3.3 1.8 0.5 4.2 2.7

Figure : Predicted probability of being unemployed by selected characteristics: 2006

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Gender Urban/rural Education level Male Female Urban Rural Primary or less Low sec. TVET Upper sec. Diploma University

55

Mongolia: Probit regression Probability of being unemployed in 1998 Age 22-65 Marginal effect z-value Age/100 0.465 1.4 Age/100 squared -0.909 2.1 Male 0.009 1.0 Urban 0.148 12.2 Lower secondary TVET Upper secondary general Diploma University Pseudo-Rsq N 0.020 -0.023 0.001 -0.028 -0.029 0.125 3,016 1.0 1.0 0.0 1.5 1.6

Figure : Predicted probability of being unemployed by selected characteristics: 1998

56

Mongolia: University graduates - Effect of occupation on earnings Dep. Var.: log of hourly 1998 2007 2007 2007 wage Age 22-34 Age 35-65 1.96 21.67 5.40 Age/100 (0.5) (1.4) (3.4) -2.15 -35.16 -5.74 Age/100 squared (0.5) (1.3) (2.8) 0.141 0.146 0.148 Male (1.7) (2.2) (2.9) 0.038 0.136 0.115 Married (0.4) (2.2) (2.2) 0.272 0.483 0.415 Urban (1.7) (4.7) (4.8) Occupation Not Managers/Officials Comparable 0.580 0.401 0.946 (2.9) (1.5) (3.9) 0.380 0.261 0.686 Professionals (1.9) (1.0) (2.9) 0.320 0.231 0.545 Associate Professionals (1.6) (0.9) (2.0) -0.064 -0.206 0.373 Clerical (0.3) (0.7) (1.3) -0.036 -0.227 0.473 Service/Sales (0.2) (0.8) (1.8) 0.488 0.550 0.590 Skilled Agric. workers (1.6) (1.6) (1.2) -0.019 -0.060 0.071 Trades/skilled workers (0.1) (0.2) (0.2) (excluded: unskilled) R-sq adj. 0.115 0.112 0.082 F-value 13.8 8.7 3.8 (p-value) 0.000 0.000 0.000 N 1,450 945 505 Note: t-values in parentheses

57

Mongolia: University graduates - Effect of post-graduate degrees on earnings Dep. Var.: log of hourly 1998 2007 wage Age/100 6.80 (4.0) -7.14 Age/100 squared (3.3) 0.138 Male (3.0) 0.127 Married (2.5) 0.323 Urban (5.2) 0.148 Post-graduate degree n/a (1.7) R-sq adj. 0.067 F-value 19.6 (p-value) (0.000) N 1,563 Note: assumes that the category other in the highest education classification (which is associated with the highest earnings), refers to post-graduate qualifications.

58

Mongolia: Occupation of Employment for University graduates by year 1998 Manager/Official Not comparable - University - Post grad Professional - University - Post grad Associate Professional - University - Post grad Clerical - University - Post grad Service/Sales - University - Post grad Skilled worker - University - Post grad Unskilled laborer - University - Post grad N

2007 14.51 16.30 40.23 57.78 14.40 10.37 4.17 3.70 11.10 2.22 12.40 8.15 3.19 1.48 1,982

59

Mongolia: University graduates - Effect of occupation on earnings by age group Dep. Var.: log of hourly wage 2007 2007 2007 Age <= 29 Age 30-44 Age 45-65 Age/100 82.13 -4.49 12.09 (2.1) (0.3) (0.4) -152.4 6.89 -13.14 Age/100 squared (2.0) (0.4) (0.5) 0.085 0.226 0.215 Male (1.1) (2.9) (1.3) 0.170 0.159 -0.313 Married (2.2) (1.8) (2.3) 0.370 0.471 0.418 Urban (3.1) (3.2) (1.6) Occupation Managers/Officials 0.004 0.993 1.199 (0.0) (3.5) (4.3) Professionals -0.067 0.742 0.990 (0.3) (2.7) (3.9) Associate Professionals -0.129 0.682 0.898 (0.4) (2.4) (2.7) Clerical -0.345 0.108 0.260 (1.1) (0.3) (0.7) Service/Sales -0.576 0.485 0.188 (1.8) (1.6) (0.6) Skilled Agric. workers -0.126 0.936 1.269 (0.3) (2.1) (1.8) -0.436 0.288 0.620 Trades/skilled workers (1.3) (0.9) (1.8) (excluded: unskilled) R-sq adj. 0.103 0.109 0.128 F-value 5.2 5.5 3.8 (p-value) (0.000) (0.000) (0.000) N 636 630 167 Note: t-values in parentheses

60

Mongolia: University graduates - Effect of age group on earnings Dep. Var.: log of hourly 1998 wage Age 22-34 -0.014 (0.1) 0.045 Age 35-49 (0.3) -0.098 Age/100 squared (0.1) 0.034 Male (0.4) 0.085 Married (0.8) -0.042 Urban (0.2) R-sq adj. -0.010 F-value 0.31 (p-value) (0.931) N 429

2007 0.156 (0.7) 0.233 (1.5) 1.81 (2.1) 0.144 (3.0) 0.163 (3.2) 0.347 (5.4) 0.060 16.1 (0.000) 1,441

61

Mongolia: Return to education (all levels) by Family Income/Expenditure QuantileEmployees in the 22-65 age group Dep. Var: log of hourly wage 1998 2007
Years of schooling * q1 Years of schooling * q2 Years of schooling * q3 Years of schooling * q4 Years of schooling * q5 Experience Experience squared Male Married Urban R-sq F-value (p-value) N 0.043 (3.7) 0.048 (4.3) 0.053 (5.1) 0.055 (5.4) 0.068 (7.1) 0.016 (1.7) -0.0003 (1.6) 0.111 (2.3) -0.024 (0.4) 0.273 (2.6) 0.067 9.5 (0.000) 1,174 0.083 (13.9) 0.114 (20.7) 0.122 (23.2) 0.132 (26.5) 0.150 (32.3) 0.032 (7.2) -0.0004 (4.6) 0.098 (4.5) 0.014 (0.6) 0.051 (2.0) 0.201 195.4 (0.000) 7,727

Mongolia: Return to education (all levels) by Fathers Education- Employees in the 22-65 age group Dep. Var: log of hourly wage 1998 2007
Years of schooling * Father < secondary Years of schooling * Father Secondary Years of schooling * Father Tertiary Experience Experience squared Male Married Urban R-sq F-value (p-value) N 0.054 (3.6) 0.060 (4.6) 0.064 (5.9) 0.010 (1.0) -0.0002 (0.9) 0.112 (2.4) -0.040 (0.6) 0.286 (2.7) 0.056 10.1 (0.000) 1,235 0.108 (15.9) 0.123 (21.7) 0.142 (28.2) 0.027 (6.4) -0.0003 (3.4) 0.068 (3.0) 0.072 (2.8) 0.148 (5.7) 0.166 191.7 (0.000) 7,651

62

Philippines Philippines: Unemployment rates (%) by selected characteristics Age 22-65 2000 2006 Urban 7.72 8.09 Rural 3.93 3.85 Male 6.53 6.31 Female 5.79 5.15 Education level - Primary or less 3.25 3.17 - Lower Secondary 6.44 5.00 - Secondary 7.79 7.88 - University* 8.92 11.55 Region 7.56 5.13 - Ilocos 2.71 2.12 - Cagayan Valley 7.64 7.07 - Central Luzon 4.72 5.71 - Bicol 5.20 6.05 - Visayas 4.28 5.94 - Mindanao 10.13 9.85 - National Capital Region 3.77 5.55 - CAR 2.10 1.89 - ARMM 6.08 5.48 - CARAGA Overall 6.24 5.85 * Youth defined as the age group 24-35 for tertiary education graduates.

2006-Youth Age 15-24 22.26 12.07 15.22 18.62 8.97 12.78 21.09 11.55 21.42 7.35 19.58 14.45 13.56 12.66 28.67 10.13 10.68 17.04 16.44

63

Philippines: Probit regression Probability of being unemployed in 2006 Age 22-65 Marginal effect z-value Age/100 -1.34 24.6 Age/100 squared 1.38 20.7 Male 0.019 6.3 Urban 0.024 11.5 Lower Secondary Secondary University Ilocos Cagayan Valley Central Luzon Bicol Visayas Mindanao CAR ARMM CARAGA (excluded: Capital Region) Pseudo-Rsq N 0.006 0.021 0.020 0.006 -0.031 -0.003 -0.012 -0.012 -0.019 -0.028 -0.034 -0.001 0.083 64,312 1.7 8.4 6.1 1.3 7.7 0.9 2.7 3.8 6.7 6.6 7.4 0.3

Figure : Predicted probability of being unemployed by selected characteristics: 2006

9 8

Male

Female
7 6 5 4 3

Urban

Rural

Primary or less

Lower secondary
2 1 0

Secondary

Gender

Urban/Rural

Education level

University

64

Philippines: Probit regression Probability of being unemployed in 2000 Age 22-65 Marginal effect z-value Age/100 -1.12 20.5 Age/100 squared 1.09 16.1 Male 0.006 3.2 Urban 0.017 8.2 Lower Secondary Secondary University Ilocos Cagayan Valley Central Luzon Bicol Visayas Mindanao CAR ARMM CARAGA (excluded: Capital Region) Pseudo-Rsq N 0.022 0.019 0.026 -0.014 -0.037 -0.010 -0.015 -0.007 -0.011 -0.021 -0.036 -0.015 0.089 66,433 6.0 7.3 7.9 3.1 9.1 3.5 3.6 2.4 3.6 5.2 9.0 3.3

Figure : Predicted probability of being unemployed by selected characteristics: 2000

9 8

Male

Female
7 6 5 4 3

Urban

Rural

Primary or less

Lower secondary
2 1 0

Secondary

Gender

Urban/Rural

Education level

University

65

Philippines: University graduates - Effect of occupation on earnings Dep. Var.: log of hourly 2000 2006 2006 2006 wage Age 22-34 Age 35-65 Age/100 Age/100 squared Male Married Urban Occupation Managers/Officials Professionals Clerical Service/Sales Skilled labor (excluded: unskilled) R-sq adj. F-value (p-value) N Note: t-values in parentheses 4.03 (7.9) -3.79 (6.0) 0.047 (3.4) 0.054 (3.5) 0.099 (6.5) 1.140 (21.8) 1.014 (21.1) 0.571 (11.7) 0.509 (9.4) 0.342 (6.0) 0.346 281 (0.000) 7,925 3.72 (7.4) -3.09 (5.1) 0.090 (6.2) 0.040 (3.0) 0.237 (17.1) 1.037 (21.6) 0.836 (19.0) 0.582 (13.0) 0.366 (7.4) 0.359 (6.6) 0.289 241 (0.000) 6,649 -0.60 (0.2) 5.45 (0.8) 0.061 (3.1) 0.024 (1.2) 0.270 (13.6) 0.867 (13.8) 0.720 (12.9) 0.491 (8.7) 0.226 (3.7) 0.322 (4.9) 0.235 91 (0.000) 3,198 2.65 (1.7) -1.97 (1.2) 0.115 (5.2) 0.053 (2.2) 0.208 (10.9) 1.254 (17.6) 1.027 (15.4) 0.725 (10.5) 0.615 (7.7) 0.433 (4.7) 0.231 82 (0.000) 3,451

66

Philippines: University graduates - Effect of post-graduate degree on earnings Dep. Var.: log of hourly 2000 2006 wage Age/100 4.77 4.64 (11.2) (9.2) -4.02 -3.74 Age/100 squared (7.7) (6.0) -0.019 0.028 Male (1.6) (2.1) 0.069 0.049 Married (4.6) (3.0) 0.096 0.264 Urban (7.1) (17.3) 0.240 0.460 Post-Graduate degree (5.9) (8.1) R-sq adj. 0.135 0.193 F-value 214.8 216.1 (p-value) (0.000) (0.000) N 8,219 6,810

67

Philippines: Occupation of Employment for University graduates by year 2000 2006 Managers/Officials - University 18.78 20.39 - Post-grad 27.27 38.62 Professional/Assoc. Professionals - University 41.99 39.24 - Post-grad 54.98 53.10 Clerical - University 17.07 17.30 - Post-grad 8.23 4.14 Service/Sales - University 8.57 9.38 - Post-grad 4.33 0.0 Skilled workers - University 9.28 8.28 - Post-grad 4.33 2.75 Unskilled laborers - University 4.30 5.41 - Post-grad 0.87 1.38 N 10,564 9,993

68

University graduates - Effect of occupation on earnings by age group Dep. Var.: log of hourly 2000 2006 2000 2006 2000 2006 wage Age < =29 Age < =29 Age 30-44 Age 30-44 Age 45-65 Age 45-65 Age/100 Age/100 squared Male Married Urban Occupation Managers/Officials Professionals Clerical Service/Sales Skilled labor -5.34 (0.6) 16.21 (1.0) 0.042 (1.9) 0.054 (2.0) 0.116 (4.2) 0.922 (12.0) 0.880 (13.7) 0.424 (6.5) 0.319 (4.4) 0.178 (2.2) -7.71 (0.9) 20.52 (1.2) 0.060 (2.8) 0.019 (0.8) 0.268 (11.6) 0.787 (9.3) 0.703 (9.0) 0.531 (6.8) 0.245 (3.0) 0.404 (4.6) 0.192 51 (0.000) 2,407 0.83 (0.2) 1.03 (0.2) 0.043 (1.9) 0.068 (2.8) 0.090 (3.8) 1.257 (15.0) 1.107 (14.3) 0.688 (8.8) 0.639 (7.3) 0.497 (5.8) 0.284 85 (0.000) 3,409 4.89 (1.0) -5.19 (0.8) 0.110 (4.6) 0.032 (1.3) 0.248 (11.2) 1.174 (17.3) 0.959 (15.8) 0.628 (10.1) 0.441 (6.2) 0.323 (4.1) 0.266 82 (0.000) 2,635 3.74 (0.7) -3.61 (0.7) 0.0623 (2.4) 0.035 (1.3) 0.100 (3.6) 1.369 (11.0) 1.229 (10.1) 0.750 (6.0) 0.765 (5.6) 0.401 (2.6) 0.252 38 (0.000) 2,171 4.41 (0.8) -3.69 (0.7) 0.095 (3.1) 0.085 (2.4) 0.162 (6.2) 1.196 (10.3) 0.946 (8.4) 0.644 (5.6) 0.649 (4.9) 0.464 (3.1) 0.194 32 (0.000) 1,768

(excluded: unskilled) R-sq adj. 0.299 F-value 82 (p-value) (0.000) N 2,563 Note: t-values in parentheses

69

University graduates - Effect of age group on earnings Dep. Var.: log of hourly wage 2000 2006 Age 22-34 0.077 0.029 (1.6) (0.5) 0.122 0.098 Age 35-49 (3.8) (2.5) 1.96 2.02 Age/100 squared (9.9) (8.4) -0.024 0.029 Male (1.9) (2.1) 0.100 0.078 Married (7.0) (4.9) 0.080 0.264 Urban (5.7) (16.7) R-sq adj. 0.100 0.135 F-value 144.1 168.2 (p-value) (0.000) (0.000) N 7,701 6,442

70

Philippines: Return to Education (all levels) by Family Income/Expenditure Quantile Employees in the 22-65 age group Dep. var: log of hourly wage 2000 2006
Years of schooling * q1 Years of schooling * q2 Years of schooling * q3 Years of schooling * q4 Years of schooling * q5 Experience Experience squared Male Married Urban R-sq F-value (p-value) N n/a 0.014 (8.3) 0.030 (20.1) 0.046 (34.8) 0.059 (48.5) 0.084 (75.5) 0.017 (14.5) -0.0002 (10.2) 0.186 (23.3) 0.066 (7.6) 0.184 (22.2) 0.428 1,456 (0.000) 19,427

Philippines: Return to education (all levels) by Fathers Education- Employees in the 22-65 age group Dep. Var: log of hourly wage 2000 2006
Years of schooling * Father < secondary Years of schooling * Father Secondary Years of schooling * Father Tertiary Experience Experience squared Male Married Urban R-sq F-value (p-value) N 0.077 (63.5) 0.079 (80.5) 0.096 (102.2) 0.012 (11.7) -0.0001 (3.6) 0.093 (13.5) 0.108 (13.6) 0.152 (21.7) 0.328 1,917 (0.000) 31,467 0.080 (58.7) 0.083 (74.9) 0.102 (95.7) 0.09 (8.0) -0.0000 (1.0) 0.226 (30.0) 0.120 (13.9) 0.226 (29.2) 0.349 1,806 (0.000) 26,908

71

China China: Unemployment rates (%) by selected characteristics 2005 2005-Youth Age 15-24 8.54 17.61 9.92 12.74 ** 29.41 19.70 5.94 15.32

Age 22-65

Male Female Education level - Primary or less 9.76 - Lower Secondary 13.18 - Secondary 9.69 - University* 5.22 Overall 9.13 * Youth defined as the age group 24-35 for tertiary education graduates. ** Only 2 obs.

72

China: Probit regression Probability of being unemployed in 2005 Age 22-65 Marginal effect z-value Age/100 -0.843 2.5 Age/100 squared -0.724 1.6 Male Lower Secondary Secondary University Pseudo-Rsq N -0.010 0.022 -0.012 -0.074 0.039 3,620 1.1 1.0 0.5 3.5

Figure : Predicted probability of being unemployed by selected characteristics: 2005

14

Male

12

Female
10

Less than Primary

8

Primary
6

Lower Secondary

Secondary

University

Gender

Education Level

73