Scratching Below the Surface of Gender Equality understanding

Scratching Below the Surface of Gender Equality: understanding how local labour markets fail women Professor Sue Yeandle Director, CIRCLE Centre for International Research on Care, Labour and Equalities University of Leeds, UK Presentation to Women and Work Research Group University of Sydney, Australia March 16 2011

Overview n Gender Equality in the labour market ¨ n The GELLM research programme ¨ n design, methods and output Local Labour Markets ¨ n myths, problems and puzzles Structures, contexts and public policies Example: Ethnic minority women Gender Equality in the labour market: myths, problems & puzzles “Don’t women today have better jobs, more opportunities, choices and options than ever before? ” Why do women ‘waste’ their skills in poor quality part-time jobs? Women, welfare and work – the myths behind 3 policy errors which fail women in poor communities “Women outside LM ‘don’t want’ paid work” “ Women ‘have broken through’”

GELLM Research Programme (Sept 2003 - Aug 2006) and publications n Gender and Employment in Local Labour Markets n European Social Fund core grant – plus match funding from 14 partners: Equal Opportunities Commission, Trade Union Congress and 12 English Local Authorities n 12 Gender Profiles of Local Labour Markets (Series 1) n 6 Local Research Studies (Synthesis & Locality reports) n n n n Series 2 Working below potential: women and part-time work Series 3 Connecting women with the labour market Series 4 Ethnic minority women and access to the labour market Series 5 Career development for women in local authorities Series 6 Addressing women’s poverty: local LM initiatives Series 7 Local challenges in meeting demand for domiciliary care Book (S. Yeandle ed. ) published by Policy Press, 2009 n Policy for a Change: local labour market analysis and gender equality

6 GELLM SYNTHESIS REPORTS plus 4 - 6 locality reports on each topic 12 Gender Profiles

2005, 2007, Equal Opportunities Commission 2009, The Policy Press

GELLM Research Programme: design and methods n Multi-method programme of research, dissemination and gender mainstreaming ¨ ¨ ¨ n £ 1. 5 m investment ; £ 750, 000 from EU (ESF); rest from partner contributions – 12 English LAs, EOC, and TUC Analysis of large-scale data sets, including Census 2001 Documentary analysis and literature reviews Qualitative studies, including interviews, focus groups and workshops Questionnaires /surveys – of employers, workers, key actors Conferences, seminars, workshops and local action-planning events, to raise awareness, share findings, support policy change. The GELLM research team: ¨ ¨ Directed by Professor Sue Yeandle, based at Sheffield Hallam University, UK Dr Cinnamon Bennett, Dr Lisa Buckner, Karen Escott, Dr Linda Grant, Christopher Price, Lucy Shipton, Bernadette Stiell, Dr Ning. Tang.

Women’s LM experience: key structural issues n n n Demographic change ¨ Population and workforce ageing ¨ Changes in family structure, formation, maternal employment ¨ Increased unpaid care demands on people of working age ¨ Rising levels of illness and disability in the overall population Migration ¨ Within-UK migration -some English localities have falling, others have rising populations ¨ Net growth in UK pop. - migration ‘in’ higher than migration ‘out’ ¨ Variable ethnic diversity - local composition related to colonial past, EU membership, industrial structure, marriage, refugees. Labour supply and demand ¨ Stable working age economic activity masks volatility ¨ Share of jobs held by women up steadily over 30 years (to 45% in 2001) ¨ Decline in manufacturing employment, growth in service sector jobs ¨ Increased importance of PT (less than 30 hours p. w. ) jobs

Women’s LM experience: main policy fields n n Labour market activation/social security reforms ¨ Activation policies in context of welfare reform and rising employment rates – but many women remain ‘disconnected’ ¨ Widespread low pay despite NMW, affects women most ¨ Approach no longer relies on male breadwinner model Regeneration and social inclusion ¨ Neighbourhood renewal and local economic investment ¨ Very rarely gender sensitive ¨ Weak local economies persist despite many initiatives Skills and productivity ¨ Main focus on increasing workforce and general skills levels ¨ Absence of a gendered approach, esp. in local implementation ¨ No attention to misallocation of skilled labour in poor quality jobs Equality and diversity – including sex/gender policy ¨ Landmark equalities legislation in mid 1970 s ¨ More attention to ethnicity & disability than gender in 1980 s/1990 s ¨ Gender policy typically EU-driven prior to Equality Act 2006

Approach - GELLM research programme n n n Myths about women in employment which have wide currency and have influenced policy Puzzles where there are competing theoretical positions or gaps in understanding Problems which have been tackled at the practical or theoretical level (or both), but which have not gone away Access to employment for women ¨ Degrees, senior jobs and ethnicity ¨ Part-time work and working below potential ¨

Why local level analysis matters: issues n n Most people – and especially mature women – work ‘close to home’ Local labour market opportunities – and the nature and pace of change – differ from place to place, affecting the structure of opportunity at both the industrial and occupational level Population characteristics vary from place to place – age, ethnicity, movement/migration, health and wealth, household and family structure The infrastructure supporting paid employment varies – transport; childcare; adult care services; information/advice/guidance; skills and training; education

Why local level analysis matters: examples n In England 55% of women work either at home or within 5 km of where they live 65% of those working PT ¨ 48% of those working FT ¨ This varies from place to place: for example…. n In Leicester, 77% of women work at/very close to home (81% of PT workers, 75% of FT workers) n In Thurrock, 46% of women work at/very close to home (61% PT workers, 36% of FT workers) (Source: 2001 Census SAM)

Economic inactivity and unemployment amongst women of working age, 2001 Unemployed women (% econ. Act. ) Economically inactive women 4 29 Birmingham 7 39 Camden 7 36 East Staffs 4 28 Newcastle 5 37 Sandwell 7 35 Somerset 3 26 Southwark 8 34 Thurrock 5 27 Wakefield 5 31 West Sussex 2 25 England Source: 2001 Census Standard Tables, Crown Copyright 2003

Female unemployment rates (as proportion of all economically active women of working age) –

Women of working age by ethnicity, excluding White British women: selected localities and England Source: 2001 Census Standard Tables, Crown Copyright 2003, as presented in Yeandle, Buckner and Stiell (2006).

Economic activity rates of women aged 16 -59, selected ethnic groups England & Wales Source: Buckner, Yeandle and Botcherby, 2007

Unemployment rates of women aged 16 -59: selected ethnic groups England & Wales Source: Buckner, Yeandle and Botcherby, 2007

Clustering of women in local labour markets n Among all women in employment: ¨ ¨ ¨ n 28% of Indian women in Leicester worked in plant, process and machine operative jobs; 40% of Bangladeshi women in Camden worked in sales and customer service jobs; 42% of Black African women in Birmingham worked in health and social work occupations; 33% of Pakistani women in Newcastle, and 49% of Chinese women in Sandwell, worked in the wholesale, retail, restaurants and hotels sector; 31% of Black Caribbean women in Southwark worked in administrative and secretarial jobs In the social care sector, in all the districts studied (and in England as a whole) Black women were disproportionately concentrated in jobs as care workers/care assistants ¨ Asian women were under-represented in this segment of the labour market (Yeandle et al 2006 b). ¨ (see also GELLM Gender Profiles; Buckner et al 2004 -06)

Women’s employment in Leicester’s manufacturing sector: % of employed women 12% of White British women ¨ 34% of Indian women ¨ 26% of Pakistani women ¨ 25% of Bangladeshi women. ¨ n In Stoneygate ward 33% of Indian women ¨ 6% of White British women ¨ n In Spinney Hills ward 38% of Indian women ¨ 9% of White British women. ¨

Within Leicester’s manufacturing sector n 67% of Indian women employees work in plant, process and machine operative jobs (compared with 52% of White British women) n 19% of Indian women employees work in elementary (unskilled) occupations (10% of White British women) n 4% of Indian women employees work in managerial, professional and technical jobs (18% of White British women) This data was derived from the 2001 Census Controlled Access Microdata. The support of the Office for National Statistics, CCSR & ESRC/JISC Census of Population Programme is gratefully acknowledged. The authors alone are responsible for the interpretation of the data. Data from the CAMS remain Crown copyright.

Households with dependent children* Leicester and selected wards % All Indian Pakistani Bangladeshi White British Spinney Hills 45 60 62 80 17 Stoneygate 36 57 64 79 14 Leicester 33 55 58 77 26 England 29 50 67 75 28 * Includes 1 family households with dependent children, lone parent households with dependent children and other households with dependent children. Source: 2001 Census Standard Tables, Crown copyright 2003

Employed women qualified to degree level: Birmingham, London Borough of Southwark and England compared Birmingham Occupational level Southwark (LB) England White British Black Caribbean 1 5 3 11 0 14 5 2 17 6 19 18 29 10 3 58 65 52 50 38 61 4 11 19 10 24 6 14 5 2 0 3 0 6 1 6 2 1 1 2 4 2 7 4 4 3 4 2 5 8 1 1 1 2 1 1 100 100 100 ALL 1: Large employers and higher managerial occupations 2: Higher professional occupations 3: Lower managerial and professional occupations 4: Intermediate occupations 5: Small employers and own account workers 6: Lower supervisory and technical occupations 7: Semi- routine occupations 8: Routine occupations Source: Yeandle (ed. ) 2009 Policy for a Change p 93– data derived from 2001 Census SAM – Small Area Microdata for England

Rates of employment – FT & PT: women aged 25 -59, selected ethnicities and districts (and England) White British White Other Indian FT PT FT Pakistani Bangladeshi Black Caribbean Black African PT FT PT Somerset - county 32 32 30 23 35 25 . . . . 49 28 . . Leicester - city 39 25 38 16 35 17 18 12 8 7 43 18 20 9 Newcastlecity 38 25 38 12 34 13 12 10 5 6 38 15 30 8 LB of Camden 48 10 43 9 47 8 37 6 7 5 45 13 29 9 LB of Southwark 46 14 46 10 45 11 33 10 11 6 46 15 40 14 ENGLAND 37 28 40 15 39 17 12 8 9 6 50 16 37 12 Source: Yeandle, S, Stiell, B & Buckner, L (2006) Ethnic Minority Women & Access to the Labour Market: synthesis report, Sheffield, Centre for Social Inclusion, Sheffield Hallam University, UK – p 14. [Data from 2001 Census Standard Tables, Crown Copyright 2003. ]

Myths, puzzles and problems: “Don’t women today have better jobs, more opportunities & more choices/options than ever before? ” n Educational attainment – a translation problem? Girls overtook boys in attainment (end of compulsory ed. ) in 1988 ¨ Men’s participation in HE doubled, women’s rose 7 -fold over 30 yrs ¨ BUT choices/attainments remain gendered, graduate GPG persists ¨ n Gender Pay Gap – a persistent puzzle? ¨ ¨ ¨ n Persists despite equal pay legislation Size of gap varies widely by type of work, locality and job type Standard explanations can’t fully explain graduate PG in first 10 years Low pay only part of the problem – high pay uncontrolled Women never make up lost ground Valuing work – puzzle: why does occupational segregation persist? ¨ Historical legacy with three dimensions, at root of both low PT pay and the glass ceiling : n n n It’s assumed work is ‘not so important’ for women Widely believed family roles take precedence, reduce career commitment Women’s labour is perceived as less skilled, important and valuable

Myths, puzzles and problems n Part time work - do women really choose to ‘waste’ their skills in poor quality PT jobs? % employed women PTE stable (around 37%) since 1981 – new PT jobs have created opportunities for a ready supply of female labour Why do so many choose PT, despite low pay, status, opportunities? Preference theory debate/arguments ‘Working below potential’ – 2. 8 m women, half all PT, low paid workers ¨ ¨ n Women’s low pay and poverty – myths about welfare and work Three assumptions, major failings in understanding poverty: 1 ‘Worklessness’ is largely a problem for men, not women 2 Many women are not dependent on their own (low) income 3 Low pay doesn’t matter for women who have a partner in work Three policy errors which lead to hidden female poverty and policy failure ¨ ¨ ¨ n n n difficulty in ‘connecting’ women with the LM problems for lone mothers, older women, ethnic minority women and those in deprived neighbourhoods poverty and unemployment strategies ‘gender blind’

Myths, puzzles and problems n The myth that women outside LM ‘don’t want’ paid work In a ‘job growth’ climate, debates about ‘limited horizons’ and ‘cultural indifference’ fuel this myth ¨ WHY the LM works so inadequately for poor / socially excluded women has not been addressed, and their diversity is unrecognised ¨ n ¨ 3 processes explain why this problem is difficult to solve n n made redundant; looking for work they cannot find; struggling to remain in work, or have had to give it up; constrained by care responsibilities Work as the route out of poverty, with the main focus on labour supply Neighbourhood renewal policy has not addressed ‘spatial containment’ Poor quality and insecure jobs typify the opportunities available Workplace cultures: myth that women have ‘broken through’ ¨ Women have entered higher-level occupations but struggle to progress n n n Our data challenge the view that women are not ambitious, committed and interested in job rewards Flexibility at work is not available in the most senior, intensified; ’ jobs Modern performance management and pay systems don’t operate equitably for women and others needing to combine work and care

Some policy options indicated by GELLM study n Systematic analysis of gender & LM is needed ¨ n Tackle local socio-economic conditions ¨ n Deep inequalities indicate discrimination and barriers Invest in support services/ local infrastructure ¨ n especially important if they are displaced from declining sectors Address high unemployment in some neighbourhoods ¨ n Low pay, insecure jobs, limited structures of job opportunity, and clustering in specific sectors persistently hold women back Offer specific support to ethnic minority women ¨ n at local level – national is data profoundly misleading Housing, transport, social care, childcare, health – holistic support is critical in enabling women to achieve their potential Tackle the low quality of PT employment ¨ Widen the range of PT positions available, advertising higher level positions on a flexible basis to attract the best talent

Further information n The GELLM research programme was funded by the ESF with match funding from the EOC, TUC and 12 English local authorities The programme was directed by Prof. Sue Yeandle; statistical work within the programme/Census data commissioning was led by Dr Lisa Buckner. ¨ Special Census data were provided through the Cathie Marsh Centre for Census and Survey Research (University of Manchester), with the support of the ESRC and JISC. ¨ All tables containing Census data, and the results of analysis, are reproduced with the permission of the Controller of Her Majesty's Stationery Office and the Queen's Printer for Scotland. ¨ n Contact details Prof. Sue Yeandle, Director (Rebecca Wilding, Administrator), Centre for International Research on Care, Labour and Equalities School of Sociology and Social Policy, University of Leeds LS 2 9 JT. Tel +44 (0) 113 3435003 Email s. m. yeandle@leeds. ac. uk http: //www. sociology. leeds. ac. uk/circle-projects/completed-projects/genderand-employment-in-local-labour-markets-gellm. php