INTERTEMPORAL ANALYSIS OF EMPLOYMENT DECISIONS ON AGRICULTURAL HOLDINGS IN SLOVENIA / доклад на 25 конференции IAAE, Reshaping Agriculture’s Contribution to Society, International Convention Centre, Durban, South Africa, 16-23 August 2003
Опубликовано на портале: 25-12-2003
The paper attempts to quantify determinants influencing dynamics of employment decisions on agricultural households in Slovenia and to test specific aspects of labour reallocation during transition period by application of agricultural household model. Through the use of 1991 . 2000 panel data for 22,055 farm households, quantitative analysis of intertemporal employment decisions of farm holders is carried out by the use of probit techniques. Determinants tested refer to personal characteristics of reference persons (gender, age, education level, opportunity off-farm income), household characteristics (size, structure), characteristics of the agricultural holding (economic size, labour input, labour intensity) and local labour market conditions. The model results generally confirm the existing empirical evidence on asymmetrical and irreversible participation of holders at the labour market. Despite intensive restructuring of agriculture and profound changes in non-farm labour market in the analysed period, labour supply of farm holders remains rigid. Mobility of labour supply is lower than expected, which can be attributed to the importance of structural problems constraining intersectoral mobility. A marked tendency towards upkeeping of the same employment status is more distincted in the case of holders employed on the farm. A low level of labour supply mobility worsens efficiency of labour allocation on agricultural holdings in Slovenia. Elements of this problem emerge on both, supply (e.g. low level of educational and professional attainment of reference persons) and demand side of labour market (e.g. unfavourable local labour market conditions).
Journal of the Japanese and International Economies. 2001. Vol. 15. No. 4. P. 364-402.
Journal of Applied Economics. 2001. Vol. 4. No. 2. P. 255-278.