Interpretation of OLS Estimates for Canadian Women
The OLS results of the multiple regression model (1) for hours of work on the independent variables is for women in the labor force (Table 1.9, Appendix). Based on the results, wage has a significant positive effect on hours of work until a turning point of negative $10.9/hour is reached, and beyond this value wage has a negative impact on hours of work. This means that hours of work increase with wage at a decreasing rate and this relation gives a backward-bending supply of labor for Canadian women. The elasticity at the mean hours and wage is -0.02.
The effect of age on hours of work is significantly positive until a woman reaches a turning point of 40 years of age, and beyond this value age has a negative impact on hours of work. This means that hours of work increase with age at a decreasing rate. In addition, husband’s income surprisingly has a very significant positive effect of .008 hours per year on females’ hours of work, however, this effect is economically insignificant. Regarding the support payments received by the individual female, the effect is negative effect on hours of work by .013 hours per year and although the effect is statistically significant, it is not economically significant. On the other hand, if a female is living with a child less than six years old then not surprisingly this will have a negative effect on her hours of labor compared to a female who does not have a child less than six years old. This effect is both economically and statistically significant. The effects of indicator variables of the individual female on her hours of work such as the highest level of education she attained and her marital status do not appear statistically significant, although some of their categories are economically significant.
However, most importantly, if a female is not living with a spouse then her hours of labor would increase by 77.14 hours per year compared to a female who is living with a spouse. This effect is statistically and economically significant. Moreover, if a woman is living with a child less than six years old then her hours of work reduces by 193.2 hours per year compared to a woman not living with a child less than six years old. This effect is statistically and economically significant.
Note that this multiple regression model does not include variables such as experience and province which may affect a woman’s hours of work. Besides, by running the Breusch-Pagan test it is found that the model contains heteroskedasticity, which is the reason why the heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors are reported (Table 1.9). Furthermore, the model suffers from functional form misspecification as discovered after running a Ramsey Regression Equation Specification Error Test (RESET). Moreover, we only observe the hours equation for the individual females who worked in 2009 and not for the ones who did not work. Hence, we have a selection bias problem (Gronau, 1974; Lewis, 1974). Therefore, in order to test and correct for sample selection bias due to unoberservability of the wage offer for nonworking women we need to estimate a probit model for labor force participation.
Interpretation of Probit Estimates for Canadian Women
The probit estimates of the first step of the Heckman procedure is reported first. In the probit model, female’s age, years of experience, highest level of education she attained, and the province in which she lives have a strong effect on her labor force participation.
In Table 2.0, the probit regression coefficients give the change in the z-score or probit index for a one unit change in the predictor. It is noted that a one unit increase in age increases the z-score by .041 and a one unit increase in agesqrd decreases the z-score by .001. These coefficients are significant at 99% confidence interval. The scaled probit coefficients for educ and educsqrd are roughly .4(.041) ≈ .02 and .4(-.001) ≈ - 0.0004 respectively, meaning that a one unit increase in edu roughly increases the likelihood of a woman’s labor force participation by .02. And, on the other hand, a one unit increase in edusqrd roughly decreases the likelihood of a woman’s labor force participation by 0.0004. Likewise, for a one unit increase in exper, the z-score increases by .09 and for a one unit increase in expersqrd, the z-score decreases by 0.001. Both of the coefficients are very statistically significant. The scaled probit coefficients for exper and expersqrd are roughly .036 and -0.004 respectively, indicating that a one unit increase in exper increases the likelihood of woman’s labor force participation by approximately .036 and on the other hand, a one unit increase in expersqrd decreases her labor force participation with a probability of roughly.0004.
In addition, the indicator variables for educ also appear statistically significant suggesting that for example, a female having graduated high school versus no years of schooling (base group), increases the z-score by 1.36. The marginal effect for each of the highest level of education attained by the female individual has a positive effect on her probability of working, although with diminishing returns with higher levels of education.
In terms of the residence of the female affecting her labor participation, most of the indicators of province appear statistically insignificant without the exception of the female residing in P.E.I and Ontario. It is noted that a one unit increase in the female living in P.E.I, increases the z-score by .301 compared to the female living in Newfoundland (base group). On the other hand, a one unit increase in the female living in Ontario, decreases the z-score by .146 compared to the female living in Newfoundland. Furthermore, if a woman is residing in P.E.I then this increases her probability of working by approximately 0.1204 compared to a woman living in Newfoundland. On the contrary, a woman living in Ontario decreases her probability of working by approximately .06. The change in the probability of working per unit change in each independent variable of the probit regression is reported, and the pseudo R-squared for the probit equations is 0.17 (Table 2.0). Therefore we cannot use these estimated equations to make accurate predictions about whether any particular woman will choose to work.
Interpretation of Heckit Estimates for Canadian Women
The estimated probit coefficients were used to compute the normal probability of working for each female which in turn was used for the Heckit estimates (Nakamura and Nakamura, 1981). From the Heckit results in Table 2.1, there is evidence of a sample selection problem in estimating the hours of work equation (1). The coefficient of the inverse Mill’s ratio (has large t statistic, so we fail to reject H0: ρ = 0. Just as importantly, there are no practically large differences in the estimated slope coefficients in Table 2.1, other than female’s age which differs by 19.4 years. In addition, the factors that appear statistically significant on hours of work in the OLS results also appear statistically significant in the Heckit results.
The wage has a significant positive effect on hours of work until a turning point of negative $758.33/hour is reached, and beyond this value wage has a negative impact on hours of work. This means that hours of work increase with wage at a decreasing rate and this relation gives a backward-bending supply of labor for Canadian women. The elasticity at the mean hours and wage is -0.16.
Very similar to the OLS results, the effect of age on hours of work is significantly positive until a woman reaches a turning point of 40 years of age, and beyond this value age has a negative impact on hours of work. Hence, hours increase with age at a decreasing rate. Husband’s income and support payments received by a woman are economically insignificant, while the indicator variables of a woman living with a spouse and a woman having a child less than six years old respectively are economically significant in Heckit results.
A possible explanation of the puzzling positive relationship between husband’s income and woman’s hours of labor that conflicts with the findings of the Nakamuras (1981) and Robinson and Tomes (1985) may be due to “assortative mating”. “Assortative mating” is a term widely used to refer to the positive correlation between the traits of husbands and wives (Liu and Lu, 2006). Becker (1973, 1974) investigated the reasons for assortative mating, and its effects on various social issues and his work has motivated many researchers such as Boulier and Rosenzweig (1984); Burdett and Coles (1997); Kremer (1997); Fernandez (2001); Fernandez, Guner, and Knowles (2001); Fernandez and Rogerson (2001); Pencavel (1998); Ermisch and Francesconi (2002) to study the mechanisms that relate assortative mating with inequality and their quantitative importance. Liu and Lu say that “these studies (of or related to assortative mating) are accompanied by a few empirical papers (Mare 1991; Mancuso 2000) that document the evolution of assortative mating, particularly educational assortative mating” (Liu and Lu, 2006). For example, it is more likely that a “successful” woman will marry a man who is “successful” because of social norms and other reasons, say a female doctor marrying another male doctor not only because of security reasons but also because of common interests, lifestyle choice, etc.
However, note that the slope coefficients for the highest level of a female’s education are all negative in Heckit results compared to its slope coefficients in probit results. This could mean that the more educated the female is the less she works, i.e., education gets people in the labor force but does not influence their hours once they are already in. There is not a strong correlation between education and preference for leisure. On the other hand, marital status for most type has a positive effect on hours compared to the female being married (base group). Although, a widow works less than a married woman by 73.3 hours per year, none of the effects of types of marital status are statistically significant even though they can be considered economically significant.
An important issue regarding the Heckit model addressed: If the errors of the selection equation, the regression equation, or both are heteroskedastic, it is well-known that the usual two-stage and maximum likelihood estimators are inconsistent (Adkins and Hill, 2004). Although there are several ways of dealing with this problem, it is well beyond the scope of this study as of this moment to delve into such complexities.
Quite similar to El-Hamidi (2003), I make two general comments regarding Table 1.9: first, the low R-squared value of 0.143 implies that there is still a wide range of unidentified determinants explaining the decision to work extra hours or not. Second, these results suggest that the category of 24-60 years of age is too diverse a group to have one labor supply function. Thus, as El-Hamidi (2003) proposes “an analysis of the determinants of labor supply using a disaggregated database should be the focus of further empirical investigations” (El-Hamidi, 2003).Continued on Next Page »
Adkins L.C. & Hill C. (2004). “Bootstrap inferences in heteroscedastic sample selection models: A Monte Carlo investigation.” Working Paper.
Angrist, Joshua D. and Alan B. Krueger. (1999). “Empirical Strategies in Labor Economics.” in Orley C. Aschenfelter and David Card, eds. Handbook of Labor Economics Vol 3C, pp 1277-1366.
Becker, G. S. (1973). “A theory of marriage: Part I.” Journal of Political Economy 81 (4), pp 813-846.
Becker, G. S. (1974). “A theory of marriage: Part II.” Journal of Political Economy 82 (2), pp 11-26.
Borjas, G.J. (1980) “The relationship between wages and weekly hours of work: the role of division bias.” Journal of Human Resources 15, pp 409-423.
Borjas, G.J. (1996). labor Economics. 2nd edition. McGraw-Hill.
Boskin, M.J. (1973) “The econometrics of labor supply.” in Cain and Watts eds (1973).
Boulier, B. L. and M. R. Rosenzweig. (1984). “Schooling, search, and spouse selection: Testing economic theories of marriage and household behavior.” Journal of Political Economy 92 (4), pp 712-732.
Burdett, K. and M. G. Coles. (1997). “Marriage and class.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 112 (1), pp 141-168.
Cain, G. G., and H.W. Watts. (1973) “Toward a Summary and Synthesis of the Evidence,” in Cain and Watts, Income Maintenance and labor Supply, New York: Academic Press, pp 328-67.
Carliner, Geoffrey, Christopher Robinson and Nigel Tomes. (Feb., 1980). “Female labor Supply and Fertility in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Economics, 13 (1), pp 46-64.
CCSD Facts & Stats: Fact Sheet on Canadian labor Market: labor Force Rates. CCSD Facts & Stats: Fact Sheet on Canadian labor Market: labor Force Rates. Retrieved 26 Nov, 2012 from Web site: http://www.ccsd.ca/factsheets/labor_market/rates/index.htm.
Chen, Songnian N. & Shakeeb Khan (2003), ‘Semiparametric estimation of a heteroskedastic sample selection model.’ Econometric Theory 19 (6), pp 1040–1064.
Chris Robinson and Nigel Tomes. (1985). "More on the labor Supply of Canadian Women." Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, Vol. 18(1), pp. 156-63.
Common Menu Bar Links. The Atlas of Canada. Retrieved 26 Nov, 2012 from Web site: http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/auth/english/maps/peopleandsociety/population/gender/sex06.
Cross-Section Regression Estimates of labor Supply Elasticities: Procedures and Problems. Retrieved 05 Apr, 2013 from Web site: http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~pjkuhn/Ec250A/Class%20Notes/B_StaticLSEsts&Heckit.pdf
Connelly, Rachel, Deborah S. DeGraff, and Deborah Levison. (1996). “Women’s employment and child care in Brazil,” Economic Development and Cultural Change 44(3), pp 619–656.
Dasgupta, Purnamita and Bishwanath Goldar. (2005). “Female labor Supply in Rural India: An Econometric Analysis.” E/265.
Donald (1995), “Two step estimation of heteroskedastic sample selection models.” Journal of Econometrics. (65), pp 347–380.
El-Hamidi, Fatma. (2003). “Labor supply of Egyptian married women: participation and hours of work.” Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Middle East Economic Association (MEEA) and Allied Social Science Association (ASSA). January 2-5, 2003.Washington, D.C.
Ermisch, J. and M. Francesconi (2002). “Intergenerational social mobility and assortative mating in Britain.” IZA Discussion Papers 465, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
Fernández, R. (2001). “Education, segregation and marital sorting: Theory and an application to UK data.” NBER Working Papers 8377.
Fernández, R., N. Guner, and J. Knowles (2001). “Love and Money: A Theoretical and Empirical Analysis of Household Sorting and Inequality.” NBER Working Paper, No. 8580.
Fernández, R. and R. Rogerson (2001). “Sorting and long-run inequality.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 116 (4), pp 1305-1341.
Gender Discrimination in Canada. NAJCca. Retrieved 26 Nov, 2012 from Web site: http://www.najc.ca/gender-discrimination-in-canada/.
Gronau, R. (1974). “Wage comparisons – a selectivity bias,” Journal of Political Economy, 82, pp 1119-44.
Hall, Robert E. (1973). “Wages, Income, and Hours of Work in the U.S. Labor Force.” in Glen G. Cain and Harold W. Watts, eds. Income Maintenance and Labor Supply, pp 102-162.
Heckman, J.J. (1974). “Shadow prices, market wages, and labor supply,” Econometrica, 42 (4), pp 679-694.
Heckman, J.J. (1979). “Sample selection bias as a specification error,” Econometrica, 47(1), pp 153-161.
Killingsworth, M.R. (1983). Labor Supply, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Killingsworth, M.R. and J.J. Heckman. (1986). “Female labor supply: a survey.” In Handbook of Labor Economics, Vol. I, O. Ashenfelter and R. Layard (eds.). Amsterdam: North-Holland, pp 102-204.
Kremer, M. (1997). “How much does sorting increase inequality?” Quarterly Journal of Economics 112 (1), pp 115-139.
Lewbel, Arthur (2003), “Endogenous selection or treatment model estimation.” Department of Economics, Boston College, 140 Commonwealth Ave., Chestnut Hill, MA, 02467, USA.,
lewbel@bc.edu.
Lewis, H.G. (1974). “Comments on selectivity biases in wage comparisons,” Journal of Political Economy, 82, pp 1145-1157.
Liu, Haoming and Lu Jinfeng. (2006). “Measuring the Degree of Assortative Mating,” Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 92(3), pp 317-322.
Mancuso, D. C. (2000). “Implications of marriage and assortive mating by schooling for the earnings of men.” Ph. D. thesis, Stanford University.
Mare, R. D. (1991). “Five decades of educational assortative mating.” American Sociological Review 56 (1), pp 15-32.
Nakamura, M., A. Nakamura, D. Cullen. (1979). “Job opportunities, the offered wage, and the labor supply of married women,” American Economic Review, 69(5), pp 787-805.
Nakamura, A. and M. Nakamura. (1981). “A comparison of the labor force behavior of married women in the United States and Canada, with special attention to the impact of income taxes.” Econometrica 49, pp 451-489.
Nakamura, A. and M. Nakamura. (1983). “Part-time and full-time work behavior of married women: a model with a doubly truncated dependent variable.” The Canadian Journal of Economics 16, pp 229-257.
Pencavel, J. (1998). “Assortative mating by schooling and the work behavior of wives and husbands.” American Economic Review 88 (2), pp 326-329.
Robins, L. (1930). “On the Elasticity of Demand for Income in Terms of Effort.” Economica (29), pp 123-129.
Sharif, M. (1991). “Poverty and the forward-falling labor supply function: a microeconomic analysis.” World Development. 19 (8), pp 1075-1093.
Survey of labor and Income Dynamics (SLID). Retrieved 30 Nov. 2012 from Web site: http://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function=getSurvey.
Vella, F. (1998). “Estimating models with sample selection bias: a survey,” Journal of Human Resources, 33 (1), pp 127-169.
Wooldridge, Jeffrey. (2008). Introductory Econometrics. United States of America: South- Western College Pub. 4th edition, pp 606-612 .
Endnotes
1.) The author would like to thank Professor Craig Brett for his invaluable suggestions and comments.
2.) Carliner et al. (1980) in their analysis of 1971 Canadian census data employ three measures of labor supply: labor force participation, hours per week, and weeks per year. Using education as a proxy for potential market wages they found that “greater education of the wife is associated with significantly increased labor supply for all three measures. This suggests that the … substitution effects of an increase in wf [the wife’s wage] … outweigh the income effect.”
3.) The emphasis of the three papers is quite different. Nakamura, Nakamura, and Cullen (1979) report estimates for Canadian women using the 1971 Canadian census. Nakamura and Nakamura (1981) analyze both Canadian and U.S. census data emphasizing the role of taxes. Nakamura and Nakamura (1983) using these same data sets, distinguish further between full-time and part-time workers.
4.) Robinson and Tomes (1985) used data from 1979 Quality of Life Survey, which is a survey conducted by the Institute for Behavioural Research, York University, to deal against the problems of using census data for their study. The survey contained a direct measure of the hourly wage rate and also presented hours of work directly rather than in intervals for a subset of Canadian women.
5.) Source: http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/dl/free/0070891540/43156/benjamin5_sample_chap02.pdf.
6.) Source: See http://highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/dl/free/0070891540/43156/benjamin5_sample_chap02.pdf for the original table.
7.) Standard hours are usually determined by collective agreements or company policies, and they are the hours beyond which overtime rates are paid. The data apply to non-office worker.
8.) Standard hours minus the average hours per week spent on holidays and vacations.
9.) This supply curve shows how the change in real wage rate affects the amount of hours worked by employees. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backward_bending_supply_curve_of_labor. See the appendix section.
10.) Although the Heckman sample selection model is written in terms of hours of work H, the same equations
apply equally as well to the wage W.
11.) All the steps of the Heckit method is borrowed from lecture notes: Cross-Section Regression Estimates of labor Supply Elasticities: Procedures and Problems.
12.) See http://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p2SV.pl?Function=getSurvey&SDDS=3889&lang=en&db=imdb&adm=8&dis=2 for more details on the Survey of labor and Income Dynamics (SLID).
13.) Census data is not used as the limitations of Census data in labor economics is well documented [Killingsworth (1983); Angrist and Krueger (1999)]. Income variables are based on respondents’ memory and willingness to disclose this information that is mostly underreported in the Census.
14.) To check for educational assortative mating, the husband’s education variable was added to the actual data that contains only females. After running a single regression of husband’s education on female’s education, a positive correlation for each level of education was found. Hence, husband’s education was added to the model to see how it affects the results. However, it must be noted that adding husband’s education to the model did not change the Heckit results that much. Most importantly, since adding husband's education to the model still results in a positive coefficient of non-female income in the Heckit, the sorting is not on education even though there is a positive correlation among husband's and wife's education. Therefore, the Heckit results with the inclusion of husband’s education to the model are not reported in this paper. Moreover, the existing literature of labor supply of women doesn't include this kind of variable.
15.) It has been mentioned by Adkins and Hill (2004) that “Donald (1995) has studied this problem and suggested a semiparametric estimator that is consistent in heteroscedastic selectivity models. Chen & Khan (2003) has also proposed a semiparametric estimator of this model. More recently, Lewbel (2003) has proposed an alternative that is both easy to implement and robust to heteroskedastic misspecification of unknown form.” The authors themselves proposed a “simple estimator that is easily computed using standard regression software,” and studied the performance of the estimator in a small set of Monte Carlo simulations.
Appendix
Table 1.2: Variable Descriptions
hours
|
total hours paid all jobs during 2009
|
wage
|
composite hourly wage all paid jobs in 2009
|
wagesqrd
|
the square of composite hourly wage all paid jobs
|
age
|
female's age, 2009, external cross-sec file
|
agesqrd
|
the square of female's age
|
marst
|
marital status of female as of December 31 of 2009
1 – female is married
2 – female is in a common-law relationship
3 – female is separated
4 – female is divorced
5 – female is widowed
6 – female is single (never married)
|
fslsp
|
female is living with spouse in 2009
1 – Yes
2 - No
|
province
|
Province of residence group, household, December 31, 2009
10 - Newfoundland and Labrador
11 – Prince Edward Island
12 – Nova Scotia
13 – New Brunswick
24 – Quebec
35 – Ontario
46 – Manitoba
47 – Saskatchewan
48 – Alberta
59 – British Columbia
|
exper
|
number of years of work experience, full-year full-time
|
expersqrd
|
the square of number of years of work experience, full-year full-time
|
alimo
|
Support payments received
|
educ
|
Highest level of education of female, 1st grouping
1 - Never attended school
2 - 1-4 years of elementary school
3 - 5-8 years of elementary school
4 - 9-10 years of elementary and
secondary school
5 - 11-13 years of elementary and
secondary school (but did not
graduate)
6 - Graduated high school
7 - Some non-university postsecondary (no certificate)
8 - Some university (no certificate)
9 - Non-university postsecondary
certificate
10 - University certificate below
Bachelor's
11 - Bachelor's degree
12 - University certificate above
Bachelor's, Master's, First
professional degree in law, Degree
in medicine, dentistry, veterinary
medicine or optometry, Doctorate
(PhD)
|
nonfemaleincome
|
income of non-female in the household
|
kidslt6
|
female with a child less than six years old
|
working
|
total hours paid all jobs greater than zero
|
|
|
|
|
|
Table 1.3: Summary Statistics of Canadian women
Variable
|
Observations
|
Mean
|
Standard Deviation
|
Minimum
|
Maximum
|
puchid25(id)
|
32065
|
4012858
|
7414.513
|
4000001
|
4025693
|
province
|
31819
|
33.74845
|
14.69714
|
10
|
59
|
agyfm
|
32065
|
38.72475
|
25.07988
|
0
|
80
|
agyfmg46
|
32065
|
5.924965
|
2.56457
|
1
|
9
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
alimo46
|
32065
|
263.0711
|
1860.065
|
0
|
45000
|
earng46
|
31745
|
51132.91
|
63660.3
|
0
|
1387250
|
age
|
17042
|
43.26998
|
10.50669
|
24
|
60
|
marst
|
28264
|
2.8629
|
2.118468
|
1
|
6
|
fslac
|
28325
|
1.907326
|
.2899806
|
1
|
2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
fslsp
|
28325
|
1.406884
|
.4912616
|
1
|
2
|
hours
|
24009
|
1129.835
|
922.4242
|
0
|
5200
|
wage
|
16371
|
19.89017
|
11.81493
|
6
|
142
|
exper
|
24864
|
14.9928
|
13.18434
|
0
|
50
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
alimo
|
28325
|
249.0071
|
1825.297
|
0
|
45000
|
earng42
|
28108
|
20899.72
|
28372.56
|
0
|
539000
|
mtinc42
|
28179
|
25065.66
|
30446.84
|
0
|
680000
|
oas42
|
28325
|
1210.796
|
2430.963
|
0
|
7750
|
ogovtr42
|
28325
|
33.60018
|
181.1052
|
0
|
2400
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ottxm42
|
28325
|
561.278
|
4202.446
|
0
|
120000
|
prpen42
|
28325
|
2120.96
|
7977.688
|
0
|
185000
|
sapis42
|
28325
|
406.2242
|
2022.65
|
0
|
25000
|
uccb42
|
28325
|
139.9682
|
495.2109
|
0
|
7800
|
uiben42
|
28325
|
757.8279
|
2789.844
|
0
|
31000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wgsal42
|
28325
|
19643.28
|
27591.65
|
0
|
525000
|
wkrcp42
|
28325
|
130.5137
|
1279.867
|
0
|
32000
|
educ
|
28204
|
7.580946
|
2.599754
|
1
|
12
|
totalfemincome
|
28179
|
50174.48
|
56331.64
|
0
|
1110900
|
nonfemincome
|
28067
|
29301.02
|
32393.06
|
0
|
680000
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wagesqrd
|
16371
|
535.2028
|
918.9231
|
36
|
20164
|
agesqrd
|
28325
|
2642.723
|
1801.337
|
256
|
6400
|
expersqrd
|
24864
|
398.6038
|
528.935
|
0
|
2500
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
kidslt6
|
32065
|
.0902542
|
.28655
|
0
|
1
|
working
|
32065
|
.8051458
|
.3960946
|
0
|
1
|
Table 1.4: Marital Status of Canadian women
Marital Status
|
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Cumulative
|
1 – female is married
|
13,841
|
48.97
|
48.97
|
2 – female is in a common-law relationship
|
2,485
|
8.79
|
57.76
|
3 – female is separated
|
982
|
3.47
|
61.24
|
4 – female is divorced
|
1,900
|
6.72
|
67.96
|
5 – female is widowed
|
2,776
|
9.82
|
77.78
|
6 – female is single (never married)
|
6,280
|
22.22
|
100.00
|
Total
|
28,264
|
100.00
|
|
Table 1.5: Canadian women living with spouse or not
Living with spouse or not
|
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Cumulative
|
1 - Yes
|
16,800
|
59.31
|
59.31
|
2 - No
|
11,525
|
40.69
|
100.00
|
Total
|
28,325
|
100.00
|
|
Table 1.6: Residence of Canadian women
Province
|
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Cumulative
|
10 - Newfoundland and Labrador
|
1,390
|
4.37
|
4.37
|
11 – Prince Edward Island
|
870
|
2.73
|
7.10
|
12 – Nova Scotia
|
1,877
|
5.90
|
13.00
|
13 – New Brunswick
|
1,849
|
5.81
|
18.81
|
24 – Quebec
|
6,136
|
19.28
|
38.10
|
35 – Ontario
|
8,976
|
28.21
|
66.31
|
46 – Manitoba
|
2,124
|
6.68
|
72.98
|
47 – Saskatchewan
|
2,304
|
7.24
|
80.22
|
48 – Alberta
|
3,172
|
9.97
|
90.19
|
59 – British Columbia
|
3,121
|
9.81
|
100.00
|
Total
|
31,819
|
100.00
|
|
Table 1.7: Highest level of education attained by Canadian women
Highest level of education
|
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Cumulative
|
1 - Never attended school
|
111
|
0.39
|
0.39
|
2 - 1-4 years of elementary school
|
227
|
0.80
|
1.20
|
3 - 5-8 years of elementary school
|
2,025
|
7.18
|
8.38
|
4 - 9-10 years of elementary and
secondary school
|
2,037
|
7.22
|
15.60
|
5 - 11-13 years of elementary and
secondary school (but did not
graduate)
|
1,869
|
6.63
|
22.23
|
6 - Graduated high school
|
4,449
|
15.77
|
38.00
|
7- Some non-university postsecondary (no certificate)
|
2,037
|
7.22
|
45.22
|
8 - Some university (no certificate)
|
1,584
|
5.62
|
50.84
|
9 - Non-university postsecondary
certificate
|
8,548
|
30.31
|
81.15
|
10 - University certificate below
Bachelor's
|
617
|
2.19
|
83.34
|
11 - Bachelor's degree
|
3,447
|
12.22
|
95.56
|
12 - University certificate above
Bachelor's, Master's, First
professional degree in law, Degree
in medicine, dentistry, veterinary
medicine or optometry, Doctorate
(PhD)
|
1,253
|
4.44
|
100.00
|
Total
|
28,204
|
100.00
|
|
Table 1.8: Canadian women with or without a child less than six years old
Child less than six years old or not
|
Frequency
|
Percent
|
Cumulative
|
1 - Yes
|
29,171
|
90.97
|
90.97
|
2 - No
|
2,894
|
9.03
|
100.00
|
Total
|
32,065
|
100.00
|
|
Table 2.9: OLS Estimates for Canadian Women
Dependent Variable: hours of work
|
Independent Variables
|
Coefficient
|
composite hourly wage of all paid jobs
|
-1.42
[2.70]
|
the square of composite hourly wage of all paid jobs
|
-.065**
[.0327]
|
female's age
|
39.23***
[5.01]
|
the square of female's age
|
-.49***
[.06]
|
1 - Never attended school (base group)
|
---
|
2 - 1-4 years of elementary school
|
-104.7
[201.5]
|
3 - 5-8 years of elementary school
|
65.4
[115.8]
|
4 - 9-10 years of elementary and
secondary school
|
90.5
[110.1]
|
5 - 11-13 years of elementary and
secondary school (but did not
graduate)
|
21.25
[111]
|
6 - Graduated high school
|
117.3
[105.5]
|
7 - Some non-university postsecondary (no certificate)
|
4.36
[106.9]
|
8 - Some university (no certificate)
|
-14.6
[107.8]
|
9 - Non-university postsecondary
certificate
|
85.8
[105.2]
|
10 - University certificate below
Bachelor's
|
61.8
[109.1]
|
11 - Bachelor's degree
|
48
[106.2]
|
12 - University certificate above
Bachelor's, Master's, First
professional degree in law, Degree
in medicine, dentistry, veterinary
medicine or optometry, Doctorate
(PhD)
|
51.84
[107.8]
|
female is living with spouse (base group)
|
---
|
female is not living with spouse
|
77.14 ***
[28]
|
income of non-female in the household
|
.008***
[.0007]
|
1 – female is married (base group)
|
---
|
2 – female is in a common-law relationship
|
29.3
[15.98]
|
3 – female is separated
|
18.8
[35.14]
|
4 – female is divorced
|
20.65
[33.11]
|
5 – female is widowed
|
-78.7
[54.71]
|
6 – female is single (never married)
|
-23.2
[29.9]
|
Support payments received
|
-.013***
[.003]
|
female without a child less than six years old (base group)
|
---
|
female with a child less than six years old
|
-193.2***
[17.73]
|
constant
|
606.7
[149.9]
|
Sample size
|
12469
|
R-squared
|
0.143
|
* Statistical significance at the 90% level
** Statistical significance at the 95% level
*** Statistical significance at the 99% level
[ ] Heteroskedasticity-robust standard error
Table 2.0: Probit Estimates for Canadian women
Independent Variables
|
Coefficient
|
∆P(working) per unit ∆independent variable
|
female's age
|
.041***
(.012)
|
.0164
|
the square of female's age
|
-.001***
(.0001)
|
-.0004
|
number of years of work experience, full-year full-time
|
.09***
(.004)
|
.036
|
the square of number of years of work experience, full-year full-time
|
-.001***
(.0001)
|
-.0004
|
1 - Never attended school (base group)
|
---
|
---
|
2 - 1-4 years of elementary school
|
.61
(.441)
|
.244
|
3 - 5-8 years of elementary school
|
.87**
(.35)
|
.348
|
4 - 9-10 years of elementary and
secondary school
|
1.11***
(.351)
|
.444
|
5 - 11-13 years of elementary and
secondary school (but did not
graduate)
|
1.16***
(.354)
|
.464
|
6 - Graduated high school
|
1.36***
(.35)
|
.544
|
7 - Some non-university postsecondary (no certificate)
|
1.25***
(.35)
|
.5
|
8 - Some university (no certificate)
|
1.34***
(.35)
|
.536
|
9 - Non-university postsecondary
certificate
|
1.56***
(.35)
|
.624
|
10 - University certificate below
Bachelor's
|
1.64***
(.36)
|
.656
|
11 - Bachelor's degree
|
1.8***
(.35)
|
.72
|
12 - University certificate above
Bachelor's, Master's, First
professional degree in law, Degree
in medicine, dentistry, veterinary
medicine or optometry, Doctorate
(PhD)
|
1.96***
(.353)
|
.784
|
10 - Newfoundland and Labrador (base group)
|
---
|
---
|
11 – Prince Edward Island
|
.301***
(.108)
|
.1204
|
12 – Nova Scotia
|
-.1
(.082)
|
-.04
|
13 – New Brunswick
|
-.001
(.083)
|
-.0004
|
24 – Quebec
|
-.08
(.07)
|
-.032
|
35 – Ontario
|
-.146
(.07)
|
-.0584
|
46 – Manitoba
|
.044
(.081)
|
.0176
|
47 – Saskatchewan
|
.0454
(.081)
|
.0182
|
48 – Alberta
|
.052
(.076)
|
.0208
|
59 – British Columbia
|
-.106
(.076)
|
-.0424
|
constant
|
-1.22
(.427)
|
---
|
Pseudo R-squared
|
0.17
|
---
|
Proportion of women who worked
|
0.42
|
---
|
Final value of log of likelihood function
|
-5637.7
|
---
|
* Statistical significance at the 90% level
** Statistical significance at the 95% level
*** Statistical significance at the 99% level
( ) Usual standard error
Table 2.1: Heckit Estimates for Canadian Women
Dependent Variable: hours of work
|
Independent Variables
|
Coefficient
|
composite hourly wage of all paid jobs
|
-9.1***
(1.41)
|
the square of composite hourly wage of all paid jobs
|
-.006
(.015)
|
female's age
|
19.8***
(5.13)
|
the square of female's age
|
-.235***
(.061)
|
1 - Never attended school (base group)
|
---
|
2 - 1-4 years of elementary school
|
-84.8
(334.3)
|
3 - 5-8 years of elementary school
|
-18.02
(280)
|
4 - 9-10 years of elementary and
secondary school
|
-50.34
(278.3)
|
5 - 11-13 years of elementary and
secondary school (but did not
graduate)
|
-148.6
(279.2)
|
6 - Graduated high school
|
-67.43
(277.2)
|
7 - Some non-university postsecondary (no certificate)
|
-188.9
(277.7)
|
8 - Some university (no certificate)
|
-202.9
(278.2)
|
9 - Non-university postsecondary
certificate
|
-125.9
(277.1)
|
10 - University certificate below
Bachelor's
|
-183.8
(279.1)
|
11 - Bachelor's degree
|
-171.1
(277.4)
|
12 - University certificate above
Bachelor's, Master's, First
professional degree in law, Degree
in medicine, dentistry, veterinary
medicine or optometry, Doctorate
(PhD)
|
-174.3
(278.1)
|
female is living with spouse (base group)
|
---
|
female is not living with spouse
|
60.9**
(25.6)
|
income of non-female in the household
|
.01***
(.0003)
|
1 – female is married (base group)
|
---
|
2 – female is in a common-law relationship
|
19.5
(17)
|
3 – female is separated
|
24.6
(34.52)
|
4 – female is divorced
|
20.3
(31.3)
|
5 – female is widowed
|
-73.3
(50.9)
|
6 – female is single (never married)
|
-7.3
(27.8)
|
Support payments received
|
-.013***
(.003)
|
female without a child less than six years old (base group)
|
---
|
female with a child less than six years old
|
-172.2***
(17.3)
|
constant
|
1292.3
(299.2)
|
(Selectivity bias)
|
-314.8
(18.12)
|
Sample size
|
13515
|
* Statistical significance at the 90% level
** Statistical significance at the 95% level
*** Statistical significance at the 99% level
( ) Usual standard error