Regional inequality in multidimensional quality of employment: insights from Chile, 1996–2017

Figures & data

Table 1. Dimensions, indicators, cut-offs and weights of the quality of employment (QoE) index.

Dimensions (weight)	Labour income (1/3)	Employment stability (1/3)		Employment conditions (1/3)
Indicator (weight)	Income (1/3)	Occupational status (1/6)	Tenure (1/6)	Social security (1/6)	Excessive working hours (1/6)
Deprivation cut-off	Fewer than six basic food baskets (monthly calculation)	No contract, self-employed	Fewer than three years employed in their current occupation. Individuals between the ages of 18 and 24 are not considered deprived in this indicator	No contributions to social security	More than 45 hours per week
Population	All occupied individuals between the ages of 18 and 65 who report a monthly salary from their main occupation	All occupied individuals between the ages of 18 and 65 who report on their occupational and contractual status	All occupied individuals between the ages of 18 and 65 who report the number of years employed in their current main occupation	All occupied individuals between the ages of 18 and 65 who report their affiliation to a pension scheme	All occupied individuals between the ages of 18 and 65 who report their hours worked during the past week

Note: The official definition and value of food baskets changed in Chile in 2013 to reflect changing standards of living and the associated needs. In 2019, the Ministry of Social Development and Family (MDSF) published a series of poverty rates that use this new methodology, adjusting past data accordingly. This paper uses these updated food basket data.

Table 2. Quality of employment (QoE) index estimates.

	Year	National	TA + AP	AN	AT	CO	VA	OH	MA	BB	AR	LL + LR	AY	MG	RM
H	1996	66.7%	64.7%	62.2%	65.8%	77.4%	68.8%	78.2%	82.0%	71.4%	80.4%	78.4%	76.7%	61.3%	58.2%
		(0.005)	(0.032)	(0.024)	(0.027)	(0.017)	(0.018)	(0.013)	(0.012)	(0.015)	(0.013)	(0.015)	(0.026)	(0.045)	(0.008)
	2006	53.8%	62.2%	51.0%	50.2%	58.3%	55.1%	56.4%	58.6%	56.9%	0.649	0.612	50.0%	45.1%	49.2%
		(0.004)	(0.024)	(0.023)	(0.021)	(0.018)	(0.011)	(0.014)	(0.017)	(0.010)	(0.013)	(0.014)	(0.024)	(0.033)	(0.007)
	2017	41.3%	50.1%	39.2%	42.0%	46.1%	44.3%	36.8%	44.4%	43.3%	49.9%	45.3%	43.5%	34.8%	37.9%
		(0.004)	(0.011)	(0.014)	(0.018)	(0.015)	(0.008)	(0.010)	(0.013)	(0.009)	(0.012)	(0.008)	(0.016)	(0.014)	(0.007)
A	1996	59.5%	55.2%	54.1%	59.2%	63.4%	59.3%	63.5%	67.5%	62.6%	66.1%	63.5%	60.7%	57.7%	55.1%
		(0.002)	(0.012)	(0.011)	(0.011)	(0.008)	(0.007)	(0.007)	(0.008)	(0.005)	(0.006)	(0.008)	(0.011)	(0.015)	(0.004)
	2006	56.2%	58.3%	52.0%	56.0%	57.8%	56.6%	54.8%	58.7%	59.1%	60.3%	58.1%	53.8%	53.6%	54.2%
		(0.002)	(0.011)	(0.010)	(0.012)	(0.008)	(0.005)	(0.007)	(0.006)	(0.004)	(0.006)	(0.005)	(0.011)	(0.016)	(0.004)
	2017	53.0%	52.4%	48.3%	51.5%	53.4%	53.4%	51.9%	53.9%	55.4%	56.1%	54.4%	52.2%	48.1%	52.0%
		(0.002)	(0.005)	(0.007)	(0.008)	(0.006)	(0.004)	(0.005)	(0.006)	(0.005)	(0.005)	(0.004)	(0.009)	(0.007)	(0.004)
M0	1996	0.40	0.36	0.34	0.39	0.49	0.41	0.50	0.55	0.45	0.53	0.50	0.47	0.35	0.32
		(0.004)	(0.020)	(0.016)	(0.019)	(0.013)	(0.012)	(0.011)	(0.012)	(0.011)	(0.010)	(0.012)	(0.020)	(0.029)	(0.005)
	2006	0.30	0.36	0.27	0.28	0.34	0.31	0.31	0.34	0.34	0.39	0.36	0.27	0.24	0.27
		(0.003)	(0.016)	(0.014)	(0.014)	(0.012)	(0.007)	(0.009)	(0.012)	(0.007)	(0.010)	(0.009)	(0.013)	(0.020)	(0.004)
	2017	0.22	0.26	0.19	0.22	0.25	0.24	0.19	0.24	0.24	0.28	0.25	0.23	0.17	0.20
		(0.002)	(0.007)	(0.008)	(0.012)	(0.008)	(0.005)	(0.006)	(0.009)	(0.006)	(0.008)	(0.005)	(0.010)	(0.007)	(0.004)

Note: TA, Tarapacá; AP, Arica y Parinacota; AN, Antofagasta; AT, Atacama; CO, Coquimbo; VA, Valparaíso; OH, O’Higgins; MA, Maule; BB, Bío-Bío; ÑU, Ñuble; AR, Araucanía; LL, Los Lagos; LR, Los Ríos; AY, Aysén; MG, Magallanes; RM, Región Metropolitana.

Standard errors are shown in parentheses. All indicators are p < 0.01.

Source: Authors’ calculations using CASEN data.

Figure 1. Changes over time of the quality of employment (QoE) deprivation index, 1996–2017.

Figure 2. Regional growth elasticity and quality of employment (QoE) deprivation index.

Table 3. Regional regressions and macro-indicators.

Dependent variable	Ordinary least squares (OLS)		Fixed effects		Random effects
	M0	H	M0	H	M0	H
Per capita GDP	−0.256	0.642	0.856	−0.940	0.401	0.821
	(0.702)	(0.516)	(0.873)	(0.900)	(0.658)	(0.458)
Employment rate	0.0457	0.0246	0.247	0.171	0.0831	0.0253
	(0.731)	(0.877)	(0.185)	(0.418)	(0.595)	(0.872)
Unemployment rate	0.944***	1.263***	0.470	0.779*	0.838**	1.205***
	(0.000)	(0.000)	(0.072)	(0.018)	(0.003)	(0.000)
Population with tertiary education (%)	−0.0873	−0.334*	0.0245	−0.169	−0.0341	−0.301
	(0.406)	(0.032)	(0.745)	(0.131)	(0.765)	(0.056)
Workers in micro firms (%)	0.221**	0.316**	0.331**	0.387*	0.223	0.314**
	(0.004)	(0.001)	(0.007)	(0.015)	(0.052)	(0.007)
Workers in tertiary sector (%)	0.0239	0.142	0.290*	0.481*	0.0674	0.157
	(0.815)	(0.307)	(0.028)	(0.020)	(0.678)	(0.387)
% Population in urban areas	−0.281***	−0.310***	−1.266***	−1.228***	−0.355**	−0.338**
	(0.000)	(0.000)	(0.000)	(0.000)	(0.004)	(0.006)
Constant	0.496***	0.725***	1.007***	1.192***	0.505***	0.736***
	(0.000)	(0.000)	(0.000)	(0.000)	(0.000)	(0.000)
Year dummies included in all cases and robust standard errors
N	104	104	104	104	104	104
R^2 within			0.672	0.733	0.932	0.936
R^2 overall			0.819	0.819	0.924	0.942
R^2 between	0.934	0.936	0.954	0.945	0.935	0.934

Note: There is heteroskedasticity, so robust standard errors are used. The Wald test suggests year dummies should be included. The Hausmann test suggests a better model fit in fixed effects for M₀ and random effects for H. In the case of H, the Breusch and Pagan Lagrangian multiplier test suggests a better fit with OLS.

Figure 3. Percentage contribution to the quality of employment (QoE) index (M₀) by region, 1996 and 2017.

Figure 4. Cumulative probability of working hours and hourly wages, 1996 and 2017.

Table 4. Heckman probit regression results, 1996 and 2017.

Variable	Characteristic	Pooled results
		β	SE	Marginal effect	SE
Main equation
Year	Reference: 1996
	2000	0.066***	(0.003)	0.019***	(0.001)
	2003	0.009	(0.007)	0.003	(0.002)
	2006	−0.385***	(0.008)	−0.118***	(0.002)
	2011	−0.466***	(0.022)	−0.143***	(0.007)
	2013	−0.491***	(0.022)	−0.150***	(0.006)
	2015	−0.434***	(0.025)	−0.133***	(0.007)
	2017	−0.554***	(0.031)	−0.170***	(0.009)
Region	Reference: Metropolitan region
	TA + AP	0.118	(0.073)	0.036	(0.022)
	AN	−0.036	(0.103)	−0.011	(0.031)
	AT	0.006	(0.054)	0.002	(0.016)
	CO	0.208***	(0.042)	0.063***	(0.013)
	VA	0.116***	(0.024)	0.035***	(0.007)
	OH	0.094*	(0.042)	0.029*	(0.013)
	MA	0.174***	(0.049)	0.053***	(0.015)
	BB	0.238***	(0.019)	0.072***	(0.006)
	AR	0.257***	(0.033)	0.077***	(0.010)
	LL + LR	0.114***	(0.027)	0.034***	(0.008)
	AY	−0.075	(0.068)	−0.023	(0.021)
	MG	−0.146**	(0.049)	−0.044**	(0.015)
Education	Years of education	−0.022**	(0.007)	−0.031***	(0.003)
	(Years of education)^2	−0.004***	(0.001)
Sex	Reference: Male
	Female	0.190***	(0.042)	0.057***	(0.012)
Experience	Years of experience	−0.040***	(0.002)	−0.005***	(0.001)
	(Years of experience)^2	0.000***	(0.000)
Size of firm	Reference: Large
	Micro	1.299***	(0.044)	0.429***	(0.016)
	Small	0.293***	(0.022)	0.098***	(0.006)
	Medium	0.117***	(0.025)	0.038***	(0.008)
Economic sector	Reference: Tertiary
	Primary	0.221***	(0.035)	0.066***	(0.011)
	Secondary	0.072*	(0.028)	0.022*	(0.009)
Head of household	Reference: Not head of household
	Head of household	−0.099***	(0.016)	−0.030***	(0.005)
	Constant	0.935***	(0.062)
Selection equation
Has children	Reference: No children
	Has at least one child	0.277***	(0.034)
Education	Years of education	0.043***	(0.001)
	Constant	−0.435***	(0.020)
Athrho		0.286***	(0.047)
Observations		1,065,733	598,255
Rho		0.279

Note: TA, Tarapacá; AP, Arica y Parinacota; AN, Antofagasta; AT, Atacama; CO, Coquimbo; VA, Valparaíso; OH, O’Higgins; MA, Maule; BB, Bío-Bío; ÑU, Ñuble; AR, Araucanía; LL, Los Lagos; LR, Los Ríos; AY, Aysén; MG, Magallanes; RM, Región Metropolitana.

Standard errors are shown in parentheses. ***p < 0.01, **p < 0.05, *p < 0.1.