Archives

  • 2018-07
  • 2018-10
  • 2018-11
  • 2019-04
  • 2019-05
  • 2019-06
  • 2019-07
  • 2019-08
  • 2019-09
  • 2019-10
  • 2019-11
  • 2019-12
  • 2020-01
  • 2020-02
  • 2020-03
  • 2020-04
  • 2020-05
  • 2020-06
  • 2020-07
  • 2020-08
  • 2020-09
  • 2020-10
  • 2020-11
  • 2020-12
  • 2021-01
  • 2021-02
  • 2021-03
  • 2021-04
  • 2021-05
  • 2021-06
  • 2021-07
  • 2021-08
  • 2021-09
  • 2021-10
  • 2021-11
  • 2021-12
  • 2022-01
  • 2022-02
  • 2022-03
  • 2022-04
  • 2022-05
  • 2022-06
  • 2022-07
  • 2022-08
  • 2022-09
  • 2022-10
  • 2022-11
  • 2022-12
  • 2023-01
  • 2023-02
  • 2023-03
  • 2023-04
  • 2023-05
  • 2023-06
  • 2023-08
  • 2023-09
  • 2023-10
  • 2023-11
  • 2023-12
  • 2024-01
  • 2024-02
  • 2024-03
  • 2024-04

    • Again in order to analyze the possibility of existence

    2018-11-13

    Again, in order to analyze the possibility of existence of a “positively/negatively selected” high performers group, the estimations results of column 2, Table 5, compared workers effort who both do and do not reach public sector in the subsequent period. The results of the random effects model yield that those who worked before in private sector jobs still provide (significantly) more effort (less absences) than those workers from the public sector while in the Chamberlain’s model the coefficient, although negative, is not significant, meaning that the level of effort provide for those who worked before in private sector jobs does not vary significantly from those employed in the public sector. The abovementioned results deserve special attention. In a more detailed analysis, it may be concluded that job sector switch may cause change in worker’s effort behavior. With regards to the work absence (Table 5), workers who came from the private sector (where, in average, workers have more effort as can be seen in column 1, Table 5) and migrated to the public sector do not differ in level of effort (absence) from those who remain employed in the public sector all the time (Chamberlain’s model). This may indicate that there has been some change in effort from workers after achieving their goal, in this case, getting a job in the public service (adverse selection problem). Thus, the results support our ASP 1517 that private sector workers develop a higher effort level compared to those from the public sector. Finally, similarly to Engellandt and Riphahn (2005), I performed additional test for the endogeneity of private sector jobs in order to endorse the displayed analysis. In order to investigate the potential biasing impact of considering an endogenous “private sector job” indicator on the other coefficients in my model, I reestimated the models for both proxies of effort (Table 2) excluding the private sector variable. The marginal effects of the other variables remained almost the same, which is an indicative that the private sector is not endogenous. Moreover, unlike Engellandt and Riphahn (2005), I performed additional model (Chamberlain’s model) since the results from random effects probit model may be biased if unobservable factors determine the selection into a specific group of workers (private sector or public sector) and if these are correlated with our dependent variable. This is the reason why some results differ between RE probit model and Chamberlain’s model.
    Concluding remarks The article sought to examine whether there are any disadvantages in terms of effort for public sector jobs compared to private sector jobs. In order to test this hypothesis, I used RE probit model and Chamberlain’s model through proxie variables, which aimed to identify efforts by workers in the situation of employment. Within this context, two variables were adopted: unpaid overtime worker (those working less than 40h a week and would like to work additional hours) and absences (absence rate).
    Introduction The infrastructure supply is a vital component of the incentive to national economic growth, both for its potential to generate employment and for its influence in all economy sectors. In this sense, it improves economic activity and helps reduce persistent poverty. Additionally, wide access to infrastructure contributes to reduce inequality (Sílvia and Triches, 2014; Bertussi and Ellery, 2012; Mussolini and Teles, 2010; Calderon and Serven, 2004; Ferreira and Malliagros, 1998). Adequate infrastructure is a necessary condition for economic development. Therefore, any growth strategy planned to help the poor must necessarily include the promotion of investment in infrastructure in order to allow wider population access to the positive externalities created by such investments (Hirschman, 1958; Datt and Ravallion, 2002). According to the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB, 2000) it is possible to define infrastructure as a set of engineering structures and facilities that are the necessary basis for the development of productive activities such as services, policies, social and personal activities. The regions that directly benefit from infrastructure services achieve positive externalities, attracting industries and human capital, thus increasing productivity and stimulating economic growth.