feat(script): Add first draft Discussion and Conclusion
This commit is contained in:
parent
b45ab534bf
commit
6678df6d17
1 changed files with 173 additions and 1 deletions
|
@ -961,7 +961,7 @@ The identified literature rises in volume over time between 2000 and 2023,
|
|||
with first larger outputs identified from 2014 onwards,
|
||||
as can be seen in @fig-publications-per-year.
|
||||
While fluctuating overall, with a significantly smaller outputs 2017 and in turn significantly higher in 2021,
|
||||
the overall output volume strongly increased during this period.
|
||||
the overall output volume increased throughout this period.
|
||||
|
||||
```{python}
|
||||
#| label: fig-publications-per-year
|
||||
|
@ -1161,8 +1161,180 @@ Another reason could be the actual implementation of different policy programmes
|
|||
|
||||
# Discussion
|
||||
|
||||
```{python}
|
||||
#| label: discussion-prep-inequality-df
|
||||
#| echo: false
|
||||
# dataframe containing each intervention inequality pair
|
||||
df_inequality = (
|
||||
df[["region", "intervention", "inequality"]]
|
||||
.assign(
|
||||
Intervention = lambda _df: (_df["intervention"]
|
||||
.str.replace(r"\(.+\)", "", regex=True)
|
||||
.str.replace(r" ?; ?", ";", regex=True)
|
||||
.str.strip()
|
||||
.str.split(";")
|
||||
),
|
||||
inequality = lambda _df: (_df["inequality"]
|
||||
.str.replace(r"\(.+\)", "", regex=True)
|
||||
.str.replace(r" ?; ?", ";", regex=True)
|
||||
.str.strip()
|
||||
.str.split(";")
|
||||
)
|
||||
)
|
||||
.explode("Intervention")
|
||||
.explode("inequality")
|
||||
.reset_index(drop=True)
|
||||
)
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Turning to the available studies from a perspective of inequalities,
|
||||
@tbl-inequality-crosstab breaks down the individually targeted inequalities per intervention type.
|
||||
|
||||
```{python}
|
||||
#| label: tbl-inequality-crosstab
|
||||
#| tbl-cap: Intervention types by the inequalities targeted
|
||||
|
||||
df_temp = df_inequality.loc[
|
||||
(df_inequality["inequality"] == "income")
|
||||
| (df_inequality["inequality"] == "gender")
|
||||
| (df_inequality["inequality"] == "spatial")
|
||||
| (df_inequality["inequality"] == "disability")
|
||||
| (df_inequality["inequality"] == "ethnicity")
|
||||
]
|
||||
df_temp = df_temp.rename(columns={"inequality": "Inequality"})
|
||||
tab = pd.crosstab(df_temp["Intervention"], df_temp["Inequality"],
|
||||
margins=True).reindex(["income", "gender", "spatial", "ethnicity", "disability"], axis="columns").sort_values("income", ascending=False)
|
||||
del df_temp
|
||||
tab
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
Most studies focus on some indicator of income inequality within national or regional contexts.
|
||||
The second most analysed inequality is that of gender,
|
||||
followed by spatial inequalities, disabilities, ethnicities, age, inequalities of migration, education and intergenerational issues.
|
||||
|
||||
Only a small amount of studies carry analysis of inequalities in the world of work surrounding migration,
|
||||
generational connections, age and education into the world of work.
|
||||
Age-related inequalities prominently factor into studies as an intersection with disability,
|
||||
in focusing on the effects of older people with disabilities on the labour market [@Kirsh2016].
|
||||
Studies that solely or mainly target age-related inequalities themselves often do so with a stronger focus on the effects on seniors' health outcomes and long-term activation measures,
|
||||
with some extending into the effects of differentiated pension systems.[^pension-studies]
|
||||
Equally, for migration few studies can strictly delineate it from racial inequalities or considerations of ethnicity.
|
||||
|
||||
[^pension-studies]: Studies focusing on the effects of pensions themselves often do not intersect back into outcomes within the world of work. For an overview on pensions and health effects, see @VanDerHeide2013; for pensions and other intersectional inequalities, see for example @Zantinge2014.
|
||||
|
||||
Thus, for the current state of the literature on analyses of policy interventions through the lens of inequality reduction within the world of work,
|
||||
there are remaining gaps of academic lenses for generational inequalities, age-related inequalities, educational inequalities and inequalities of migration processes when looking at the quantity of output.
|
||||
Care should be taken not to overestimate the decisiveness of merely quantified outputs ---
|
||||
multiple studies with strong risk of bias may produce less reliable outcomes than fewer studies with stronger evidence bases ---
|
||||
however, it does provide an overview of the size of evidence base in the first place.
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- crosstab prevalences -->
|
||||
<!-- gender -->
|
||||
Looking into the prevalence of individual interventions from the gender inequality dimension,
|
||||
the crosstab shows that interventions on paid leave, subsidies, collective bargaining, and education received the most attention.
|
||||
Thus a slight preference towards institutional and structural interventions is visible,
|
||||
though the dimension seems to be viewed from angles of strengthening individual agency just as well,
|
||||
with subsidies often seeking to nourish this approach,
|
||||
and training, and interventions towards financial agency also being represented in the interventions.
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- spatial -->
|
||||
Interventions affecting spatial inequalities are often also primarily viewed through indicators of income.
|
||||
Interventions aiming at reducing spatial inequalities primarily base themselves on infrastructural changes,
|
||||
which aligns with expectations of the infrastructural schism between urban and rural regions.
|
||||
Additionally, education interventions target spatial inequalities,
|
||||
with the effects of minimum wage, work programmes, interventions strengthening financial agency, trade liberalization and training playing a reduced role.
|
||||
|
||||
This can pose a problem, as even non-spatial policies will almost invariably have spatially divergent effects which should be taken into account to avoid worsening issues:
|
||||
such as was seen in the further exclusion of already disadvantaged women from employment, infrastructure and training opportunities in India under bad targeting and elite capture [@Stock2021],
|
||||
or further deprivation of already disadvantaged regions in the UK work programme [@Whitworth2021].
|
||||
Rural communities relying on agricultural economies in particular may be vulnerable to exogenous structural shock events such as climate change, which may thus need to be a focal point for future structural interventions [@Salvati2014].
|
||||
|
||||
The results agree with the systematic review of income, employment and poverty correlations by [@Perez2022],
|
||||
in that employment plays a significant in spatial disadvantages,
|
||||
however with different primary barriers for different spatial contexts.[^perez-interventions]
|
||||
On the other hand, as the results by @Hunt2004 have also shown,
|
||||
individual measures on their own such as commuting subsidies in this case, while having positive results,
|
||||
may not provide enough lasting impact over the long term and may need embedding in a more holistic approach,
|
||||
combining multiple policy packages.
|
||||
|
||||
[^perez-interventions]: The identified interventions largely overlap with the identified pertinent interventions in this review: credit programmes, institutional support for childcare, guaranteed minimum income/universal basic income or the provision of living wages, commuting subsidies, and housing mobility programs. However, due to their focus on urban contexts, the identified barriers differ.
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- disability -->
|
||||
Few studies approach disability inequalities primarily through the prism of income inequality,
|
||||
preferring return to work, employment rates or amount of hours worked as indicators.
|
||||
Only when looking at the intersection of disability and gender is income the more utilized indicator,
|
||||
through measuring female income ratios compared to those of males.
|
||||
|
||||
Here, a split between frameworks that favour agency-based approaches,
|
||||
putting organisational barriers and environmental activation, as well as individual (re-)integration within the world of work into focus,
|
||||
and frameworks which focus on the institutional-structural component,
|
||||
with a focus on educational inclusion, and selection and eligibility criteria for benefit or vocational programmes.[^disability-approaches]
|
||||
In addition to employment or return to work based indicators it might thus be pertinent to include a focus on decent work and meaningful achievement as additional indications of successful programmes.
|
||||
Taken together, these results especially reinforce the results of @Poppen2017 and @Thoresen2021,
|
||||
for the importance of correct targeting to avoid unintended negative outcomes,
|
||||
while the evidence base also highlights research gaps in contexts and regions other than developed high-income countries.
|
||||
|
||||
[^disability-approaches]: For exemplary frameworks in the agency perspective, see @Martin2020 and @Lindsay2015; for the latter see @Lindsay2015a and @Gruber2014.
|
||||
|
||||
<!-- migration/ethnicity -->
|
||||
Studies on migration- or ethnicity-based inequalities predominantly focus on structural interventions such as education, fiscal policies or infrastructure,
|
||||
or the effects of institutional contexts such as collective bargaining, unionisation or universal incomes.
|
||||
The primary indicators are mixed between indicators of income inequality and others such as employment probability,
|
||||
though with a focus on absolute measures such as poverty, hours worked or debt.
|
||||
While some frameworks do put agency-driven necessities to the foreground,
|
||||
there is a consensus for structural approaches required to enable this agency.[^migration-frameworks]
|
||||
|
||||
[^migration-frameworks]: For an agency-focused approach, see @Siebers2015; for an example of structural requirements, see @Goodburn2020 or @Samaluk2014 for a discussion of structural power dynamics; for an institutional focus, see @Clibborn2022.
|
||||
|
||||
# Conclusions
|
||||
|
||||
The preceding study undertook a systematic scoping review of the literature on inequalities in the world of work.
|
||||
It focused on the variety of approaches to policy interventions, from institutional to structural to more agency-driven programmes,
|
||||
and highlighted the inequalities targeted, analysed in subsequent study, their methods and limitations,
|
||||
to arrive at a picture of which lays out the strengths and weaknesses of current approaches.
|
||||
|
||||
Wide gaps exist between the research on existing topics within the areas and intersections of inequalities in the world of work.
|
||||
First, while regionally research on such inequalities seems relatively evenly distributed,
|
||||
focus prevalence on individual inequalities varies widely.
|
||||
|
||||
Research into interventions preventing income inequality are still the dominant form of measured outcomes,
|
||||
which makes sense for its prevailing usefulness through a variety of indicators and its use to investigate both vertical and horizontal inequalities.
|
||||
However, care should be taken not to over-emphasize the reliance on income inequality outcomes:
|
||||
they can obscure intersections with other inequalities,
|
||||
or diminish the perceived importance of tackling other inequalities themselves, if not directly measurable through income.
|
||||
Thus, while interventions attempt to approach the inequality from a variety of institutional, structural and agency-oriented approaches already,
|
||||
this could be further enhanced by putting a continuous focus on the closely intertwined intersectional nature of the issue.
|
||||
|
||||
Gender inequality is an almost equally considered dimension in the interventions,
|
||||
a reasonable conclusion due to the inequality's global ubiquity and persistence.
|
||||
Most gender-oriented policy approaches tackle it directly alongside income inequality outcomes,
|
||||
especially viewed through gender pay gaps and economic (dis-)empowerment,
|
||||
approaching it from backgrounds of structural or agency-driven interventions.
|
||||
While both approaches seem fruitful in different contexts, few interventions strive to provide a holistic approach which combines the individual-level with macro-impacts,
|
||||
tackling both institutional-structural issues while driving concerns of agency simultaneously.
|
||||
|
||||
Spatial inequalities are primarily viewed through rural-urban divides,
|
||||
concerning welfare, opportunities and employment probabilities.
|
||||
Spatially focused interventions primarily tackle infrastructural issues which should be an effective avenue since most positive interventions are focused on the structural dimension of the inequality.
|
||||
However, too many interventions, especially focused on reducing income inequalities,
|
||||
still do not take spatial components fully into view,
|
||||
potentially leading to worse outcomes for inequalities along the spatial dimension.
|
||||
|
||||
Disabilities are rarely viewed through lenses other than employment opportunities.
|
||||
While most interventions already focus on dimensions of strengthening agency and improved integration or reintegration of individuals with disabilities into the world of work,
|
||||
a wider net needs to be cast with future research focusing on developing regions and the effects of more institutional-structural approaches before clearer recommendations can be given based on existing evidence.
|
||||
|
||||
Ethnicity and migration provide dimensions of inequalities which are, while more evenly distributed regionally,
|
||||
still equally underdeveloped in research on evidence-based intervention impacts.
|
||||
Currently, there is a strong focus on institutional-structural approaches,
|
||||
which seems to follow the literature in what is required for effective interventions.
|
||||
However, similarly to research on inequalities based on disability, there are clear gaps in research
|
||||
on ethnicity and especially migration, before clearer pictures of what works can develop.
|
||||
|
||||
The intertwined nature of inequalities, once recognized, requires intervention approaches which heed multi-dimensional issues and can flexibly intervene and subsequently correctly measure their relative effectiveness.
|
||||
To do so, perspectives need to shift and align towards a new, more intersectional approach which can incorporate both a wider array of methodological approaches between purely quantitative and qualitative research,
|
||||
while relying on indicators for measurement which are flexible yet overlapping enough to encompass such a broadened perspective.
|
||||
|
||||
# Bibliography
|
||||
|
||||
::: {#refs}
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue