Cuarta etapa: Intervención; sesiones educativas

and Labour Force

Participation

Rates by Countries

and Sex, 2011.

(Percentages).

Source: ILO, based on offi cial information of household surveys of the countries. 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0 0.0 5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 30.0 35.0 40.0 0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0 100.0

Labour force participation rate among women

Unemployment rate among women

Unemployment rate and labour force participation rate among men

Unemployment rate Participation rate

Argen na

Argen na Bolivia, Pluri. St.

Bolivia, Pluri State of

Brazil Brazil Chile Chile Colom bia Colom bia Costa Rica Costa Rica Ecuador Ecuador El Salvador El Salvador Guatem ala Guatemala Honduras Honduras Mexico Mexico Nicaragua Nicaragua Panam a Panam a Paraguay Paraguay Peru

Peru Dominican Rep.

Dominican Rep. Uruguay

Uruguay

Venezuela, Bol. Venezuela, Boliv. Rep.

Gender gap in unemployment rate

Gender gap in labour force participation rate

FIGURE 4

Latin America (18

Countries): Youth

Unemployment Rates

by Sex and Quintiles of

Per Capita Household

Income, 2005 - 2011.

(Percentages)

Source: ILO, based on offi cial information of household surveys of the countries. 0,0 5,0 10,0 15,0 20,0 25,0 30,0 35,0 40,0 2005 2007 2009 2011 2005 2007 2009 2011 2005 2007 2009 2011

Quintile 1 Quintile 2 Quintile 3 Quintile 4 Quintile 5

for improving their future employment opportunities rather than withdrew from the labour market for other reasons of labour inactivity.

Among youth, the reduction in employment was associated with a decline in the proportion of individuals who work only and of those who both work and study. Thus, during the economic and employment crisis, youth and their households opted to delay entering the labour market with a view to improving future conditions for labour insertion. The incentives of the conditional cash transfer programmes may also explain this decision as they encourage youth to remain in the education system. During the post-recovery period (2009-2011), when the overall unemployment rate declined, the only category that experienced a relatively positive change was the group that worked exclusively (both sexes). By contrast, the proportion of youth who both worked and studied fell, as did the group that studied only, to a lesser extent. In the latter case, the decline reflected the reduction in the share of women whereas that of men remained unchanged.

Interestingly, the percentages of youth who study only are consistently higher among women, which coincides with the higher percentage of women’s enrolment in the education system overall. This may be because women are aware of their more limited employment opportunities as compared with men, for which reason they make a greater effort to become qualified to improve their possibilities for accessing quality employment. On the other hand, the percentage of young women who neither study nor work is also higher than that of men. This most likely has more to do with the unequal distribution of household tasks than to a question of job prospects.4

The decline in the percentage of youth who studied and worked during the recovery period could be a positive sign in some cases because engaging in both activities at the same time may affect both academic and work performance whereas in others it represents the loss of useful experience for youths’ future employment.

The problem of youth who neither study nor work

Although it is not a recent phenomenon, the problem of youth who are neither in employment nor in education (known as NEET) has figured

TABLE 2

Latin America (18 Countries): Employment and Study among Youth Ages 15 to 24, 2005 - 2011

(Percentages) a/

Source: ILO, based on offi cial information of household surveys of the countries.

a/ Selected countries are: Argentina, Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Plurinational State of Bolivia and Uruguay.

Men 32.9 33.6 34.6 34.5 Study only Women 30.6 31.3 32.0 42.5 42.4 41.2 32.8 Work only Total 24.5 23.7 12.8 23.3 12.7 Men Total 12.5 12.4 33.5 33.5 32.3 41.8 Women

Neither study nor work

Total Men Women 2005 2007 2009 2011 32.0 35.2 36.0 37.2 37.1 24.6

Characteristic and sex

Men Women

Study and work

Total 21.1 10.4 14.5 20.1 10.9 11.7 28.6 14.7 20.4 10.9 12.3 28.6 14.5 20.3 10.6 12.0 28.6 14.2 12.4 29.8

largely in the press and in different forums. The phenomenon underscores the high social costs of the marginalization of youth from two key social integration mechanisms -school and work- for which reason it is viewed as a problem of social exclusion, limited opportunities and governments’ lack of attention to youth.

The NEET group is extremely diverse and comprised of very dissimilar realities. It includes youth who neither study nor work but who seek employment, youth devoted to household chores5 _{(mostly women)}

and other economically inactive youth (mainly men) who do not work, study, seek employment or carry out household tasks. This last group is “hard core,” without specific activities. Many youth are temporarily in this situation, or in transition between different employment and educational activities. Figure 5 lists

regional estimates for each of these categories by sex, based on information from 2011.

There are nearly 21.8 million youth who neither study nor work in the region, representing 20.3% of the universe of this working-age group. Of these, 30% are men and 70% are women. Of the total of NEET, 24.6% are seeking employment (nearly 4.6 million youth), which represents 69% of total unemployed youth. Most NEET who seek employment have had work experience (66.3%) whereas the remainder are looking for a job for the first time. Of the total NEET who are not seeking work, 11.9 million engage in household chores, mostly young women (91.8%). As mentioned, this trend is associated with cultural patterns, especially the unequal distribution of domestic work among household members, thereby limiting the employment possibilities of young

FIGURE 5

Latin America (18

Countries): Characteristics