Investing in youth Lithuania
The document summarizes key findings from a review of youth employment in Lithuania conducted by the OECD. It notes that Lithuania's youth population is declining due to low fertility rates and youth migration. Youth were hit hard by the economic crisis, with high unemployment and inactivity rates. Some groups, like young women and those with low education, face greater challenges. The review examines job quantity and quality issues for youth, such as skills mismatches and informal employment. It recommends policies like reducing costs for employers to hire youth, implementing a differentiated minimum wage, strengthening income support, and expanding active labor market programs.
More Related Content
Similar to Investing in youth Lithuania
More from OECD Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs
Investing in youth Lithuania
- 1. Mark Pearson (DeputyDirector) and Alessia Forti (Policy Analyst) Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs Investing in Youth Lithuania Vilnius, 24th February 2016
- 2. Published so far Brazil(2014) Tunisia (2015) Latvia (2015) Lithuania (2016) Forthcoming Australia Norway Sweden Japan Kazakhstan Peru The Lithuanian review is #4 of an ongoing series of ‘Investing in Youth’ reviews 2
- 3. 1. The demographicchallenge 2. Job quantity 3. Job quality 4. Policy options and key recommendations 3 Outline of the presentation
- 4.
- 5. 5 1.1. The youthpopulation is shrinking The size of the youth population in Lithuania 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 Percentageofyouthinworkingagepopulation Thousands 15-19 20-24 25-29 Youth/Working age population (%) …Declining fertility rates and ageing population …Increasing migration outflows of youth
- 6.
- 7. 7 2.1. Youth werehit hard by the crisis 0 10 20 30 40 50 % Unemployment Lithuania EU OECD 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 % Inactivity 10 20 30 40 50 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Employment
- 8. 8 2.2. Some youthfare worse than others Young women are more often inactive and less often employed than young men Highly-qualified youth fare considerably better than low-qualified youth Some regions are lagging behind 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Primary Secondary Tertiary Youth employment by level of education Alytaus Kauno Klaipedos Marijampoles Panevezio Šiauliu Taurages Telšiu Utenos Vilniaus 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Youth unemployment by region 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Men Women Employment Inactivity Youth employment and inactivity by gender Gender Education Regions
- 9. 9 2.3. Youth notin Employment, Education or Training (NEET) 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Lithuania OECD European Union 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Inactive (not in school) Unemployed NEET rates (share of youth aged 15-29) By international standards In Lithuania
- 10. 10 2.4. Youth notin Employment, Education or Training (NEET) (cont.) 0 5 10 15 20 Men Women Share of unemployed Share of inactive (not in school) 0 5 10 15 20 Primary Secondary Tertiary 0 5 10 15 20 25 Alytaus Kauno Klaipedos Marijampoles Panevezio Šiauliu Taurages Telšiu Utenos Vilniaus Region Education Regions Gender Young women are more often NEET Youth with secondary education are more likely to be NEET Some regions are lagging behind
- 11.
- 12. Earnings quality: relativelylow earnings (20% earn MWs) and among the most unequal countries in Europe Labour market security: high unemployment risk and weak income support Quality of the work environment: 70% young workers lack work autonomy and learning opportunities 12 3.1. OECD Job Quality framework
- 13. 13 3.2. Skills mismatchesare frequent 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Men Women Full-time Part-time Permanent Temporary All youth Gender Full- or part-time Type of contract % Underqualified Overqualified Percentage of employed youth who are either over- or under-qualified for their jobs
- 14. 14 3.3. Informality andenvelope wages are frequent among youthHungary Lithuania Latvia Estonia CzechRepublic Greece Netherlands UnitedKingdom Slovenia Luxembourg OECD Spain Finland Portugal SlovakRepublic Poland Austria France Germany 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% 16% 18% 20% Percentage of employed youth who receives envelope wages … Foregone tax revenues for the state budget … Weaker income protection for youth in case of job loss … More uncertainty for employers
- 15. Only one intwelve employed youth work under temporary contract in Lithuania.. compared to around one in three across OECD and European countries. 15 3.4. Youth rarely work under temporary contracts
- 16. Only one inseven employed youth work part-time in Lithuania.. compared to around one in five across OECD and European countries. 16 3.5. Youth rarely work part-time
- 17. 4. POLICY OPTIONSAND KEY RECOMMENDATIONS 17
- 18. 4. Policy Optionsand Key Recommendations Reduce non-wages costs to employers to stimulate youth (formal) hiring Introduce a differentiated minimum wage structure to reflect lower productivity of young workers Relax employment protection legislation, but strengthen enforcement and compliance Provide more adequate income support (subject to strict mutual obligations) Expand ALMPs which are cost-effective
- 19. 19 4.1. Reduce non-wagecosts to employers to stimulate youth (formal) hiringCzechRepublic Estonia France Italy Sweden SlovakRepublic Lithuania Spain Austria Hungary Belgium Greece Portugal Finland Germany Turkey Poland OECD Slovenia Japan Mexico Norway Luxembourg Canada US Ireland Koreas Netherlands UK Iceland Switzerland Australia Israel 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 % Employers’ social security contributions (for low-wage earners) Percentage of labour costs
- 20. 20 4.2. Introduce adifferentiated minimum wage structure to reflect lower productivity of young workers 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Turkey Chile France Slovenia NewZealand Israel Portugal Australia Hungary Lithuania Belgium Poland Latvia Ireland Germany(estimate) Netherlands UK SlovakRepublic Greece Canada Luxembourg Spain Korea Japan Estonia UnitedStates Mexico CzechRepublic % MW/Median MW/Average Minimum wages as percentage of median and average wages
- 21. 21 4.3. Relax employmentprotection legislation, but strengthen enforcement and compliance Lithuania OECD 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Temporary Lithuania OECD 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 Scale 0-6 /// Regular Strictness of Employment Protection Legislation
- 22. 22 4.4. Provide moreadequate income support (subject to strict mutual obligations) * Data refers to people previously earning 67% of average wages 18months 10months 6months 10months 55%ofprevious earnings 64%ofprevious earnings 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 LTU OECD LTU OECD LTU OECD Minimum contribution period Maximum duration Net replacement rate (right-scale) % of previous earningsMonths Unemployment benefits
- 23. 23 4.5. Expand ALMPswhich are cost effective Four out of five Lithuanian unemployed youth register with PES OECD Lithuania 0 5 10 15 20 25 % OECD Lithuania 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 % Youth participation to ALMPs Percentage of youth labour force Spending on ALMPs Percentage of GDP But participation to and spending on ALMPs remains low
- 24. 24 Contacts: alessandro.goglio@oecd.org, alessia.forti@oecd.org,anton.nivorozhkin@oecd.org Access the Lithuanian review online: Investing in Youth – Lithuania More recent work on the youth policies: www.oecd.org/employment/action-plan-youth.htm OECD Directorate for Employment, Labour and Social Affairs: www.oecd.org/els In It Together: Why less Inequality benefits All: www.oecd.org/social/inequality-and-poverty.htm Society at a Glance 2014: www.oecd.org/social/societyataglance.htm Pensions at a Glance 2015: www.oecd.org/pensions/pensionsataglance.htm Thank you Follow us on Twitter: @OECD_Social