Republic of South Africa Systematic Country Diagnostic An Incomplete Transition: Overcoming the Legacy of Exclusion in South Africa Background note Does employing workers or accepting work pay? Analyzing labor costs in South Africa Jörg Langbein and Michael Weber 1 Does employing workers or accepting work pay? Analyzing labor costs in South Africa Jörg Langbein and Michael Weber1 Abstract For more than a decade, South Africa has experienced falling labor force participation rates while maintaining relatively high unemployment rates, particularly among its youth. This paper examines the role of labor costs from the perspectives of employers and workers by combining information from national accounts and household surveys. To better understand the employer’s perspective, we calculate the labor costs and set them in relation to productivity, thereby deriving unit labor costs. To analyze the worker’s perspective, we disentangle the tax-wedge and further work-related costs borne by workers. The results show that labor costs in the South African economy increased disproportionally relative to productivity. This is largely due to labor cost growth in the manufacturing and industry sector. An international comparison of unit labor costs shows that other countries with similar unit labor cost levels have not registered such a strong increase over the same period. To identify causes for the increase in labor costs, we decompose the determinants using household data and follow the development of work-related costs over time. We compare the results for South Africa to a set of comparator countries and identify unionization, specific sectors and skill mismatch as particularly influential for South Africa. The results show that stagnating productivity may be associated with a lack of highly qualified workers, also in comparison with benchmark countries. Background Between 2000 and 2015, South Africa’s labor force participation rate has fallen from 59.5 percent to 54.6 percent. Given the relatively stable unemployment rate, this largely translated in a declining employment to population ratio from 45.7 percent in 2000 to 40.9 percent in 2015 (World Bank 2017a). The unemployment rate remains high, amounting to 25.1 percent in 2015. Finding employment is particularly problematic for young South Africans, aged 15-24. In 2015 50.1 percent of the young South Africans, aged 15-24, were unemployed (World Bank 2017a). Reasons for the struggle many South African have in finding employment are high reservation wages due to high living costs and, most importantly, high labor costs (Rakin and Robert 2011, Gelb et al. 2013). Prominent explanations for the high labor costs are labor rigidities, strong union pressure and skills mismatch (Bhorat et al. 2009, World Bank 2017b, Gelb et al. 2013, Chappell et al. 1992). Margruder (2012), for example, identifies a loss in employment as high as 8-13 percent due to collective bargaining in South Africa yielding comparatively high labor costs. Reddy et al. (2016) provide a different explanation for high labor costs. They note that many workers are not able to keep up with the structural shift that South Africa is undergoing from low-wage jobs in the manufacturing sector to the service sector and high-skilled financial services. In other words, not enough young South Africans possess the skills needed by the economy and there are not enough jobs for the skills they possess. This skills-mismatch hampers the potential of the already capital-intensive economy that has found it increasingly difficult to keep up with the latest technological advancements in recent years (World Bank 2017b). The comparatively high costs of living and commuting may serve as an additional explanation for high labor costs as they add to the wages demanded and discourage South Africans to engage in the labor force. Kerr (2017) calculates that both, expenses for living and commuting to work are very high in South African cities, even compared to OECD benchmarks. These expenses have also increased over time and fueled labor unions’ demands for 1 World Bank 2 higher wages. However, such a compensation for workers would in turn lead to even higher labor costs for employers, thereby exacerbating the problem. The contribution of this paper to the literature is threefold. First, it examines the three main explanations of high labor costs in South Africa brought forward in the literature, namely high living costs, skills mismatch, and the collective bargaining mechanism.2 Second, it compares the results found for South Africa to a set of benchmark countries, thereby determining the magnitude of the effects in an international comparison. Third, it links macro-economic growth diagnostic tools to labor force surveys. This allows zooming in from a macro-economic perspective to individuals and hence, identify the determinants and developments of labor costs, earnings, and structural change. This paper addresses the question whether employing workers pays in South Africa from the perspective of the employer and whether working pays from the perspective of – especially skilled – workers. The analysis starts from a national overview on important indicators for South Africa using national accounts data and calculates productivity measures as well as labor costs and unit labor costs. For an international perspective, unit labor costs are compared to a set of countries similar to South Africa. Moving from the aggregate view of the national accounts to the individual level, we calculate employers’ labor costs, employees’ gross income and the respective social contributions, effectively yielding the tax wedge. Following the argument of the living wages, we analyze work related expenditures and determine the share of such expenditures on the net income for all employed. In a second step, wage determinants are examined with a focus on the role of unionization in South Africa. As the degree of unionization differs by sectors, we interact the two with each other and relate the results to South Africa’s collective bargaining approach. Comparisons between South Africa and comparator countries with data available help to determine the role of unions on labor costs and earnings from an international perspective. Similarly, we calculate the returns to education for South Africa for a broader set of comparator countries but with fewer variables involved. Results from national accounts data confirm the increases in labor costs that were, however, not in tandem with productivity increases. This led to higher unit labor costs over time in comparison to other, similar countries. High living expenditures and union density are factors contributing to the growing labor costs but in an international comparison it is the skills mismatch that increases the labor costs disproportionally. Overall, the results point at the need for fostering the process of structural change in South Africa. The paper is structured as follows. The next section describes the data used for the analysis within South Africa and the benchmark countries. Section three presents the methodology, while section four shows the results. The last section concludes. Data Data for South Africa To understand the determinants of wages and expenditure patterns in South Africa in detail two different datasets are analyzed. The first dataset is the Post-Apartheid Labor Market Series (PALMS) a cross-sectional dataset that features South Africa’s annual Labor Force survey from 1994-2007 and quarterly Labor Force surveys from 2008- 2015 covering around 5 Million observations in total. The PALMS provides information on earnings, occupations, informality, employment status, union membership and education levels of South African workers. It is nationally representative and enables intertemporal analysis. We use the dataset in version 3.1 (Kerr et al. 2016). These are regarded as one of the most reliable sources of income data in South Africa 2 Note that collective bargaining mechanisms and the demand for higher wages may partly be influenced by increasing living costs. 3 and have been widely used for analysis on the South African labor market (e.g. Bhorat et al. 2016, Kerr and Wittenberg 2016, Wittenberg 2016 and Branson et al. 2013). Since details on expenditure are not included in the PALMS dataset, we use the National Income Dynamic Study (NIDS) for South Africa for this analysis. The NIDS is representative on the national level for South Africa and has a panel structure with data collected in 2008, 2010, 2012, and 2014. NIDS contains detailed information on the individual and households, including income and expenditure variables and detailed consumption patterns. Compared to the PALMS, the NIDS is sizably smaller with around 9,000 observations per wave. Data for comparison countries To interpret the results for South Africa from an international perspective, we benchmark South Africa with comparator countries. The identification of benchmark countries builds upon the jobs classifications of countries outlined in the World Development Report 2013. It additionally considers macro-economic indicators such as GDP per capita. Further incorporating data access, Brazil, Colombia, and Mexico were eventually selected for the comparison that use national accounts data. For country comparisons using individual level data, we relied on an international collection of survey data, the International Income Distribution Dataset (I2D2) (World Bank 2018). This repository features microdata on key labor variables from ex-post harmonized household survey data. The dataset allows comparison over time and between countries and covers harmonized surveys from around 150 countries in the world. Relevant to this work, the I2D2 database provides information on wage components and returns to education for all comparison countries and South Africa. Some variables of interest that were originally not covered in the I2D2 database were added later. However, the dataset does not allow for a deeper dive into the cost components relevant for the supply of labor, such as amount spent on transport, child care, rent or others. Data availability allows comparisons with Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Indonesia, and Mexico. In sum, the PALMS dataset can be used to answer questions on return to education, employment/labor status distribution, the role of the union within South Africa. The National Income Dynamic Study adds to this providing information on expenditures and consumption. The more general I2D2 dataset is used for international comparisons. Methodology Labor costs bridge the firm’s and the worker’s perspective on jobs and help the interpretation of productivity measurements. Consequently, the calculation of unit labor costs3 forms the starting point for the analysis as it reconciles productivity and labor costs. It is defined as the average cost of labor per unit of output produced (OECD 2017a). Following OECD (2007), an increase of unit labor costs over time can represent a rising reward for labor’s contribution to output or, in other words, higher wages f or employees while productivity did not decrease as fast as labor costs. Hence, if labor costs rise faster than labor productivity, production is increasingly more expensive for employers, unless other costs are lowered to compensate.4 Unit labor costs are also a good indicator of a country’s relative cost competitiveness as they can be calculated and compared for the majority of countries, presuming data availability. However, unit labor costs should not be mistaken as a measure of overall competitiveness since currency fluctuations and changes in cost of capital are not included (OECD 2017). 3 "Unit labour costs are often viewed as a broad measure of (international) price competitiveness." (OECD, 2017) 4 This assumes a similarity between average productivity to the marginal productivity an approach discussed in Diao et al. (2017). 4 Unit labor costs are expressed as the ratio of total labor compensation per hour worked to total output per hour worked (see van Ark and Monnikhof (2000) and OECD (2007)). Labor costs are ideally derived from the compensation of employees as identified in the national accounts and reported in current prices (OECD 2017a). In case of data paucity, the OECD (2007) recommends to proxy labor costs from gross wages and salaries, from a labor cost index multiplied by total hours worked, or from average earnings multiplied by total employment. We use this proxy for the comparison of the unit labor costs between South Africa and the benchmark countries. Unit labor cost calculations for the total economy rely on the GDP, which is reported in national currency and constant output. Disaggregating by sector, however, requires using gross value added (GVA) numbers, which are calculated as the total domestic production value minus the value of purchased intermediate inputs. The values for South Africa are obtained from OECD (2017b) and follow the Systems of National Accounts (SNA). They are excluding “Financial Intermediation Services Indirectly Measured� (FISIM) and are at basic prices, meaning that taxes and subsidies on products are deducted. More formally and following OECD (2017a), the calculation of unit labor costs for different sectors can be depicted as: 𝐻 𝑖,𝑡 𝐶𝑂𝑀𝑃𝑖,𝑡 𝑈𝐿𝐶 𝑖,𝑡 = 𝐻𝐸 𝑖,𝑡 𝑄 𝑖,𝑡 where i relates to the economic sector, t indicates the period, and COMP is the total compensation of employees. To adjust for the lack of self-employment, the labor costs are multiplied by the fraction of hours worked by the wage employed and self-employed.5 Hence, H is the total number of hours worked by all persons and HE is the total number of hours worked by the employees. Q signifies the gross value added at basic and constant prices for each economic sector i in time t. Note that the calculation of the total ULC for a period t is the same without superscript i and using GDP instead of GVA for the whole economy. From the outset, national accounts data do not feature information on the non-observed economy, such as informal and household production (OECD 2002). To include this part of the economy, informal activities are usually estimated following internationally recognized procedures and standards as discussed in the System of National accounts (EU 2009). While relevant, the issue is not as severe in South Africa as in other Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries. Bhorat et al. (2015) reports that South Africa is the only country in SSA where formal salaried employees dominate the labor force and using PALMS and I2D2 data we find a share of formality between 51 – 71 percent, depending on the definition used.6 To analyze the returns to education we apply the following regression model on the real wages for 2014, 2012 and 2010. 𝑦𝑡 = 𝑋𝛽 + 𝜀𝑡 where t indicates time, and y denotes real earnings that are inflation adjusted and based on the 2000 South African Rand value. The matrix X is of dimension n x p where n refers to the number of individuals and p to the control variables. Control variables are chosen to feature individual, household and characteristics about the firm in which the individual is employed. They include individual age, race, gender, educational attainment and the industry in which the individual is working as well as the size of the firm, how long the individual has stayed with the firm and if the firm is established as formal.7 We also include union density, defined as the union membership of the individual8 and, in separate regressions, introduce interaction terms 5 An alternative could be to divide by the number of workers to derive labor costs per worker. However, this does not consider part-time working employees and would hence overestimate the importance of this group. 6 See the next section for a discussion of the different informality definitions used in this paper. 7 The variable formal is derived from the respondents answer whether he or she thinks the firm is formal. 8 This is a direct way of measuring the effects of union on the individual level. An alternative approach could be a comparison of the entire wage bargaining systems of South Africa and the benchmark countries. This is beyond the scope of this analysis. 5 to examine the importance of union membership in disaggregated sectors and for firm size for earnings. The regression model is estimated using robust clustered standard errors with clustering on the household level. We follow the recommendation from the PALMS dataset to use specifically constructed weights for the earnings regression. To obtain a more profound perspective on the individual worker’s burden, living expenditures that relate to the work are calculated using the NIDS dataset for 2014. Expenditures are reported for all individuals. However, as the expenditures are typically on a household level, we divide the expenditures by the number of workers in the household to obtain individual expenses. South Africa has a higher productivity in tradable sectors compared to the non-tradable sector. In such a scenario, wages are also higher in the tradable sector but lead, eventually, to higher wages in the non- tradable sector without an increased productivity (Dadam et al. 2018). However, because productivity does not increase, firms with lower productivity are forced to close, resulting in a higher unemployment rate, higher prices of consumer goods and inflation. This effect is named Balassa-Samuelson effect and well- established in the literature, also for developing countries (Choudhri and Khan 2005). To analyze the role of this effect we also present the results on earnings by the sector in which the individual works. The I2D2 database is used to compare the results obtained in the regression analysis for South Africa to an international context and the comparison countries include Indonesia, Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, and Mexico.9 Data limitations for the countries, require us to specify two samples. One, with Indonesia and Brazil as controls, that directly replicates the undertaken analysis for South Africa mentioned above. A separate analysis is then provided to Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Mexico, and Indonesia using a similar set of controls but without the union indicator. To ensure comparability of the wages in the different countries we first convert the earnings to US-Dollar and adjust them to purchasing power parity (PPP) by using the private consumption factor available at the World Development Indicators (WDI). Earnings are then deflated to the base year 2010, eventually yielding PPP adjusted values in 2010 international US-Dollars. Then hourly earnings are derived from the information on weekly earnings and the hours worked in the last week. The analysis is restricted to individuals aged 15-64, robust standard errors are used and estimates are weighted to ensure representability. The model is estimated using ordinary least squares and restricted to those in employment only. All statistics are weighted to ensure representability. Results In South Africa, productivity measured as constant GDP per hour worked increased from 89.1 Rand in 2010 to 90.4 Rand in 2014 (Figure 1) based on data provided by the OECD (2017b). This is equal to an increase of productivity in real values by 1.45 percent from 2010 to 2014, or an average compound growth rate of 0.4 percent (Table 1). Most of this growth occurred between 2010 and 2012 as GDP per hour has remained the same between 2012 and 2014. Labor productivity is a key indicator of the economic performance of a country and an essential driver of changes in living standards (OECD 2017a). Labor productivity growth is essential for an economy to remain competitive and a major driver of economic growth. Labor compensations used to be lower than productivity levels until 2010 but this trend reversed from 2010 to 2014. Labor costs, as measured in employee compensation per hour worked in constant 2010 prices increased faster than productivity over the years 2010 to 2014 (Figure 1). The costs increased from 40.05 Rand per hour worked in 2010 to 41.63 Rand per hour worked in 2014. This is equivalent to an increase of 3.95 percent in the labor costs from 2010 to 2014. 9 Note that no comparable data for Colombia exists in the I2D2 dataset. 6 Figure 1: Labor compensation per hour worked and productivity over time, in constant 2010 prices 120.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Labor Compensation Source: Authors’ calculation based on OECD (2017b), World Bank (2017). Unit labor costs in South Africa rose by 24.4 percent from 2010 to 2014 values using the ratio of labor compensation in current values and productivity in constant 2010 (Table 1).10 This translates to a compound annual growth rate of 5.6 percent, which is close to the average inflation rate of around 6 percent per year. Regarding the absolute values, unit labor costs were 0.54 in 2010 that increased to 0.67 in 2014. Yearly changes to the previous period range from 4.8 percent in 2014 to 8.6 percent in 2010 as depicted in Figure 2 from 2001 to 2014. Productivity levels were higher than unit labor costs and labor compensation from 2001 to 2010. However, after 2010, unit labor costs and labor compensations increased while productivity growth remained at a low level. It suggests that the recent increases in unit labor costs are due to increased labor compensations while productivity was not able to keep up. Increases in labor compensation are likely related to wage agreements that automatically factor an inflation rate of around 6 percent per year (World Bank 2018b). Figure 2: Labor compensation, productivity and unit labor costs in South Africa 140.00 120.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Unit labor costs Labor Compensation Productivity Note: Base year is 2010. Source: Authors’ calculation based on OECD (2017b), World Bank (2017). 10 Note that including labor compensation in current prices is different to Figure 1 where deflated values are reported. Current prices are used in this figure to align it with unit labor costs where current prices are used for labor compensation. See Chapter 4 for the methodology of calculating unit labor costs. 7 Table 1: Productivity, labor costs and unit labor costs for South Africa 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2,748,003 2,838,252 2,901,073 2,973,288 3,023,820 GDP in constant 2010 prices, in Million Rand 30,827 31,722 32,083 32,883 33,460 Total hours worked of persons employed, in Million 89.1 89.5 90.4 90.4 90.4 GDP per hour worked (in Rand) in constant 2010 prices 1,234,706 1,358,111 1,473,852 1,610,646 1,732,809 Compensation of employees in current prices, in Million Rand 40.05 42.81 45.94 48.98 51.79 Compensation per hour worked, in current prices 40.05 40.77 41.42 41.76 41.63 Compensation per hour worked, in constant 2010 prices Unit labor costs 0.54 0.58 0.61 0.64 0.67 ULC percentage change to previous year (in percent) 8.6 6.7 5.2 5.7 4.8 ULC (base 2010=100) 100 106.7 112.3 118.7 124.4 Source: OECD (2017b), World Bank (2017). Unit labor costs of the industry sector have disproportionally increased from 2010 to 2014 compared to the service and agricultural sector pointing to a reversed Balassa-Samuelson effect. To identify differences between the different sectors of the South African economy, unit labor costs are disaggregated at the sector level. The disaggregation reveals that the highest unit labor costs are in the service sector in 2014 with an absolute value of 0.78 followed by the industry sector in 2014 that had a level of 0.75, and agriculture having a value of 0.36. This is in line with OECD that notes “[…] in sectors less exposed to direct international competition, notably the services sector, unit labor costs (ULC) in some countries outpaced manufacturing ULC“ (OECD 2017). However, the relative increases in unit labor costs of 35.2 percent from 2010 to 2014 in the industry sector, compared to 24.5 percent in the service sector, suggests that the industry sector is likely to overtake the service sector in unit labor costs in the coming years. The increase is also higher than the rise in inflation from 2010 to 2014, which was about 24.7 percent (World Bank 2017b). Table 2: Unit labor costs by sector Calculation Unit Labor Costs, by sector 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Agriculture Absolute values 0.33 0.33 0.34 0.35 0.36 ULC percentage change to previous year (in percent) 0.44 2.60 2.93 2.12 ULC (base 2010=100) 100 100.4 103.1 106.1 108.3 Industry and construction Absolute values 0.55 0.59 0.65 0.69 0.75 ULC percentage change to previous year (in percent) 7.42 9.85 6.50 7.57 ULC (base 2010=100) 100 107.4 118.0 125.7 135.2 Services Absolute values 0.62 0.67 0.69 0.74 0.78 ULC percentage change to previous year (in percent) 6.74 3.96 6.42 5.44 ULC (base 2010=100) 100 106.7 111 118.1 124.5 Note: We use the Gross value added data in the ISIC rev 4 version. Source: OECD (2017b). There is a disproportionate increase of unit labor costs in the industry sector compared to the service and agricultural sector over the time span from 2001 to 2014 (Figure 3). In 2001 the industry unit labor costs, indexed to 2010, were 48 percent of 2010 levels. The service and agriculture sector had 15 and 20 percent higher levels. Over the time, industry unit labor costs increased relative to growth in the service and agricultural sectors and surpassed them between 2008 and 2011. This points at a reversed Balassa- 8 Samuelson effect11 (Dadam et al. 2018). As the industry sector is directly involved in global trade, relatively high labor costs may lead to negative repercussions in the labor market. Figure 3: Unit labor costs growth by sector in South Africa 140.0 120.0 100.0 80.0 60.0 40.0 20.0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Agriculture growth Industry growth Service growth Source: Authors’ calculation based on OECD (2017b). Since 2010, unit labor costs in construction, manufacturing and financial intermediation have had the strongest growth while other service activities feature the highest absolute unit labor costs.12 Disaggregating by sectors confirms that the labor costs in construction and manufacturing grew rapidly in the last years, particularly in comparison to the wholesale and retail subsector (Figure 4). Only the other service activities, which include public administration, had similar growth rates. In absolute values, manufacturing and construction have already surpassed the wholesale and financial intermediation subsectors. It is the other service activities sector that gives the service sector the edge in overall costs comparison to the industry sector. 11 The Balassa-Samuelson effect describes an increase in wages in the tradable goods sector of an emerging economy leading to higher wages in the non-tradable (service) sector of the economy that is not explained by a proportionate increase in productivity in the non-tradeable sector. The reversed Balassa-Samuelson effect, in contrast, describes productivity and wage increases in the non-tradeable (service) sector that spill over to the tradeable (e.g. manufacturing) sector without a proportionate productivity increase in the latter. 12 As working hours are reported in the ISIC 3 version and the other indicators in ISIC 4 slight differences occur to the results presented in Figure 3. Due to the nature of disaggregation in the ISIC 3, further disaggregation’s on the ISIC 4 are not possible. 9 Figure 4: Unit labor costs growth by subsectors in South Africa 140 120 100 80 60 40 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Agriculture Manufacturing Construction Wholesale and retail trade, including transport Financial intermediation Other service activities Source: Authors’ calculation based on OECD (2017b). Table 3: Unit labor costs by disaggregated sector 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Agriculture 0.33 0.33 0.35 0.37 0.38 Manufacturing 0.65 0.66 0.70 0.77 0.84 Construction 0.60 0.66 0.74 0.76 0.80 Wholesale and retail trade, including transport 0.57 0.61 0.63 0.67 0.69 Financial intermediation 0.41 0.45 0.47 0.50 0.54 Other service activities 0.87 0.92 0.97 1.04 1.09 Source: OECD (2017b). Note: Other services include, among others, public administration. From 2010 to 2014, South Africa’s ratio of total employee compensation to GDP, a proxy for unit labor costs in an international comparison, has had higher growth rates than Colombia and Mexico but slower rates than Brazil (Figure 5). Growth rates increased by 33 percent for Brazil, 16 percent for Colombia, 14 percent for Mexico and 28 percent for South Africa compared to 2010. Given the alternative measure for ULC used in the international comparison, the result for South Africa is slightly different to the unit labor costs growth calculated for the period 2010 to 2014 in Table 1. 13 However, the differences in the growth rates between the two approaches are minor (see green and light blue in Figure 5). In absolute levels, South Africa has higher absolute ULC than all comparison countries. ULC in Brazil are close to South Africa but the values are far lower for Mexico and Colombia. 13 The reason for the difference to the ULC for South Africa is a different calculation to account for a lack of data in the comparison countries. Instead of calculating the ULC using working hours we calculated the ratio of compensation by employees to GDP as a proxy for ULC. 10 Figure 5: Unit labor cost development in South Africa and comparator countries proxied by the ratio of employee compensation to GDP Indexed ratio of employee compensation to GDP 140.00 120.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Brazil Colombia Mexico South Africa South Africa, old calculation Source: Authors’ calculation based on OECD (2017b) and World Bank (2017b). Note: The figure shows the ratio of employee compensation relative to constant 2010 GDP indexed for 2010. Table 4: International comparison of the ratio of the total employee compensation to GDP (constant 2010) International comparison 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Levels Brazil 0.42 0.46 0.48 0.52 0.55 Colombia 0.33 0.33 0.35 0.37 0.38 Mexico 0.28 0.28 0.29 0.30 0.31 South Africa 0.45 0.48 0.51 0.54 0.57 Yearly growth rate previous period, in percent Brazil 7.67 9.83 5.09 7.43 6.97 Chile 5.72 Colombia 3.52 2.30 5.84 3.56 3.29 Mexico 0.25 3.19 3.59 3.05 3.53 South Africa 8.32 6.50 6.17 6.63 5.79 Growth, base 2010 Brazil 100 110 115 124 133 Colombia 100 102 108 112 116 Mexico 100 103 107 110 114 South Africa 100 107 113 121 128 Source: Authors’ calculation based on OECD (2017b) and World Bank (2017b). We use household survey data to further break down the information from the national accounts statistics. For South Africa, we use the compensation per hours worked from the NIDS dataset that covers both, 11 informal and formal workers and compare those values to the National Accounts statistic.14 Starting from the gross income data for employees15, we add one percent of social contribution paid by the employer as social contribution for all workers and another percent for those workers where the annual income exceeds 500,000 Rand (see Figure 6 for a graphical representation). This results in the labor costs the employer uses for his calculations (OECD 2013). For shedding more light on the worker’s perspective, we calculate the net income by deducting income tax, unemployment insurance, medical aid and pension contributions for formal wage worker —as well as other job-related costs such as transport, childcare, and rent.16 As the NIDS reports both, gross and net income values, we rely on the reported values.17 Note that workers that work for less than 40 hours and more than 450 hours per month are excluded in this and the following tables.18 The reason for the exclusion of the part time workers are very low monthly working hours of 171 hours in 2010 compared to 187 in 2012 and 193 in 2014. The OECD (2017) reports average working hour of around 195 between 2010 to 2015. Figure 6: Compensation per employee, labor costs and net income Compensation per employee • Unemployment insurance • Employer • Medical aid social and Pension contribution • Income Tax Net income Labor Costs Source:Authors Between 2010 and 2014, South Africa’s nominal wages rose from 16 percent to 29 percent. This translates to yearly increases ranging from 3.8 percent to 6.7 percent. Both the NIDS and the national accounts statistic show a comparable upward trend but values are higher using the national accounts statistics. The national accounts reported an average nominal compensation per hour of 40 Rand in 2010, 46 Rand in 2012, and 52 Rand in 2014 in current prices.19 In the household dataset workers earned on average 42 Rand in 2010, 44 Rand in 2012 and 49 Rand in 2014 (see Table 5: Compensation per Hour worked, reduced version). Expanding the analysis to earnings from the self-employed and casual workers confirms these trends. However, they are on a lower level relative to the national accounts statistics.20 14 Following the National accounts statistics rationale, we report separate values for wage workers and self-employed. We also focus on the primary employment to define the sector of work. 15 This is conceptionally identical to the compensation per employee. 16 Social housing is prevalent in South Africa but we cannot account for that due to data limitations. 17 Secondary employment exists in less than 1 percent of the cases and is thus negligible in size. 18 Results without the exclusion are presented in the appendix in Table 14. 19 Note that this includes informal workers. 20 Respondents are asked if their job is casual, self-employed and wage work. 12 In real values, however, the compensation per worker fell as South Africa follows an inflation targeting policy and has kept annual inflation at an average of around 6 percent from 2000 to 2014 (World Bank 2018b). Looking at deflated values, the compensation per hour worked fell from 42 Rand in 2010 to 39 Rand in 2014. The corresponding net income per hours worked fell from 31 Rand to 29 Rand.21 Table 5: Compensation per Hour worked, reduced version 2010/11 2012 2014/5 Wage workers 188.54 193.20 197.00 Compensation per hour worked, in current prices 42.42 43.80 49.25 Compensation per hour worked, deflated to 2010 42.08 39.49 38.71 Net income per hour worked, in current prices 31.32 33.05 36.34 Net income per hour worked, deflated to 2010 31.07 29.81 28.57 Number of observations 2469 3253 4230 Wage, self-employed and causal workers 185.56 191.30 195.38 Compensation per hour worked, in current prices 40.12 39.56 44.35 Compensation per hour worked, deflated to 2010 39.84 35.67 34.86 Net income per hour worked, in current prices 28.97 32.72 33.73 Net income per hour worked, deflated to 2010 28.74 29.50 26.51 Number of observations 3337 4175 5402 Note: Includes those in employment, aged 15-64. Mean statistics are weighted. 22 observations are deleted in an outlier detection regarding the wages, 362 observations that report more than 450 working hours per month are also excluded, 1173 observations that work less than 40 hours per week are excluded. Source: NIDS dataset (2010-2015) Between 2010 and 2014, both, labor costs and the tax wedge remained stable but the work-related expenditures decreased resulting in higher disposable incomes for workers even after adjusting for inflation.22 Labor costs and, subsequently, employee gross incomes, remained stable at around 52 Rand in 2010 and 2014 but income tax increased by around 1 percentage point. Measuring the share from the amount of taxes and social contributions paid, the tax wedge, shows an only slight increase from 30 to 31 percent. Over the same period, work related expenditures decreased from 8 to 5 Rand. This is equivalent to a decrease of work related expenditures on net income from 18 percent in 2010 to 11 percent in 2014. 21 See Table 14 in the appendix for values without the exclusion of workers working less than 40 hours per week. 22 Workers that do not pay taxes are taken as informal and excluded for this and the following calculations. 13 Table 6: Income types and tax wedge in South Africa for formal workers, hourly and in constant 2010 values, reduced version 2010 2012 2014 A. Labor cost in Rand, overall (per hour) 51.8 54.0 51.8 A.1. Unemployment Insurance 0.51 0.53 0.51 B. Gross income employee in Rand (per hour) 51.3 53.4 51.3 B.1. Unemployment Insurance 0.20 0.15 0.18 B.2. Medical Aid and Pension 4.10 4.26 4.18 B.3. Income Tax 10.71 12.95 11.55 C. Net income in Rand (per hour) 36.5 36.7 35.7 D. Work-related expenditures in Rand (per hour) 8.1 5.54 4.95 Transport costs 3.33 2.67 2.27 Domestic labor 0.64 0.41 0.19 Domestic child care 0.14 0.30 0.11 Rent 3.99 2.16 2.38 Disposable income in Rand 29.78 31.80 31.71 Tax Wedge 29.5 % 32 % 31.1 % Share of work related expenditures on net income 18.4 % 13.4 % 11.2 % Share of work related expenditures on net income Number of observations 1629 2107 2745 Note: Includes those in formal employment, aged 15-64. Mean statistics are weighted. Source: NIDS (2010-2015). Real labor costs increased in the industry sector relative to the service sector over the period from 2010 to 2014. This directly translates to income increases in the industry sector and a constant income in the service sector given a stable tax wedge. While labor costs in the service sector were as high as 58.9 Rand per hour, they decreased gradually to 55.5 Rand per hour in 2014. This is a decrease of 6 percent. At the same time, labor costs in the industry sector increased in real terms from 44.9 Rand in 2010 to 51.1 Rand in 2014. Thus, both sectors are closing their gap in terms of labor costs. From the perspective of workers in the industry sector, this resulted in an increase in real disposable income of 15 percent from 2010 to 2014 while disposable incomes in the service sector remained stable. Agriculture also reports increases in the disposable income per hour but on a lower level, from 8 Rand in 2010 to 13 Rand in 2014. Table 7: Labor costs and income by sector, hourly values in constant 2010 Rand 2010 2012 2014 2010 2012 2014 2010 2012 2014 Agriculture Industry Services Labor cost, overall (per hour) 11.57 12.40 15.75 44.88 46.90 51.07 58.90 61.96 55.54 Gross income employee (per hour) 11.45 12.28 15.59 44.43 46.43 50.56 58.31 61.35 54.99 Net income (per hour) 8.51 10.04 13.48 32.64 33.98 36.74 41.05 40.88 37.50 Work-related expenditures (per hour) 0.28 0.74 0.70 4.95 3.09 4.70 9.92 6.34 6.12 Disposable income per hour 8.23 9.35 12.84 28.75 31.49 33.65 33.53 35.68 33.38 Number of observations 199 267 247 337 373 633 998 1306 1794 Note: Includes those in formal employment, aged 15-64. Mean statistics are weighted. Source: NIDS (2010-2015). Work related transport costs are often listed to hinder job uptake and influence the reservation wage. In South Africa, real transport costs decreased from 2010 to 2014 along with the real reservation wage. When asked about the reason why they did not take up a job offer in 2010, 1.5 percent of unemployed South 14 Africans mentioned high travel costs while 10 percent cited the distance to the job. Those shares increased to 9.7 percent for travel costs and 27.2 percent for distance in 2014.23 At the same time, the share of South Africans mentioning too low wages increased from 17.8 percent to 30.1 percent. However, the reservation wage, which is sometimes linked to high youth unemployment in South Africa (Rankin and Roberts 2011), fell in 2010 Rand from 2,824 in 2010 to 2,547 in 2014. At the same time the net income increased from 3,950 Rand in 2010 to 4,487 Rand in 2014. One explanation of the result may be that individuals fail to internalize the inflation when asked about the reservation wage.24 Figure 7: Reason for not accepting a job and reservation wage Source: Authors’ calculation based on NIDS (2010-2015). An assessment of real earnings using regression analysis techniques further investigates the components of the earnings and reveals the importance of the different sectors. Results of a regression analyzing earnings in constant 2000 Rand for all workers, formal and informal, are reported in Table 8. After controlling for socio-demographic variables like age and race conducting an analysis on the disaggregated sectors, the following results stand out: (i) Every sector has significantly higher earnings than agriculture; (ii) The mining sector pays 5.8 to 7 Rand per hour more than the agriculture sector making it the best paid sector in South Africa, followed by the finance sector, manufacturing, trade, and service sector; and (iii) Aggregating the sectors (to agriculture, industry, and services) shows that industry and services have an earnings premium over agriculture. In line with the presented national accounts data, this premium has decreased for the service sector over time but increased for the industry sector. High earnings are linked to high labor costs in the industry sector and point to a reversed Balassa-Samuelson effect spilling from the service into the industry sector. In combination with the low productivity in the industry sector, as demonstrated by the national accounts data, high earnings in the industry sector are troublesome from a firm perspective. The increased costs in the manufacturing, construction and trade sector, coupled with low productivity, result in high labor costs and firms will eventually need to compensate. This could be by no longer trading internationally or leaving the market altogether (Dadam et al. 2018). 23 Note that only unemployed workers were asked this question in the NIDS. We therefore do not have information on discouraged workers within the inactive. 24 The number of individuals that did not accept a job was very low and thus results can be seen as indicative only. 15 Union membership and education add to higher average earnings and informal employment to lower earnings. Union density is a factor in explaining higher individual earnings but with decreasing importance. As per the regression results (Table 8), being a member of a union raises, on average and holding all other control variables constant, earnings by 1 Rand per hour in 2000, 0.7 Rand in 2012 and 0.3 Rand in 2014. Effects are significant in 2010 and 2012 but not in 2014. Education provides comparatively higher additional earnings. Obtaining primary education pays around 3to 3.6 Rand per hour more, a size that is comparable to working in the public sector. Having a completed tertiary education increases hourly earnings between 27 to32 Rand per hour, indicating a significant skills mismatch. Over time there have only been small changes in the wage premium on completed tertiary education from 30 Rand per hour in 2010 over 33 Rand per hour in 2012 and 28 Rand per hour in 2014. Note that the average hourly wage in this time was 17.4 Rand per hour in 2010, 18 Rand per hour in 2012 and 17.2 Rand per hour in 2014 and thus the relative difference did not change at all. Not surprisingly, working in the informal sector decreases average hourly earnings.25 Comparing the magnitude of the earnings determinants for 2014, shows that union membership has with 0.38 Rand one of the lowest effect sizes and is not significant. The highest determinants are educational and sectoral factors. In 2014, the highest premiums are associated with those workers that obtained secondary education (15 Rand) or tertiary education (28 Rand). This is followed by working in the mining sector (6 Rand) and in finance (5 Rand). 25 Informality status is gleaned from asking the workers if they think the firm they are working in is formal or informal. 16 Table 8: Hourly earnings for workers in South Africa, in constant Rand Real Hourly Earnings 2010 2012 2014 Male dummy 3.551*** 2.643*** 2.878*** (0.317) (0.271) (0.317) Firm is informal dummy -3.139*** -1.872*** -1.272*** (0.399) (0.263) (0.340) Sector: Agriculture Base Base Base Sector: Mining and quarrying 5.868*** 7.047*** 6.085*** (1.091) (0.637) (1.009) Sector: Manufacturing 2.350*** 2.951*** 4.030*** (0.462) (0.384) (0.594) Sector: Utilities 3.176 0.986 3.987 (2.588) (1.151) (2.704) Sector: Construction 2.372*** 1.882*** 2.979*** (0.490) (0.368) (0.457) Sector: Trade 1.658*** 2.230*** 3.446*** (0.388) (0.336) (0.431) Sector: Transport 1.957*** 3.042*** 3.112*** (0.641) (0.747) (0.774) Sector: Finance 4.817*** 5.050*** 4.697*** (0.615) (0.526) (0.605) Sector: Services 4.466*** 3.174*** 3.326*** (0.692) (0.656) (0.536) Sector: Domestic Services 2.323*** 1.906*** 2.742*** (0.655) (0.496) (0.521) Urban dummy 1.927*** 2.162*** 2.612*** (0.277) (0.209) (0.241) Member in a union dummy 1.033** 0.686* 0.380 (0.426) (0.370) (0.429) Years of working for same enterprise 0.153*** 0.125*** 0.168*** (0.026) (0.021) (0.025) Education: No education Base Base Base Education: Primary incomplete 0.385 0.059 0.710** (0.338) (0.294) (0.353) Education: Secondary incomplete, primary complete 3.238*** 2.966*** 3.621*** (0.413) (0.372) (0.426) Education: Secondary complete 18.464*** 18.824*** 15.045*** (0.747) (0.585) (0.741) Education: Tertiary education complete 30.087*** 32.902*** 27.881*** (1.226) (1.054) (1.204) Firm Size: 0-1 employees Base Base Base Firm Size: 2-4 employees -0.783 -0.417 0.192 (0.616) (0.347) (0.401) Firm Size: 5-9 employees -1.463 -1.598*** 0.269 (0.922) (0.514) (0.609) Firm Size: 10-19 employees -2.535*** -1.100** 0.495 (0.871) (0.532) (0.592) Firm Size: 20-49 employees -2.365*** -0.378 0.767 (0.883) (0.552) (0.607) Firm Size: 50+ employees -0.857 0.622 2.633*** (0.913) (0.562) (0.636) Employed in public sector dummy 2.451*** 3.982*** 2.978*** (0.709) (0.746) (0.563) Constant -2.079 -1.937 -8.190*** (2.246) (1.787) (2.170) Socio-demographic control Yes Yes Yes Observations 30,664 61,794 57,939 R-squared 0.399 0.380 0.270 Note: Earnings are in Rand to the base of 2000. Robust-clustered standard errors in parentheses. *, **, *** signal 10, 5, and 1 percent significance level, respectively. Dataset is restricted to those aged 15-64 and hourly earnings below the 1 and higher than the 99th percentile are replaced by the 1st and 99th percentile, respectively. Socio-demographic controls include variables for age, race, and living with the partner. Results weighted using ’bracketweights’ specified by PALMS for income calculations. Source: Authors’ calculations based on the PALMS dataset, version 3.1. 17 Union density is decreasing in South Africa, but high density prevails in large firms and the mining, service, and utilities sectors. Unions have an important role in determining wages particularly in large firms through the Bargaining councils. In contrast, the Ministry of Labor sets minimum wage levels, called sectoral determination, in low wage sectors with low union densities (World Bank 2017b). The degree of unionization has decreased from 31 percent in 2010 to 29 percent in 2014 (Table 9). Unions achieve high concentrations in the industry sector where 83 percent of the mining workers in 2014 were a member of a union, followed by 34 percent in the construction sector. Only trade, which also reported relatively high earnings as per the earnings regression in Table 8, has a relatively low degree of unionization. The service sector reported the highest earnings premium. It is also the sector with a relatively high unionization amounting to 52 percent. Previous research associated bigger firms with higher wages (Rankin and Roberts 2011, Kerr et al. 2014). However, we only find weak evidence for this claim. Looking at unionization by firm size, we see that the degree of unionization increases with the size of the firm and reached a level of 43.7 percent in 2014 for firms with 50 or more employees. Yet, it is in this group of 50 or more employees that shows the strongest decline in unionization over time, from 49.9 percent in 2010 to 43.7 percent in 2014. This is also confirmed by a regression analysis controlling for confounders (Table 10 and Table 11). Table 9: Share of unionization by sector and firm size 2010 2012 2014 Overall share of unionization 30.9 30.1 29 By Sector Agriculture 5.7 6.3 6.4 Mining & Quarrying 77.6 79.1 83.2 Manufacturing 37.1 35.1 34.0 Utilities 60.3 56.9 60.1 Construction 13.3 11.4 12.5 Trade 17.3 17.8 19.4 Transport 33.3 33.0 31.9 Finance 23.6 20.8 20.5 Services 60 57.9 51.7 Domestic services 0.4 0.4 0.4 By Firm Size 0-1 employee 1.6 1.2 1.1 2-4 employees 7.1 6.0 5.9 5-9 employees 14.3 15.1 14.0 10-19 employees 26.6 25.7 26.3 20-49 employees 34.6 34.1 34.7 50+ employees 49.9 46.7 43.7 Note: Weighted using cross-entropy weights provided by PALMS, version 3.1. Collective bargaining measures prevent earnings differences between members in a union by different sectors and firm size. Membership in a union is not resulting in sectoral disaggregated earning differences or firms size differences. To gain insights into the importance of high union densities for wage setting in these groups, we recalculate the earnings model in Table 8, but include interaction for union membership and sectors in one model, and union membership and firm size in another. Except for the service sector, shows that there is no constant difference in earnings to be found between union members and outsiders.26 Similarly, union membership is mostly important in firms with a size of 10-19 members (see Table 11). This is not surprising as collective bargaining mechanisms in South Africa ensure that agreements are valid for union and non-union members within the same sector. The reason why this finding does not apply to workers in the service sector is likely the high diversity of the service sector. Services include the largest number of different sub-sectors. 26 Although there are significant differences for agriculture in 2014, domestic services in 2014, and Trade in 2014 this is due to a small sample size and the inherent variations. 18 Table 10: Real hourly earnings by sector for union members in comparison to non-union members Real hourly earnings 2010 2012 2014 1: Agriculture 1.359 -1.213 -1.440** (2.238) (1.406) (0.664) 2: Mining and quarrying -4.034 1.494 -2.141 (3.252) (1.514) (3.655) 3: Manufacturing 0.241 0.124 -1.003 (0.702) (0.588) (0.947) 4: Utilities -3.912 0.139 -3.296 (3.516) (1.986) (5.618) 5: Construction 1.034 1.237 -0.439 (1.240) (1.088) (1.118) 6: Trade 0.578 0.560 -1.666** (0.730) (0.489) (0.755) 7: Transport 2.126 0.538 1.636 (1.317) (1.428) (1.703) 8: Finance 0.985 -0.904 -1.817* (1.323) (0.938) (1.034) 9: Services 2.522*** 1.967*** 3.700*** (0.869) (0.727) (0.700) 10: Domestic Services 0.655 1.054 -3.440*** (1.582) (1.503) (0.869) Observations 30,664 61,794 57,939 Note: Weighted using cross-entropy weights provided by PALMS, version 3.1. Standard errors are clustered on the household level. Table 11: Interaction between firm size and union Real hourly earnings 2010 2012 2014 Firm size: 0-1 employee 8.182 4.793 1.658 (8.591) (3.341) (1.627) Firm size: 2-4 employees 1.301 1.621 -0.814 (1.482) (1.311) (1.403) Firm size: 5-9 employees -0.071 2.085** 1.792 (1.535) (1.023) (1.207) Firm size: 10-19 employee 2.456*** 2.576*** 1.646** (0.771) (0.602) (0.714) Firm size: 20-49 employees 0.377 1.222** -0.259 (0.677) (0.575) (0.620) 50+ employees 0.889 -0.364 0.157 (0.576) (0.518) (0.618) Observations 30,664 61,794 57,939 Note: Weighted using cross-entropy weights provided by PALMS, version 3.1. Standard errors are clustered on the household level. In an international comparison, the role of unions is smaller in South Africa compared to Brazil and Indonesia.27 Estimating the same regression as in Table 8,28 again including informal and formal workers, shows that union membership significantly increases hourly earnings in all three countries where information on union membership is available. However, the size of the effect is the lowest in South Africa with 0.2 additional international US-Dollar per hour, compared to 0.8 in Indonesia and 0.5 in Brazil. From an international perspective, this suggests that the relative importance of unions in South Africa may be slightly exaggerated. The impression is reinforced when putting the effect size in relation to the mean of 27 As the dependent variable is hourly earnings, ppp adjusted and in constant 2010 US-Dollar, the results for South Africa are not comparable to the ones obtained in Table 8. 28 Note that we excluded the informal dummy due to strong collinearity between informal and unions and given that a different definition of informality is used than before. 19 the overall hourly wages as reported in Table 15. Average hourly wages for Brazil are reported to be 4.32 US-Dollar, for Indonesia 2.52 US-Dollar and for South Africa they account to 7.52 US-Dollar per hour. Thus, the 0.2 additional US-Dollar for union membership in South Africa makes up only 3 percent of the hourly wage, compared to 31 percent in Indonesia and 11.5 percent in Brazil. However, note that wage systems are different between countries and South Africa’s collective bargaining system may also be used by incumbents to exclude smaller firms that cannot pay high wages from the market (World Bank 2017b). Table 12: Determinants of hourly earnings in international US-Dollar, ppp adjusted and deflated for Brazil, Indonesia and South Africa Brazil Indonesia South Africa 2014 2015 2014 Gender -1.042*** -0.486*** -1.077*** (0.038) (0.066) (0.113) Union membership 0.530*** 0.774*** 0.228 (0.058) (0.118) (0.148) Agriculture Base Base Base Sector: Mining 1.369*** -0.146 2.069*** (0.305) (0.135) (0.331) Sector: Manufacturing 0.100 -0.046 1.229*** (0.183) (0.105) (0.213) Sector: Public utilities 0.814** -0.210 1.594 (0.369) (0.235) (1.001) Sector: Construction 0.247 -0.546** 0.796*** (0.185) (0.213) (0.163) Sector: Commerce -0.211 0.035 0.913*** (0.181) (0.126) (0.157) Sector: Transport and Comnunications 0.035 -0.287* 0.832*** (0.190) (0.162) (0.271) Sector: Financial and Business Services 0.430** 0.154 1.423*** (0.189) (0.108) (0.216) Sector: Public Administration 0.310* 1.651*** (0.178) (0.299) Sector: Other Services, Unspecified 0.556*** 0.030 0.714*** (0.193) (0.179) (0.162) Urban area (=1 if yes) -0.098 0.147** 0.943*** (0.069) (0.072) (0.085) Education: No education Base Base Base Education: Primary incomplete 0.390*** 0.390** 0.336*** (0.089) (0.178) (0.127) Education: Primary complete but secondary incomplete 1.044*** 0.544*** 0.903*** (0.093) (0.174) (0.131) Education: Secondary complete 1.450*** 0.818*** 2.348*** (0.094) (0.187) (0.175) Education: Some tertiary/post-secondary 4.433*** 1.538*** 7.251*** (0.114) (0.182) (0.258) Firmsize: 0-1 Base Base Base Firmsize: 2-4 -0.478*** (0.101) Firmsize: 5-9 0.167*** -0.467*** 0.110 (0.046) (0.111) (0.167) Firmsize: 10-19 0.752*** -0.587*** 0.336** (0.036) (0.112) (0.158) Firmsize: 20-49 -0.203* 0.482*** (0.117) (0.162) Firmsize: 50+ 0.471*** 1.097*** (0.122) (0.168) Working in Public Sector (=1 if yes) -0.757*** 1.423*** 0.952*** (0.261) (0.147) (0.179) Socio-demographic controls Yes Yes Yes Constant 0.199 -0.043 -1.621** (0.253) (0.407) (0.663) Observations 74,080 12,541 59,707 R-squared 0.183 0.099 0.249 Source: Authors’ calculations based on the I2D2 dataset. Standard errors clustered on household level. 20 Instead, the relatively higher earnings for the well-educated indicate high but unmet demand of skilled workers in South Africa. Except for the high-income economy Chile, South Africa stands out among the comparator countries in terms of the earnings premium for higher education. A comparison with Table 15 (appendix) shows that better educated workers have, in nearly all cases, higher earnings per hour in South Africa than workers in the comparator countries except for high income Chile. The best educated South Africans earn 11.6 US-Dollar per hour which is comparable to Chile with earnings of 11.5 US-Dollar for that group. For comparison, best educated workers in Brazil earn 7.9 US-Dollar, 3.2 US-Dollars in Indonesia and 6.3 US-Dollars in Mexico. The results are somewhat different for low-skilled workers without primary education. In this group, Chile, Brazil and Ecuador have higher average earnings than South Africa. Controlling for potential confounders in a regression model,29 some tertiary / post-secondary education improves the workers earning in South Africa considerably compared to the benchmark countries. South Africans with this education level earn, on average, 6.8 US-Dollar per hour more than South African without education. The value is with 8.4 US-Dollar higher in Chile but considerably lower in Brazil (4.5 US-Dollar), Mexico (3.6 Us-Dollar) and Indonesia (1.5 US-Dollar). Information on this subgroup is missing for Ecuador. This may indicate a skills shortage that widens with higher education levels for South Africa and stands out in comparison to other countries. It further highlights that skills shortages seem to be a relatively bigger issue than unionization. By sectors, South Africa reports particularly high earning differentials relative to agriculture in a descriptive international comparison. While the values obtained for South Africa are like the ones reported in Chile, they are considerably higher in comparison to Brazil, Ecuador, Indonesia, and Mexico (see Table 15 in appendix). Mining, public utilities, financial and business services, and public administration are the highest paid sectors with average earnings between 7.2 US-Dollar and 9.6 US-Dollar. This is confirmed in a regression analysis but controlling for other factors, like education, reduces the absolute differences in earnings between agriculture and other sectors. In relation to agriculture (base), working in the mining sector improves the income of South African workers by 1.6 Us-Dollar per hour. Positive and significant earnings premiums are reported for working in nearly all other sectors relative to agriculture in South Africa, Chile, as well as Ecuador and, to some extent, Mexico. However, the results for Brazil and Indonesia are more mixed. The particularly low earnings in agriculture in South Africa may be an indication for needed structural change. A change that is already happening in countries like Brazil, Mexico, and Indonesia. These three emerging countries have experienced a positive structural change accompanied by higher agricultural productivity and lower shares of agricultural employment and is missing for South Africa (Gelb et al. 2014.). Our results with relatively low earnings in the agricultural sector in South Africa compared to the other sectors, are suggesting a need for such a structural change in South Africa. 29 Note that we use a different definition of informality here compared to the regression in Table 8 where we define formality if the firm is officially registered. For the international benchmarking we do not have this information and construct informality based on social security payments, health insurance and contract availability. Values for South Africa are similar for all other benchmark countries but Chile. This is likely related to the social security system in Chile and altering the definition by basing it on having health insurance or a contract would yield the expected negative direction of the informality estimate for Chile. 21 Table 13: Determinants of hourly earnings in international US-Dollar, PPP adjusted and deflated for Brazil, Chile, Ecuador, Indonesia, Mexico and South Africa Hourly wages in US-Dollar, PPP Brazil Chile Ecuador Indonesia Mexico South Africa adjusted and deflated Gender -1.049*** -1.868*** -0.586*** -0.473*** -0.305*** -1.019*** (0.038) (0.132) (0.053) (0.066) (0.083) (0.110) informal -0.097** 0.647*** -0.468*** -1.225*** -0.643*** -1.178*** (0.045) (0.180) (0.057) (0.114) (0.106) (0.123) Sector: Agriculture Base Base Base Base Base Base Sector: Mining 1.418*** 2.632*** 0.058 -0.143 1.135* 1.599*** (0.305) (0.291) (0.098) (0.134) (0.593) (0.326) Sector: Manufacturing 0.137 0.135 0.189** -0.098 -0.039 0.956*** (0.183) (0.155) (0.087) (0.105) (0.119) (0.201) Sector: Public utilities 0.847** 1.555*** 0.517*** -0.250 0.363 1.735* (0.369) (0.585) (0.074) (0.233) (0.402) (1.035) Sector: Construction 0.255 0.901*** 0.381*** -0.596** 0.486*** 0.802*** (0.185) (0.205) (0.076) (0.252) (0.123) (0.162) Sector: Commerce -0.208 0.280* 0.536*** -0.046 0.091 0.739*** (0.182) (0.146) (0.100) (0.126) (0.114) (0.155) Sector: Transport and Communications 0.061 0.762*** 0.455 -0.306* -0.170 0.623** (0.190) (0.228) (0.301) (0.159) (0.143) (0.268) Sector: Financial and Business Services 0.449** 4.348*** 0.489** 0.097 0.511** 1.273*** (0.189) (0.349) (0.211) (0.108) (0.237) (0.215) Sector: Public Administration 1.187*** 0.769** 0.267 0.638*** 1.438*** (0.363) (0.392) (0.177) (0.183) (0.297) Sector: Other Services, Unspecified 0.565*** 0.403** 0.070 -0.030 0.657*** 0.637*** (0.194) (0.188) (0.097) (0.179) (0.171) (0.161) Urban area (=1 if yes) -0.099 0.679*** -0.331*** 0.103 -0.271*** 0.892*** (0.069) (0.108) (0.056) (0.072) (0.092) (0.084) Education: No education Base Base Base Base Base Base Education: Primary incomplete 0.395*** -0.126 0.218* 0.416** 0.229 0.269** (0.089) (0.464) (0.123) (0.178) (0.178) (0.124) Education: Primary complete but 1.060*** 0.765 0.536*** 0.571*** 0.704*** 0.779*** secondary incomplete (0.093) (0.468) (0.115) (0.173) (0.168) (0.131) Education: Secondary complete 1.472*** 2.169*** 1.024*** 0.808*** 1.133*** 2.067*** (0.094) (0.475) (0.129) (0.186) (0.192) (0.174) Education: Some tertiary/post- 4.475*** 8.423*** 1.459*** 3.629*** 6.782*** secondary (0.114) (0.508) (0.180) (0.238) (0.251) Firm size: 0-1 Base Base Base Base Base Base Firm size: 2-4 -0.555** -0.471*** -0.051 (0.235) (0.101) (0.167) Firm size: 5-9 0.151*** -1.540*** -0.520*** 0.206 -0.031 (0.047) (0.287) (0.112) (0.193) (0.171) Firm size: 10-19 0.769*** -2.128*** -0.641*** 0.161 0.089 (0.041) (0.223) (0.112) (0.200) (0.164) Firm size: 20-49 -0.342*** 0.310 0.213 (0.117) (0.213) (0.170) Firm size: 50+ -1.952*** 0.305*** 0.191 0.761*** 0.744*** (0.207) (0.067) (0.132) (0.206) (0.170) Working in Public Sector (=1 if yes) -0.795*** -0.168 1.369*** 1.429*** 1.098*** 0.820*** (0.264) (0.272) (0.137) (0.144) (0.213) (0.184) Socio-demographic controls Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Constant 0.169 0.050 2.597*** 1.288*** 0.335 0.377 (0.259) (0.824) (0.342) (0.433) (0.409) (0.665) Observations 74,080 61,374 29,202 12,544 9,207 60,523 R-squared 0.181 0.212 0.087 0.108 0.325 0.249 Note: Socio-demographic controls include age and age square, if the individual was ever married, and the individuals social group. Standard errors are clustered on the household level. Source: Authors’ calculations based on the I2D2 dataset. 22 Discussion The South African economy and particularly young South Africans are suffering from high unemployment rates and low labor force participation. The literature typically cites high labor costs as main reasons. This was confirmed in the first part of the paper when analyzing unit labor cost trends. Results for South Africa suggest an increase of unit labor costs over time, also in comparison to most of the benchmark countries with Brazil being the exception. While unit labor costs were highest in the service sector in 2014, it is likely that unit labor costs in the industry sector will soon overtake the service sector. This can be expected if the current growth rates continue, i.e. if labor costs continue to increase while productivity remains constant. After discussing labor costs from a macro-economic perspective, we used information on workers to determine the role of the three identified reasons for high labor costs: skills mismatch, the role of unions, and increased living expenditures. In this process, the following determinants and their effects were analyzed: i) Over time, work-related expenses have declined in real terms and also as an income share. While work related expenses made up 18 percent in 2010, they only accounted for 11 percent in 2014. They, hence, do not appear to be a key factor in the decision of workers to look for a job; ii) The reservation wage of workers has decreased over time and made up 57 percent of the average wage in 2014 compared to 64 percent in 2010. This indicates that more workers are willing to accept a job offer but do not seem to find one given the persistently high unemployment rates; iii) The role of the unions may be overstated in South Africa as the analysis showed a declining importance over time. In 2014, union membership played a very low and even insignificant role in determining earnings. Comparing the influence of unions in South Africa to unions in Brazil and Indonesia shows that the union membership premium is rather low in South Africa. A detailed analysis of the role of unions in wage setting across sectors shows that the collective bargaining mechanism in South Africa increases the wage for all workers within the same sector; iv) Education is one of the two important factors for labor costs. Higher education is a particularly sizeable cost factor, suggesting that there is a lack of highly trained South Africans and those available cannot fulfill the demand. This points at an important constraint especially as the South African economy is relying more and more on skill-intense jobs (World Bank 2017a); and v) The high earnings in all sectors compared to the agricultural sectors suggest the need for structural change in South Africa. Recent research demonstrates the potential for structural change without a sole focus on productivity increases in the industrial sector but rather high growth in the service sector driven by local demand (Diao 2017). In such scenario, an agricultural sector with positive productivity growth can make a difference and also increase local (rural) demand. However, for this to happen, South Africa may need to first increase agricultural productivity. In general, further increases in unit labor costs can be expected without effective policy interventions to address the ongoing trend. To affect the trend, interventions would need to either increase productivity growth over unit labor cost growth, or reverse the unit labor costs growth while maintaining productivity. The skills mismatch has been identified as the most important reason for high labor costs. There are different short- and mid-to long term options for addressing this mismatch domestically. Short term strategies in the 23 educational sector may involve better incentives for providing training opportunities within the firm but also targeted investment into Technical and Vocational Education and Training (TVET) systems. In the mid-to longer term, improvements in the educational system to increase access to higher quality education and improve efficiency are needed along with active monitoring and filling of skills gap by adapting the curricula and training opportunities. 24 Bibliography Baltagi, B. H. (2008). Econometric analysis of panel data. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Bhorat, H. and Cheadle, H. (2009). Labour Reform in South Africa: Measuring Regulation and a Synthesis of Policy Suggestions. Working Papers 09/139, University of Cape Town, Development Policy Research Unit. Bhorat, H., Kanbur, R. and Stanwix, B. (2015). Minimum Wages in Sub-Saharan Africa: A Primer. IZA Discussion Paper, No. 9204. Bhorat, H., Cassim, A. and Tseng, D. (2016): Higher education, employment and economic growth – exploring the interactions, Development Southern Africa, 33:3, 312-327. Branson, N., Ardington, C., Lam, D. and Leibbrandt, M. (2013). "Changes in education, employment and earnings in South Africa: A cohort analysis." Southern Africa Labour and Development Research Unit , no. 105. Center for Development and Enterprise (2017). No country for young people – The crisis of youth unemployment and what to do about it. Chappell, W. F., Kimenyi, M.S., and Mayer, W.J. (1992). The impact of Unionization on the entry of firms: Evidence from the U.S. Industry, Journal of Labor Research, XIII (3): 273-282. Choudhri, E. U. and Khan, M. S. (2005). Real Exchange Rates in Developing Countries: Are Balassa Samuelson Effects Present? IMF Staff Paper 52(3): 387-409. Dadam, V., Hanush, M. and Viegi, N. (2018). Why South Africa is cheap for the rich and expensive for the poor? Revisiting Balassa-Samuelson in an unequal society, in World Bank (2018). An Incomplete Transition: Overcoming the Legacy of Exclusion in South Africa, Background Note 2, World Bank Group: Washington, DC. Diao, X., McMillan, M. and Rodrik, D. (2017). The recent growth boom in developing economies: A structural change perspective, NBER Working Paper 23132. Gelb, A., Meyer, C., and Ramachandran, V. (2013). Does Poor Mean Cheap? A Comparative Look at Africa’s Industrial Labor Costs, CGD Working Paper No. 325, Washington, DC: Center for Global Development. Gelb, A., Meyer, C., and Ramachandran, V. (2014). Development as Diffusion: Manufacturing Productivity and Sub-Saharan Africa’s Missing Middle, CGD Working Paper 375. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development. Gelb, A., Meyer, C., and Ramachandran, V and Wadhwa, D. (2017). Can Africa Be a Manufacturing Destination? Labor Costs in Comparative Perspective. CGD Working Paper 466. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development. Eifert, B., Gelb, A., and Ramachandran, V. (2008). The Cost of Doing Business in Africa: Evidence from Enterprise Survey, World Development 36(9): 1531-1546. Kerr, A. (2017). Taxi(i)ng the Poor? Commuting Costs in South African Cities, South African Journal of Economics, 85(3): 321-340. Kerr, A., Wittenberg, M., and Arrow, J. (2014). Job Creation and Destruction in South Africa, South African Journal of Economics 82(1): 1-18. Kerr, A., Lam, D. and Wittenberg, M. (2016), Post-Apartheid Labour Market Series [dataset]. Version 3.1. Cape Town: DataFirst [producer and distributor]. 25 Kerr, A. and Wittenberg, M. (2016). A Guide to the 3.1. of the Post-Apartheid Labour Market Series (PALMS). Klein, N. (2012). Real wage, labour productivity, and employment trends in South Africa: a closer look. IMF Working Paper 12(92). Li, Y. and Rama, M. (2015). Households or Locations? Cities, Catchmen Areas and Prosperity in India, Policy Research Working Paper, No. 7473, The World Bank: Washington, DC. Margruder, J. R. (2012). High Unemployment yet few small firms: The role of centralized bargaining in South Africa, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 4(3): 138-166. McMillan, M., & Rodrik, D. (2011). Globalization, structural change and productivity growth. In M. Bacchetta, & M. Jense (Eds.), Making globalization socially sustainable (pp. 49–84). Geneva: International Labour Organization and World Trade Organization. Nattrass, N. and Seekings, J. (2013). Job Destruction in the South African Clothing Industry: How an Alliance of Organised Labour, the State and Some Firms is Undermining Labour-Intensive Growth. CDE Focus January 2013, Centre for Development and Enterprise, Johannesburg. OECD (2002). Measuring the Non-Observed Economy: A Handbook, OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD (2007). Main economic indicators, available online: https://www.oecd.org/std/labour- stats/38219407.pdf [last checked 10/15/2017]. OECD (2017a). OECD Compendium of Productivity Indicators 2017, OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD (2017b). OECD Database, available online: https://data.oecd.org/ [last checked 10/24/2017] Rankin, N.A. and Roberts, G. (2011). Youth unemployment, firm size, and reservation wage in South Africa, South African Journal of Economics, Vol. 79 (2): 128-145. Reddy, V., Bhorat, H., Powell, M., Visser, M. and Arends, A. (2016). Skills Supply and Demand in South Africa, LMIP Publication, Human Sciences Research Council, Pretoria. Statistics South Africa (2017). Poverty Trends in South Africa – An examination of absolute poverty between 2006 and 2015. Report No. 03-10-06, Pretoria: Statistics South Africa. van Ark, B. and Monnikhof, E. (2000). Productivity and unit labour cost comparisons: a data base. Employment Paper 2000/5, Working Paper, ILO. World Bank (2017a). World Development Indicators. Available online: https://data.worldbank.org/data- catalog/world-development-indicators. World Bank, 2018 . “International Income Distribution Database (I2D2).� World Bank, Washington, DC. World Bank (2018b). Republic of South Africa – Systematic Country Diagnostic, World Bank Group: Washington, DC. 26 Appendix Table 14: Compensation per Hour worked, including part time workers 2010/11 2012 2014/5 Wage workers 171.14 187.42 193.17 Compensation per hour worked, in current prices 51.92 47.15 51.14 Compensation per hour worked, deflated to 2010 51.53 42.51 40.24 Net income per hour worked, in current prices 38.49 35.87 37.63 Net income per hour worked, deflated to 2010 38.21 32.34 29.61 Number of observations 2866 3393 4306 Wage, self-employed and causal workers 164.58 181.86 186.12 Compensation per hour worked, in current prices 48.87 43.01 45.88 Compensation per hour worked, deflated to 2010 48.51 38.78 36.10 Net income per hour worked, in current prices 35.66 36.12 35.59 Net income per hour worked, deflated to 2010 35.39 32.57 28.00 Number of observations 3967 4461 5659 Note: Includes those in employment, aged 15-64. Mean statistics are weighted. 22 observations are deleted in an outlier detection regarding the wages, 362 observations that report more than 450 working hours per month are also excluded. Source: NIDS dataset (2010-2015) Table 15: Mean hourly earnings in US-Dollar by education, ppp and inflation adjusted Brazil Chile Ecuador Indonesia Mexico South Africa No education 2.39 4.37 2.60 1.31 1.98 2.10 Primary incomplete 2.74 4.28 2.87 1.74 2.26 2.64 Primary complete 3.05 4.73 3.24 1.87 2.48 3.44 Secondary complete 3.80 5.47 3.88 1.99 3.32 5.72 Post-secondary / 7.92 11.47 Missing 3.21 6.28 11.58 Tertiary complete Overall 4.32 7.14 4.03 2.52 3.43 5.72 Source: Authors calculation based on the I2D2 dataset. 27 Table 16: Mean hourly earnings in US-Dollar by sector, ppp and inflation adjusted Brazil Chile Ecuador Indonesia Mexico South Africa Agriculture 2.71 4.29 3.24 2.53 2.16 2.14 Mining 6.24 9.37 3.42 2.03 5.27 7.24 Manufacturing 3.95 6.13 4.12 2.34 3.00 6.18 Public utilities 6.68 7.47 3.77 2.58 5.04 9.60 Construction 3.65 6.78 3.67 1.71 2.99 4.28 Commerce 3.55 5.99 3.74 2.39 2.63 4.84 Transport and 4.41 7.38 5.49 2.14 2.63 5.89 Communication Financial and Business 6.18 11.94 6.46 2.79 4.28 7.29 Services Public Administration 7.41 8.79 5.39 3.02 5.52 8.78 Other Services, 4.65 7.48 5.83 2.45 2.41 5.33 unspecified Source: Authors calculation based on the I2D2 dataset. 28