CC BY
5redactor@ progress-human.com
УДК 316.62
THE STUDY OF THE INFLUENCE OF HOUSEHOLDS ON WORKER'S LABOR BEHAVIOR IN RUSSIA
Inna Koulkova
Doctor of Economics, Professor in Ural State University of Economics Department of Labor Economics and Human Resources Management
redactor@progress-human.com 70-232, 8th of March Str., Yekaterinburg, Russia, 620144 +7 (982) 62-40-400
Abstract: The article contains the analysis of the results of socio-economic research conducted by the author in Sverdlovsk region, which is the fourth in Russian Federation by the number of residing population. The study was conducted by the selective survey for studying the impact of household at labor behavior. During the survey the economic characteristics of households were examined and their labor potential was analyzed. The article contains the rationale of representativeness of the aggregate sample, which was asked. Analysis of the households' impact on worker's labor behavior was held in six areas: evaluation of the family' influence on the career choices and/or workplace, the employment process, solving production problems, the distribution of time between the implementation of labor functions at work and at home. In addition, the analysis of the values of the modern families (households) and the presence of family traditions was carried out.
Keywords: labor behavior; social behavior; households; behavior factors; households' labor potential; family values analysis; profession choice; employment process; work-and-life balance. JEL Code: D 10; D 19; Р 46; J 10.
Introduction.
The households act from the supply side at the resource market as a business unit, and from the demand side at the products market. The households offer economic resources, the owners of which they are, to firms at market resources - first of all labor and entrepreneurial ability [3, p.16]. Households are often the subject of scientific research [8, 9, 10].
In microeconomics there are three categories of models of family decisions about labor
supply:
- the chauvinistic models, where the dominating member of the family makes decision about his/her labor supply independently from other family members, and the rest family members make their decisions, considering his/her wages as a part of unearned income;
- the models, that involve maximization of the total family utility function having the presence of family budget restrictions;
- the models, that involve maximization of the individual utility function having the presence of family budget restrictions [7, ch. 7].
The author considers that such a strictly economic approach to the influence of households on labor supply is quite limited. Undoubtedly, the economic calculations affect on the decision of a housewife who makes a choice between buying a washing machine, taking the clothes to the laundry or washing it by hand. But this does not mean that the employment and the housework are estimated with one equivalent, a person often weighs qualitatively disparate alternatives. For example a mother decides whether to go to work to get extra income, or to look after a child, giving him more attention and care. The economic absolutization obviously leads to excesses.
The purpose of this article is to describe the results of the author's sociological research which determines the degree of influence of households and family decisions on labor behavior of its members.
1. The Evaluation of Households' Labor Potential in Sverdlovsk Region
The study was conducted a few years ago. The households of Sverdlovsk region were the general totality, according to the latest National Population Census there were 1730777 units of households, 88.5% of them lived in urban areas, and 11.5% - in rural areas. Typical sample sizes for the regional surveys vary in the range of 200-500 respondents. [2, p.167] As Sverdlovsk region is one of the largest in Russia, the author has selected sample size of 500 households; in such amount sampling error is about 5% by Gallup's calculation [1, p.80].
The calculation of sample and selection of households were conducted by multistage sample using the following procedure. Firstly localities, in which the survey was conducted, were selected. Localities included: Yekaterinburg, Bogdanovich, Kamensk-Uralsky, Polevskoy, Nizhniaya Tura, Sukhoi Log, Karpinsk and villages in Tugulymsk, Krasnoufimsk and Sysert districts.
The second stage was choosing streets and houses in the cities in order to incorporate the households living in the city centers, industrial, and "sleeping" areas.
The third stage of the sample's formation and realization consisted of probable (random) selection of households. In cases of households' refusal to participate in the study or their absence
redactor@ progress-human.com
in the residence address the survey was conducted by additional lists with the principle of probable sampling.
The sample's placement held accidentally. While the sample's placement the author strived to match the structure of asked households with the structure of households according to the latest National Population Census by the number of members. Realizing that the structure of households could be changed a little for some years, the author conducted a comparison with the census results as the most accurate reflection of real situation in statistics. The correspondence the sample with general population is presented in Table 1.
Table 1 - The households' Structure by Number of Members in Sverdlovsk Region1.
Indicators According to the results of the population census [4] According to the author's survey
The quantity The part, % The quantity The part, %
The number of households of all, 1730777 100,0 500 100,0
including:
consist of 1 person 417718 24,1 116 23,2
consist of 2 person 511667 29,6 148 29,6
consist of 3 person 418377 24,2 120 24,0
consist of 4 person 272060 15,7 80 16,0
consist of 5 person 110955 6,4 36 7,2
The average household size, pers. 2,5 - 2,6 -
Data in the table allow you to make a conclusion that the structures of households are identic and, consequently, the sample is representative.
The households, interviewed by the author, represent different types by demographic characteristics such as: family household, including nuclear, incomplete and complex family households (with or without children), and non-family households.
Nuclear (from the French. Nucleaire - core) family and, consequently, the household is called a family consisting of parents and children, who are not married and depend on them. [6] The relationships between husband and wife are dominating in the nuclear family.
There are the following nuclear family's stages of the development and, accordingly, household: bachelor period of life; young couple without children; "Full nest" (families with children); "Empty nest" (elderly partners and their children live apart); Widowhood person in charge of children. [5, p.156]
Fig. 1 shows the structure of the interviewed households by demographic grounds. As nuclear families are the main family type in modern Russia, their share is the biggest among the interviewed households (60.8%).
Fig. 1. The Structure of the Interviewed Households by Demographic Grounds, %.
2
□ Unique single
□ The couple
□ The couple and 1 child
□ Spouses and children
□ One-parent families
□ Parents and grown children
□ Families of three generations
□ Families of four generations
□ Families of complex structure
□ Non-family households
There aren't many one-parent families in the total sample, because the majority of divorced parents live in other household with new partners without registration of marriage and residence. We have classified households to "Families of complex structure" if the young couple (with or without children) lives together with parents from each side and families where parents live with a few (two) young couples. Non-family households were questioned in university hostels and in other places where people of the same sex, who are not relatives or couples, live together.
2. The Analysis of the Sociological Research Results about the Households' Impact on Their Members' Labor Behavior.
The analysis of the households' impact on persons' labor behavior was based on the answers to the six questions that cover different aspects of influence. The results showed that 95.8% of households support the decisions of its members to work, hardly ever support - 3.8%, 0.4% of the surveyed households have strictly negative attitude towards the employment of any their members. These results allow us to conclude that only those households' members have a job, whose decision to work is supported by household.
The influence of family on career choices and/or workplaces is illustrated at Figure 2. Although the majority of the economically active population makes decisions about the choice of profession and employment on their own (40.2%), the total effect of family on career choices is 34.0%, that means that the family has an influence on the profession choice and/or workplace on each third employed person.
Fig. 2 - The Family Influence on Career Choices and/or Workplaces, %.
3
3,3
□ The family forced to choose a profession (job)
□ The family influenced by advice and conviction
□ The family influenced by its own example
□ Other people and circumstances influenced
□ The person made the decision independently
□ Found difficulty in replaying
The advice and conviction are the main methods of family influence (24.6%), 6.1% of employees continue the dynasty; in addition, family applied the pressure methods in person's choice of profession or workplace in relation to the 3.3% of the employees. It should be noted that every fifth case of profession choice was attended by other people or circumstances.
Although the decision of the profession and workplace choices is usually made independently, members of the household usually help each other to find a job. So 37.9% of interviewed households marked that they had accepted to help its members in finding a job, another 9.5% of households had helped only to some members, such as children. In addition, more than a quarter of households (27.6%) usually help with advices in the employment period. Thus, 75% of households help its members in finding a job in one way or another.
As the advice and conviction are the main methods of family influence on its members, the author considers that the discussion of the production problems and questions at home is an important issue of the households' impact on labor behavior of its members. The households' structure in relation to the discussion of production issues (problems) at home is shown at Fig. 3.
The figure demonstrates that there are discussion of virtually all problems and issues, that arise at work, in every third household, more than 45% of households else discuss part of issues (problems) as desired each family member; than if we add those households where the problems of some family members are discussed only (3.3%) and where the issues are discussed with other relatives (2.1%), it can be concluded that nearly 85% of households are not only aware of the production problems, but also influence on employees' labor behavior actively in each production case.
redactor@ progress-human.com
Fig. 3 - The Households' Structure in Relation to the Discussion of Production Issues (Problems) at Home, %.4
□ Common discussion of virtually all problems and questions
□ At will issues are only discussed
□ The problems of some members are discussed only
□ The issues are discussed with other relatives
□ Discussion of production problems at home isn't common
□ Found difficulty in replaying
Finally, the last major issue of households' influence on the labor behavior is the redistribution of time between the implementation of labor functions at work and at home. Answers to the question about the attitude of households to the fact that some work and solve the production problem at home after work, is shown at Fig. 4.
Fig. 4. - The Attitude of Households towards the Fact that Some Members Take Work Home Solving the Production Problem at Home when the Workday is Already over, %.5
□ Positive attitude in general
2,9
2,1
□ Neutral attitude usually
□ Negative attitude in general
□ The attitude is different depending to the situation
□ The attitude is different depending on household member
□ Nobody works at home after working day
□ Found difficulty in replaying
At least four-fifths members of households take work to the home usually or decide production issues at home, was a surprise for the author. The author hypothesized that such
households were not more than 60% and also 20% of households had negative attitude towards it. But only a little over 5% of households expressed negative attitude and more than 15% relate to this even positively. When a person works at home, the influence of family (households) on labor behavior becomes stronger.
On the other hand, households compensate employment at home through the redistribution of working time. So, 65% of respondents answered positively the question whether household members solved family problems during working hours, in addition, another 13.3% marked that only a few family members behaved like this. And only 14.6% of respondents answered that there isn't accepted to solve family problems during working hours, practically all of these households are those in which no one takes their work home.
Thus, households not only actively effect on labor behavior of its members, but also participate in solving work problems. Therefore, author believes that the value of work must be high enough for households. The analysis of contemporary family values showed that the family itself is number one among the values, 52.2% of households noted. Employment and business come first in the hierarchy of values in only 14.6% of households, health and creative development for each one - in 11.4% of households. Over 13% of households noted that every member had his own values, and there aren't common values, and 3.5% admitted that they didn't know what paramount interests each of them has. The author considers alarming the result, which has shown that every fifth family household (21.8%) hasn't common values; these households are not stable, such families are not reliable units of society.
Another point of family values is the one about having family traditions. This question is also important for determining the impact on household to labor behavior, because some scientists consider that the words "work" and "tradition" have common historical roots in Russian language. Therefore, labor behavior can be regarded as a complex of traditions connected with the work.
During the study, the author sorted out the existence of traditions in the interviewed households. As author predicted, the most households had traditions, but they didn't think about their sustaining (see Fig. 5)
Fig. 5 - The Structure of Interviewed Families for the Presents of Traditions, %.6
redactor@ progress-human.com
8,7
□ lot of traditions
□ never thought about them, but they exist
10,3
□ traditions haven't been formed yet
□ traditions are not needed
56,2
□ found difficulty in replaying
The organization of leisure can be one of these traditions. According to the author's survey 52.3% of households prefer to have rest with the whole family (it is nuclear families mainly); 20.7% of households are divided into "interest groups" for a leisure time, such behavior is common mainly for complex family households, which include 2-3 adults' generations. At last each member has a rest separately, without his family, in 17.8% of households.
Summing up the results of the study, the author notes that:
- the households' impact on the labor behavior of its members is strong: only those members of households are employed, whose decision to work is supported by household; family have some influence on the choice of a profession and/or workplace for each third working person; household members usually help each other to find a job; about 85% of households are not just aware of the problems at work, but also have an active influence on the labor behavior of workers in each particular production case; at least some members in 4/5 of households do their work or decide production problems at home, and over 15% of households have positive attitude to this. On the other hand, households compensate employment at home, solving some home problems during working hours;
- family relationships are number one in the modern family values, while the employment and business are the second in the hierarchy of the household values; most households have traditions, but do not think about their sustaining particularly they prefer spending holiday with the whole family.
Thus, as the primary unit of society, the family has the strongest impact on the profession and workplaces choices, on the reproduction of labor behavior standards, on the process of employment including deadlines, on organizational and workers labor behavior, on effectiveness of using working time and as a result, the efficiency of human labor.
Conclusion.
redactor@ progress-human.com
References
1. Anurin V.F. Empirical Sociology: Textbook for high schools. - M.: Academic Project, 2003, p. 80.
2. Deviatko I.F. Methods of sociological researches.- 3rd edition.- M: KDU, 2003, p. 167.
3. Zherebin V.M., Romanov A.N. Economy of households.- M .: Finance, UNITY, 1998. - p. 16.
4. The results of the census in 2002. - http//www.ersds.e-burg.ru/VNP2002/.
5. Kotler F. Marketing. - M.: Rostinter, 1996, p. 156.
6. The nuclear family. - http://www.glossary.ru/cgi-bin/
7. Ehrenberg R., Smith R. Modern labor economics. Theory and Public Policy. - M.: Publishing house of Moscow University, - 1996, - Ch. 7.
8. Anderson, M. The social and political economy of the household / ed. by M. Anderson, F. Bechhofer, J. Gershuny. Oxford: Oxford univ. press, 1994.
9. Becker, G. A treatise on the family / G. Becker. L.: Harvard univ. press, 1993. Р. 137-138.
10. Belot F., Waxin T. Labor Conflicts in French Workplaces: Does (the Type of) Family Control Matter? // Journal of Business Ethics - Nov 2015.
ИЗУЧЕНИЕ ВЛИЯНИЯ ДОМАШНИХ ХОЗЯЙСТВ НА ТРУДОВОЕ ПОВЕДЕНИЕ РАБОТНИКА В РОССИИ
Кулькова Инна Анатольевна
Доктор экономических наук, профессор ФГБОУ ВО «Уральский государственный экономический университет»
Екатеринбург, Россия
Аннотация. Статья содержит анализ результатов социально-экономического исследования, проведенного автором в Свердловской области, которая занимает четвертое место в Российской Федерации по численности проживающего населения. Исследование проводилось методом выборочного анкетирования для изучения влияния домашних хозяйств на трудовое поведение человека. В ходе опроса были изучены экономические характеристики домашних хозяйств, проанализирован их трудовой потенциал. Статья содержит обоснование репрезентативности опрошенной выборки. Анализ влияния домохозяйств на трудовое поведение человека проводился по шести направлениям: оценено
redactor@ progress-human.com
влияние семьи на выбор профессии и/или места работы, процесс трудоустройства, решение производственных вопросов, распределение времени между выполнением трудовых функций на работе и дома. Кроме того, проведен анализ ценностей современной семьи (домохозяйств) и наличия семейных традиций.
Ключевые слова: трудовое поведение; социальное поведение; домохозяйства; факторы поведения; трудовой потенциал домохозяйств; анализ ценностей семьи; выбор профессии; процесс трудоустройства; баланс работы и личной жизни. JEL коды: D 10; D 19; Р 46; J 10.
Литература:
1. Андурин В.Ф. Эмпирическая социология: Учебное пособие для вузов. - М.: Академический Проект, 2003г., с. 80.
2. Девятко И.Ф. Методы социологического исследования.- 3-е изд.- М.:КДУ, 2003г., с. 167.
3. Жеребин В.М., Романов А.Н. Экономика домашних хозяйств.- М.: Финансы, ЮНИТИ, 1998г., с. 16.
4. Итоги Всероссийской переписи населения 2002 года. - http//www.ersds.e-burg.ru/VNP2002/.
5. Котлер Ф. Маркетинг.- М.:Ростинтэр, 1996г., с. 156.
6. Нуклеарная семья.- http://www.glossary.ru/cgi-bin/
7. Эренберг Р., Смит Р. Современная экономика труда. Теория и государственная политика. М.: Изд-во Моск.ун-та, 1996г., гл. 7.
8. Anderson, M. The social and political economy of the household [Текст] / ed. by M. Anderson, F. Bechhofer, J. Gershuny. Oxford: Oxford univ. press, 1994.
9. Becker, G. A treatise on the family [Текст] / G. Becker. L.: Harvard univ. press, 1993. Р. 137138.
10. Belot F., Waxin T. Labor Conflicts in French Workplaces: Does (the Type of) Family Control Matter? // Journal of Business Ethics - Nov 2015.
Контакты
Кулькова Инна Анатольевна
ФГБОУ ВО «Уральский государственный
экономический университет»
ул. 8-е Марта, 70, офис 232,
г.Екатеринбург, РФ, 620144
redactor@progress-human.com
