2. Improving the activation of skills of vulnerable populations in Kazakhstan
Skills activation policies are key to supporting the employment opportunities of those most at risk of falling behind, particularly youth, older workers and people with disabilities. The role played by these policies is heightened during economic downturns, such as the current crisis caused by the coronavirus (COVID-19), as they can reduce the risk that laid-off workers become trapped in long-term unemployment, and can support an incipient recovery. This chapter explains the importance of improving the activation of skills of vulnerable groups in Kazakhstan and provides an overview of current practices and performance. It then explores three opportunities to kickstart skills activation of vulnerable groups in Kazakhstan: improving the accessibility and quality of public employment centres; strengthening the effectiveness of active labour market programmes for vulnerable populations; and promoting family policies for a more equitable sharing of paid and unpaid work.
In a matter of months, the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic turned from a public health crisis into a major economic and jobs crisis; it is expected to cast a long shadow over the world’s economies. Before the pandemic, previous OECD work underscored the importance for policy makers in Kazakhstan to factor in the challenge of skills activation as a tool to support the development of solid career paths and to strengthen job quality. Labour informality is widespread in Kazakhstan, and the labour market remains unequal, with sizeable regional disparities, and a very large share of low-paid jobs (OECD, 2017[1]). The benefits of skills activation can be particularly important for vulnerable populations: by helping youth find their way in the world of work, for example; by creating the conditions for fostering the labour market participation of older workers; and by supporting the inclusion of people with disabilities in the labour market and society.
There are reasons to expect that the gains of well-performing skills activation are potentially sizeable. Vulnerable workers are often low-skilled, which implies that they face a higher risk of being employed in the informal sector with few labour rights, limited social protection and poor working conditions. In addition, the important social and economic costs of them remaining trapped in long-term unemployment include the permanent loss of human capital, increased financial hardship, the erosion of self-confidence and ill-health conditions. Finely tuned activation policies can play an important role in limiting these costs.
The severe consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on employment have made implementing effective and well-targeted skills activation policies an even more urgent priority. Many firms around the world are struggling to stay afloat, and large numbers of workers are being laid off. Those working in non-standard jobs, often at a low-income (e.g. self-employed workers, temporary or part-time workers), are paying the highest price, since these jobs are over-represented in the sectors most affected by the pandemic (OECD, 2020[2]). Public employment services (PES) have played a critical role in implementing skills activation policies which reduce the risk that laid-off workers fall into long-term unemployment and support, in turn, an incipient recovery.
This chapter starts with an overview of skills activation policies and programmes in Kazakhstan. The next section describes how PES, active labour market programmes (ALMPs) and family policies are organised and delivered; identifies the key actors and their responsibilities; and assesses the performance of PES and ALMPs. The subsequent section presents a detailed assessment of the identified opportunities and sets out tailor-made policy recommendations to support the employability of vulnerable populations in Kazakhstan.
Current arrangements for the activation of skills of vulnerable populations
The responsibilities of public employment services in skills activation
In Kazakhstan, the PES system was created in April 1991 and has since undergone several reforms. The employment units, originally funded and co-ordinated by the regional districts (akimats), have been suppressed. Their activities have been transferred to the employment centres, which respond to the central government and now play a central role in the delivery of employment services.
The employment centres play a pivotal role in the activation of skills by involving jobseekers in productive employment and enabling rapid job placements. Their functions include providing career guidance and job-matching services, delivering short-term vocational training and organising public work and job fairs. The priority objective of the centres is the activation of jobseekers from vulnerable populations, particularly youth, the low-skilled and people with disabilities, which are the groups at the highest risk of poverty and exclusion from the labour market in Kazakhstan. In addition, the employment centres support young women re-accessing the labour market after several years of absence from the labour market due to childcare responsibilities. The centres also provide targeted social assistance to the unemployed and low-income-level citizens, refugees and foreigners permanently residing in Kazakhstan.
Currently, there are about 203 employment centres in Kazakhstan, covering most of the country. In addition, since September 2019, 30 mobile employment centres have been launched to reach out to people more proactively. The mobile centres tend to stop in busy public places with high pedestrian traffic, such as markets, railway stations and shopping centres. They target rural areas and the peripheries of large cities, where informal jobs are more highly concentrated.
The job vacancy bank within Kazakhstan’s PES has improved substantially in recent years. This reflects the launch of the Enbek digital platform, which includes the Electronic Labor Exchange, an integrated database to monitor and disseminate job vacancies at the local level. The Electronic Labor Exchange has benefited from collaboration with other popular online job platforms and private employment agencies. As of April 2020, there were 23 773 vacancies and 152 458 registered jobseeker resumés (CVs) available in the Electronic Labor Exchange.
Active labour market programmes to improve the activation of skills of vulnerable populations
ALMPs encourage greater labour market participation and better employment among all groups in society, with a special focus on the most disadvantaged. Kazakhstan’s history of ALMPs is relatively short. The first large-scale programmes were introduced in 2011 with the implementation of the Employment Roadmap 2020, which aims to help vulnerable groups access quality, more secure and productive employment (OECD, 2017[1]). Recently, the roadmap has been integrated into the new State Programme of Productive Employment and Mass Entrepreneurship Development 2017-2021 (Enbek).
The Ministry of Labour and Social Protection of Populations (MLSPP) and the Workforce Development Center (WDC) are responsible for policy design, for setting priorities and overseeing the implementation of ALMPs by the local authorities. Local implementation efforts are financed through a transfer from the national budget. The amount of the transfer is proportional to the size of the local active populations but is often adjusted to reflect specific regional development priorities. Direct job creation and start-up incentives programmes account for about 70% of ALMP expenditure. In 2019, employment incentives and training programmes had the largest number of participants, followed by direct job creation mainly using public works.
Family policies to support skills activation of young parents
Affordable and quality early childhood education and care (ECEC) provide an important complement to the role played by direct skills activation policies. This is due to their positive role in supporting young parents in their efforts to better balance family and work responsibilities and easing the return of mothers to employment after childbearing. Preschool education in Kazakhstan is provided by state kindergartens, private kindergartens and mini-centres. These three institutions are under the supervision of local education authorities, which follow guidance from the Ministry of Education and Science (MOES).
Parental leave systems also support skills activation policies, and usually consist of maternity leave, paternity leave, and parental leave. Maternity leave is employment-protected leave of absence for employed women directly around the time of childbirth, paternity leave is employment-protected leave of absence for employed fathers at or in the first few months after childbirth, and parental leave is employment-protected leave of absence for employed parents, which is often supplementary to specific maternity and paternity leave periods, and frequently, but not in all countries, follows the period of maternity leave (OECD, 2019[3]).
In Kazakhstan, all employed mothers have access to maternity leave regardless of employment history. The time spent on maternity leave and childcare counts as work experience. Maternity leave is 126 days (70 days before and 56 days after the birth) and can be extended to up to 140 days (12 additional days after the birth) in cases of multiple births or for health reasons. Pay during maternity leave is equal to the average monthly wage for the past 12 months. For unemployed women, the maternity leave payment is based on the minimum wage and the number of children in the family.
There is no paternity leave in Kazakhstan, which significantly discourages parents from playing an equal role in work and family life. Accordingly, caring for children around childbirth remains primarily the responsibility of mothers, which discourages female participation in the labour market.
Parental leave lasts up to one year in Kazakhstan and can be taken by either mothers or fathers. The amount of the payment equals 40% of the average wage of the past 24 months but cannot exceed an amount equal to seven times the level of the minimum wage. It can be supplemented by a further period of up to three years of childcare leave, which is unpaid.
Performance in activating the skills of its vulnerable populations
Prima facie evidence suggests that Kazakhstan fares better in activating the skills of its labour force than OECD countries, major emerging economies and its neighbouring countries (see Figure 2.1). In 2018, the employment rate of the population (aged between 15 and 64) in Kazakhstan was 65.7%, much higher than the sample of OECD countries shown by Figure 2.1. At the same time, the unemployment (4.8%) and inactivity rates (30.9%) were significantly lower.
However, similarly to many other emerging economies, the low level of unemployment in Kazakhstan largely reflects the absence or weakness of social insurance schemes, which makes unemployment unaffordable and pushes many workers into jobs with very low and uncertain earnings. Most of these jobs are a “last resort”, in which the worker spends a relatively small number of hours, often in combination with other activities in the informal sector.
The latest figures show that the share of informal workers, defined as the share of employees who do not pay social contributions and the self-employed whose businesses are not registered, is about 16.8% in Kazakhstan. By international standards, this level is not high, given the level of development of the country and the sector composition of the economy (OECD, 2016[4]; Rutkowski, 2011[5]). Evidence suggests that youth, older workers and the low-skilled are considerably more likely than other groups to work informally or be self-employed.
Concerning the challenges faced by specific groups, although the figures suggest that youth (aged 15-28) perform comparatively well in Kazakhstan, large differences exist across socio-demographic and geographic groups. One way to look at the issue is to focus on the youth who are not in employment, education or training (NEET), which captures those who face the highest risk of being permanently excluded from the labour market. Measured as a percentage of the total youth population, the NEET rate is higher among young women (9.9%) than young men (4.8%). Particularly large differences exist across regions, with NEET rates being highest in the Karagandy Province (12.3%) and Turkeminstanskai region (10.7%), and lowest in the Kostanay Province (4.7%) and West Kazakhstan (2.8%) (see Figure 2.2). Higher NEET rates are found among youth with no, or only, primary education than more educated youth (OECD, 2017[1]).
Note: Great Britain (United Kingdom); the Russian Federation (hereafter “Russia”); People’s Republic of China (hereafter “China”).
Source: ILOSTAT (2020[6]), ILOSTAT Database, https://ilostat.ilo.org/data/.
Older people in Kazakhstan (conventionally defined as workers aged 55-64 years old) show inactivity rates higher than the OECD average (42.4% versus 38.9%), while employment rates are lower (54.8% versus 58.1%). The labour market situation of older workers deteriorates with age. People aged 65-69 in Kazakhstan are twice less likely to be employed (the employment rate is 12%) and much more likely to be inactive (the inactivity rate is 87%) than the OECD average (where the two measures are 24.9% and 74.4%, respectively). On the other hand, unemployment rates are very low, reflecting low participation in the labour market (OECD, 2017[1]).
The employment rate of people with disabilities is relatively low in Kazakhstan by international comparison, despite the fact that most of them have some capacity to work. This represents a large unexploited potential supply of skills and reflects high barriers to the hiring and retention of people with disabilities. At 22%, in Kazakhstan, the employment rate of people with disabilities compares poorly to the OECD-European average of 46.9% and falls at the bottom of the ranking (OECD, 2017[1]).
As in many OECD countries, in Kazakhstan, low-skilled people struggle more to enter the labour market. People with primary education or below generally have much higher inactivity rates than people with higher education (92% versus 20%) and significantly lower employment rates (8% versus 76%). Women in Kazakhstan have significantly lower employment rates than men (60.6% versus 73.2%), resulting primarily from higher inactivity rates (34% versus 23.1%). Regional differences are also important, reflecting different levels of development and economic activity. People living in southern and western regions of the country – such as South Kazakhstan, Kyzylorda, and West Kazakhstan – generally show poorer labour market performance (see Figure 2.3).
Note: Education data refer to 2014 for all panels.
Source: Region and gender data are provided by the Bureau of National Statistics; education data are OECD calculations based on Eurostat (2020[7]), European Union Labour Force Survey (EU LFS), https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/microdata/european-union-labour-force-survey.
This section describes three opportunity areas to improve the activation of skills of vulnerable populations in Kazakhstan. The selection is based on input from literature, desk research, discussions with Kazakhstan’s national project team, discussions with stakeholders in workshops in Nur-Sultan and Almaty, as well as virtual meetings involving more than 100 stakeholders. In light of this evidence, the following opportunities are considered to be the most relevant for the specific context in Kazakhstan to improve the activation of skills of its vulnerable populations:
Opportunity 1: Improving the accessibility and quality of public employment centres
Opportunity 2: Strengthening the effectiveness of active labour market programmes for vulnerable populations
Opportunity 3: Promoting family policies for a more equitable sharing of unpaid and paid work.
Opportunity 1: Improving the accessibility and quality of public employment centres
Approachable and responsive employment centres are pivotal to improve the activation of people’s skills. Employment centres play important roles in disseminating information on job vacancies, organising active labour market programmes and delivering employment services to jobseekers. This is even more important in light of the COVID-19 crisis, which requires public employment services to show responsiveness by quickly and flexibly adapting to the new situation.
However, as stressed by many stakeholders during workshops and focus group discussions, jobseekers in Kazakhstan typically are not very motivated to register with PES. The main reasons include the low quality of services provided and cumbersome registration procedures, which necessitate the submission of numerous documents from different offices and the fulfilment of complex and time-consuming administrative requirements (OECD, 2017[1]).
To increase the willingness of the most vulnerable populations in Kazakhstan to register with and benefit from PES, three policy directions could be considered, as follows.
Ensuring that public employment services provide adapted responses to the circumstances imposed by the COVID-19 crisis
Recent OECD evidence suggests that the effects of the coronavirus and containment measures have differed across population groups, according to age, gender and socio-economic backgrounds. Women and youth have been impacted more severely by the shutdowns in a number of sectors where they are typically over-represented, such as restaurants, hotels, passenger transport, personal care services and leisure services. Reflecting the disproportionate representation of low-income and part-time workers, these groups have entered the current period of financial pain in a significantly more precarious state than regular, more protected, workers (Barbieri, Basso and Scicchitano, 2020[8]). Countries have substantially reduced internship and apprenticeship contracts for youth, raising concerns about the emergence of a “corona generation” of marginalised youth with little career prospects (OECD, 2020[2]).
With face-to-face meetings less likely, there has been scope for the PES to intensify the use of digital tools, direct phone services to ensure the continuation of their counselling and career guidance in these challenging times. Even before the COVID-19 crisis, for example, the Estonian PES provided remote career guidance and counselling via email, phone and Skype. The benefits of having these services in place appear to be accentuated by the pandemic: between January and March 2020, the demand for remote career counselling increased more than seven-fold in Estonia, with the most popular option remaining phone counselling (Holland and Mann, 2020[9]). Telephone-based solutions, in particular, are easy to implement at little extra cost and have the advantage of being easily accessible by clients without digital skills or devices (OECD, 2020[10]).
More generally, the concomitance between soaring caseload numbers with the application of distancing requirements has tested the agility of the PES. For example, most OECD countries had explicit job search reporting procedures prior to the crisis (Immervoll and Knotz, 2018[11]), aiming to encourage jobseekers to look for work as speedily as possible. With the crisis, many countries have eased and adjusted these requirements for jobseekers with children at home, reflecting childcare facility or school closures (e.g. Austria, Brussels [Belgium], the Netherlands and the United Kingdom). In other countries, the PES have temporarily suspended job search requirements altogether and lifted sanctions (e.g. France, Germany, Portugal, Slovenia and Sweden). Others did not apply sanctions but encouraged jobseekers to continue actively searching for jobs (e.g. Australia, Denmark, Estonia and Latvia) (OECD, 2020[2]). In some OECD countries, PES offices have shifted to prioritising processing unemployment benefit applications (OECD, 2020[10]).
The advantages of increased digitalisation of PES services will likely extend beyond the COVID-19 crisis, resulting in more permanent gains. Improving information technology (IT) systems has the potential to reduce the time that case workers need to devote to routine tasks, allowing them to concentrate on more tailor-made services for individual clients (OECD, 2020[10]). Kazakhstan can draw inspiration from the experience of OECD countries that have recently taken steps to intensify PES e-services (see Box 2.1), bearing in mind that it is important to prioritise the safety of staff while ensuring the quality of services provided. According to stakeholders consulted throughout the mission, most employment centres in Kazakhstan rely on face-to-face meetings to provide services to clients. To better respond to the COVID-19 crisis, PES could also reorganise staff work routines via teleworking, allowing flexible shifts at the workplace, for example (OECD, 2020[12]).
PES e-services: Examples from the Netherlands and Slovenia
In the Netherlands, most PES have been delivered on line since 2010. Registered jobseekers can manage all their activities through an online account and automatically receive action plans and matched vacancies, which they are required to respond to. If there is no activity recorded in their online accounts or required tasks remain unfulfilled (e.g. applying for a job vacancy), personal interviews are used to follow up with jobseekers. PES staff can access clients’ accounts to review their job-search activities and CVs. A “CV quality card” helps staff to improve the quality of a jobseeker’s CV and thus their chance of returning to work. The quality card is an automated report using datamining, which compares CVs and job-search activities of other jobseekers with similar characteristics. PES staff use this information during personal counselling interviews to advise jobseekers on job search. The aim of this approach is to privilege the establishment of interactive digital relations with clients so that only the most disadvantaged clients receive intensive support through personalised coaching. Recent figures show that 95% of unemployment benefit recipients were registered on line and 85% used ongoing e-services such as managing their benefit claims and automatic matching to vacancies.
In Slovenia, all registered jobseekers who create a customer account in the Employment Service of Slovenia (ESS), an online portal, have access to the online vacancy database and can create an online CV to advertise themselves to employers. Jobseekers have access to a number of online facilities, such as different self-assessment tools, tips on CV preparation and job interviews. Additional online functionalities are accessible by jobseekers who opt to sign an agreement during the first counselling interview. “E-clients” receive referrals to job vacancies from their ESS advisor through their account and manage all documentation on line (e.g. updates of the individual action plan, invitations to job fairs). Contacts with the employment counsellor take place on an e-coaching basis, i.e. via the online portal. This allows the ESS counsellors to have a good overview of a jobseeker’s job-search efforts. The counsellors also have the option to change the relationship with clients back to in-person attendance when the jobseeker does not actively use the online account (e.g. the online portal is visited less than once in two weeks), does not respond to vacancy referrals or struggles with the online tool.
Source: OECD (2015[13]), OECD Employment Outlook 2015, https://doi.org/10.1787/empl_outlook-2015-en; OECD (2016[14]), Connecting People with Jobs: The Labour Market Activation Policies and Disadvantaged Workers in Slovenia, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264265349-en.
1.1. Adopt and utilise digital communication tools to ensure the continuation of services during and following the COVID-19 crisis. To move toward more diversified services, the MLSPP could reinforce the move to digital platform tools and direct phone contacts. More online job fairs, online training and online communication through video conferencing could be used when face-to-face events/ interviews are not possible. Counselling interviews over the phone are important to engage individuals who do not have access to, or are less familiar with, digital devices.
Continuing efforts to build institutions that effectively reach vulnerable populations
Jobseekers have different characteristics and skills profiles (OECD, 2015[13]). Several stakeholders in the assessment mission stressed that there are unexploited opportunities in Kazakhstan for increasing the capacity of the PES to provide personalised services tailored to the skills and work expectations of each individual. For example, they have a role to play in orienting older workers, young parents and individuals with health problems towards jobs that are particularly suitable for them, for example, because they make stronger use of part-time arrangements, flexible start and finishing time arrangments or teleworking.
One way to better tailor services to vulnerable populations is to strengthen job profiling. OECD countries have various jobseeker profiling procedures in place to deliver services that appropriately reflect the needs of specific groups, taking into account their skills characteristics and probability of becoming long-term unemployed. Typically, profiling is used by caseworkers to set out an individual action plan (IAP) with implementation often facilitated by recourse to information technology (see Box 2.2) (OECD, 2015[13]).
Successful activation of jobseekers requires competent and motivated employment counsellors. Counsellors have to combine a broad range of competencies, involving “hard” skills (e.g. performing administrative tasks and using IT systems) and “soft” skills such as job broking, profiling and counselling. The ability to work in a multi-disciplinary team is also important to address social exclusion, in particular, to address individuals and families who need assistance in several areas of life. This includes through the support of co-ordinated responses with health specialists, psychologists, social insurance workers and other professionals.
Various non-governmental organisations (NGOs) operate in Kazakhstan, playing a positive role in facilitating the activation of vulnerable populations and their skills. Feedback from stakeholders during the assessment mission has revealed that their substantial knowledge of the most disadvantaged groups and the social and employment barriers they face is largely under-utilised. There seems to be in particular a lack of co-operation between the government, local employment centres and NGOs, which prevents the sharing of knowledge and experiences about practices to provide tailored ALMPs to those facing the highest risks of social and labour market exclusion.
Stakeholders also reported that the performance of public employment centres, as evidenced by their capacity to support clients in their search for suitable jobs, is relatively low, compared to private employment agencies in Kazakhstan. This suggests that giving the two types of agencies more opportunities to explore synergies and collaborate more closely could be an appropriate avenue to explore, particularly in the urban areas and for more readily employable workers who are less in need of basic training. This seems to be in line with international practice (OECD, 2019[15]; OECD, 2017[1]). Many PES in OECD countries outsource some employment services to private providers. The most notable example is Australia, where the PES outsources all employment services to private providers (OECD, 2015[13]).
In Kazakhstan, employment services started to be outsourced to private employment agencies in 2018. Although the legal framework has been adapted to accompany the expansion of these new services, the collaboration between public and private centres remains limited. Kazakhstan can benefit from promoting public-private partnerships (PPPs) to facilitate co-operation between public and private employment agencies (Scoppetta, 2013[16]; Barbier, Hansen and Samorodov, 2003[17]), which are discussed in Chapter 5. Currently, there are about 98 private agencies operating in Kazakhstan, of which 54 are connected to the Electronic Labor Exchange, the government-run online platform for job search and recruitment, which operates under the Enbek website.
Jobseeker profiling: Examples from Australia, Germany and the Netherlands
In Australia, the Job Seeker Classification Instrument (JSCI) takes into account 18 dimensions – such as access to transport, age, gender and income support history – as provided by the questionnaire that all jobseekers complete when they first register. When required by particular social and health care conditions, specialist assessments are undertaken to supplement jobseeker answers. Tailored support is also provided to people with disabilities. Based on their JSCI score, jobseekers are allocated to one of four streams of intervention regimes, each associated to a particular schedule of payments to providers for their services.
In Germany, clients are organised and treated according to six different profiles using a software-guided assessment of their “distance from the labour market”. Each profile is linked to a specific service strategy that the caseworker follows.
In the Netherlands, the profiling tool called “work explorer” determines the probability that a jobseeker will resume work within a year. Each jobseeker fills in the questionnaire electronically before three months of unemployment. The outcome of the questionnaire determines whether or not the jobseeker is entitled to intensive support to increase the chances of finding a job.
Source: Konle-Seidl, R. (2012[18]), Monitoring and Follow-up of IAPs and their Outcomes in Selected EU Countries, https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=7530&langId=en; OECD (2012[19]), Activating Jobseekers: How Australia Does It, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264185920-en.
1.2. Improve jobseeker profiling tools to enable upfront intervention, by allowing caseworkers to set up individual action plans. PES in Kazakhstan need to collect sufficient information from jobseekers based on interviews and profiling upon registration to assess their competencies, socio-demographic characteristics, family status (e.g. single parents), household income and risks of falling into long-term or repeated unemployment. This is important to allow the PES to better prioritise and decide which kinds of support (e.g. re-skilling training solutions, career guidance, employment incentives) would best match clients’ needs. PES in Kazakhstan could adopt profiling tools that have proved effective by international practice (e.g. as in Australia and Germany).
1.3. Reinforce collaboration with private employment agencies and local NGOs as a way to alleviate the capacity constraints of public employment services. The MLSPP should improve the regulatory and monitoring framework to ensure that the market of private employment agencies delivers quality services under conditions of fair competition. PES should consider building closer collaboration with private employment agencies in providing counselling services, for example by promoting PPPs (see Chapter 5), to build on the knowledge and network capacity of existing NGOs and private agencies.
Improving the quality of services provided by employment centres
Although recent data show that registration with PES among the unemployed has increased in the past few years, registration rates remain low compared to European OECD countries. In 2019, about 22% (97 500 people) of all unemployed people were registered with the PES in Kazakhstan, versus an average of 60% in European OECD countries (see Figure 2.4). More recent data shows that, as of April 2020, 149 783 unemployed people aged 15-64 were registered with the PES in Kazakhstan, which is a significant jump compared to 2019. This largely reflects the increased unemployment caused by the COVID-19 crisis in the first quarter of 2020.
In addition, a majority of caseworkers face irregular working hours and relatively low pay, which undermines their motivations and contributes to high turnover rates. High turnover of caseworkers is a source of inefficient delivery of employment services and substantially lowers the quality of services due to losses of skills and lack of continuity. Moreover, many caseworkers are low skilled and lack the experience and competencies needed to respond to the need of clients, including by using available tools and information and communication technologies (ICTs) (OECD, 2017[1]). Evidence suggests that the skill levels and attitudes of caseworkers toward their clients may play an important role in the quality and effectiveness of PES. As mentioned above, counsellors need a broad range of competencies, ranging from “hard” skills (e.g. performing administrative tasks and using IT systems) to “soft” skills, such as job brokering, counselling and social work, so as to be able to improve outcomes for the unemployed (OECD, 2015[13]). It is of critical importance to provide sufficient training to caseworkers on digital skills as well as interpersonal skills (see Box 2.3).
As discussed above, Kazakhstan has recently improved its online vacancy bank. Since 2018, the Electronic Labor Exchange, a central web portal for job search and recruitment, has been fully integrated with the employment centres’ vacancy database. However, as mentioned by several stakeholders, including representatives from the National Chamber of Entrepreneurs (NCE or Atameken), during the OECD Skills Strategy project missions, the limited attractiveness of the positions advertised in the job vacancy bank is a source of concern. Particularly, many of the positions are mainly for low-quality and temporary jobs. In addition, some posted job positions have already been filled, whereas others are still at the level of intention. These problems reflect the need for regular screening to verify the quality of the information and to keep the system up to date. Keeping the vacancy database up to date will be even more important during and following the coronavirus pandemic, which can be expected to entail shifts in labour demand across sectors and regions.
Source: For data on Kazakhstan, OECD calculations based on information provided by the Bureau of National Statistics and MLSPP. For data concerning OECD-Europe, OECD calculations based on Eurostat (2020[7]), European Union Labour Force Survey (EU LFS), https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/microdata/european-union-labour-force-survey.
Improving job matching services: Examples from Australia, the United Kingdom, Japan and Sweden
In Australia, a proactive approach has been adopted whereby a jobseeker is referred to a potential employer who may be willing to fill a particular position, despite the fact that he/she has not created a formal vacancy. For instance, contracted employment service providers use this technique for hard-to-place jobseekers who are job-ready or close to job readiness.
Some countries provide special support to small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which usually lack human resource departments and do not have the capacity to register or manage vacancies effectively. Outreach to SMEs can also be achieved through collaboration with small business federations, chambers of commerce and trade associations. For example, the PES in the United Kingdom runs a small business recruitment service to serve the needs of small businesses with fewer than 50 employees. This can involve the creation of a specialist employer helpline, advice on the local labour market, support on how to advertise vacancies (e.g. wording and design) and post-recruitment support.
Another good practice is to hold job fairs on PES premises, where jobseekers can meet prospective employers. In Japan, such offers are targeted in particular at jobseekers who experience difficulties in finding a job independently and need more support. Recruitment meetings in Swedish local PES offices function like “speed-dating” events for employers and jobseekers – essentially three-to-four-minute interviews to facilitate matching.
Source: OECD (2012[20]), Sick on the Job? Myths and Realities About Mental Health and Work, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264124523-en; OECD (2014[21]), Connecting People with Jobs: Activation Policies in the United Kingdom, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264217188-en; Duell (2010[22]), “Activation Policies in Japan”, https://doi.org/10.1787/5km35m63qqvc-en.
1.4. Increase the number of caseworkers and improve their working conditions so as to improve motivation and the quality of services provided. The MLSPP should increase the resources and capacity of PES, for example, by expanding the number of caseworkers and offering higher salaries commensurate with their physical and psychological work burdens. The MLSPP should also ensure that caseworkers receive regular training to keep them abreast of newly developed digitally supported services. It is important to allocate a sufficient budget to expand training opportunities for PES staff to improve their competencies and to equip them with the knowledge and skills required to efficiently support clients.
1.5. Monitor and upgrade the quality of the job postings available in the vacancy bank. The MLSPP and NCE should simplify the procedures for employers to advertise a vacancy, and extend digital platform services targeted to the unemployed. PES staff may actively solicit employers for new job offers, rather than confining their role to the registration of vacancies, which is too passive in light of international experience. More proactive approaches could be considered to refer jobseekers to potential employers who have yet to issue a formal vacancy but may be willing to hire under the right conditions (e.g. as in Australia). In addition, the PES in Kazakhstan should consider establishing a small business recruitment service for SMEs to provide them with additional support in advertising vacancies (e.g. wording and design) and post-recruitment support (e.g. as in the United Kingdom).
1.6. Adopt proactive approaches to promote efficient job-matching services. The PES in Kazakhstan should hold job fairs and recruitment meetings on a regular basis, where jobseekers can meet prospective employers. Such events could particularly target jobseekers who experience difficulties in finding a job independently and need more support (e.g. as in Japan). Local PES offices could, for example, organise “speed-dating” events to facilitate the matching process, while allowing employers to meet as many candidates as possible (e.g. as in Sweden).
Opportunity 2: Strengthening the effectiveness of active labour market policies for vulnerable populations
Active labour market policies could support skills activation by enhancing people’s motivation and incentives to seek employment; improving job readiness and support in finding suitable employment; and expanding employment opportunities. For this to happen, it is crucial that ALMPs are evaluated and that, following these evaluations, funding is allocated to the programmes that delivered the best value for money. However, several stakeholders consulted throughout the OECD Skills Strategy project reported that limited evaluations of the impact of ALMPs is carried out in Kazakhstan. Even when this happens, results are unlikely to be used to inform relevant policies and support progress towards good practices. Based on this feedback, Kazakhstan should strengthen its active labour market policies, particularly with regard to vulnerable populations. Two pathways to doing so are presented below.
Developing rigorous impact evaluation systems on the impact of active labour market policies
Several stakeholders consulted during the OECD Skills Strategy project reported that very few evaluations of the impact of ALMPs are carried out in Kazakhstan. Even when this happens, results are unlikely to be used to inform relevant policies and support progress towards good practices. International experience suggests that an assessment of existing ALMPs is important to improve the cost-effectiveness of interventions. It could help policy makers gain valuable information on whether programmes should be continued and eventually improved, or terminated because they are not effective (OECD, 2015[13]).
Developing rigorous impact evaluation systems could be particularly important in the context of Kazakhstan, where ALMPs generally have very broad eligibility criteria and are characterised by poor targeting. This implies that the system is prone to generating deadweight and substitution effects, which could reflect the over-representation of highly skilled participants, leaving little room for the vulnerable populations who need the ALMPs the most to find productive employment (OECD, 2017[1]).
A number of OECD countries have taken steps to build a stronger impact evaluation culture for ALMPs (see Box 2.4). In Germany, for example, the implementation of the 2003-05 reforms of both active and passive labour market policies was explicitly tied to an evaluation mandate. In Australia, the Try, Test and Learn Fund – set up in 2016 to identify new approaches to move at-risk income support recipients onto a pathway towards employment – uses a range of impact evaluation methods to test effectiveness and learn from results (OECD, 2019[23]). These efforts should be co-ordinated with initiatives in other skills policy areas (see Chapter 5). Chapter 5 finds that Kazakhstan has so far struggled in building a strong evaluation culture across the skills system, and recommends establishing a common evaluation and assessment framework for skills policies by forming an inter-ministerial working group. The development of the impact evaluation systems for ALMPs should be consistent with the common evaluation and assessment framework.
Measuring the impact of ALMPs: Examples from Switzerland, Australia and the United States
The impact of ALMPs on labour market outcomes can be assessed in various ways. In some cases, there is a clear correlation between the introduction of new activation strategies and changes in aggregate labour market outcomes. Impacts can also be evaluated by comparing labour market outcomes between participants (i.e. individuals who participated in active programmes) and non-participants. This includes, for example, the comparison between labour market developments in areas where new measures are implemented (on a “pilot” basis) and developments in other areas.
In Switzerland, evaluation results are produced based on matching participants in each programme with comparable participants in other programmes and non-participants (using a common starting date, as defined by the programme under assessment). The assessment relates outcomes for the period 1998-99, using longitudinal data to capture individual labour market histories. They find varying degrees of impact by programme type. Some bring strongly positive impacts to labour market outcomes while others have nearly zero or even negative impacts in some cases.
In Australia, the Post Programme Monitoring (PPM) Survey was set up in the late 1980s to provide insights into the participant structure of some of the ALMPs. It records full-time and part-time employment, education and training outcomes achieved by jobseekers around three months after they exit labour market assistance. Results are published in quarterly Labour Market Assistance Outcomes reports.
In the United States, pooled regression is used to find which activation programmes bring the most positive impacts. They present the findings from random-assignment evaluations of different service strategies implemented by 59 employment offices for welfare recipients throughout the United States.
Source: Gerfin, M. and M. Lechner (2002[24]), “A Microeconometric Evaluation of the Active Labour Market Policy in Switzerland”, https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00072; OECD (2012[19]), Activating Jobseekers: How Australia Does It, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264185920-en; Bloom, H., C. Hill and J. Riccio (2003[25]), “Linking Program Implementation and Effectiveness: Lessons from a Pooled Sample of Welfare-to-Work Experiments”, https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.10154.
1.7. Carry out a rigorous impact evaluation to assess the effectiveness of ALMPs to inform policy. The MLSPP and WDC should assess the cost-effectiveness of interventions and use the gathered evidence to determine which ALMPs should be continued, expanded or terminated. Currently, in Kazakhstan, impact evaluations of ALMPs are rare and should be extended to cover all major programmes for longer post-programme periods. It is advisable to test new programmes locally first, starting from a limited number of pilots, rather than creating larger-scale programmes whose impacts remain dubious. Evaluating the benefits accruing to participants to the pilots could involve formulating an expectation about their future earnings. The MLSPP and WDC should ensure that the principles and methods used are consistent with the common framework developed by the proposed inter-ministerial working group for the evaluation of skill policies (see Chapter 5).
Increasing expenditure on active labour market policies and reinforcing their targeting
Recent data provided by the MLSPP suggest that expenditures on ALMPs as a percentage of gross domestic product (GDP) have increased in the past few years. In 2019, spending on ALMPs had almost recovered to the level of 2013, following a dramatic reduction in 2014 (by as much as 60%). However, the expenditure on ALMPs remains relatively low by international comparison. Kazakhstan spends about 0.24% of GDP on ALMPs, versus the OECD average of 0.52% (see Figure 2.5, Panel A).
Note: Data for Kazakhstan refer to 2019. Data for OECD countries refer to 2017, or the most recent year available). Expenditure on employment incentives includes recruitment, employment maintenance and job rotation incentives; expenditure on direct job creation usually involves the creation of works that are of community benefit or are socially useful, and usually, in the public or non-profit sector; expenditure on start-up incentives include programmes to promote entrepreneurship by supporting the start of new businesses. For Kazakhstan, expenditures on employment incentives include youth practice (e.g. internship programmes) and social works and job-mobility programmes (less expenditure on housing construction). There are no supported employment and rehabilitation programmes in Kazakhstan.
Source: OECD (2020[26]), OECD Labour Database, http://dotstat.oecd.org/?lang=en; for Kazakhstan, information was provided by the MLSPP.
Limited budgets may hinder the capacity to provide quality and sufficient ALMPs. Experiences from the past economic crisis show that OECD countries that scaled up expenditures on ALMPs achieved better labour market outcomes for youth (OECD, 2012[27]). In addition, past evidence shows that the positive impacts of ALMPs tend to be larger during periods of slow growth and higher unemployment (Card, Kluve and Weber, 2018[28]). This suggests that increased expenditure on ALMPs could be particularly important to support the recovery of the employment losses induced by the economic recession triggered by COVID-19.
Expenditures on ALMPs in Kazakhstan are skewed towards start-up incentive programmes, whereas the programmes geared at training and employment incentives account for a relatively small part of activation, despite training and employment promotion being an important part of the Enbek programme for productive employment and mass entrepreneurship development (see Box 2.5). OECD countries put more emphasis on training and employment incentives than Kazakhstan (see Figure 2.5, Panel B).
Evidence from previous OECD research (OECD, 2017[1]), as well as feedback from several stakeholders consulted during the assessment mission, suggest that the eligibility requirements for participating in ALMPs are often too broadly defined, without specific targeting at vulnerable populations most in need. To achieve effective interventions and inclusive growth, where quality employment opportunities reach the most disadvantaged groups, it is critical to improve the targeting of ALMPs.
International experience suggests that vulnerable populations may face particularly higher barriers and may need additional and tailored support to find quality employment. People from rural areas may find it relatively more difficult to participate in ALMPs, due to additional transportation costs or lack of time due to unpaid work burdens (OECD, 2017[29]; OECD, 2019[15]). Programmes should be designed in such a way that they take into account these dimensions.
The State Programme for Productive Employment and Mass Entrepreneurship Development 2017-2021 (Enbek)
Launched in 2017 and managed by the MLSPP, Enbek is a government programme that aims to help vulnerable populations find productive employment. The programme is part of the Strategic Development Plan of the Republic of Kazakhstan until 2025 and includes the following directions:
First, strengthening technical and vocational education and short-term vocational training (Обеспечение участников программы техническим и профессиональным образованием и краткосрочным профессиональным обучением). This involves the provision of free vocational training, both long-term (with a duration of two to three years) and short-term (with a duration of one to six months), giving priority to youth who are not in employment, education or training (under the age of 29), laid-off workers, low-skilled workers, people with disabilities and low-income families. Participants from remote regions are entitled to a subsidy to cover transportation costs.
Second, strengthening mass entrepreneurship development (Развитие массового предпринимательства) through access to training programmes focussed on entrepreneurship and/or to micro loans or grants for entrepreneurs and start-ups. For example, the Bastau Business project provides training on entrepreneurial skills (e.g. principles of forming agricultural co-operatives), communication skills, as well as individual guidance on business modelling. Upon completion, participants receive a certificate. Unemployed, self-employed and low-skilled workers are eligible to participate in the programmes. People who participate in Bastau Business from rural areas, small towns or cities specialising in a single industry are given preferential access to micro loans.
Third, supporting employment promotion and labour force mobility (Развитие рынка труда через содействие занятости населения и мобильность трудовых ресурсов). The objective is to improve the employability of people by reinforcing career guidance and counselling, job-matching services and other employment assistance. Another objective is to create social jobs by promoting public works and internship opportunities for youth. In addition, this direction aims to facilitate job mobility by covering accommodation and travel costs of participants who accept jobs in regions with labour shortages (as defined by the government).
Fourth, preparing a skilled workforce for occupations most in demand (principle of 100 occupations/200 educational institutions) through the programme called Zhas Maman, and supporting development of youth entrepreneurship through the Zhas Kasipker programme. Zhas Maman is managed by the MOES and helps modernise educational institutions through equipment and content upgrades. Zhas Kasipker helps develop entrepreneurship skills among young people, students in vocational education and training (VET) and students attending higher education (HE), and provides financial support to young entrepreneurs. Zhas Kasipker also provides training support, loans and grants for selected entrepreneurship ideas to young entrepreneurs and families.
Source: Government of Kazakhstan (2018[30]), State Programme of Productive Employment and Mass Entrepreneurship Development 2017-2021 ("Enbek"), http://adilet.zan.kz/kaz/docs/P1800000746.
1.8. Scale up expenditure on activation programmes with a proven track record and capacity to secure the achievement of stated objectives. The MLSPP and local governments should increase expenditures on those programmes that have proven to be effective, particularly during economic recessions. For example, funding to promote effective training programmes could potentially come from the training levy that Kazakhstan could consider introducing based on the recommendations in Chapter 5. It is advisable to prioritise programmes that support a fast return to the labour market, such as job-search support and counselling. Job creation can be supported by temporarily scaling up easy-to-expand, time-limited hiring subsidies, as many OECD countries did during the global financial crisis of 2007-08.
1.9. Improve the eligibility criteria for participating in activation programmes to ensure that people most in need can access and benefit from them. The MLSPP should manage each ALMP separately and set appropriate targeting criteria to prioritise those who need and could benefit from certain activation programmes the most. For example, employment incentives could strengthen efforts to target the most vulnerable jobseekers by using profiling tools that allow for the prediction of an individual’s probability of long-term unemployment. In order to limit deadweight and substitution effects, the MLSPP should closely monitor the targeting of the programmes.
Opportunity 3: Promoting family policies for a more equitable sharing of unpaid and paid work
Women with young children in Kazakhstan face high barriers to activate their skills in the labour market. Stakeholders in the assessment mission identified a range of barriers that prevent young mothers from returning to work, including lack of quality and affordable childcare facilities, traditional social norms and gender stereotypes. Formal childcare is often too expensive or too distant from home, while widespread, traditional social norms discourage the use of childcare facilities with the belief that babies should be taken care of by their own mothers. Family-friendly policies have an essential role to play in strengthening female labour market participation, along with fostering the recognition and use of their skills (Thévenon, 2013[31]; Thévenon, 2015[32]). Building on the feedback and evidence gathered throughout the OECD Skills Strategy project, this opportunity addresses two policy avenues, as follows.
Improving access to quality childcare services
The supply of quality and affordable early childhood education and care facilities is limited in Kazakhstan, particularly for children below the age of three (OECD, 2017[29]). According to OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) data, the percentage of students who do not attend pre-primary education in Kazakhstan is one of the highest among PISA-participating countries and economies (65%, rank 2/64), pointing to difficulties of access. Similarly, gross enrolment rates in pre-primary schools (for children aged 1-6 years) remain very low compared to a number of OECD and developing countries (OECD, 2016[33]).
Several stakeholders consulted during the OECD Skills Strategy project reported that affordable childcare for children aged 0-2 is lacking in Kazakhstan. In 2014, nurseries enrolled roughly 8.5% of children aged 0-2 in Kazakhstan, compared to an OECD average of 32.9% in 2013 (OECD, 2020[34]). Although significant progress has been made in the coverage of children aged 1-3 in preschool education over the past few years, public nurseries remain concentrated in only 9 of 14 regions in Kazakhstan. The cost of hiring a nanny is affordable only to families in the highest earnings group (ILO, 2012[35]).
Access to childcare facilities varies considerably across socio-economic groups and between rural and urban areas. It is particularly limited for women from vulnerable households, who work in the informal sector or are self-employed. Even within the largest cities, access can be limited in the most populated neighbourhoods, where demand is stronger (ILO, 2014[36]; Habibov, 2014[37]). This situation translates into long waiting lists. Although the number of childcare facilities has increased steadily since the early 2000s (see Figure 2.6), they are unequally distributed across areas
As a part of the Kazakhstan 2050 strategy, the Balapan programme aims to provide pre-primary education to all children aged 3-6 in Kazakhstan by expanding the supply of childcare facilities and easing the financial burden of childcare on parents. The programme involves the construction of new state kindergartens, as well as subsidies for parents to utilise private childcare facilities (such as kindergartens and mini-centres). For children in private kindergartens, the state covers most expenses, with parents just covering the fees for meals. While the programme concerns expanding the coverage of childcare services, quality standards remain to be defined.
Research using national data from 18 OECD countries reveals that expansions in childcare service provisions significantly boost women’s labour market participation as such expansions allow mothers to reconcile work and family commitments (Thévenon, 2013[31]; Thévenon, 2015[32]). Many OECD countries made progress in developing policies aimed at improving access to ECEC following the introduction of the 2013 OECD Recommendation of the Council on Gender Equality in Education, Employment and Entrepreneurship. OECD countries are increasingly aware of the importance of accessible childcare services, as illustrated by responses to the 2016 OECD Gender Equality Questionnaire (GEQ), for example, which reveal that almost two-thirds of countries think “making childcare more accessible” is one of the three “most effective ways to tackle barriers to female employment” (OECD, 2017[29]). Many OECD members have introduced or extended measures aimed at increasing the accessibility and affordability of ECEC, in one form or another (see Box 2.6).
Source: OECD calculations based on information provided by the Bureau of National Statistics.
Many OECD countries have concentrated on the costs of childcare, and have taken steps to improve affordability for parents (OECD, 2017[29]). In most cases these measures take the form of increases in subsidies or benefits/rebates for parents using childcare (e.g. Canada, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, the Slovak Republic and Poland). In New Zealand, for example, the level of both the Childcare Subsidy and the Out of School Care and Recreation subsidy – fee subsidies paid directly to providers on behalf of low-income families using registered ECEC and out of school hours services, respectively – were increased by 25% in 2016. Some countries have also looked to reduce the overall cost of childcare through the introduction or expansion of free childcare hours (Norway and the United Kingdom). Norway, for instance, has phased-in 20 weekly hours of free childcare for 3-5 year-olds from low-income families.
Provision of early childhood education and care: Examples from Sweden, Germany, Korea and France
In Sweden, the expansion of the ECEC infrastructure has largely been financed through public subsidies. For the most part, services are publicly run and delivered by the network of centre-based facilities for collective care. Home-based family daycare services are also available. ECEC in Sweden is an integral part of the education system, with its own curriculum and educational targets. In 2013, public expenditure on ECEC services was 1.64% of GDP, the second-highest level of spending on ECEC among OECD countries, after Iceland.
In Germany, major reforms to increase the availability of publicly provided childcare for preschool children have been introduced in the past two decades, with the aim to encourage mothers with young children to take up employment. The first important reform was the introduction of a legal claim to a place in kindergarten for all preschool children aged 3-6 years. Prior to the reform, public childcare coverage for 3 and 4 year-olds was severely rationed. An evaluation of this reform found that it increased employment by mothers with children aged 3-4 years by 4-6 percentage points. The reform resulted in some increase in full-time employment, but the effect was larger for part-time employment. Since 2005, several laws aimed at increasing subsidised childcare slots for children aged 1-3 years, and since August 2013, parents have a legal right to subsidised childcare for a child aged one year or above, regardless of the employment status or income of the parents.
In Korea, where the development of ECEC provision is relatively recent, childcare and preschool facilities have grown rapidly in the 2000s and early 2010s. The share of children (aged 0-6 years) in childcare or preschool facilities increased from 30% in 2002 to above 66% in 2014. The rapid growth of ECEC provision in Korea reflects the expansion of the centre-based infrastructure for collective care, which parents can access thanks to public financial support. In 2013, Korea scrapped the means test to qualify for the subsidy, effectively creating a universal programme of public assistance for centre-based care, regardless of income level.
France has a long tradition of extensive ECEC provision, particularly for children aged 3-5 years. Provision for this age group is dominated by the comprehensive, centre-based system of école maternelle (preschool), which provides public services. Much like the Swedish preschools, ECEC is considered a core part of France’s national education system. Already in the early 1960s, the system catered for almost two-thirds of children aged 3-5 years, and since 1989, all 3-5 year-olds are entitled to a place in the local école maternelle.
Source: S. and M. Schlotter (2015[38]), “Public child care and mothers’ labor supply: Evidence from two quasi-experiments”, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2014.12.013; Geyer, J., P. Haan and K. Wrohlich (2015[39]), “The effects of family policy on maternal labor supply: Combining evidence from a structural model and a quasi-experimental approach”, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2015.07.001; Givord, P. and C. Marbot (2015[40]), “Does the cost of child care affect female labor market participation? An evaluation of a french reform of childcare subsidies”, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2015.07.003 ; Müller, K.-U. and K. Wrohlich (2016[41]), “Two steps forward—one step back? Evaluating contradicting child care policies in Germany”, https://doi.org/10.1093/cesifo/ifv020; OECD (2015[42]), Starting Strong IV: Monitoring Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264233515-en; OECD (2017[43]), Dare to Share: Germany’s Experience Promoting Equal Partnership in Families, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264259157-en.
1.10. Increase the supply of affordable, high-quality childcare facilities. The Government of Kazakhstan, the MLSPP and the Committee on Youth and Family Affairs under the Ministry of Information and Public Development (MIPD) should increase the supply of public childcare facilities. Many OECD countries have made progress in developing policies aimed at improving access to ECEC (e.g. as in Sweden, Germany, Korea and France), including following the introduction of the 2013 OECD Recommendation of the Council on Gender Equality in Education, Employment and Entrepreneurship.
1.11. Strengthen financial incentives for young parents to access childcare using child-related cash transfers and subsidies. The Government of Kazakhstan could increase subsidies or benefits/rebates for parents using childcare (e.g. as in Canada, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Poland and the Slovak Republic). For example, the Government of Kazakhstan could make recourse to direct childcare subsidies or build a system whereby the subsidies are paid to care providers on behalf of low-income families. Further financial support could be provided to families through the tax-benefit system.
Promoting flexible leave and work options
As mentioned in the arrangements section, maternity leave is well developed, while paternity leave is not in place in Kazakhstan. Parental leave and childcare leave, on the other hand, are available for both mothers and fathers, but fathers do not typically take leave. This reflects stereotypes and entrenched cultural attitudes, according to which childcare responsibilities are considered women’s duty. Such an environment discourages women from returning to productive employment after childbirth (OECD, 2017[1]).
In addition, evidence suggests that flexible work options are normally not very common in Kazakhstan. Most people either work full time or not at all. International experience shows, however, that the development of the services sector and the expansion of part-time work have been powerful factors in expanding female labour force participation in OECD countries (OECD, 2017[44]). Working time flexibility can help working parents reconcile their work schedules with the opening hours of childcare centres and schools (Cazesi, Hijzeni and Saint-Martini, 2016[45]). At the same time, working from home saves commuting time, although it also entails the risk of longer working hours, while blurring work and personal lives (Lott and Chung, 2016[46]).
Evidence from OECD countries also suggests that, in general, working parents find that flexible workplace measures improve their work-life balance. In Europe, 75% of employees, on average, have some work-schedule flexibility; in the Netherlands and Nordic countries, this percentage rises to 90% (OECD, 2016[47]). In addition, it shows that parents with a child of preschool age are most likely to use flexible working times or work from home, while women are three times more likely to work part-time than men (OECD, 2016[47]). From the employer perspective, flexible working practices can help recruit and retain staff while reducing absenteeism and turnover rates. Kazakhstan might be inspired in this regard by practices in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands (see Box 2.7).
Several stakeholders during the assessment missions reported that traditional social norms and gender stereotypes play an important role in preventing an equal distribution of housework responsibilities between men and women. Recently, OECD countries have introduced national public awareness campaigns to tackle gender stereotyping and norms, using both traditional and online media channels. In Australia, for example, the “Equilibrium Man Challenge” is a series of online micro-documentaries, which follow a group of men who have taken up flexible work arrangements, often to care for family members (OECD, 2017[29]). The campaign aims to help people recognise the benefits of a culture of gender equality, not only for women but for society as a whole.
Gradual extension of “right to request” flexible working arrangements: Examples from the United Kingdom and the Netherlands
In the United Kingdom, the Flexible Working Act, in effect since 2003, grants parents with children under the age of 6 years, or with disabled children under the age of 18 years, the right to request flexible working arrangements (including flexible or reduced working hours and teleworking) if they have been working for their current employer for at least six months. These provisions were expanded in 2007 to include employees with adult-caregiving responsibilities. They were further extended in 2014 to all employees with at least 26 weeks’ service with the same employer.
In the Netherlands, the Working Hours Adjustment Act gives workers in companies with at least ten employees, the right to choose their working hours. Employers have to consent to employee requests unless they can provide compelling management or business reasons to deny the request. Since 2016, the Flexible Working Hours Act extends employees’ rights by making it possible to also request a change to working times and workplace (e.g. teleworking). If one month prior to the requested date of the change, the employer has not responded to the employee’s request, the working schedule proposed by the employee takes effect.
Source: OECD (2016[47]), “Be Flexible! Background Brief on How Workplace Flexibility Can Help European Employees to Balance Work and Family”, https://www.oecd.org/els/family/Be-Flexible-Backgrounder-Workplace-Flexibility.pdf.
1.12. Facilitate the uptake of flexible leave options and encourage their use among employers. The Committee on Youth and Family Affairs under the MIPD, the MLSPP and NCE should consider promoting flexible leave options, such as part-time leave or shorter periods of leave with higher payment rates. The diversification of leave options would allow more fathers to take up parental leave.
1.13. Facilitate the uptake of flexible work options (e.g. part-time work, flexible working hours) for young parents. The Committee on Youth and Family Affairs under MIPD, the MLSPP and NCE could support and encourage companies to promote flexible work options through information campaigns that advertise their potential benefits from the employer perspective. They could further facilitate the emulation of positive role models by promoting the exchange of best practices with the application of flexible work options (e.g. with the use of digital technologies). In the long term, the Government of Kazakhstan should monitor the use of flexible working practices to ensure that workers using flexible working are not discriminated against and that its use does not impinge on workers’ well-being, for example through long online working hours.
1.14. Promote social awareness campaigns to address gender stereotypes. The Committee on Youth and Family Affairs under the MIPD, the MLSPP and NCE could co-operate with regional governments and NGOs to promote gender awareness campaigns through online and offline channels. For example, media, such as TV programmes and radio, can easily reach the public in rural areas. By conveying positive messages about flexible work options, the benefits of fair distribution of unpaid care work for the whole family and society and the advantages of flexible parental leave, they could help challenge the traditional image that these activities are the sole prerogative of women. Mainstreaming gender equality in education also requires engaging educational institutions, which will need the support of adapted teacher training to raise teacher preparedness to apply gender equality in the classroom.
Table 2.1 summarises the recommendations for this chapter. Based on feedback from stakeholders and from the national project team, three recommendations have been selected that could be considered to have the highest priority based on potential impact and relevance in the current Kazakhstan context. To improve the activation of skills of vulnerable populations, the OECD recommends that Kazakhstan should:
Adopt and utilise digital communication tools to ensure the continuation of services during and following the COVID-19 crisis (Recommendation 1.1).
Improve jobseeker profiling tools to enable upfront intervention, by allowing caseworkers to set up individual action plans (Recommendation 1.2).
Scale up expenditure on activation programmes with a proven track record and capacity to secure the achievement of stated objectives (Recommendation 1.8).
References
[8] Barbieri, T., G. Basso and S. Scicchitano (2020), “Italian Workers at Risk during the COVID-19”, SSRN Electronic Journal, https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3572065.
[17] Barbier, J., E. Hansen and A. Samorodov (2003), “InFocus Programme on Skills, Knowledge and Employability: Public-Private Partnerships in Employment Services”, Skills Working Paper, No. 17, https://www.ilo.org/skills/pubs/WCMS_103882/lang--en/index.htm.
[38] Bauernschuster, S. and M. Schlotter (2015), “Public child care and mothers’ labor supply: Evidence from two quasi-experiments”, Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 123, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2014.12.013.
[25] Bloom, H., C. Hill and J. Riccio (2003), “Linking program implementation and effectiveness: Lessons from a pooled sample of welfare‐to‐work experiments”, Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, Vol. 22/4, pp. 551-575, https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.10154.
[28] Card, D., J. Kluve and A. Weber (2018), “What works? A meta analysis of recent active labor market program evaluations”, Journal of the European Economic Association, Vol. 16/3, https://doi.org/10.1093/jeea/jvx028.
[45] Cazesi, S., A. Hijzeni and A. Saint-Martini (2016), “Measuring and assessing job quality: The OECD job quality framework”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 174, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5jrp02kjw1mr-en.
[22] Duell, N. (2010), “Activation Policies in Japan”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration Working Papers, No. 113, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5km35m63qqvc-en.
[7] Eurostat (2020), European Union Labour Force Survey (EU LFS), European Commission, https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/microdata/european-union-labour-force-survey.
[24] Gerfin, M. and M. Lechner (2002), “A Microeconometric Evaluation of the Active Labour Market Policy in Switzerland”, Economic Journal, Vol. 112/482, pp. 854-893, https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00072.
[39] Geyer, J., P. Haan and K. Wrohlich (2015), “The effects of family policy on maternal labor supply: Combining evidence from a structural model and a quasi-experimental approach”, Labour Economics, Vol. 36, pp. 84-98, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2015.07.001.
[40] Givord, P. and C. Marbot (2015), “Does the cost of child care affect female labor market participation? An evaluation of a French reform of childcare subsidies”, Labour Economics, Vol. 36, pp. 99-111, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2015.07.003.
[30] Government of Kazakhstan (2018), State Programme of Productive Employment and Mass Entrepreneurship Development 2017-2021 (“Enbek”), http://adilet.zan.kz/kaz/docs/P1800000746.
[37] Habibov, N. (2014), “Does Reform in Kazakhstan Improve Access to Childcare? Evidence from Nationally-representative Surveys”, Children and Youth Services Review, Vol. 40, pp. 13-19, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.02.013.
[9] Holland, K. and A. Mann (2020), “How Estonia is delivering online career guidance during the coronavirus crisis”, OECD Education and Skills Today, https://oecdedutoday.com/estonia-online-career-guidance-during-coronavirus-crisis/.
[36] ILO (2014), Maternity Protection and the Childcare Systems in Central Asia: National Studies in Kazakhstan and Tajikistan, ILO, Geneva, https://www.ilo.org/moscow/information-resources/publications/WCMS_344656/lang--en/index.htm.
[35] ILO (2012), Work and Family Responsibilities: The Republic of Kazakhstan, ILO, Geneva, https://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/---europe/---ro-geneva/---sro-moscow/documents/publication/wcms_312669.pdf.
[6] ILOSTAT (2020), ILOSTAT Database, https://ilostat.ilo.org/data/ (accessed on 15 July 2020).
[11] Immervoll, H. and C. Knotz (2018), “How Demanding are Activation Requirements for Jobseekers?”, Discussion Paper Series, No. 11704, IZA Institute of Labor Economics, http://ftp.iza.org/dp11704.pdf.
[18] Konle-Seidl, R. (2012), Monitoring and Follow-up of IAPs and their Outcomes in Selected EU Countries, Presentation at European Commission PES to PES Dialogue Meeting on Activation and Integration: Working with Individual Action Plans, https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=7530&langId=en.
[46] Lott, Y. and H. Chung (2016), “Gender Discrepancies in the Outcomes of Schedule Control on Overtime Hours and Income in Germany”, European Sociological Review, Vol. 32/6, pp. 752-765, https://doi.org/10.1093/esr/jcw032.
[41] Müller, K. and K. Wrohlich (2016), “Two Steps Forward—One Step Back? Evaluating Contradicting Child Care Policies in Germany”, CESifo Economic Studies, Vol. 62/4, pp. 672-698, https://doi.org/10.1093/cesifo/ifv020.
[2] OECD (2020), OECD Employment Outlook 2020: Worker Security and the COVID-19 Crisis, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/1686c758-en.
[34] OECD (2020), OECD Family Database, http://www.oecd.org/social/family/database.htm (accessed on 30 October 2020).
[26] OECD (2020), OECD Labour Database, http://dotstat.oecd.org/?lang=en (accessed on 30 October 2020).
[10] OECD (2020), “Public employment services in the frontline for jobseekers, workers and employers”, OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19) OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5b0fd8cd-en.
[12] OECD (2020), “Supporting people and companies to deal with the Covid-19 virus: Options for an immediate employment and social-policy response”, OECD Policy Responses to Coronavirus (COVID-19) OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5b0fd8cd-en.
[23] OECD (2019), OECD Employment Outlook 2019: The Future of Work, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9ee00155-en.
[3] OECD (2019), OECD Family Database: Key characteristics of parental leave systems, http://www.oecd.org/els/soc/PF2_1_Parental_leave_systems.pdf.
[15] OECD (2019), Strengthening Active Labour Market Policies in Italy, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/160a3c28-en.
[1] OECD (2017), Building Inclusive Labour Markets in Kazakhstan : A Focus on Youth, Older Workers and People with Disabilities, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264273023-en.
[44] OECD (2017), Connecting People with Jobs: Key Issues for Raising Labour Market Participation in Australia, Connecting People with Jobs, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264269637-en.
[43] OECD (2017), Dare to Share: Germany’s Experience Promoting Equal Partnership in Families, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264259157-en.
[29] OECD (2017), The Pursuit of Gender Equality: An Uphill Battle, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264281318-en.
[47] OECD (2016), Be Flexible! Background Brief on How Workplace Flexibility Can Help European Employees to Balance Work and Family, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://www.oecd.org/els/family/Be-Flexible-Backgrounder-Workplace-Flexibility.pdf.
[14] OECD (2016), Connecting People with Jobs: The Labour Market, Activation Policies and Disadvantaged Workers in Slovenia, Connecting People with Jobs, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264265349-en.
[33] OECD (2016), Investing in Youth: Lithuania, Investing in Youth, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264247611-en.
[4] OECD (2016), Multi-Dimensional Review of Kazakhstan: Volume 1. Initial Assessment, OECD Development Pathways, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264246768-en.
[13] OECD (2015), OECD Employment Outlook 2015, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/empl_outlook-2015-en.
[42] OECD (2015), Starting Strong IV: Monitoring Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care, Starting Strong, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264233515-en.
[21] OECD (2014), Connecting People with Jobs: Activation Policies in the United Kingdom, Connecting People with Jobs, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264217188-en.
[19] OECD (2012), Activating Jobseekers: How Australia Does It, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264185920-en.
[27] OECD (2012), OECD Employment Outlook 2012, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/empl_outlook-2012-en.
[20] OECD (2012), Sick on the Job? Myths and Realities About Mental Health and Work, Mental Health and Work, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264124523-en.
[5] Rutkowski, J. (2011), Promoting Formal Employment in Kazakhstan, World Bank, http://conference.iza.org/conference_files/InfoETE2011/rutkowski_j1928.pdf.
[16] Scoppetta, A. (2013), Successful Partnerships in Delivering Public Employment Services, European Commission, Brussels, DG Employment, Social Affairs and Inclusion, Unit C.3 - Skills, Mobility and Employment Services, https://ec.europa.eu/social/BlobServlet?docId=14096&langId=en.
[32] Thévenon, O. (2015), “Do ‘Institutional Complementarities’ Foster Female Labour Force Participation?”, Journal of Institutional Economics, Vol. 12/2, pp. 471-497, https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744137415000399.
[31] Thévenon, O. (2013), “Drivers of Female Labour Force Participation in the OECD”, OECD Social, Employment and Migration, No. 145, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/5k46cvrgnms6-en.