| Literature DB >> 35897453 |
Guangyan Chen1, Feng Qiu2, Xiaowen Dai1, Hongxing Lan1, Jiahao Song1.
Abstract
The influence of informal employment on residents' happiness has gained wide attention around the world. However, few studies focus on this topic in China. Using the 2016 wave of the China Labor Force Dynamics Survey (CLDS) data, we examined the effect of informal employment and its mechanisms on residents' happiness in China. Our study shows there is a significant negative correlation between informal employment and residents' happiness in China. Moreover, the correlation between informal employment and residents' happiness is stronger for residents who are female, migrating, and with a rural household registration. In addition, we investigated possible mechanisms of the effect, including individual income, social respect, unemployment expectations, and social security, and found that informal employment reduces the happiness of residents by widening the gap in unemployment probability and social insurance level among residents.Entities:
Keywords: employment discrimination; impact mechanism; informal employment; labor market; residents’ happiness
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35897453 PMCID: PMC9331666 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19159085
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Variable definitions and descriptive statistical results.
| Variable | Description or Definition | Mean | S.D. |
|---|---|---|---|
| Residents’ happiness | 1: Extremely unhappy; 2: Unhappy; 3: A bit happy; 4: happy; 5: Very happy | 3.878 | 0.875 |
| Informal employment | 1: Yes; 0: No | 0.800 | 0.400 |
| Age | Continuous variable | 38.85 | 10.94 |
| Square of age | Continuous variable | 1629 | 868.7 |
| Gender | 1: Male; 0: Female | 0.554 | 0.497 |
| Political status | 1: Chinese Communists; 0: Others | 0.163 | 0.369 |
| Religious belief | 1: Have religious beliefs; 0: No religious belief | 0.107 | 0.309 |
| Household registration type | 1: Rural household registration; 0: Others | 0.517 | 0.500 |
| Education level | 1: Never went to school; 2: Primary school; 3: Junior high school; 4: Senior middle school; 5: Junior college; 6: Undergraduate; 7: Master; 8: Doctor | 3.921 | 1.355 |
| Health condition | 1: Extremely unhealthy; 2: Unhealthy; 3: A bit healthy; 4: Healthy; 5: Very healthy | 3.904 | 0.818 |
| Marital status | 1: Married; 0: Others | 0.809 | 0.393 |
| Family size | Continuous variable | 4.235 | 1.900 |
| Residential community types | 1: Urban community; 0: Rural community | 0.613 | 0.487 |
| Real GDP growth rate | Continuous variable | 7.910 | 1.262 |
| The minimum wage level | The ratio of the actual minimum wage to the average wage of urban employees | 0.255 | 0.0285 |
Informal employment and residents’ happiness.
| Variable | OLS | Oprobit | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8) | |
| Informal employment | −0.192 *** | −0.081 ** | −0.083 *** | −0.085 *** | −0.235 *** | −0.108 ** | −0.110 ** | −0.114 *** |
| (0.031) | (0.032) | (0.032) | (0.032) | (0.040) | (0.043) | (0.043) | (0.043) | |
| Age | −0.032 *** | −0.031 *** | −0.030 *** | −0.040 *** | −0.038 *** | −0.038 *** | ||
| (0.010) | (0.010) | (0.010) | (0.012) | (0.012) | (0.012) | |||
| Square of age | 0.000 *** | 0.000 *** | 0.000 *** | 0.001 *** | 0.000 *** | 0.000 *** | ||
| (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | (0.000) | |||
| Gender | −0.069 *** | −0.070 *** | −0.071 *** | −0.095 *** | −0.097 *** | −0.098 *** | ||
| (0.026) | (0.026) | (0.026) | (0.034) | (0.034) | (0.034) | |||
| Political Status | 0.122 *** | 0.121 *** | 0.123 *** | 0.163 *** | 0.163 *** | 0.166 *** | ||
| (0.035) | (0.035) | (0.035) | (0.048) | (0.048) | (0.048) | |||
| Religious Belief | 0.10 1 ** | 0.100 ** | 0.105 ** | 0.131 ** | 0.131 ** | 0.137 ** | ||
| (0.041) | (0.041) | (0.041) | (0.054) | (0.054) | (0.055) | |||
| Household registration type | −0.030 | −0.041 | −0.057 | −0.036 | −0.050 | −0.073 | ||
| (0.031) | (0.031) | (0.035) | (0.040) | (0.041) | (0.046) | |||
| Education Level | 0.070 *** | 0.071 *** | 0.072 *** | 0.089 *** | 0.091 *** | 0.092 *** | ||
| (0.012) | (0.012) | (0.012) | (0.016) | (0.016) | (0.016) | |||
| Health Condition | 0.257 *** | 0.259 *** | 0.259 *** | 0.334 *** | 0.336 *** | 0.337 *** | ||
| (0.017) | (0.017) | (0.017) | (0.023) | (0.023) | (0.023) | |||
| Marital Status | 0.298 *** | 0.284 *** | 0.285 *** | 0.378 *** | 0.359 *** | 0.362 *** | ||
| (0.041) | (0.042) | (0.042) | (0.053) | (0.054) | (0.054) | |||
| Family size | 0.014 * | 0.013 * | 0.019 ** | 0.017 * | ||||
| (0.007) | (0.007) | (0.010) | (0.010) | |||||
| Residential community types | −0.053 | −0.073 * | ||||||
| (0.034) | (0.044) | |||||||
| Real GDP growth rate | −0.038 *** | −0.056 *** | ||||||
| (0.011) | (0.015) | |||||||
| The minimum wage level | 0.115 | 0.164 | ||||||
| (0.448) | (0.596) | |||||||
| Constant | 4.032 *** | 3.029 *** | 2.950 *** | 3.261 *** | ||||
| (0.027) | (0.207) | (0.212) | (0.253) | |||||
| 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
| Observations | 4335 | 4335 | 4335 | 4335 | 4335 | 4335 | 4335 | 4335 |
| R-squared | 0.008 | 0.097 | 0.098 | 0.102 | ||||
| Pseudo R2 | 0.003 | 0.041 | 0.041 | 0.043 | ||||
Note: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1, Robust standard errors in parentheses.
Regression results of sub-sample.
| Variable | (1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rural-Household-Registration Residents | Urban-Household-Registration Residents | Floating Population | Local Resident | Male Residents | Female Residents | |
| Informal employment | −0.171 *** | −0.060 | −0.222 *** | −0.062 * | −0.064 | −0.107 ** |
| (0.064) | (0.037) | (0.086) | (0.034) | (0.042) | (0.049) | |
| Control variable | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| Constant | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
| R-squared | 0.091 | 0.106 | 0.101 | 0.101 | 0.110 | 0.097 |
| N | 2242 | 2093 | 745 | 3590 | 2400 | 1935 |
Note: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1, Robust standard errors in parentheses.
Channels of informal employment effect on residents’ happiness.
| Variables | Individual Income | Social Respect | Unemployment Expectations | Social Security |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Informal employment | −0.401 *** | 0.018 | 0.176 *** | −1.198 *** |
| (0.075) | (0.030) | (0.046) | (0.063) | |
| Control variables | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
| R-squared | 0.079 | 0.040 | 0.082 | 0.432 |
| Observations | 4335 | 4335 | 4335 | 4335 |
Note: *** p < 0.01, Robust standard errors in parentheses.
Expanded model of informal employment and residents’ happiness.
| Variables | (1) | (2) | (4) | (5) | (6) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Informal employment | −0.085 *** | −0.088 *** | −0.073 ** | −0.059 * | −0.051 |
| (0.032) | (0.032) | (0.032) | (0.033) | (0.033) | |
| Individual income | −0.007 | −0.009 * | |||
| (0.005) | (0.005) | ||||
| Unemployment expectations | −0.072 *** | −0.071 *** | |||
| (0.011) | (0.011) | ||||
| Social security | 0.022 *** | 0.022*** | |||
| (0.008) | (0.008) | ||||
| Control variables | YES | YES | YES | YES | YES |
| 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
| R-squared | 0.102 | 0.102 | 0.111 | 0.103 | 0.113 |
| Observations | 4335 | 4335 | 4335 | 4335 | 4335 |
Note: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1, Robust standard errors in parentheses.
Results of the robustness test.
| Variable | (1) | (2) | (3) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Life Satisfaction | Informal Employment | Residents’ Happiness | |
| Informal employment | −0.126 *** | −0.342 *** | |
| (0.034) | (0.126) | ||
| Average level of informal employment at county level | 0.760 *** | ||
| (0.045) | |||
| Control variable | YES | YES | YES |
| IV T Value | 17.050 | ||
| IV | 0.000 | ||
| R-squared | 0.100 | 0.215 | 0.090 |
| 0.000 | 0.000 | 0.000 | |
| N | 4335 | 4335 | 4335 |
Note: *** p < 0.01, Robust standard errors in parentheses.