FS I 88 - 6
Socio-economic Aspects of Part-Time
Employment in the Federal Republic
of Germany
Christoph F. BUchtemann*
JUrgen Schupp**
June 1988
ISSN Nr. 1011 - 9523
An analysis based on the first wave of the "Socio
economic Panel"
The German version of the text has been published as
IIM/LMP dp 86 - 15, Berlin 1986. We are indebted to
Andreas Pickel for the translation into English* Research Unit "Labour Market and Employment", Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin fiir Sozialforschung
** Deutsches Institut flir Wirtschaftsforschung (DIW),
Berlin
Forschungsschwerpunkt
Arbeltsoarkt und
BeschSftlgung (IIHV)
Research Unit Labour Market and
Enploynent (UN)
Reichpietsch-Ufer 50 1000 Berlin 30
In den meisten europSischen LSndern laBt sich in den vergangenen 15 Jahren eine kontinuierliche Expansion der TeilzeitbeschSftigung beob-
achten. Unter den Stichworten "Arbeitsumverteilung" und "Arbeits-marktflexibilisierung" kniipfen sich an diese Entwicklung in letzter Zeit verstarkt Beschaftigungshoffnungen, die sich in mehreren euro- paischen Landern in einer ganzen Reihe von Mafinahmen und Programmen zur Forderung der TeilzeitbeschSftigung niedergeschlagen haben. Wah-
rend vermehrte Teilzeitarbeit zweifellos zu einer personellen Umver-teilung des vorhandenen Beschaftigungsvolumens fUhrt, sind ihre Netto-Beschaftigungseffekte in der beschSftigungspolitischen Diskus- sion indes weitgehend umstritten. Zugleich stellen sich mit vermehr- ter Teilzeitbeschaftigung jedoch auch verstSrkt Fragen hinsichtlich
ihrer sozio-okonomischen, arbeitsmarktstrukturellen und sozialpoliti- schen Implikationen, zu deren Beantwortung bislang kaum ausreichendempirische Informationen verfUgbar waren. Diese Fragen werden im vor- liegenden Beitrag anhand detaillierter Analysen neuer Erhebungsdaten fUr die Bundesrepublik Deutschland untersucht. Ausgehend von einer Untersuchung ihrer "Mikrostruktur" werden dabei erstmals Informatio-
nen zum gesamten sozio-okonomischen Umfeld der Teilzeitbeschaftigungin die Analyse einbezogen. Dieses umfaBt sowohl die Angebotsseite des Arbeitsmarktes, d. h. Aspekte der sozio-demographischen Struktur und Haushaltssituation Teilzeitbeschaftigter, wie auch Aspekte der Nach- frageseite, vor allem der Beschaftigungssituation, Beschaftigungssta- bilitat und Entlohnung von TeilzeitbeschSftigten, sowie ferner Aspek
te der sozialstaatlichen Absicherung TeilzeitbeschSftigter im Rahmen des gegebenen Sozialen Sicherungssystems. Entgegen den groSen Erwar-tungen, die sich in Teilen der beschaftigungs- und arbeitsmarktpoli-
tischen Diskussion, aber auch in der Debatte urn den wachsenden Wunschnach mehr "ZeitsouverSnitat" an eine Ausweitung der Teilzeitarbeit knUpfen, legen die Befunde eine eher differenzierte Beurteilung der Teilzeitbeschaftigung nahe. Anhand der Ergebnisse werden abschlieBend beschaftigungs-, arbeitsmarkt- und sozialpolitische SchluSfolgerungen im Hinblick auf die Forderung der Teilzeitarbeit skizziert. Der Be-
trag ist Teil einer Reihe laufender Forschungsarbeiten des Schwer- punkts Arbeitsmarktpolitik am Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin, die sichmit den beschaftigungspolitischen und sozialstaatlichen Implikationen
"neuer Beschaftigungsformen" befassen.
2 Database and Approach of the Study 3 Findings
3.1 Definition of Groups for Analysis
3.2 Types of Part-time Employment and Length of Working Time
3.3 Labor Supply: Individual Characteristics and Household Situation of Female Part-Time Employees
3.3.1 Socio-demography of female part-time and full-time employees
3.3.2 Household Situation and Household Income
3.4 Labour Demand: Employment Situation and Employment Stability of Female Part-time Employees
3.4.1 Employment Situation and Workplace Characteristics 3.4.2 Employment Stability and Mobility
3.5 Earnings and Social Security of Female Part-time Employees 3.5. Pay Level and Company Benefits
3.5.2 Social Insurance Status
3.6 Between Housework and Employment: Time Budgets of Female Part-Time Employees
4 Summary and Conclusions 5 Appendix: Tables
6 Bibliography
In the past fifteen years, a continuous expansion of part-time employment may be ob served in most European countries. Recently, under the headings of "redistribution of work" and "increased flexibility of the labor market," this trend has been associated with expectations of increased employment. In many European countries such hopes are reflected in a variety of policies and programmes to promote part-time employment.
While increased part-time employment undoubtedly leads to a redistribution of the existing volume of employment, net employment effects are for the most part contro versial in the debate on employment policy. At the same time, however, an increase in part-time employment raises important questions concerning its socio- economic con text and its implications for both the structure of the labor market and social policy.
The empirical evidence necessary for answering these questions has so far not been adequate. The present study examines these questions based on a detailed analysis of recent survey data for the Federal Republic of Germany. For the first time, beginning with an examination of its "micro-structure," the entire socio-economic context of part-time employment is incorporated into the analysis. This includes the supply-side of the labor market, i.e. aspects of the socio-demographic structure and household si tuation of part-time employees, as well as aspects of the demand-side, primarily the employment situation, employment stability, and earnings of part-time employees and their protection in the framework of the existing social security system. Contrary to the high expectations often associated with increased part-time employment in the debate on employment and labor market policy and on the growing desire for greater "time sovereignty," our findings suggest the need for a more differentiated assessment of part-time employment. Finally, based on these results, we will draw some conclusions concerning employment, labor market, and social policy for the promotion of part-time work. The present study is part of a series of ongoing research by the labor market po licy group at the Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin dealing with the implications of "new forms of employment" for employment policy and the welfare state.
weekly) working time, tendencies towards a progressive differentiation and diversifica
tion of patterns of working time during the past 10-15 years can be observed in most Western industrial states. Primarily part-time employment as the "basic form" (HofO and at the same time most frequent variant of a "flexible" arrangement of working time is particularly important in this context: Part-time employment refers to any employ ment with an individually agreed upon regular working time more or less significantly below the standard of normal working time (i.e. 38.5 to 40 hours per week with an eight-hour "normal working day") as determined by law or collective agreement (cf.Conradi 1982; Hoff 1983).
/
In the Federal Republic of Germany in mid-1984, approximately 3.3 million em ployees, or about 16 percent of all employees, worked in part-time employment as
their primary occupation^' with a regular working time of less than 35 hours per week.
Compared to 1960, this number has more than quadrupled (cf. Brinkmaim/Kohler 1981) while the expansion of part-time employment has continued - if at a slower pace - even during the recent years of permanent crisis on the labor market: Between 1976 and 1984 alone, the number of p^t-time employees in Germany increased by nearly half a million (423,000 or 16.4 percent), a greater increase than in the number of full- time employees (see Table 1, Appendix). This trend will continue in the coming years:
This is supported not only by a number of surveys documenting a growing desire on the part of many employees for individual reductions in working time (see Landenber- ger 1983; EG 1985); but also - particularly in light of the fact that part-time work for
1) For their valuable suggestions, ue would like to thank our colleagues Christoph Oeutschmann, Hargarete Landenberger, Ronald Schettkat, GOnther Schmid (WZB) and Ute Hanefeld (OIU) as well as Burkhard StrOmpel (Free University of Berlin).
2) In official eaployment statistics, "part*tinM einployee" as a rule refers only to persons who have part-time work as their primary emolovnwnt. This definition also applies to the following analyses based on Wave I of the "Socio-economic Panel." Recent surveys show, however, that part-time work may also be secondary employment; particulary persons with part-time work as their primary emloyment frequently have another part-time job on the side(cf. Helberger, Schwarze 1986). This means that the total nuiber of part-time Jobs is probably significantly higher than the total nuiber of part-time employees (cf. Schoer
1985).
Against the background of high levels of unemployment, this trend has in recent years received increased attention in the debate on employment policy under the headings of
"redistribution of work" and "greater flexibility of the labor market " The high ex pectations connected with increased part-time employment are reflected, among other things, in the central place occupied by measures for the promotion of part-time work in the employment policies of most European countries Recently, a shift of emphasis may be observed - not only in Germany - from direct forms of promotion (through fi nancial incentive programmes such as employment bonuses, financial subsidies for esta blishing part-time positions, etc.) to more indirect measures aimed at removing or re ducing legal-institutional barriers and obstacles to increased part-time work: In Ger many, in the wake of rather sobering experiences with programmes of direct part-time promotion in several Bundesl&nder (see Casey 1983) and a significant expansion of part-time positions in the public service (see Breidenstein 1985), particularly under the Employment Protection Act of 1985 (Beschaftigungsfdrderungsgesetz 1985; BeschFG) a number of new (labour) regulations have come into force designed to make part-time employment more attractive for employers and employees (see BMA 1985; as well as initial "evaluations" in: BDA 1986; Schmid 1986).
However, the actual net employment effects of increased part-time employment are controversial: The government as well as employers associations, in addition to a fairer individual redistribution of the existing volume of employment, anticipate lower labor costs and consequently positive effects on the level of employment (see BDA 1984;
Handelsblatt, 1 August 1986, p. 3). The trade unions, which continue to be sceptical about any measures aimed at individual reductions of working time and increased fle xibility (see Teske, Wiedemuth 1986; Kurz-Scherf 1985), as well as a number of recent empirical studies (see Hoff 1983; RQrup, Struwe 1984; Reyher et al 1985; Bielenski, Hegner 1985), on the other hand, emphasize the potential for rationalization inherent in part-time employment and the related generally negative effects on the total volume of employment.
many, however, detailed empirical data to answer these questions have so far not been
available.
This applies first of all to the different variants and forms of parttime work. In contrast to full-time employment which is more strongly regulated by law and collective agreements, the general category of part-time employment covers a broad spectrum of different working time arrangements, ranging from marginal or minor forms of employment to regular employment which can hardly be di stinguished from full-time employment with respect to length of working time, working conditions, and social security.
Moreover, in Germany part-time employees are almost exclusively women which gives rise to the question of the effects of part-time work on the seg mentation of the labor market by gender as well as the dissolution or persi stence of gender-specific role patterns outside the sphere of work This question is all the more urgent since increased part-time employment accounted for no less than 70 percent of the total increase in female employment in the period
1970-1984.
Furthermore, growing part-time employment gives rise to problems with respect to the social security of employees Both the social security system and a whole range of regulations based on collective agreements are still for the most part oriented toward the normative model of permanent full-time employment ("normal employment": cf. MQckenberger 1986). As a result, part-time em ployees not only face higher risks regarding the extent to which they are entit led to social security benefits but are also at a disadvantage with respect to mi nimum standards determined by collective agreement (cf. Hoff 1983; Landen- berger 198S). In addition, in the medium term funding problems will arise for social security agencies (cf. BQchtemann/Landenberger 1986).
Finally, there is concern that the continuing expansion of part-time employment and the increasing "individualization" of working time arrangements will lead not only to a weakening of union bargaining power but in the medium term also to an erosion of collectively negotiated standards of working time, under mining their function as guarantors of an individual subsistence income (cf.
Wiesenthal et al. 1984; Kurz-Scherf 198Sa). This raises the question of the im plications of increased part-time work for incomes generally, i.e. concerning individual earnings as well as the overall income and household situation of part-time employees.
The purpose of this study is to approach these questions based on recent representative data in the form of an initial descriptive account of part- time employment in the Fe deral Republic of Germany. Beginning with an analysis of its "micro-structure," data
workers, as well as aspects concerning the demand side, particularly the employment situation and earnings of part-time employees, and aspects pertaining to their status within the social security system. At the same time, this study is to provide a point of departure for further analyses of the problem and the implications of "new" forms of working time and employment in Germany (cf. on this IIMV 198S).
2 Database and Approach of the Study
The following analysis is based on cross-sectional data from the first survey wave of the "Socio-economic Panel" conducted in the first half of 1984, a representative longi tudinal analysis of the economic and social situation of the population in the Federal Republic of Germany carried out by the Sonderforschungsbereich 3 at the Universities of Frankfurt and Mannheim in collaboration with the Deutsches Institut fOr Wirt- schaftsforschung (DIW) as well as Infratest Sozialforschung. This survey is in a number
of respects different from traditional comprehensive surveys in the social sciences^':
It is designed as a longitudinal survey based on annually repeated surveys of approximately 12,000 persons from some 6,000 representatively selected private households in the Federal Republic of Germany (incl. West Berlin), collecting complex data on their socio-economic situation and changes therein over an extended period of time.
In each survey, all members of the selected households aged 16 and over are surveyed. The database thus permits an analysis of households as well as indivi duals on a representative basis.
The initial sample, in addition to German private households, also includes re presentative subsamples of non-citizen private households in the Federal Repu blic. As a result, the data collected make it possible to draw representative
conclusions for domestic residents as a whole.
The first survey wave of the "Socio-economic Panel" on which the following analysis is based contains extensive data on individuals and households from a total of 12,245
3) For details, see Sonderforschungsbereich 3, 1985; Infratest Sozialforschung 1985; as well as Krupp Hanefeld (eds.) 1986.'
persons surveyed in 5,921 German and non-citizen private households. For the present study, datasets for a total of 7,165 male and female employees in 4,535 (employee) households were evaluated. According to their own classification, at the time of the survey 5,724 persons (about 80 percent) had full-time employment, 1,002 (almost 13 percent) had (regular or marginal) part-time employment, and 439 (7 percent) were in vocational training in the workplace. Thus the number of cases is sufficient for a sy stematic analysis of part-time employment in the Federal Republic of Germany.
Usually the only other databases with a sufficient number of cases are official (em ployment) statistics which however for Germany - as in the case of the Microcensus (Mikrozensus) or the EC Workforce Sample (EG- Arbeitskriiftestichprobe) - incorpo rate only a fraction of the data collected by the "Socio-economic Panel" or - as in the case of the employee statistics of the Federal Labor Office - include only that portion of part-time employees subject to compulsory social insurance (mid-1984; 1.835 mil lion) (cf. Herberger, Becker 1983).
The following analysis incorporates only respondents that categorize themselves as being in dependent employment, i.e. blue collar and white collar employees or civil servants, and that have supplied information on the type, or the length of working time, of their (primary) occupation: These are a total of 5,777 persons in full-time and part-time employment or approximately 81 percent of all employees in the sample.
Excluded from the analysis were:
all self-employed persons, assisting family members, and those engaged in free lance work, particularly since the working time of these groups is not determi ned by (labor) contract thus making a sharp distinction between full-time and part-time employees difficult (916 respondents or 12.8 percent of all em ployees),
in addition, all apprentices and trainees whose work is not employment in the narrow sense, i.e. who, among other things, do not receive a regular wage but usually only an apprenticeship or trainee allowance (439 respondents or 6.1 percent of dl employees),
as well as all other employees whose datasets do not contain any information on occupational status and/or type of primary employment (full-time/part-time employment) (33 respondents or 0.5 percent of all employees).
Since part-time employees in Germany are still almost exclusively female, and male part-time workers have a correspondingly very weak representation in our sample
In order to offset structural distortions in the sample, the data were adjusted to the structural distributions in the official statistics (EG- Arbeitskr&ftestichprobe 1984) and extrapolated for the total domestic population in private households with the aid of a special weighting procedure (for details, see Caller 1986). The data incorporated in the following analysis were computed based on the extrapolated results and can legitimately be considered representative for the Federal Republic of Germany (incl. West Berlin).
Minor deviations of the extrapolated results from those in the EC sample, as shown in Table 2, Appendix, for the group of persons in dependent employment, are primarily due to different group classifications, survey concepts, and survey periods:
The extrapolated Panel data refer only to persons aged 16 and over, whereas the EC sample also includes the (albeit very small) group of employees aged IS.
In contrast to the Panel, the EC sample, as a result of inadequate distinctions in the questionnaire, also includes trainees and unpaid assistants (not however ap prentices) in the category of persons in dependent employment - a group that according to the extrapolated Panel results numbers approximately 160,000.
In addition, the employee figures in the EC sample refer to a different seasonal period (June 1984) than the Panel results (March to June 1984 with an emphasis on March/April 1984): According to DIW calculations (see DlW-Wochenbericht
30/86), at the beginning of the third quarter of. 1984 ^e total number of em
ployees (excluding apprentices) was over 300,000 higher than the average for the first and second quarters.
Finally, the Panel data contain, respectively, only the extrapolated numbers of those respondents for whom data are available on occupational status (blue col lar, white collar worker, civil servant), as well as type (full-time/part-time) of primary employment, while missing data on working time in the EC sample are supplemented by simulation: Extrapolated, the 0.3 percent of employees in the Panel for whom not even one of the above-mentioned categories of data are available represent approximately 64,000 persons.
The result of simply extrapolating the difference in numbers of employees.between the EC sample of 1984 and Wave I of the Panel is about SOO,OOO.persons, which corre sponds fairly closely to the actual difference shown in.Table 2, Appendix. In addition, however, slight structural deviations.between the two surveys arise as a result of the different categories.supplied by the respective survey instruments: Thus the additional
about. 190,000 part-time employees with a weekly working time of less than 20 hours.in Wave I of the Panel may be primarily accounted for in terms of two.factors: First, the Panel explicitly asked for "regular working time.without overtime," whereas the EC sample survey only asked for "normar.working time, i.e. including any regular over time; second, - and this.accounts for most of the deviation - a considerable number particularly of."marginal or irregular" part-time employees in the Panel indicated that.their "regular weekly working time" was "not fixed," whereas in the £C.sample missing data on the working time of part-time and full-time employees.were added
corresponding to their respective share in the total number of employees^^
3 Findings
3.1 Definition of Groups for Analysis
The gradual shortening and particularly the differentiation of regular or.normal stan dards of working time based on collective agreements make a.precise definition of part-time employment increasingly difficult (cf. also.Kohler, Reyher 1985). Wave I of the "Socio-economic Panel" provided us with.three principal indicators for distinguis hing between full-time and part-.time employment:
The self-classification of respondents into one of three given, categories, "in full-time employment," "in regular part-time, employment," and "in marginal or irregular employment;"
the data provided directly by the respondents on their "regular, (weekly) wor king time (without overtime);"
the data provided directly by the respondents on their average actual, working time during the previous month.
For distinguishing between full-time and part-time employment, most existing.studies take into account "regular working time" which is included in.official employment sta tistics (Microcensus; EC Workforce Sample) in.addition to actual working time during the week of the report (e.g. Mdrtl.1984; Brinkmann et al. 1986). However, in a number 4) As our own data show, to the extent that missfng data on working time for the most part occur in the group with (marginal or irregular) part-time employment, the procedure followed fay the Federal Statistics Office results in underestimating the number of part- time employees while overestimating the number of full- timers.
of studies, actual.weekly working time is used as the criterion on which the full- time/part-.time distinction is based (e.g. Hofbauer 1981; EMNID 1981). As a re- sult,.short-time workers, for example, fall under part-time employees, while part-.time employees that during the period under consideration worked extensive.overtime are in part counted as full-time employees. Irrespective of the.specific criterion used, the chronometric distinction between full-time and.part-time employment itself varies:
While in recent years the FederaLStatistics Office as a rule has set the average at 35/36 hours per week,.other studies (Hofbauer 1981, Frerichs et al. 1984) define part- time.employment as employment of less than 40 hours per week - a definition thatparticularly since the introduction of the 38.5-hour work-week in several.economic sectors is becoming increasingly problematic.
For the following analysis, the subjective self-classification of.respondents as well as the data they provided on "regular (weekly) working.time without overtime" were used to distinguish between full-time and part-.time employees: All respondents classifying themselves as "in regular part-.time employment" or "in marginal or irregular employ ment" and who for their.primary employment reported a regular weekly working time without overtime.of less than 35 hours per week were classified as "part-time em ployees;" .the reason for setting the limit at 34/35 hours per week is that all employees with a regular weekly working time of between 35 and 39 hours.classified themselves
as "in full-time employment"^"full-time employees".accordingly are all persons in de
pendent employment with a regular weekly.working time of 35 hours and above and who classify themselves as having."full-time employment."
3.2 Types of Part-time Employment and Length of Working Time
The term "part-time employment" encompasses a broad range of working time arran gements in both chronometric (length of working time) and chronological (scheduling 5) Only in a feu cases was the reported "resular weekly working time" below 3S hours although respondents had classified themselves as "fully employed." These were exclusively teachers/instructors that had reported their contractual classroom hours rather than their regular total working time; these cases were included under "full-tiflie employees" for the present study. The distinction between part-time and full-time employment corresponding to a regular working time of less than 35 hours and 35 and more hours per week, respectively, is a common definition used in most countries; cf. Neubourg 1985.
of working time) respects (see Conradi 1982; Bielenski, Hegner.l98S; Brinkmann 1981).
A common characteristic of, and at the same time the.criterion defining, part-time em ployment is that in chronometric terms it differs from the normal standard of working time of full employment or full-time employment (cf. Mertens et al. 198S). Thus the term "part-time.employment" conceals a broad spectrum of fairly heterogeneous pat terns of.working time that share a common definition only by virtue of their nega- tive.relation to the normal standard of working time. Nevertheless, even studies.on the subject (e.g. Hofbauer 1981; Mdrtl 1984; Schoer 1986) frequently speak of part-time employment (or part-time employees) as such without differentiating various forms and configurations as well as their implications for employment, income, and lifestyle. By contrast, the indicators contained in Wave I of the "Socio-economic Panel" on self- classification as well as "normal" weekly working time of part-time employment make it possible to differentiate part-time jobs with respect to regularity and length of wor king time.
According to their subjective self-classification, 16 percent of all persons in dependent employment, or extrapolated over 3.3 million, worked in part- time employment at the time of the survey (2nd quarter of 1984). Two-thirds (69 percent) of these (i.e. appro ximately 2.3 million persons) had "regular" part-time employment and nearly one-third
(31 percent or about l.OS million) had "marginal or irregular" part-time employment^\
A total of 84 percent of all persons in dependent employment worked full-time. The proportion of part-time employees among women is significantly higher than among men: While male part-time employment is rather insignificant with some 250,000 per sons (or 2 percent of all males in dependent employment), more than one in three fe male employees (38.9 percent or extrapolated about 3.1 million) works part-time. Thus in 1984 the proportion of women in all part-time employees was about 94 percent (see Table 2, Appendix).
At the same time it becomes clear with respect to female part-time employees that the term part-time employment conceals indeed very different work patterns: Of an extra polated total of 3.1 million women in part-time employment, approximately 70 percent
6) The subjective self-classfficatlon of respondents in most (though not in all) cases corresponds to the categories of "marginal" (part-time) employment vs. (part-time) employment "subject to compulsory social insurance" as used in social insurance regulations. On this see p. 35 f.
(2.2 million) classify themselves as working "in regular part-time employment" and ne arly one in three (29 percent) - extrapolated more than 900,000 persons - as working in "marginal or irregular part-time employment." However, it must be assumed that particularly this group of marginal employees is underestimated in our data: A signifi cant portion of these are likely to be temporary or occasional jobs, frequently seasonal employment as well as work in the "grey area" between formal employment and more informal or underground jobs that cannot be accurately determined on the basis of pe riodical, standardized surveys.
The length of working time is at the same time tied to a number of legal regulations.
As a result, part-time employment does not enjoy the same legal protection as does full-time employment, and - unless social security is provided for the individuals in question in other ways, such as through their family - they face greater social risks, i.e.
particularly with respect to income security. On the other hand, since labor costs are lower for the employer, it is an incentive to provide part-time jobs outside the purview of specific labor and social regulations. In the Federal Republic of Germany, such working time triggers exist in particular
for a regular weekly working time not exceeding 10 hours where workers are not entitled to continued pay in case of sickness,
further, if the working time is less than 15 hours per week, contributions to the Statutory Health and Pension Plans are not compulsory as long as earnings do not exceed certain monthly limits (1984: 390.- DM; 1986: 410.- DM) (so-called
"marginal" employment),
as well as for 20 (since 1986: 19) hours per week below which unemployment insurance is not compulsory and, as a result, the worker is not entitled to any benefits (so-called "short-term" employment") (cf. LSwisch 1984; Prey 1985;
Landenberger 1985).
As our data show (Table 3, Appendix), a large majority of female part-time employees (65 percent or extrapolated over 2 million) hold part-time jobs of 20 or more hours per week, i.e. they are subject to compulsory social insurance. These part-time jobs are primarily concentrated in the area'of "classic" part-time work of 20-25 hours per week (48 percent or about 1.5 million of all female part-timers) as well as in the area ran ging from 26-30 hours per week (nearly 14 percent or over 400,000 of female part- time workers). Part-time employment of 30 or more hours per week, on the other
hand, which already comes close to the normal standard of working time for full-time employment, is only of minor significance (extrapolated about 100,000 persons). This, however, according to available studies (cf. Landenberger 1983, Frerichs et al. 1984;
Nerb 1986), is the general range of working time preferred by full-time workers desiring individual reductions in working time that is so frequently referred to in the debate on employment policy.
The fact that a majority of female part-time employees (still) work in part- time jobs that are subject to compulsory social insurance, however, should not conceal the fact that even now a considerable portion of part-time work lies below these limits: Accor ding to our data, in 1984 about one in four (24 percent) female part-timers had em ployment of usually less than 20 hours per week; extrapolated, these statistics represent approximately 750,000 women, a majority of whom (about 500,000) fall below the 15-
hours-per-week limit for the Statutory Health and Pension Plans and thus as a rule^'
belong to the group of "marginal" employees. That in many cases it is indeed "marginal"
employment is illustrated by the large share of jobs that do not even exceed the 10- hour-per-week limit and thus in many cases do not even entitle the worker to conti
nued pay in case of sickness®^: In 1984, nearly one in seven (14 percent) female part-
time employees had a job not exceeding 10 hours per week, which extrapolated amounts to about 420,000 persons.
Finally, it should be noted that as many as 10 percent of female part-time employees (310,000) responded that they had "no fixed working time:" Most of them (55 percent) are women who at the same time identify their employment as "marginal or irregular."
They therefore tend to belong to the group of part-time employees not subject to com
pulsory social insurance'^ whose total number extrapolated thus increases to about
7) I.e., if at the same time earnings do not exceed certain limits. For more details, see section 3.S of this study.
8) Particularly in the area of more marginal employment below 15 hours per week, respondents are probably often not clear as to whether • e.g. in the case of a Job in a private household or as a newspaper carrier - it is dependent employment with employee status.
Accordingly, the quota of those workers who classify themselves as self-employed or assisting rather than as employees is significantly higher among respondents with a regular working time of less than 15 hours (18 percent) than for the workforce as a whole (10 percent).
9) "Harginal" employment not subject to compulsory social insurance includes not only regular part-time Jobs of less than 15 hours per week but also other employment not engaged in on
700,000 women in dependent employment (i.e. 23 percent of all female part-time em ployees). This again points to the fact that particularly in the area of "marginal" part- time employment, there is a considerable number of sporadic or occasional jobs for
which working time by and large cannot be determined^°\
Particularly the development of "marginal" part-time employment not subject to com pulsory social insurance has recently been the focus of increased attention in the debate on social and labor market policies (see, for instance, Handelsblatt, 9 January 1986:
"SPD demands dropping minimum limits;" and on 10 January 1986: "Limits for low- income earners - Blum also sees problems"). Although in Germany precise data so far have not been available (cf. also Brinkmann/Kohler 1981), there are good reasons to assume that the number of "marginal" jobs has strongly increased in recent years and has reached between 1.5 to 2 million (cf. Degen 1986). This is why recently the Social Democrats as well as several trade unions, among others, have called for the inclusion of all part-time employees in the compulsory social insurance system (see, e.g., the SPD draft legislation "for the protection of part-time employees," in Bundestagsdrucksache 10/2559; as well as DOB 1986).
The assumption of a disproportional increase in "marginal" employment is further sup ported by a comparison of data from the Microcensus of 1983 with the results of the National and Occupational Census of 1970, even though the total volume of "marginal"
part-time employment is probably considerably underestimated particularly in official statistics: The number of women in dependent employment with a regular weekly wor king time of less than 15 hours during this period increased twice as fast (+ 113.3 per cent) as the total number of female part-time employees (+ 56.6 percent) (see Table 4, Appendix). This general trend is also confirmed by our results for 1984. In other words, although according to a variety of findings the working time preferences of
a permanent basis (i.e. as an "occupation") as long as it does not exceed a maxioxm of 2 months or 50 working days per year; in addition, a number of special regulations exist concerning the employment of students and retirees (see on this Banner 1985).
10) cf. on this also the results of Helberger/Schwarze 1986. In 1984, among persons tdio for the most part classified themselves as "not employed," the authors found retrospectively over a 3- month period a share of about 9 percent reporting "minor employment," i.e.
persons that, though rrat at the time of the survey, had temporarily worked for money during the previous 3 months. Cases such as these for the most part are not full>time employment and do not show up in a cross-sectional analysis such as the present study that is conducted only at specific points in time.
part-time employees and those searching for part-time work are predominantly for a weekly working time of 25-35 hours (of. Brinkmann/Kohler 1981; Landenberger 1983), the greatest opportunities for expanding part-time employment in fact seem to be clo
ser to, or in the area of, employment not subject to compulsory social insurance^^^
That female respondents perceive their part-time jobs of less than 20 hours per week as marginal or minor employment is demonstrated by the high degree of agreement between the data they supplied on "regular weekly working time" and the subjective classification into the categories of "regular part-time employment" or "marginal or ir regular" employment (see Table 3, Appendix): Almost all female part-time employees (97 percent) with a "regular working time" of less than 15 hours per week classified themselves as working "in marginal or irregular employment;" the same holds true for an overwhelming majority (87 percent) of female part-time employees with a working time of 15-19 hours per week, i.e. not subject to compulsory unemployment insurance.
All female part-timers with 20 or more hours per week, on the other hand, classify their jobs as "regular part-time employment." The employee's self- classification of her (part-time) job thus strongly correlates with the degree of social security it provides, which in turn is tied to the working time of the job.
In sum, it may be concluded that the commonly used general category of "part-time employment" encompasses a very heterogeneous spectrum of different working time arrangements. This makes any general conception of part-time employment or part- time employees as such problematic. As many as two-thirds of all female part-time employees classify their job as "regular part-time employment" and report a "normal"
working time of 20-34 hours per week; in most cases this represents the "classic" part- time job of 20-25 hours per week corresponding to the conventional view of female part-time work. At the same time, however, according to their self-classification, one- third (or approximately 900,000) of all female part-time workers had "marginal or irre gular" part-time jobs, in most cases with a weekly working time below the limit of compulsory social insurance. There are indications that such "marginal" employment
11) The progressive shift of part-time employment into the area of fewer weekly hours is also illustrated by the fact that, measured in hours, the share of part-time employment in the total volume of employment during the past 10 years has increased much more slowly than the nunber of part-time employees; cf. Neubourg 1985.
without social security represents one of the major growth areas of part-time employ ment in Germany.
3.3 Labor Supply: Individual Characteristics and Household Situation of Female Part-Time Empioyees
In the Federal Repubilc of Germany, part-time empioyment is stiii aimost exciusiveiy the domain of women. The expansion of part-time employment is thus of crucial im portance with respect to the increase in the total number of women in the workforce:
More than 70 percent of the increase in the total number of women in dependent em ployment between 1970 and 1984 (plus 1.25 million or -f 16.4 percent) is accounted for by increased part-time empioyment (+ 876,000 or + 47.8 percent). The continued ex pansion of part- time empioyment thus points not only to structural changes on the demand side of the labor market, such as a continuing trend towards the tertiary sec tor, but also to altered structures and behavioral patterns on the supply side of the la bor market, such as changes in family structure and fertility behavior as well as new attitudes concerning working women. Particularly a structural comparison between wo men in full-time and part-time employment as well as a differentiation between dif ferent forms of part-time employment can provide insights into the specific interde pendence of different employment patterns, on the one hand, and structures and con stellations in the sphere of private life, on the other. Moreover, a systematic analysis of structures and constellations of part-time employment on the labor supply side at the same time can provide answers to the question concerning the importance of part-time work for income maintenance and the reproduction of households. For this purpose, it is useful that the "Socio-economic Panel", in addition to characteristics of individuals, also contains specific information on the household and family situation of part-time employees.
For this reason, the perspective of the following analysis is not confined to the charac teristics of individual (full-time and part-time) workers but also includes various types of households that are distinguished by the kind and constellation of their participation
in working life. That is: The basic units of analysis are female full-time and part-time
employees as well as the (private) households to which these individuals belong^^'.
3.3.1 Socio-demography of female part-time and full-time employees
Beginning with a consideration of the characteristics of women in dependent employ ment with respect to the extent and kind of their participation in working life (see Ta ble 5, Appendix), a number of marked differences between part-time and full-time employees can be observed, some of which have already been noted in earlier studies (cf. Linkert 1974; Hofbauer 1981; Neubourg 1985):
On average, female part-time employees are significantly older than female full-timers: They are strongly predominant in the age groups over 30 (» 85 percent of female part-time employees) while approximately half of all female full-time workers (45 percent) fall into the age category of up to 30. Full-time and part-time employment, respectively, are obviously connected with certain phases of the female (working) life cycle (cf. Brinkmann 1981). This is also re
flected in the age-specific part-time quota'^^ For female employees up to 30
years of age the part-time quota is 18 percent, for those aged 31 to 60 it is 48 percent; i.e., in 1984 approximately one in two women in dependent employ ment in this age group had part-time employment. At the same time, this is the age group whose altered working behavior accounts for the strong overall in crease in the number of working women (cf. Krebsbach-Gnath et al. 1983).
More than four in five (83 percent) female part-time employees are married, compared to less than half (48 percent) of all female full- time workers. Part- time work thus continues* to be essentially employment of married women.
While one in two (52 percent) married working women (as well as widows) have part-time employment, the same is true for only one in ten (11 percent) single and one in four (24 percent) divorced female workers. Accordingly, over 90 percent of part-time employees live in multiple-person households, and a large majority (70 percent) in households with at least three members (female full- time employees: 44 percent). The proportion of female part-timers in house
holds with children under 16 (48 percent) is twice as high as that of femalefull-time employees (26 percent). The fact that half of all female part-time em
ployees are women without children under 16, however, undermines the wi despread belief according to which part-time work is a specific form of em ployment for mothers with dependent children.12) In Table 5, Appendix, the structural distributions for the total nuifcer of women in dependent eflployment are subdivided into fuU'time and different types of part-time employment; in Table 8, structural distributions are presented by different types • part-
time and/or full-time - of (working) households.
13) Share of female part-time workers in the total number of women in dependent employment.
The level of formal schooling and vocational training of female part-time and full-time employees reveals further structural differences.
The number of female part-time workers with only the lowest degree of formal
education^^' is significantly higher (68 percent) than that of female full-time
employees (48 percent). The share of women with one of two intermediate de grees of formal education among female full-time workers (34 percent and 18 percent, respectively) is clearly higher than for part-timers (19 and 12 percent).
A similar qualification gap also exists with respect to vocational training; More than one in three (35 percent) female part-time employees does not have any vocational qualification (full-timers: 21 percent). While the share of women with a completed apprenticeship is about the same in both groups (48 and 49 percent, respectively), the share of female full-time employees with a college or university degree (10 percent) or any other completed occupational training (trade school, etc.; 22 percent) is considerably higher than among their part- time colleagues (6 and 11 percent, respectively).
In spite of the enormous expansion of part-time employment in recent years, part-time employees thus continue to be negatively distinguished from female full-time workers, which is only partly due to "cohort effects," i.e. the higher average age of part-time employees. At the same time, a comparison with the findings of the Microcensus of 1978 shows that in recent years the qualification gap between female full-time and part-time employees has further widened. Although in both groups initial formal and vocational qualifications have increased since 1978, the rise in the level of qualification of female full-time employees during this period has been much more pronounced than that of part-timers. For example, while the share of women with only the lowest de gree of formal education among female full- time employees decreased from 66 per cent to 48 percent (i.e., -27 percent) between 1978 and 1984, for part-timers it only decreased from 75 percent to 68 percent (i.e. -9 percent) during the same period (see Statistisches Bundesamt 1980).
These structural discrepancies between female full-time and part-time employees in principle also apply with respect to different variants of part-time employment. At the same time, however, a number of differences emerge between women in "regular" part- time employment (20-34 hours per week) and those in "marginal or irregular" part-time employment that justify a more detailed examination:
14} For a brief explanation of the German school system, see note 6 to Table S, Appendix.
While "marginal or irregular" employment is strongly predominant in the "clas sic" part-time age group of 30-60, younger women also work more frequently in such jobs than in regular part-time employment More than one in five (22 percent) women in "marginal or irregular" employment belong to the age group of up to 30 ("regular" part-time employees: 13 percent), and half of them (49 percent) work part-time while at the same time pursuing a training program (secondary education, university, further training).
Particularly women in "marginal" part-time employment of less than 15 hours per week for the most part are mothers with children in their household: While three-quarters (73 percent) of female part-time employees with less than 15 hours per week have children under 16 in their household, the same applies not even to half (43 percent) the women whose part-time employment is 15 or more hours per week.
Finally, the lower level of vocational qualification of female part- time workers - compared to full-timers - is accounted for primarily by the growing group of
"marginal or irregular" employees among them: The share of women without vocational qualifications in this group is 47 percent and thus significantly hig her than that of women in regular part-time employment (30 percent).
In sum, despite considerable expansion during the past 15 years, part-time employment continues to be not only a form of work that is almost exclusively a domain of women, but is also largely restricted to specific age groups and family situations (cf. Linkert 1974; Bhchtemann 1981; Schwarz 1985): In 1984, female part-time workers predomi nantly belonged to the age groups over 30; only in the (albeit growing number oO
"marginal or irregular" part-time Jobs is there a larger group of younger women who in many cases are employed while at the same time pursuing an education or training pro gram. Part-time Jobs are still predominantly held by married women, while part-time work of single or divorced women continues to be the exception. At the same time, female part-time employees, and particularly the "marginally" employed among them, have a significantly lower level of education and training than female full-time workers. The qualification gap between full-time and part-time employees - probably as a result of the relative increase of "marginal" part-time employment - has apparently further widened in recent years.
3.3.2 Household Situation and Household Income
The strong predominance of married women in part-time employment raises the que stion of the relative importance of part-time work with respect to the income main-
tenance of households. An answer can be provided by a structural analysis of the hou seholds of part-time (and, for comparison, of full-time) employees. For this purpose,
we have differentiated the group of employee households'®^ in our sample by kind and
constellation of their participation in the work force (see on this Table 8, Appendix):
In the Federal Republic in 1984, about one in six (17 percent or 2.9 million) in a total
of 17.2 million worker households had at least one part- time employee'^' (subse
quently referred to as "part-time households"); full-time workers only lived in 83 per cent of employee households (subsequently: "full-time households"). An examination in terms of households reveals once again that part-time employees are concentrated in a specific type of household: 93 percent of part-time households are multiple- person households; part-time employment of single persons plays virtually no role on the labor market (1.2 percent of all worker households). Rather, the large majority (78 percent) of part-time households are households of married couples (compared to 62 percent of full-time households). Part-time households have a large share (59 percent) of married- couple households with children, particularly compared to full-time households (44 percent).
Characteristic for part-time households, moreover, is a specific constellation of house hold members with respect to their participation in working life: In 1984, in approxi mately 80 percent (or over 2.3 million) of part-time households, at least one person in addition to the part-time employee had employment (full-time households: 38 percent), which in almost all cases (98 percent) was full-time employment. Approximately one in four part-time households (23 percent; employee households as a whole: 10 percent) in 1984 even had (at least) two additional workers contributing to the household income.
Households with only one part-time employee without any additional earners (20 per cent of part-time households and about 3.4 percent of all employee households), and particularly households with several part-time employees but no full-time earners (1.2 percent of part- time households), on the other hand, are relatively rare. In other words: Part-time employment in most cases obviously presupposes the existence of (at least) one additional earner, usually full-time, to insure an adequate household income.
15) Defined as: Private households in which at the time of the survey at least one person was employed (part-time or full-time; excluding vocational training).
16) Here: including male part-time employees.
This fact is further illustrated by looking at the minority of part-time households wi thout any additional full-time earner. These households are clearly distinguished from
the majority of employee households with at least one full-time earner^''^ by their so
cio-economic situation:
One in seven (14 percent) part-time households without any additional full-time employee(s) consists of incomplete families (i.e. one parent with child) while the same applies to less than one in 20 (4 percent) of all other employee households.
The incidence of officially unemployed persons is significantly higher in part- time households without full-time earners than in those with full-time em ployees. It applies to 14 percent of part-time households without full-time em ployees (or 21 percent of multiple-person households among them) but only to 4 percent of households with full-time employees (or S percent of multiple-per son households).
The monthly net household income of about one in three (30 percent) part-time households without additional full-time earner is below 750 DM per capita, which applies only to 17 percent of part-time households with full-time em ployees. At the same time, part-time employees in households without additio nal full-time earners more frequently (26 percent) indicate dissatisfaction with
their household income^^^ than is the case for part-time employees in house
holds with full-time workers (15 percent).
However, the missing full-time income in households consisting of part-time employees only is in many cases at least partially compensated by public transfer payments. More than half of these households (53 percent) at the same time received social benefits such as pensions, unemployment benefits, social assistance, training assistance or ma ternity benefits (by comparison: part-time households with full-time employees: 18 percent). In over one in three (37 percent) households with transfer payments, the part- time employee herself received a (survivor, disability, or old-age) pension.
At the same time, our data indicate - in accordance with earlier studies (see Hofbauer 1979; Cremer 1981) - that the predominant type of part-time household with full-time earner(s) could not easily do without the additional part-time earnings. The total monthly net household income of households with part-time and full-time earners on average is slightly higher than that of other employee households (share with 2,000.- DM and above: 90 percent; other employee households: 69 percent). However, this dif-
17) I.e., households with part-tine and full-time employees as well as households with full- time employees only; these make up 96 percent of all employee households.
18) Dissatisfaction defined as: scores of 0-4 on a given 11-point ordinal scale.
ference becomes less pronounced if one takes into account the various household sizes of different household types: The average per-capita net income for households with part-time and full-time earners (1,129.- DM) is not higher but in fact 10 percent lower than that of other employee households (1,243.- DM). One may thus conclude that the usually relatively low part-time earnings (the average net earnings of part-time em ployees in these households are just under 750.- DM) in many cases represent a neces sary supplementary income in order to bring the per-capita income of the household closer to the average level of employee households as a whole (1,226.- marks). That part-time earnings in households with two earners are often indispensable becomes particularly clear if one considers the average per-capita income minus part-time sup plementary earnings in these households: Without the net earnings of the part-time em ployee, the per- capita net income in these households would be significantly lower (864.- DM) than in other (multiple-person) households with only one full-time earner (951.- DM) (see Table 9, Appendix). Thus the alternative to part- time employment for households with two earners in many cases may consist not so much in a retreat from
the labor market as in (the search for) additional full-time employment''\ This at the
same time may be the crucial positive effect of increased part-time employment on the
labor market.
In sum: Income from part-time work by itself is obviously as a rule inadequate for maintaining a household. This is why part-time employees in most cases provide only (though often indispensable) supplementary earnings in addition to the full-time in come of other members of the household or - if there are no full-time earners in the household - depend on compensation in the form of public income transfers. At the same time, it means that under present conditions realistic opportunities for an expan sion of part- time employment largely exist where the greater part of household in come is secured by other full-time earners (cf. similar findings in Brinkmann 1979). It also means that the substitution of full-time by part-time employment - and the fear of a resulting progressive "erosion" of the normal standard of working time set by collective agreement - under existing conditions will necessarily reach its limits from
19) The results of the Transfer Survey 1981 point in the same direction. They suggest that the supplementary earnings of "second earners" in addition to the full-tine income of the principal earner in many cases are a precondition for an adequate household income above subsistence level (see Klein 1985).
the perspective of incomes policy where an adequate supply of "normal employment"
(MQckenberger) of the permanent full- time type is no longer'available to supplement the insufficient earnings of part-time workers. An expansion of part-time employment through job-sharing beyond these limits could probably only be achieved against the wishes of those affected. Moreover, as the socio-economic situation of part-time workers without full-time earners in their household illustrates, it would no doubt si gnificantly increase the number of households with public transfer claims (e.g. social assistance and/or unemployment assistance). In the medium term, it would require a fundamental modification of the existing system of public income protection (such as in the form of basic social security not tied to the labor market: cf. Vobruba 1986) which - regardless of its socio-political desirability (cf. Hanesch 1984) - politically has very little prospect of being realized.
3.4 Labour Demand: Employment Situation and Employment Stability of Female Part-time Employees
The implications of part-time employment for the structure of the labor market as well are controversial in the debate on- employment policy. Since part-time work (not only in Germany: see OECD 1983) continues to be concentrated in a narrow segment of comparatively low-skill female service jobs (cf. Hofbauer 1981; M6rtl 1984), the fol lowing question arises. To what extent is a growing supply of part-time jobs, on the one hand, a precondition for many women with obligations outside of work to be able to participate in working life on a permanent basis, and to what extent does this, on the other hand, reinforce a trend toward the segmentation of the labor market by gen der - a situation that Ostner and Willms (1983) have fittingly labelled "integration by segregation (cf. also Rein 1985).
In addition to data related directly to individuals and households, the "Socio-economic Panel" contains a variety of workplace and firm-specific indicators that provide detai led information on the relative employment situation of female part- time workers. Our differentiation between various types or variants of part-time employment at the same time illustrates that different forms of part-time employment should be distinguished with respect to their specific implications for labor market policy.
3.4.1 Employment Situation and Workplace Characteristics
The employment situation of female part-time workers is in a number of respects dif ferent from the situation of female full- time employees which points to the persi stence of more or less significant structural disadvantages in the part-time labor market (see Table 5, Appendix):
Female full-time as well as part-time employees predominantly work in the trade and service sectors (78 percent of part-time and 71 percent of full-time employees). Particularly the areas of trade, restaurant/accommodation, laundiy/personal hygiene/janitorial and other services as well as private house holds - i.e. sectors that as a rule tend to have unfavorable working and em ployment conditions and earnings - all show an above average part-time quota;
these sectors alone account for nearly 30 percent of female full-time, over 43 percent of part-time, and 56 percent of "marginal or irregular" part-time em ployees.
While the supply of part-time jobs in the Public Service - primarily as a matter of employment policy - has been considerably expanded during recent years and approximately half the total increase in part-time jobs between 1976 and 1984 (+423,000) is accounted for by increased part-time employment in the Pu blic Service (1976-1984: +199,000; cf. Breidenstein 1985), the part-time quota of 34 percent for women in the Public Service is still considerably lower than in the private sector (41 percent). In addition, part-time work in the Public Ser vice by no means consists exclusively of regular part-time employment subject to compulsory social insurance. In 1984, one in four (25 percent) female part-
time employees in the Public Service^®' belonged to the group of "marginal or
irregular" part-time employees.
The strong predominance of female part-time employees in the service sector in generally low-skill jobs is also reflected in the structure of current occupati
ons^^'. 30 percent of female part-time employees work in basic service occupa
tions (compared to 12 percent of their full-time colleagues) and 23 percent in basic sales and administrative occupations (female full-time workers: 14 per cent). At the same time, however, the considerably more unfavorable occupa tional structure of part-time women compared to full-timers is once again mainly due to the large proportion of "marginal or irregular" workers among them: In 1984, one in four (26 percent) female full-time employees, half (47 percent) the "regular" part-time workers, and approximately two-thirds (64 percent) of women in "marginal" part-time employment worked in basic (ser vice, sales, or administrative) jobs.
20} Here: excluding tenured civil servants.
21) Classified according to Blossfeld 1985.
Similar gaps between female full-time, regular part-time, and "marginal" em ployees can also be found with respect to occupational status: In 1984, 43 per cent of female full- time employees, 61 percent of female "regular" part-time workers, and 75 percent of women in "marginal or irregular" part-time em ployment worked as unskilled or semi-skilled blue collar or as basic white collar employees. This shows that female part-time employees and particularly "margi nally" employed women do not simply have a lower level of occupational quali fication compared to full-time employees. Rather, much more frequently than female full- time employees they have to accept jobs for which they are over- qualified. Over one-third (35 percent) of female full- time employees, nearly half (48 percent) the "regular" part- timers, and approximately two-thirds (62 percent) of "marginal or irregular" part-time employees with an occupational qualification no longer work in the occupation for which they were trained.
This is also reflected in the on the whole lower qualification level of jobs held by female part-time employees. Completed occupational, college, or university training is required for the jobs of about 60 percent of full-time employees, but only for 45 percent of regular part-timers, and for merely 27 percent of female "marginal or irregular" part-time employees. Conversely, only about one in four (23 percent) female full-time workers, but approximately one in two (44 percent) part-timers as well as 60 percent of the "marginal" employees among them, indicated that their job did not require any training or only minimal on the job training.
Significant differences between female full-time and part- time employees,
moreover, emerge with respect to the size of the employing firm^^\ which has
a variety of implications for employment, such as job security, qualification and career opportunities, wage level, and extent of social benefits provided by the firm (cf. Weimer et al. 1982). Female part-time employees work significantly more frequently in small firms (less than 20 employees: 41 percent) than full- time women (24 percent); once again this applies particularly to women in
"marginal or irregular" part-time employment, more than half (51 percent) of whom are employed in very small firms with less than 20 employees. The ex panding sector of small and very small firms is thus of considerable importance with respect to the part-time employment of women (cf. also BQchtemann 1986). In 1984, a total of over 50 percent of women in very small firms with less than 20 employees worked part-time, and one in five (19 percent) had only
"marginal or irregular" employment (by comparison, firms with 200 and more employees: 31 percent and 5 percent, respectively). Obviously it is particularly the very small firms that try to create a more flexible staff and keep labor costs down by increasingly recruiting "marginal" part-time employees (cf. IFO-Insti- tut 1986).
In sum, the following conclusions with respect to the employment situation of women working part-time emerge: Part-time jobs of women are still found predominantly in a narrow segment of jobs and occupations. They compare negatively with the employ-
22) Nuntier of employees in the enterprise as a whole.
ment situation of women working full-time with respect to working and employment conditions (qualification requirements, utilization of occupational skills, occupational status, as well as firm size). Virtually all indicators concerning the employment situa
tion incorporated into the analysis point to a significant decline in the quality of jobs from full-time employment via regular (20-34 hrs./week) to "marginal or irregular"
part-time employment: As earlier studies have repeatedly show;n, the unfavorable em ployment situation of female part-time workers can to a large extent be accounted for by the growing number of "marginal" employees among them. At the same time, this means that - insofar as increases in part-time work largely continue to be in, or close to, the "marginal" area - the relative employment situation of female part-time em ployees will further deteriorate and - as long as part-time employment continues to be almost exclusively female employment - the segmentation of the labor market by gen
der will be further intensified.
3.4.2 Employment Stability and Mobiiity
Tendencies toward segmentation of the iabor market are often discussed with respect to relative employment stability. An empirical analysis of this aspect as a rule requires longitudinal data. Wave I of the "Socio-economic Panel" already contains a number of (retrospectively collected) indicators on mobility that permit an initial evaluation of employment stability as well as processes of occupational mobility in the area of part- time employment (see Table S, Appendix).
While particularly female part-time employees for the most part have (for family re
asons) had a discontinuous work history^', on the whole there are no differences bet
ween female full-time and part-time employees with respect to employment stability intheir firm (measured in terms of length of employment by present employer^^'): About
60 percent in both groups have worked for their present employer for at least five
23) According to Hofbauer (1982, p. S09f.) about half of all fetnale part-tine employees; cf.
elso Werner 1984.
24) Length of employment by present employer is not identical with length of part-time employment by present employer since in a number of cases women have switched from full- time to part-time employment without at the same time changing employers: According to Infratest (1985a) survey results, about one in five female part-time employees had previously worked full-time for the same employer.
