M. van Klaveren, K.G. Tijdens, M. Hughie-Williams and N.E. Ramos Martin
Table 3. Economically active population and labour participation rates (LPRs) by gender and by age group,
Azerbaijan, 2008
|
all |
male |
female | ||||
|
x 1,000 |
LPR |
x 1,000 |
LPR |
x1,000 |
LPR | |
|
15-19________ |
___________180 |
____________19.7 |
____________83 |
____________17.8 |
___________97 |
___________21.7 |
|
20-24_______ |
__________465 |
___________52.0 |
__________252 |
___________55.2 |
__________212 |
___________48.5 |
|
25-29_______ |
___________559 |
___________74.8 |
__________288 |
___________76.5 |
___________271 |
___________73.0 |
|
30-34_______ |
___________598 |
___________93.9 |
___________301 |
___________98.0 |
__________297 |
___________90.0 |
|
35-39_______ |
___________555 |
___________89.7 |
__________283 |
___________96.9 |
__________272 |
___________83.3 |
|
40-49_______ |
__________1,225 |
___________90.9 |
__________627 |
___________98.3 |
___________598 |
___________84.3 |
|
50-54_______ |
___________386 |
___________75.9 |
___________186 |
___________76.2 |
__________200 |
___________75.6 |
|
55-59_______ |
__________209 |
___________65.9 |
___________128 |
___________85.1 |
____________81 |
___________48.6 |
|
60-64_______ |
____________94 |
___________53.2 |
___________45 |
___________54.9 |
___________49 |
___________51.7 |
|
65+________ |
____________46 |
______________7.7 |
____________12 |
______________5.0 |
____________33 |
______________9.6 |
|
Total 15+ |
__________4,317 |
___________63.9 |
__________2,205 |
___________67.6 |
__________2,112 |
___________60.5 |
Source: ILO Laborsta, Table 1A (Labour Force survey)
The table reveals some interesting gender differences in the LPR’s for the 5-years’ age cohorts. For men
and women alike, the LPR’s were highest among the 30-49-year-olds, but the female rates fell after age 34.
The male rate in the 55-59 aged cohort was remarkably high, and so was the female LPR in the 60-64 of
age cohort. 53% of the potential female labour force of 55-65 aged was still employed, compared to other
post-Soviet countries like Ukraine a rather high share. Additionally, it may be noted that LPR’s in rural areas
are 4-5%points higher than those in urban areas, for women and men alike (SSC via AGIC website).
As for the DECISIONS FOR LIFE target group, the girls and young women aged 15-29, in 2008 there
were 580,000 of them employed in a population of 1,254,000, implying a LPR of 46.3%. Remarkably, with
47.9% (623,500 active in a population of 1,302,000), the LPR of their male peers was only slightly higher.
Comparison with the 1999 Census outcomes learns that between 1999-2008 the LPRs of both sexes
have strongly converged: whereas the male LPR fell by 4.5%points, coming down from 77.2%, the female
rate went up from 61.8%, thus by 4.2%points.5 These outcomes are the result of contradictory trends. As
for the males, the LPR’s for the three youngest cohorts fell by 14 to 19%points and the LPR for the 50-54
of age by 9%points, and this was not fully compensated by the 5-6%points’ rise of the LPRs for the 30-49
aged. As for the females, the LPR’s for the two youngest cohorts fell by respectively 9%points (for the 15-
19 of age) and 16%points (for the 20-24-aged), whereas the LPR for the 25-29 of age remained at 73%;
however, the labour participation of the middle-aged women grew spectacularly, by 10-17%points. This lat-
5 Though, unlike the 2008 Labour Force Survey, the 1999 Census excluded the 15-year-olds from the economically active popu-
lation and defined the labour force as 16-64-year olds. This statistical change hardly influenced this convergence.
Page • 26