Determinants of Youth Unemployment in Ecuador in 2019

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper is interesting and investigates the social and demographic factors that influence youth unemployment in Ecuador. It focuses on the age group from 18 to 29 years old; the reference year is 2019. The econometric method is standard in this type of analysis: logistic regression model with marginal effects. The results are also interesting; in particular, being a woman and Afro, living in an urban area, and increasing the years of education rise the probability of being unemployed.

 

Some improvements can be made, firstly, in the Introduction and Literature Review sections. When dealing with the determinants of youth unemployment, it should be mentioned that there is a specific literature on the greater impact of the cyclical economic conditions on youth unemployment (rather than the overall unemployment). On page 3, where unemployment and underemployment are juxtaposed, the relevance of informal employment should be stressed, because of its importance in an emerging economy. Moreover, also the gender variable is important (also in view of the subsequent empirical outcomes): thus, some specific references regarding female unemployment should be provided.

 

A second point is that the empirical evidence is not recent: it refers to 2018-2019. We know that unemployment (including youth unemployment) was deeply affected by the world pandemic in 2020-2021. Even without bringing the dataset up to date (if updated youth unemployment data are not available) and without changing the econometric estimations, some more recent empirical evidence – also in the case of Ecuador – should be provided. For example, on page 5, rather than presenting quarterly data (also in Table 1), that are almost useless (the quarterly evidence can also be removed from the Discussion section), it would be relevant to provide updated data on labour market indicators.

 

The results of the econometric estimations are reasonable and almost all signs of the coefficients are as expected. (A minor suggestion would be to repeat in the note under the tables the definition of the variables: D2, D3, etc.). The only strange result concerns the education variable, that seems “contradictory with most of the previous literature” (page 9). It would be useful that the A. better explains the possible effects of the skill mismatch, also considering the structure of the Ecuadorian economy; moreover, is there any evidence of a “brain drain” (i.e. educated people leaving the country for finding jobs)?

 

As for the policy implications, there is probably an excessive emphasis on flexibility of labour markets. We know that the empirical evidence is ambiguous about the effects of high flexibility on youth unemployment; instead, active labour market policies and policies to reduce the skill mismatch, loosen the experience gap, etc. can be more important. Finally, concerning the specific outcomes of the paper, are there in Ecuador any specific policies for women, for Afro-Ecuadorians, etc.? (and, if not, how should they be designed?).

Author Response

In the attached document, you can find the response of authors.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article would benefit if the author made comparisons with other countries or continents (ILO, Gobal Employment Trends for Youth 2020, H. Dietrich, Youth Unemployment in Europe. Theoretical Considerations and Empirical Findings, 2012).

Author Response

In the attached document, you can find the response of authors. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

I am sending my review as a PDF 

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

In the attached document, you can find the response of authors. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report

I believe that the document has improved considerably, and that it is ready to be published.