An Analysis of Underemployment among Young Graduates: The Case of a Higher Education Institution in South Africa

REVIEWER 1

Reviewer comment

Type of revision made and line number

Sentence / paragraph implemented

Author comment if change is not implemented

abstract: difference between underutilization as a job scarcity issue (mentioned in line 11 on page 1) and underemployment as a supply-side issue (mentioned in line 14 on page 1) is not adequately explained; is the difference in terms of how these concepts are measures?

Yes because underemployment and underutilisation are not synonymous. Underemployment is only one part of underutilisation. The argument is that underutilisation has mostly focus on unemployment (i.e. scarcity of jobs) and not other forms of underutilisation such as underemployment

Not applicable

can only underemployment be identified or also some sort of a measure of its magnitude?

Underemployment can be identified and measured. Although it is not a very commonly reported labour market statistics as compared to unemployment. This manuscript attempted to measure it.

Not applicable

can the authors control for past summer internships (or other experience with the labor market) that might affect one’s expectations and subsequently perceived level of underemployment.

This was not possible to determine. However, since we plan on exploring this field more, we will definitely consider doing it in future.

Not applicable

line 35 suggests that underemployment might stem both from a mismatch in hours worked/desired and skill use – can the authors say anything abut both dimensions or just one?

Section 2.2 explains both types of underemployment. Explaining them both in the introduction and literature review makes the work repetitive

Not applicable

massification of higher education in line 62 on page 2 is awkward phrasing

The word “massification” has been replaced by the word “widening” to still capture the fact that government closed the gap that existed in the access to higher education.

In South Africa’s case, while the widening of higher education following the end of apartheid increased the supply of graduates to the labour market, demand was not growing at the same pace with the subsequent outcome of an oversupply of graduates (Graham, Leilanie & Chisoro, 2019:362). (see page 2)

use new title for sub-section 2.1: Measurement of underemployment

Title changed

Measurement of underemployment

change the order of subsections: start with 2.2. (Underemployment as theoretical concept) and proceed with 2.1. (Empirical measurement of underemployment)

Change executed

See new order

2.1 Underemployment as a theoretical concept

2.2 Empirical measurement of underemployment

(see page 3-4)

does anything in the data permits the authors to examine relevance of competing theories of underemployment reviewed in section 2.2.?

The findings of this study already shows the relevance of the theories, especially the relative deprivation theory since in most case, graduates will compare themselves  with the ideal job, and will feel dissatisfied with their current job through comparisons

Not applicable

recommend removing a paragraph between title of section 3 and title of sub-section 3.1.

Paragraph removed

right bracket seems to be missing for a sentence starting in line 223 on page 5

Bracket added

See page 5, section 3.1, paragraph 1

research design: can more details be provided as to how the 1072 respondents were selected? (the third paragraph from the top on page 5)

Explanation added

This is also explained in page 6, paragraph 1,

Pg 5, section 3.1, par 1: This study is primarily an empirical analysis, which was based on primary data collected through an online electronic survey. The questionnaire was stored in a Google Forms server where the questionnaire received a unique link to be followed by the respondents. This link, together with the cover letter (informed consent) was sent through to the alumni database of the university in question, inviting interested participants to complete the questionnaire.

Pg 6, par 1: The study targeted at least graduates who had completed at least a bachelor's degree at university.

REVIEWER 2

Reviewer comment

Type of revision made and line number

Sentence / paragraph implemented

Author comment if change is not implemented

Lines 90 - 95 - I suggest you to use one of the world currencies to make readers clearer idea of the value.

All the values have been converted to US dollars using the 2016 average exchange rate between the US dollar ad Rand.

Similarly, average monthly wages are below R1 500 (which is equivalent to approximately US$102.01 using the 2016 average exchange rate for the US dollar and the Rand) for black and coloured young people increasing to an average of R3 000 (equivalent to approximately US$204.01) by the age of 35; in the meantime, average monthly wages for a white young individual begin at R 3000 (equivalent to approximately US$204.01), in-creasing to an average of R13 000 (equivalent to approximately US$884.06) by the age of 35 (Salisbury, 2016). (see page 2)

Lines 223 - missing bracket.

Bracket added at the end of the sentence.

Given the shortage of studies on graduate underemployment in South Africa, only limited studies were found at the time of writing (e.g. see Baldry's 2016 study, which aimed to examine the influence of demographic and educational characteristics on the employment/unemployment status of South African graduates which had a sample of 1175 respondents). (see page 5)

Lines where you present findings for each binary variable - I do not understand why you applied in every time another significant level (1, 5, 10%). I recommend you to unifying the level of significance, even if you get other findings on the impact of the relevant variable on the underemployment parameter.

Taken note of. We have chosen a significance level of 10%, α=0.1 since most of our variables fall in this category, besides this level of significance is still widely used in addition to the 1% and 5% significance levels.

The 10% significance level is chosen mainly because of the low sample size. According to Labovitz (1968:220): “small error rates (0.01 or 0.001) should usually accompany large samples sizes N and large error rates (0.10 or 0.05) should be used for small sample sizes N

The chosen p-value is 10%, α=0.1 significance level, since most of variables in the study become significant when considering the 10% significance level. According to Gujarati and Porter (2010:506), 1, 5 and 10 percent are commonly used values of α. This significance level is also chosen mainly because of the low sample size in this study. As argued Labovitz (1968:220): “small error rates (0.01 or 0.001) should usually accompany large samples sizes N and large error rates (0.10 or 0.05) should be used for small sample sizes N”. (see page 9)