Stepping-Stones or Traps?
Stepping-Stones or Traps?
复制标题
踏脚石还是陷阱？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2004
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Stefani Scherer
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Stefani Scherer
这篇文章讨论的问题是，第一份工作是充当“垫脚石”还是充当“陷阱”。为此，它使用个人纵向数据来估计通过(A)“不合格”工作或(B)通过临时合同进入劳动力市场对未来职业成就的影响。通过对西德、英国和意大利进行跨国比较，可以评估不同劳动力市场结构对这一分配过程的影响。对于不合格的职位，研究结果与踏脚石假说不一致，但为诱捕假说提供了一定的支持。尽管资历过高的工人有更大的流动机会，但在他们未来的职业生涯中，与地位不足的工作相关的最初劣势并未完全克服。然而，文章表明，负面影响并不是由于错配本身，而是因为相对较低的级别职位。这些影响受到国家劳动力市场结构的影响，英国的灵活模式提供了弥补最初劣势的最佳机会，而德国和意大利更严格的监管和细分的市场导致更多人被困在地位较低的职位上。在这些国家中，没有发现合同类型对后来的职业职位产生负面影响。
This article addresses the question of whether the first job functions as a ‘stepping stone’ or as a ‘trap’. It does so by using individual longitudinal data to estimate the consequences on future occupational attainment of entry into the labour market via (a) ‘under-qualified’ jobs or (b) via temporary contracts. A cross-national comparison of West Germany, Great Britain and Italy allows assessment of the impact of different labour market structures on this allocation process. With regard to ‘under-qualified’ positions, the findings are not consistent with the stepping-stone hypothesis but provide some support for the entrapment hypothesis. Despite the greater mobility chances of over-qualified workers, the initial disadvantage associated with status-inadequate jobs is not fully overcome during their future careers. The article shows, however, that the negative effects are not due to the mismatch as such but rather to the relatively lower level positions. These effects are mediated by the national labour market structure, with the British flexible model providing the best chances of making up for initial disadvantages, and the more tightly regulated and segmented markets in Germany and Italy leading to stronger entrapment in lower status positions. No negative effects of the type of contract are found for later occupational positions in any of the countries.