Descriptive analyses of youth transitions in Azerbaijan. TEW-CCA Working Paper No. 4.1

Abstract

This working paper provides univariate and bivariate descriptive statistics on youth transitions in Azerbaijan. It is part of a series of working papers characterizing youth transitions of countries in the Caucasus and Central Asia. It is based on research conducted in the project “Opportunities and Barriers at the Transition from Education to Work – A Comparative Youth Study in Azerbaijan, Georgia and Tajikistan“ (TEW‐CCA) that was financed by the VolkswagenStiftung in the period 2015–2019; funding initiative “Between Europe and Orient”, call “Institutional change and social practice. Research on the political system, the economy and society in Central Asia and the Caucasus”. The
focus is on youth transition from education to work but also related youth transitions such as leaving
parental home and family formation (marriage and childbirth) are considered.

Full text









Descriptiveanalysesofyouthtransitionsin
Azerbaijan


AynuraHajizadeh
1)
,RajabSattarov
1)2)
,TairFaradov
1)
and
MichaelGebel
3)

1)
InternationalCentreforSocialResearch(ICSR),Azerbaijan
2)
BakuStateUniversity,Azerbaijan
3)
UniversityofBamberg,Germany








TEW‐CCAWorkingPaperNo.4.1
Version1.0


1
DISCLAIMER:
Theauthorsgratefullyacknowledgefundingfortheproject“OpportunitiesandBarriersatthe
TransitionfromEducationtoWork‐AComparativeYouthStudyinAzerbaijan,GeorgiaandTajikistan“
(TEW‐CCA)fromtheVolkswagenStiftungfortheperiod2015–2019;fundinginitiative“Between
EuropeandOrient”,call“Institutionalchangeandsocialpractice.Researchonthepoliticalsystem,
theeconomyandsocietyinCentralAsiaandtheCaucasus”.

TEW‐CCAWorkingPapersareoutputsfromtheTEW‐CCAprojectaimingatthedisseminationof
researchresultsoftheTEW‐CCAproject.TheseriesiseditedbytheprojectcoordinatorProf.Michael
GebelfromtheUniversityofBamberg,ChairofMethodsofEmpiricalSocialResearch.

ThepublishedTEW‐CCAWorkingPapersrepresenttheviewsoftherespectiveauthorsandnotofthe
TEW‐CCAprojectconsortiumasawhole.NeitherthefundingagencyVolkswagenFoundationnorthe
UniversityofBambergandtheparticipatinguniversitiesandresearchinstitutesandtheprovidersof
thedatausedinthisresearchbearanyresponsibilityforcopyrightissues,theanalysisandthe
conclusionsofthisworkingpaper.

Copyrightremainswiththeauthors.
©2019,AynuraHajizadeh,RajabSattarov,TairFaradovandMichaelGebel,allrightsreserved.


SUGGESTEDCITATION:
Hajizadeh,Aynura,RajabSattarov,TairFaradovandMichaelGebel(2019).Descriptiveanalysesof
youthtransitionsinAzerbaijan.TEW‐CCAWorkingPaperNo.4.1.Bamberg:TEW‐CCAProject,
UniversityofBamberg.



2






InmemoryofDr.TairFaradov


3

Contents

1.Introduction....................................................................................................................................5
2.Education........................................................................................................................................7
2.1.Levelofeducationenrolmentwhenleavingeducation..........................................................7
2.2.Ratesandreasonsforcompletionanddropouts....................................................................8
2.3.Typesofeducationprogramsandinstitutionalcharacteristics............................................11
2.4.Socialinequalityineducationattainment.............................................................................14
2.5.Workingbeforeleavingeducation........................................................................................18
3.Labormarketinactivity,jobsearchandtimeuntilfindingafirstjob...........................................25
3.1.Labormarketinactivity..........................................................................................................25
3.2.Jobsearchmethods...............................................................................................................27
3.3.Timeuntilfindingafirstjob...................................................................................................28
3.4.Obstaclesinfindingafirstjob...............................................................................................33
4.Characteristicsoffirstjob.............................................................................................................35
4.1.Typeandqualityoffirstjob...................................................................................................35
4.2.Sectoroffirstjob...................................................................................................................42
4.3.Methodsoffindingthefirstjob.............................................................................................43
5.Earlycareermobility.....................................................................................................................46
5.1.Firstjobtypeandcurrentactivitystatus...............................................................................46
5.2.Occupationalmobility............................................................................................................47
5.3.Sectoralmobility....................................................................................................................48
6.Timingoflifecoursetransitions....................................................................................................50
6.1.Incidenceandaverageageofexperiencingcentraleventsinthetransitiontoadulthood..50
6.2.Thetimingofleavingeducationandfindingafirstjob.........................................................52
6.3.Thetimingofleavingparentalhome.....................................................................................54
6.4.Thetimingandarrangementoffirstmarriage......................................................................58
6.5.Thetimingoffirstparenthood..............................................................................................63
7.References.....................................................................................................................................66






4

Listofabbreviations
BABachelor
GBEGeneralBasicEducation
GSEGeneralSecondaryEducation
HEIHigherEducationInstitution
ISCOInternationalStandardClassificationofOccupations
MAMaster
n.a.Datanotavailable
PhDDoctoraldegree
TEW‐CCAResearchproject“OpportunitiesandBarriersattheTransitionfromEducationto
Work‐AComparativeYouthStudyinAzerbaijan,GeorgiaandTajikistan“(funded
byVolkswagenStiftung)
VETVocationalEducationandTraining
















5

1.Introduction
Thisworkingpaperprovidesunivariateandbivariatedescriptivestatisticsonyouthtransitionsin
Azerbaijan.Itispartofaseriesofworkingpaperscharacterizingyouthtransitionsofcountriesinthe
CaucasusandCentralAsia.Itisbasedonresearchconductedintheproject“Opportunitiesand
BarriersattheTransitionfromEducationtoWork–AComparativeYouthStudyinAzerbaijan,
GeorgiaandTajikistan“(TEW‐CCA)thatwasfinancedbytheVolkswagenStiftungintheperiod2015–
2019;fundinginitiative“BetweenEuropeandOrient”,call“Institutionalchangeandsocialpractice.
Researchonthepoliticalsystem,theeconomyandsocietyinCentralAsiaandtheCaucasus”.The
focusisonyouthtransitionfromeducationtoworkbutalsorelatedyouthtransitionssuchasleaving
parentalhomeandfamilyformation(marriageandchildbirth)areconsidered.
Asapriororcomplementaryreadingtothisdescriptivereportitisrecommendedtoreadthe
methodologicalreportoftheTEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveys(Gebeletal.,2019),whichoffersan
overviewofthegeneralmethodology,specificallythecross‐nationalsurveystandards,adescription
ofthetargetgroupandscreeningprocessaswellasadetailedtheory‐drivenandevidencebased
justificationandexplanationofthegenerallogicandcontentsoftheindividualquestionnaire.In
addition,country‐specificexplanationsofthemethodologyoftheTEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurvey
inAzerbaijancanbefoundinthechapterofthemethodologicalreportoftheTEW‐CCAYouth
TransitionSurveyonAzerbaijan(Sattarovetal.,2019),withdetailedinformationontheprocessof
questionnaireadjustmentsandtranslation,pretesting,interviewerrecruitmentandtraining,
samplingprocedures,fieldworkmanagement,monitoringandqualitycontrol,andresponseratesas
wellasthequestionnaires(inEnglish,AzeriandRussian).Moreover,itisrecommendedtoreadthe
reportontheinstitutionalconditionsthatareseenasrelevantforyouth’stransitionfromeducation
toworkandrelatedyouthtransitionssuchasfamilyformationinAzerbaijan(Rashidovaetal.,2019).
Itcontainsanoverviewoftheinstitutionalsettingoftheeducationsystem,thelabormarket,andthe
familyandwelfareregimeinAzerbaijan.Thisknowledgeofthecountry‐specificinstitutional,
structuralandculturalsettingisimportanttounderstandthelogicofouranalysisand
operationalizationsaswellastoreadthefindingsinthespecificcontextofAzerbaijan.
ItshouldbenotedthatthisdescriptivereportonyouthtransitionsinAzerbaijanisstronglyoriented
atthefirstreportpublishedbytheTEW‐CCAresearchconsortiumondescriptiveanalysesofyouth
transitionsinGeorgia(Badurashvilietal.,2019).Specifically,sometechnicalexplanationsandthe
generalframinginthescientificliteraturearetakenword‐by‐wordinordertounderlinethatall
reportsondescriptiveanalysesofyouthtransitionsoftheTEW‐CCAresearchconsortiumfollowa
highlystandardizedapproachandwerebasedonacommontemplate.Hence,alsotheheadingsas
wellasthestructureoftablesandfiguresareidentical.Thisshouldeasethereadertocompare
resultsacrossallreportsondescriptiveanalysesofyouthtransitionsoftheTEW‐CCAresearch
consortium.Thereports,ofcourse,deviateinthedescriptionofresultsforeachcountry.
Thisdescriptivereportisrestrictedtopurelydescriptiveanalyses.Nexttoinvestigatingunivariate
descriptivestatisticsselectedfindingsofbivariaterelationshipsarestudied.Bivariateanalysesfocus
onkeyaspectsofinterestintheTEW‐CCAprojectsuchasgenderinequalitiesineducationandwork
andotherlifecoursetransitions,therelationshipbetweeneducationattainmentandthejobsearch
process,thelabormarketentryandearlycareeraswellasotherlifecoursetransitions.
Designweightswereappliedinalldescriptiveanalyses.Specifically,eachrespondentwasweighted
withtheinverseofthenumberofeligiblepersonsinthesamehousehold.Fordetailsonthesampling
processseethechapterofthemethodologicalreportoftheTEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyon
Azerbaijan(Sattarovetal.,2019).Whereasunivariateanalysesmightbebiasedbygender‐specific
andeducation‐specificunitnon‐response,thebivariateanalysescanbeexpectedtobelessbiased
withrespecttonon‐responsepatternsaswestudytheeffectsofgenderandeducation.
Ingeneral,thebivariateanalysesshouldonlybeinterpretedasanassociationalanalysisbecauseno
effortshavebeenmadetoaccountforconfoundingbiasand/orendogenousselectionbiaswhen


6

studyingtherelationshipbetweentheindependentanddependentvariable.Furtherworkingpapers
aswellasbookchaptersandacademicjournalpublicationsoftheTEW‐CCAprojectwillbecome
availablethataimatabettercausalunderstandingusingtechniquesofmultivariatedataanalyses
accordingtothelogicofmoderncausalanalysis.Therefore,wealsorefrainfromgivinganypolicy
recommendationsbasedonthedescriptiveanalysesbecausethisrequiresatleastevidencebasedon
multivariateanalysesthataccountforconfoundingbiasand/orendogenousselectionbias.
Althoughtheaimofthisreportispurelytodeliveradescription,ithasnotbeentheaimtostudy
eachvariableavailableinthedataset.Aconsciouschoicehasbeenmadeonstudyingkeyaspectsof
youthtransitionfromeducationtoworkbutalsotherelatedyouthtransitionssuchasleaving
parentalhomeandfamilyformation(marriageandchildbirth).TheTEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurvey
inAzerbaijanoffersevenmoreinformationthantheinformationthatisprovidedinthefollowing.
Futureusersofscientificusefilesareencouragedtoinvestigateallthisinformation.
Chapter2ofthisreportprovidesdescriptivestudiesoneducationinAzerbaijan.Aftergivinga
generaloverviewonthelevelofeducationenrolmentwhentherespondentslefttheeducation
system(Section2.1),Section2.2addressesratesandreasonsforcompletionanddropoutsinthe
educationcareeroftherespondent.Section2.3highlightsthetypesofeducationprogramsand
institutionalcharacteristics.Section2.4investigatesvariousdimensionsofsocialinequality
(inequalityaccordingtogender,ethnicoriginandsocialorigin)ineducationattainment.InSection
2.5wedescribeworkactivitiesthatrespondentsperformedbeforeleavingeducation.
Chapter3investigatesthetransitionprocessfromeducationtoworkafterleavingeducation.Section
3.1isdevotedtothetopicoflabormarketinactivityintermsofitsincidenceanddeterminants.Asa
certainproportionofeducationleavers,especially,womenneitherhavefoundajobnorengagein
activejobsearchthistopicof“school‐to‐hometransition”deservesaspecialattention.InSection3.2
wereportwhichkindofjobsearchmethodswereusedbyactivejobseekersinAzerbaijan.InSection
3.3westudythetimeelapseduntilfindingafirstjobinadynamicperspectivewithmeansofKaplan‐
Meierestimatesofsurvivorfunctionsthattaketheright‐censoringofthedurationdataintoaccount.
Section3.4highlightsobstaclesinfindingafirstjobthatwerereportedbytherespondentsbasedon
theirexperiences.
Chapter4describesthecharacteristicsofthefirstjobafterleavingeducation.InSection4.1we
differentiatebetweendifferenttypesoffirstjobsintermsofformal(registered)jobs,informal
(unregistered)jobsoutsidethefamilybusiness,beingemployeeorhelperinthefamilybusinessor
startingtheworkingcareerasanownaccountworker,self‐employedoremployer.Thequalityof
firstemploymentisinvestigatedintermsofthetypeofcontract,existenceofemployerprovidedfree
healthinsurancecoverageandtheoccupationallevel.InSection4.2wecharacterizethesectoral
distributionoffirstjobdifferentiatingvariousindustriesaswellastheprivateversuspublic
ownershipstructureofthecompany/institution.InSection4.3weanalyzethemethodoffindingthe
firstjob.
Chapter5addressestheearlycareermobilitybycomparingthefirstjobandthecurrentactivity
statusatthetimeoftheinterview(Section5.1),measuringtheoccupationalmobilitybetweenthe
firstandcurrentjob(Section5.3)aswellasthesectoralmobilitybetweenthefirstandcurrentjob
(Section5.3).
InChapter6webroadentheperspectiveonthetransitionfromeducationtoworkbystudyingthe
timingofotherlifecoursetransitionsaswell.Specifically,weconsidertheeventsofleaving
education,leavingparentalhome,findingafirstjob,gettingmarriedandgettingparentforthefirst
time.InSection6.1wedescribetheincidenceandaverageageofexperiencingcentraleventsinthe
transitiontoadulthood.Inthefollowingsectionsweoffermorein‐depthstudiesofthevariousyouth
transitionevents.InSection6.2wecomplementourfindingsfromChapter2and3bygiving
informationonthetimingofleavingeducationandfindingafirstjob.Westudythetimingofleaving
parentalhomeinSection6.3,thetimingandarrangementoffirstmarriageinSection6.4and,finally,
thetimingoffirstparenthoodinSection6.5. 


7

2.Education
2.1.Levelofeducationenrolmentwhenleavingeducation
Table2.1showsthelevelofeducationenrolmentwhentherespondentslefteducation.Asexplained
indetailinthemethodologicalreportoftheTEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveys(Gebeletal.,2019)
thetargetgroupisdefinedasindividualslivingatthetimeofthesurveyinAzerbaijanandaged18–
35whofinishedorstoppedformaleducationintheperiodfrom1January2006till31December
2015.1Thus,bothpersonswhosuccessfullycompletedtheirlasteducationandthosewho
failed/droppedoutwereincluded.Inthefollowing,weinvestigatethelevelofeducationenrolment
whenleavingeducation,i.e.thehighestlevelofeducationtherespondentwasenrolledin,
irrespectivelyofwhetherheorshesuccessfullycompletedthislevelornot.

Table2.1:Levelofeducationenrollmentwhenleavingeducation,bygender,column‐%
 MenWomenTotal
Basicsecondary6.45.76.1
Uppersecondary47.540.144.1
Initialprofessional4.52.53.6
Secondaryprofessional9.724.416.5
Lowertertiary(BA)27.624.025.9
Highertertiary(MA)3.52.93.2
Basicuniversityeducationin
medicine(6years)0.40.40.4
Specializeduniversityeducationin
medicine–Rezidentura 0.10.00.1
Graduateeducation‐Doctorateor
Aspirantura 0.10.00.1
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.

Overall,thereisbipolareducationdistribution(foradetaileddescriptionoftheeducationsystemof
Azerbaijan,seeRashidovaetal.(2019)).Aroundonehalfofallrespondentswholeaveeducationjust
havebasiceducation(6.1%),whichlastsforfiveyears(ages10–15)andendswithaGeneralBasic
Educationdegree(GBE–9thgrade),oruppersecondaryeducation(44.1%),whichlastsfortwoto
threeyears(ages15–16/17)andendswithaGeneralSecondaryEducationdegree(GSE–11thgrade).
Incontrast,almostonethirdofallrespondentsreachthetertiaryeducationlevel.Atthetertiary
level,Master(MA)studiesareveryexclusive.Just3.2%ofallrespondentsstudiedattheMAlevel
comparedto25.9%whostudiedattheBachelor(BA)level.Amongalleducationleaversstudents
fromthespecificdegreesinmedicineaswellasdoctorateandAspiranturastudentsrepresentless
than1%.2Theshareofeducationleaversfromprofessionalsecondaryeducationjustreachesaround
20%.Thereisacleardominanceofsecondaryprofessionaleducation,atwhich16.5%ofall
respondentswereenrolled,overprimaryprofessionaleducationthatwasjusttakenby3.6%ofall
respondents.Primaryvocationeducation(initialprofessionaleducation),operatedatprofessional‐
technicalschools,iseitherofferedasaoneyearprogramaftertheGSE(givingaccesstotertiary
education)orasaonetotwoyearprogramafterBSE(withoutgivingaccesstotertiaryeducation).
Specializedvocationeducation(secondaryprofessionaleducation),operatedatcollegesand
1“Finishingeducation”hastobeinterpretedas“successfulcompletion/graduation”ofthelasteducation
programtherespondentwasenrolledintoand“stoppingeducation”hastobeinterpretedas“failing/dropping
out“fromthelasteducationprogramtherespondentwasenrolledinto(Gebel&Mandieva2019).
2 Forthisreasonandinordertohaveaclearpresentationofresultsthesegroupsaremergedwiththegroupof
studentsfromMasterstudiesinthefollowinganalyses.


8

professionallyceums,iseitherofferedastwotothreeyearprogramsthatofferinparalleltheGSE
(givingaccesstotertiaryeducation)orasone,twoorthreeyearprogramsafterGSE(givingaccessto
tertiaryeducation)(Rashidovaetal.,2019).
Thegender‐specificresultsinthefirsttwocolumnsofTable2.1revealthatalargerproportionof
menjustreachalowerlevelofeducation,suchasbasicsecondaryeducation,uppersecondary
educationorinitialprofessionaleducationwhenleavingeducationcomparedtotheirfemale
counterparts.Menalsosurpasswomenatthetertiarylevelofeducation.Incontrast,theshareof
womenweremuchmoreoftenenrolledinsecondaryprofessionaleducation(24.4%ofwomen
comparedtojust9.7%ofmen).
Ineducationresearchitisarguedthateducationcareersaresometimesnotinastraightlinebecause
peoplechangetheirfieldofstudies,makeseveraldegrees,decidetodosecondaryprofessional
educationaftertertiaryeducation(BA,MA,aspirantura,doctorate),ordosecondaryprofessional
educationfirstandthentertiaryeducation(BA,MA,aspirantura,doctorate).Ithasbeenshownthat
thisphenomenoninfluencesthelaterlabormarketchancesinGermany,forexample(Edeling&Pilz,
2017).However,thisseemstobeaveryminorphenomenoninthecaseofAzerbaijan.Among
personsenrolledatsecondaryprofessionaleducation,nobodyattendedtertiaryeducationbefore.
Thus,professionaleducationisnotseenasanalternativeaftercompletingordroppingoutfrom
tertiaryeducation.Amongthosewhowereenrolledinlowertertiary(BA)education3.3%reportthat
theycompletedanotherpost‐secondaryeducationdegreeintermsofsecondaryprofessionaldegree
beforegoingtouniversity.Just0.7%mentionthattheyhavecompletedanotherlowertertiary(BA)
degree.Amonggraduate(MA)degreeholders8.1%mentionthattheycompletedasecondary
professionaldegreebeforegoingtouniversity.3Thus,iftertiarystudentsreportprioreducation
degreesitisprimarilyfromsecondaryprofessionaleducation.Accordingtothestructureofthe
educationsystemofAzerbaijanthismayeitherbeaconsciouschoicetomakeanotherpost‐
secondarydegreeinordertoincreaselabormarketchancesoritmayalsojustrepresentalinear
trackintheeducationsystemasasecondaryprofessionaldegreecanalsobeobtainedinparallelto
thegeneralsecondarydegree(GSE),whichisneededtoqualifyfortertiaryeducation.


2.2.Ratesandreasonsforcompletionanddropouts
Table2.2providesinformationonthecompletionanddropoutratebylevelofeducationenrollment
forfemaleandmaleeducationleavers.Overall,thereportedincidenceofdropoutsinthesurveyis
quitelow.Onaverageacrossalleducationlevels,2.0%ofmenand2.1%ofwomendropoutfromthe
lasteducationleveltheywereenrolledinwhenleavingeducation.Thedropoutrateishighestatthe
lowesteducationlevel.7.8%ofmenand20.5%ofwomenwhowereparticipatedinbasicsecondary
educationbeforeleavingeducationdidnotcompletethiseducationlevel.Amongwomenthe
dropoutrateisalsorelativelyhighattheinitialprofessionaleducationlevel(2.9%).Amongwomen
thedropoutrateisalsorelativelyhighathighertertiary(MA/PhD)educationlevel(3.0%).




3Allrespondentswhoreportedanotherdegreesuccessfullycompletedit.Althoughthequestionandthe
answercategoriesexplicitlyasktoreportunsuccessfulfurthereducationenrollmentsaswell(Gebeletal.
2019),theremightbesomeunderreportingofsuchunsuccessfulpreviousattemptsintheeducationsystem.
Nevertheless,thefiguresspeakinfavorthatthephenomenonofnon‐lineareducationcareersasobservedin
WesternEuropeancountriesisnotofgreatrelevanceinAzerbaijan.


9

Table2.2:Completionanddropoutratebylevelofeducationenrollmentwhenleavingeducation,
bygender,column‐%
 MenWomen
CompletionDropoutCompletionDropout
Basicsecondary 92.27.879.520.5
Uppersecondary 98.11.998.41.7
Initialprofessional 100.00.097.12.9
Secondaryprofessional 99.40.799.70.3
Lowertertiary(BA)98.41.699.40.6
Highertertiary(MA/PhD)97.03.0100.00.0
Total98.02.097.92.1
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.
Remark:“Completion”includesthecasethattherespondentcompletedtherespectiveeducationprogramand
obtainedacertificateaswellthecasethattherespondentcompletedtherespectiveeducationprogramand
hasnotyetobtainedthecertificate.Thelattercaseaccountsforthephenomenonthattheadministrative
processofhandingoverthecertificatetakessometimeaftergraduation.“Dropout”justincludesthe
respondentswhoattendedtherespectiveeducationlevelbutdidnotcompleteit.


Table2.3displaysreasonsforleavingeducationaftersuccessfullycompletingtherespective
educationlevelbylevelofeducationenrollmentandgender.Thequestionnaireallowedrespondents
togivemultiplereasons.Thisanalysesisrestrictedtolowerlevelsofeducationbecausethe
graduatesfromsecondaryprofessional,tertiaryeducationwerenotaskedthisquestionbecauseit
notmeaningfulathighereducationlevels.


Table2.3:Reasonsforleavingeducationaftersuccessfullycompletingtherespectiveeducation
level,bylevelofeducationenrollmentandgender,column‐%
 Basicsec.Uppersec.Init.Prof.
 MWMWMW
Youweretiredofstudying36.214.515.311.414.56.1
Youthoughtthatyoucannotsucceedineducationanymore48.935.555.341.849.324.2
Becauseofthelowqualityofeducation3.23.23.81.70.00.0
Youdidnotpasstheexamthatgivesaccessto
thenexteducationleveln.a.n.a.27.036.414.530.3
Therewasnoschoolofthenexteducationlevelnearby1.19.76.48.02.912.1
Youdidnotseeareasonforfurthereducation22.312.921.213.410.19.1
You/Yourfamilywasnotabletopayforyourfurtherstudies6.43.217.616.818.89.1
Youwantedtowork13.84.812.82.118.83.0
Youneededtowork30.96.511.40.917.40.0
Yougotmarried 0.08.10.03.90.033.3
Youhadtocareforotherhouseholdmembers12.84.82.43.07.20.0
Becauseofreligiousorculturalreasons0.04.80.00.20.00.0
Yourfamilywantedyoutostopeducation5.348.44.128.70.024.2
Duetohealthissues3.21.61.20.40.00.0
Youwentabroadn.a.n.a.0.00.00.00.0
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.
Remarks:Multipleanswercategorieswereallowed,i.e.column‐%donotaddupto100%.M–men,W–
women,n.a.–answeroptionwasnotofferedforthiseducationlevel.


10

Ingeneral,themajorityofrespondents,specificallyamongmen,claimedthatthereasonsfornot
continuingathighereducationlevelswererelatedtotheeducationsystem.36.2%ofmalebasic
secondarygraduatessaidtheyweretiredofstudying.Thesharedropsthehigherthelevelof
educationis(maleuppersecondarygraduates:15.3%,maleinitialprofessionalgraduates:14.5%).
Lessfemalegraduatementionbeingtiredofstudying.Forbothmenandwomenmanygraduates
thoughttheycannotsucceedineducationanymore.Thisappliestoabouthalfofmalerespondent
and24to42%offemalerespondents.Interestingly,almostnograduateblamedthelowqualityof
educationasareasonfornotcontinuingtohighereducation.Aroundonethirdoffemalegraduates
fromuppersecondaryandinitialprofessionaleducationmentionthattheydidnotpasstheexam
thatgivesaccesstothenexteducationlevel.Thisapplieslessoftentomen.Also,womengraduates
reportmoreoftenthattherewasnoschoolofthenexteducationlevelnearby,whichmayreflect
strongerbarrierstogeographicalmobilitytoyoungwomenthantoyoungmen.
Particularlymendonotseeareasonforfurthereducationoncetheygraduatesfrombasicorupper
secondaryeducation.Forexample,21–22%ofmalesecondarygraduatescomparedtojust13%of
femalesecondarygraduatessaidtheydidnotseeareasonforfurthereducation.
Especiallymenclaimwork‐relatedreasonsfordroppingoutofeducation.Forexample,13‐19%of
malegraduatesfromlowereducationlevelsansweredthattheywantedtoworkand11‐31%said
thattheyneededtowork.Therespectivesharesjustreachlowsingledigitlevelsforloweducated
femalegraduates.
Familyrelatedfactorsareareasonfornotcontinuingfurthereducationforwomen.However,the
sharesarerelativelylowamongbasicanduppersecondarygraduates,whichmayberelatedtotheir
lowage,atwhichonlyasmallshareofpersonsgetsmarried(seeChapter6).Amajorobstaclefornot
continuingeducationathigherlevelsisthatthefamilywantedwomentostopeducation.This
appliestoalmosteverysecondfemalegraduatefrombasicsecondaryeducationandaroundone
quarterofeveryfemalegraduatefromuppersecondaryandinitialprofessionaleducation.In
contrast,menfromloweducationlevelsneverblamemarriageandrarelyblamepressurefromthe
familyfornotpursuinghighereducation.Justafewloweducatedmenthattheyhadtocarefor
otherhouseholdmembersandthispreventedthemfromcontinuingintheeducationsystem.Health
andmigrationreasonswerealmostnotmentionedamongmenandwomen.
Table2.4displaysreasonsforleavingeducationamongdropouts,i.e.thoserespondentswho
attendedtherespectiveeducationlevelbutdidnotcompleteit.Thequestionnaireallowed
respondentstogivemultiplereasons.Ingeneral,themajorityofdropoutsclaimedthatthereasons
wererelatedtotheschoolsystem.25.0%ofallmaledropoutsand10.3%ofallfemaledropoutsstate
thattheyweresimplytiredofstudyingand28.1%(men)/31.0%(women)explainedthatthey
thoughtthattheycouldnotsucceedineducation.Furthermore,10.3%offemaledropoutsmention
thelowqualityofeducation.21.9%ofmaledropoutsmentionbarriersintheeducationsystemin
termsofnotpassingtheexamthatgivesaccesstothenextlevelofeducationasareasonfornot
completingtheeducationleveltheywereenrolledin.2500%ofmaledropoutand10.3%offemale
dropoutsseemednothavinghadalong‐termperspectiveineducationbecausetheysaythattheydid
notseeareasonforfurthereducation,thus,aimingatotheractivitiessuchasworkinthelabor
market,care,homeduties,etc.
Menalsoexplicitlyclaimwork‐relatedreasonsfordroppingoutofeducation.Forexample,21.9%of
allmaledropoutsansweredthattheywantedtoworkand21.9%saidthattheyneededtowork.
Familyrelatedfactorsareamajorreasonfordroppingoutforwomen.37.9%offemaledropout
identifymarriageand6.9%reportcareforotherhouseholdmembersasreasonsforleaving
educationwithoutcompletingthelasteducationleveltheywereenrolledin,whereasthisisnever
thecaseformen.Justafewmen(12.5%)refertocareforotherhouseholdmembersasthereason
forstoppingeducation.Womenalsooftenreportpressuresfromthefamily.34.5%offemale
dropoutsreportthattheyfamilywantedthemtostopeducation.Incomparison,theshare(9.4%)is


11

muchlowerformaledropouts.Menalsosometimesmentionhealthproblems(9.4%)andthereason
ofmovingabroad(6.3%),whilethesereasonsarenotreportedamongwomen.

Table2.4:Reasonsforleavingeducationamongdropouts,bygender,column‐%
 Total
 MW
Youweretiredofstudying25.010.3
Youthoughtthatyoucannotsucceedineducationanymore28.131.0
Becauseofthelowqualityofeducation0.010.3
Youdidnotpasstheexamthatgivesaccessto
thenexteducationlevel21.90.0
Therewasnoschoolofthenexteducationlevelnearby0.00.0
Youdidnotseeareasonforfurthereducation25.010.3
You/Yourfamilywasnotabletopayforyourfurtherstudies0.03.4
Youwantedtowork21.90.0
Youneededtowork21.90.0
Yougotmarried 0.037.9
Youhadtocareforotherhouseholdmembers12.56.9
Becauseofreligiousorculturalreasons0.03.4
Yourfamilywantedyoutostopeducation9.434.5
Duetohealthissues9.40.0
Youwentabroad6.30.0
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.
Remark:Duetotheoverallsmallnumberofdropoutstheanalysisofreasonsfordroppingoutofeducationwere
notdifferentiatedbythelasteducationlevelenrolledin.Multipleanswercategorieswereallowed,i.e.column‐
%donotaddupto100%.Duetotheoverallsmallnumberofdropoutstheanalysisofreasonsfordroppingout
ofeducationwerenotdifferentiatedbythelasteducationlevelenrolledin.


2.3.Typesofeducationprogramsandinstitutionalcharacteristics
Table2.5offersinformationontheorganizationanddurationoftrainingbythelevelofprofessional
educationenrolment.Specifically,theorganizationalarrangementofthevocationaltrainingisseen
asapolicy‐relevantfactorthatisexpectedtoaffectthetransitionfromeducationtowork(see
Chapter3and4)(Breen,2005;Koganetal.,2011;Noelke&Horn,2014;Shavit&Müller,2000;
Wolbers,2007).Wefindthatatinitialprofessionallevel50%oftheeducationleaversreceived
solely/mainlyschool‐basedvocationaltraining,whereas41%wereenrolledinthedualsystemof
vocationaltraining(,i.e.thecombinationofschoolandworkplacebasedtraining)and9%mainlygot
trainedattheworkplace.Thesharesslightlydeviateatthesecondaryprofessionallevel,wherethe
majorityofpersonsexperiencedthedualsystemofvocationaltraining(54%).Comparedtoinitial
professionaleducation,thesharesofschool‐basedvocationaltraining(42%)andworkplacebased
vocationaltraining(4%)weresmalleratthesecondaryprofessionaleducationlevel.
AscanbeseeninthelowerpartofTable2.5therearecleardifferencesinthedurationofVETatthe
initialandsecondaryprofessionallevel.VETprogramsatinitialprofessionallevelareofshorter
duration,lastingfromonetothreeyearsaccordingtotherespondents.Manyyouths(35%)justgeta
shortterm‐VETofoneyeardurationoramedium‐termVEToftwoyearsduration(54%)attheinitial
professionallevel.Theshortestreporteddurationofsecondaryprofessionaleducationwastwoyears
(13%ofrespondents).Typicaldurationsofsecondaryprofessionaleducationwerethreeyears(41%)
andfouryears(43%).


12




Table2.5:Organizationanddurationoftraining,bylevelofprofessionaleducationenrollment
 Init.Prof.Sec.Prof.
Organizationoftraining
Vocationaleducationmainly(orsolely)schoolbased5042
Combinationofschoolandworkplace4154
Vocationaleducationmainlyworkplacebased94
DurationofVET
1years350
1.5years10
2years5413
2.5years21
3years841
3.5years02
4years043
Don'tknow/refusal10
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.

Besidestheverticallevelofeducation,thehorizontallineofeducationdifferentiationacrossthefield
ofstudyisimportantforthoseattendinganypost‐secondaryeducation.Thefieldofstudyhasbeen
showntobeanimportantinstitutionaldimensionofhorizontaldifferentiationinthepost‐secondary
educationsystemaffectingthetransitionfromeducationtowork(Koganetal.,2011;Noelkeetal.,
2012;Baranowska‐Rataj&Unt,2012).Table2.6showsthedistributionoffieldofstudiesbythelevel
ofpost‐secondaryeducationenrollmentandgender.Amongwomenthedominantfieldatallpost‐
secondaryeducationlevelsiseducation.Atthesecondaryprofessionaleducationlevel45%of
womenwereenrolledintheeducationfield.Thisshareisevenslightlyhigheratthelowerlevelof
tertiary(BA)education(48%)butsmallerathighertertiary(MA/PhD)education(31%).Manywomen
werealsoenrolledinthesocialsciences,businessandlaw.Whilethissharerangesaround20%at
thesecondaryprofessionalandthelowertertiary(BA)level,theshareevenreaches36%atthe
graduateleveloftertiaryeducation.Atthesecondaryprofessionalandgraduatelevel13%ofwomen
participatedinhealthandwelfarestudiesbutthesefieldsdidnotplayanyroleatthelowertertiary
(BA)level(2%).

Table2.6:Fieldofstudy,bylevelofpost‐secondaryeducationenrollmentandgender,colum‐%
 Sec.Prof.Low.Tert.High.Tert.
 MWMWMW
Education13451148231
HumanitiesandArts108816911
Socialsciences,businessandlaw302043174436
Science891112129
Engineering,manufacturingandconstruction12121480
Agriculture122100
Healthandwelfare513121413
Services21240120
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.



13

Thedistributionoffieldofstudiesdiffersubstantiallyforyoungmen.Theywereprimarilyenrolledin
socialsciences,businessandlaw,whichshareisrangingfrom30%atthesecondaryprofessional
levelto44%atthehighertertiarylevelofeducation.Youngmenalsoclearlydominatethestudy
fieldsofengineering,manufacturingandconstructionaswellasservices.Incontrasttowomen,the
educationfieldsareofminorimportanceformalepost‐secondarystudentsinAzerbaijan.
Interestingly,thegendercompositionofthefieldshumanitiesandartsaswellasscienceisquite
balancedinAzerbaijan,whichisdifferentfromthetypicalobservationinothercountries.
Table2.7givesinsightsintothestudyarrangements,sourcesoffundingandownershipofeducation
institutionsatthepost‐secondaryeducationlevel.Thedistinctionoffull‐time,part‐timeandper
correspondencestudiesisseenasrelevantforthetransitionfromeducationtoworksincepart‐time
andpercorrespondencestudentstendtohavelesstimetofollowskillinstructionsduetothedouble
burdenofstudiesandwork,careorotherobligations(Gebel&Baranowska‐Rataj,2012).Intermsof
studyarrangementsthegreatmajorityofpost‐secondarystudents(83‐87%)followsfull‐timestudies.
Justaminorproportionstudiesinpart‐time,whichshareisrelativelyhighestatthelowertertiary
level(16%).Studyingpercorrespondence,whichwasmorepopularduringSoviettimesandtheearly
yearsofthetransformationperiod,liesbelowthelevelof1%.
Sourcesoffundingandownershipofeducationinstitutionscapturetheprivatizationand
marketizationofeducation,whichisseenasanadditionallineofdifferentiationintheeducation
system(Gerber&Cheung,2008;Shwed&Shavit,2006;Gebel&Baranowska‐Rataj,2012).Sourcesof
fundingdifferbetweenthelevelsofpost‐secondaryeducationenrolment.Atthesecondary
professionallevelandthehighertertiarylevel(MA/PhD)61–62%receivestate‐budgetedfinancing
fortheirstudies,whereas37–38%ofstudentshavefinancethestudiesatthislevelthemselvesorget
itfinancedbytheirparents.Theoppositesituationisobservedatthelowertertiary(BA)level,where
themajorityofstudents(61%)relyonpersonalorfamilialresourcestopayfortheirstudies,whereas
only39%ofthestudentsgetfinancedbythestate.

Table2.7:Studyarrangement,sourceoffundingandownershipofeducationinstitution,bylevelof
post‐secondaryeducationenrollment,column‐%
 Sec.Prof.Low.Tert.High.Tert.
Studyarrangement
Full‐timestudent878385
Part‐timestudent131615
Percorrespondence000
Sourceoffunding
Statebudgetedfinancing623961
Paidbyyourselforparents376138
Don'tknow/refusal101
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.


Regardingtheownershipoftheeducationinstitutionattendedbystudentsitturnsoutthatthe
overwhelmingmajorityof89%to95%isinpublichighereducationinstitutions(HEI)atthepost‐
secondarylevel(seeTable2.8).TheshareofprivateHEIisrelativelyhighestatthelowertertiary
educationlevelwith11%.Additionalanalyses(notdisplayedinTables)revealthatsecondary
educationinstitutionsandinitialprofessionaleducationinstitutionsattendedbytherespondents
wereallpublic.Thus,theprivatizationofeducationhasnotyetproceededverymuchinAzerbaijan
andtheeducationsystemispredominantlyinpublichands.




14

Table2.8:Ownershipofeducationinstitution,bylevelofpost‐secondaryeducationenrollment,
column‐%
 Sec.Prof.Low.Tert.High.Tert.
Publiceducationinstitution958995
Privateeducationinstitution5115
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.



2.4.Socialinequalityineducationattainment
Table2.9presentsresultsonvariousdimensionsofsocialinequalityineducationattainment.
Educationattainment,incontrasttoeducationenrollment(seeChapter2.1),isdefinedasthe
highestlevelofeducationsuccessfullycompletedwhenleavingeducation.Hence,respondentswho
droppedoutfromeducation,i.e.withoutsuccessfulcompletion,wereassignedtheprioreducation
leveltheyattended.4
Thegender‐specificresultsinthefirsttwocolumnsofTable2.9revealthatalargerproportionof
menjustreachalowereducationdegree,suchasbasicsecondaryeducation,uppersecondary
educationorinitialprofessionaleducationwhenleavingeducationcomparedtotheirfemale
counterparts.Menalsosurpasswomenatthetertiarylevelofeducation.Theshareoflowertertiary
(BA)degreeholdersandhighertertiary(MA/PhD)degreeholdersisslightlylargeramongmenIn
contrast,theshareofwomenwithsecondaryprofessionaleducationdegreesismuchhigher(24%)
comparedtomen(10%).Smalldifferencesarealsovisibleaccordingtotheethnicoriginofthe
respondent.IntheTEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan89%oftherespondentsdefine
themselvesasAzerbaijanian.ThelargestethnicminoritygroupsamongtherespondentsareTalish
(4.9%)andLezgi(3.1%).Bivariateanalysesrevealthatethnicminoritiesareslightlyoverrepresented
withregardtobasicanduppersecondarydegrees,whereasfewerofthemreachtheprofessional
andtertiaryeducationlevel.
Nexttogenderandethnicinequalitiesineducationattainmentwestudytheinfluenceofthefamily
oforiginoneducationalattainment.Specifically,weinvestigatecorrelationsofparentaleducation,
employmentandoccupationstatusandwealthwiththeeducationattainmentoftherespondent.
Thequestionsontheparentalbackgroundrefertotheparentalsituationattheageof15ofthe
respondents.Thisisaproxymeasureforthesituationattheparentalhomeduringthechildhoodand
youth(foradetailedjustificationofthetimingofmeasurementandindicatorsused,see(Gebel&
Mandieva(2019).


4 Thatis,basicsecondarydropoutswerecodedasprimaryeducation.Uppersecondarydropoutswerecoded
asbasicsecondary.Initialprofessionaldropoutswouldhavebeencodedasbasicsecondaryiftheirpriorlevel
ofeducationwasbasicsecondaryeducationorincompleteuppersecondaryeducation(grade10).However,
thiscasedidnotoccur.Instead,therewasjustoneinitialprofessionaldropoutthatwascodedasupper
secondaryeducationbecausethisrespondentreporteduppersecondaryeducation(grade11)aspriorlevelof
education.Thesamelogicappliestosecondaryprofessionaleducation.Inthesamplethereareonlysecondary
professionaldropoutsthatreportedthattheyattendedsecondaryeducationbeforegoingtosecondary
professionaleducationand,thus,theywererecodedasuppersecondaryeducation.Thelowertertiary(BA)
dropoutsallreportedthattheirlastlevelofeducationwasuppersecondaryeducationandnotprofessional
educationsuchthattheywerecodedasuppersecondaryeducation.Highertertiary(MA)dropoutswerecoded
aslowertertiarygraduates(BA).


15

Table2.9:Socialinequalityineducationattainment,row‐%

<=Basic
sec.
Upp.
Sec.
Init.
Prof.
Sec.
Prof.
Low.
Tert.
High.
Tert.
Gender
Men747510274
Women640224243
Ethnicorigin
ethnicmajority743417264
ethnicminority851315213
Highestlevelofparentaleducation
Basicsecondaryorless225242200
Uppersecondary1161312121
Initialorsecondaryprofessional838521252
Tertiaryeducation127318448
Parentalwealth
fairlywelloff/well529217407
aroundtheaverage641418274
fairlypoor/poor1055413161
Father'semploymentandoccupation
EmployeeISCO1‐22262174410
EmployeeISCO3‐4334216415
EmployeeISCO5750515212
EmployeeISCO6762115141
EmployeeISCO7‐9747518202
Ownaccountworker/self‐empl/employer1050513202
Unemployed937220310
Homeduties––––––
Unabletoworkduetoillness1259214104
Retired––––––
Mother'semploymentandoccupation
EmployeeISCO1‐21241184610
EmployeeISCO3‐4527622364
EmployeeISCO511425151611
EmployeeISCO656831491
EmployeeISCO7‐91448318143
Ownaccountworker/self‐empl/employer1648713160
Unemployed––––––
Homeduties847415232
Unabletoworkduetoillness––––––
Retired––––––
Numberofsiblings
0siblings939120273
1sibling540316315
2siblings844418243
>=3siblings752515193
Livingarrangementsduringchildhood
Livedwithtwoparents744416264
Livedwithlessthantwoparents1142320222
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.


16

Remarks:DefinitionofISCOlevels:legislator,official,manager(ISCO1),professional(ISCO2),technicians,
associateprofessional(ISCO3),clerk(ISCO4),serviceworkers,shopormarketsalesworkers(ISCO5),skilled
agriculturalorfisheryworkers(ISCO6),craftandrelatedtradesworkers(ISCO7),plant,machineoperatorsand
assemblers(ISCO8),elementaryoccupations(ISCO9).Resultsforsomeparentalactivitytypesnotdisplayed(“–
“)incaseoftoosmallnumberofcases.


Thefirstdimensionofparentalresourcesweconsiderisparentaleducation,whichcanbemainly
seenasameasureforculturalcapitalthatprovideinformationadvantagesandsupportforyoung
peopletopursueasuccessfulacademicandworkcareer.Inthefollowingbivariateanalyseswe
considerparentalhighesteducationlevel,beingittheoneofthemotherorthefather.Astrong
degreeofintergenerationalinheritanceofeducationdegreesisvisible.22%ofrespondentswhose
parentshadabasicsecondaryeducationdegreeatmaximumalsoendupinthelowesteducation
group,whereasthisappliesonlyto1%oftherespondentswithatleastoneparentwithtertiary
education.61%oftherespondentswiththehighestparentaldegreeofuppersecondaryeducation
attainthesameeducationlevel.Thisshareismuchloweramongthosewithhigherparental
educationdegrees.Similarly,thereisthepatternofintergenerationaltransmissionofprofessional
educationattainment.Theshareofinitialandsecondaryprofessionaleducationdegreesishighest
amongpersonswhoseparentshadaprofessionaldegreeasthehighesteducationdegree.Theonly
exceptionarepersonswiththelowesteducationbackgroundwhohaveanevenaslightlyhigher
probabilityofattainingsecondaryprofessionaleducation,whichrevealssomeupwardmobilityin
educationattainmentacrossgenerations.However,lessthan1%ofrespondentswithparentsfrom
thelowesteducationgroupmanagetogettotertiaryeducation.Theprobabilityoftertiaryeducation
attainmentraisessharplywiththehighestlevelofparentaleducation.Forexample,44%ofpersons
whoseparent(s)reachedtertiaryeducationalsoacquireaBAdegree,whereasthisappliestojust
12%ofthoserespondentswithparentswithuppersecondaryeducation.
Theadvantagesofpersonsfromprivilegedfamilyoforiginsarealsovisiblewithregardtothe
associationofparentalwealthandeducationattainment,althoughtoaweakerextentthanfor
parentaleducation.Parentalwealthcanbeseenasameasureofparents’economiccapital.
Respondentswereaskedtosubjectivelyassesstheoverallfinancialsituationofthefamilywhenhe
orshewas15yearsold.Fiveanswercategoriesweredistinguishedthatweremergedto(fairly)well,
averagewealthand(fairly)poorwealth.Nexttoparsimoniousnessthereasonformergingcategories
wasthat62%ofrespondentsdefinedthemselvesascomingfromaveragewealthbackgrounds.
ResultsdisplayedinTable2.9showthat,forexample,respondentswhoassessedthefinancialwealth
oftheirparentsas(fairly)poorendedupinbasiceducation(10%)twiceasoftenasrespondentswho
reporteda(fairly)wellparentalwealth.Theoppositepictureemergesattertiarylevel,where
respondentsfromricherfamiliesreachBAdegrees(40%)andMA/PhDdegrees(7%)moreoftenthan
respondentsfromfamiliesofaveragefinancialwealth(BA:27%,MA/PhD:4%)andrespondentsfrom
poorerfamilies(BA:16%,MA/PhD:1%).Discrepanciesaccordingtofinancialwealthareslightlyless
pronouncedattheprofessionaleducationlevel.
Thereisarelationshipbetweenparent’semploymentandoccupationsituationandtheeducation
attainmentoftherespondent.Parent’semploymentandoccupationpositioncanalsobeseenasa
measureoftheeconomiccapitalbutalsosocialcapitalofthefamilyoforiginwhenitcomesto
analysisofeducationattainment.Amongrespondentswhosefatherwasemployed,itisfoundthat
thelowertheISCOlevel,thehigheristheprobabilityofendingupwithbasicoruppersecondary
educationandtheloweristheprobabilityofreachingtertiaryeducation.Forexample,44%of
respondentswhosefatherwaslegislator,official,manager(ISCO1)orprofessional(ISCO2)and41%
ofrespondentswhosefatherwastechnicians,associateprofessional(ISCO3)orclerk(ISCO4)
reachedaBAdegreewhereasthesharewasjust20–21%forrespondentswithfathersworkingas
serviceworkers,shopormarketsalesworkers(ISCO5),craftandrelatedtradesworkers(ISCO7),
plantandmachineoperatorsandassemblers(ISCO8)orelementaryoccupations(ISCO9).Theshare
ofBAdegrees(14%)isevenloweramongthosewhosefatherworkedasskilledagriculturalorfishery


17

workers(ISCO6).Incontrast,thereisnoclearassociationbetweenfather’sISCOlevelandthe
attainmentofprofessionaleducation.Themainpatternsaresimilarfortheassociationofmother’s
ISCOlevelandtheeducationattainmentoftherespondent.Respondentswhosefatherormother
wereownaccountworkers,self‐employedoremployershadonaveragelowerchancesofgettinga
tertiarydegreeandhigherrisksofjustgettingabasicoruppersecondarydegree.Moredetailed
analysesonthisgroup(notshowninTable2.9)revealthatthisnegativeassociationisdominatedby
own‐accountandself‐employedparentsworkingasfarmers/herders,craftsmen,shopkeepers,petty
tradersandstreetsellers,whereastheverysmallshareofrespondentswithparentsworkingasself‐
employedprofessionalsormanagersorownersofcompaniesresemblemorethepatternof
respondentswithemployedparentsofISCO1andISCO2level.Havinganunemployedfather,a
fatherwhowasunabletoworkduetoillnessoramotherengagedinhomedutiestendtoreducethe
chancesofgettingatertiarydegreeandincreasestheprobabilityofhavingauppersecondarydegree
orless.
Nextweconsidertheassociationbetweenthenumberofsiblingsandeducationattainment.Siblings
areexpectedtomatterinthecompetitionforparentalresourcesthatarerelevantforeducation
success.Themoresiblingsayoungpersonhasthelessresourcesshouldbeavailableforhimorher.
Table2.9showsthatthelargerthenumberofsiblingsthehigheristheprobabilitythatrespondents
possessauppersecondarydegreeorinitialprofessionaleducationdegree.Theoppositerelationship
existsatthesecondaryprofessionalandlowertertiary(BA)level,whicharelessoftenattainedby
personswithmoresiblings.Thisclearcutassociationbetweenthenumberofsiblingsandeducation
attainmentisnotvisibleatthelowesteducationlevelofbasicsecondarydegreesaswellasthe
highesteducationlevelofhighertertiary(MA/PhD)degrees.
Arelatedmeasureisthequestiononwithwhomtherespondentspentmostofher/hischildhoodup
toage15.Inthefollowinganalyseswedistinguishbetweenthosespentallorthemajorityofthis
periodwithbothparentsandthosewhodidnot.Growingupwithlessthantwoparentscanbeseen
asproxyforfewerparentalresourcesceterisparibusbecausethereisonlyoneornoparent
providingresources.Itcanalsobeseenasanindicatorofdisruptivelifecourseeventssuchas
divorceordeathofaparentthatmayhavedetrimentaleffectsontheeducationattainment.Wefind
thatgrowingupwithlessthantwoparentsisassociatedwithslightlyhigherprobabilitiesofleaving
educationwithlowereducationdegrees,andviceversa,lowerprobabilitiesofreachingahigher
educationdegree.Forexample,11%ofrespondentswhogrowupwithlessthantwoparentshavea
basicsecondarydegreeorless,whereasthisappliestoonly7%oftherespondentswholivedwith
twoparents.AnotherexampleisthattheshareofBAdegreeholdersisloweramongrespondents
whogrowupwithlessthantwoparents(22%)comparedtothosewhohadbothparentsathome
(26%).
Table2.10presentsfindingsonthetypeofaccessexamsforpost‐secondaryeducationandthe
pointsreachedinnationalexam.Thegreatmajorityofstudentsgotaccesstotherespectivepost‐
secondaryeducationlevelvianationalexams.83%ofsecondaryprofessionalstudents,85%ofhigher
tertiary(MA/PhD)studentsandeven94%oflowertertiary(BA)studentspassedanationalexamto
getaccesstotherespectivepost‐secondaryeducationlevel.Just5%oflowertertiary(BA)students,
12%ofhighertertiary(MA/PhD)studentsand14%ofsecondaryprofessionalstudentsenteredthe
respectiveeducationlevelviaentryexamsorganizedbythespecificinstitutionstheywantedto
enrollat.
Regardingtheperformanceinthenationalexam,onemusttakeintoaccountthatthescalingdiffers
betweeneducationlevels.Thus,thegradedistributioncannotbecomparedacrosseducationlevels.
Inthepast,nationalexamsusuallyhada200‐pointandinrecentyearsmainlya300‐pointscalefor
accesstosecondaryprofessionaleducationlevel.Giventhischangeinscalethepointsinnational
examsaredifficulttocompareevenwithinthegroupofsecondaryprofessionalstudents.Foraccess
tolowertertiary(BA)educationthemaximumscorelevelis700.Highertertiary(MA/PhD)students
reportthepointstheyreceivedforaccessingtheMAlevel,whichisagainanotherscale.Giventhe


18

limitationsofcomparabilitytheresultsonthegradedistributioninTable2.10arenotfurther
discussed.


Table2.10.Accessexamsforpost‐secondaryeducationandpointsinnationalexam
 Sec.Prof.Low.Tert.High.Tert.
Accesstopost‐secondaryeducation
Nationalexam839485
Entryexamrequired14512
Noexamwasrequired313
Pointsinnationalexam
100‐200503
201‐3004119
301‐400637
401‐500129
501‐600010
Over60002
Don'tknow/refusal 20
Pointsinnationalexam(accesstoMA)
51‐6346
Over6350
Don'tknow/refusal 4
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.



2.5.Workingbeforeleavingeducation
Thereisadebateinliteraturewhether“workingwhileinschool”isbadasitmaydistractstudents
frombeingagoodstudentorgoodasyoungpeopleacquireworkexperience,skillsandsocial
contactsaswellasgettingfamiliarwithculturalcodes,behavioralpatternsandhabitsintheworldof
workthatmayhelpwiththeintegrationinthelabormarketafterleavingeducation(Jacobetal.,
2018;Weissetal.,2014).Itmayalsoactasasignalofunobservedcharacteristicsthatarevaluedby
employers(Nunleyetal.,2016).Againstthisbackgroundwewilldescribetheincidence,timing,
durationandcharacteristicsofworkingbeforeleavingeducationinAzerbaijaninthefollowing.
Multivariateanalysesonthedeterminantsandconsequencesofworkingbeforeleavingeducation
shallbetheaimoffuturestudies.
Inthissectionwestudyanykindofemploymentactivitiestherespondentsperformedbefore
finishingorstoppingformaleducation.Collectinginformationonworkinginparalleltoeducationor
inperiodsofinterruptingeducationisseenasimportantbecauseincreasingsharesofyoungpeople
continuetheireducationalcareerbeyondcompulsoryschoolingenteringanagewhentheyare
availableforworknexttotheirstudies(Roksa&Velez,2010;Wolbers,2003).IntheTEW‐CCAYouth
TransitionSurveyinAzerbaijanweapplyabroadconceptionofworkthatincludesanykindof
paid/unpaidregistered/unregisteredworkinfamilybusinesses,privatebusinessesorinpublicsector
orworkasanownaccountworker/self‐employed/employer.5Inaddition,periodsofinformal
5A“registered/formalemployee”meansthatincometaxesarepaideitherbytheemployeroremployee.
“Unregistered/informalemployee”meansthatincomeoftheemployeeisnottaxed.Foralltypesofworkit
doesnotmatterifsomeoneearnsmonetaryornon‐monetaryincome.


19

apprenticeship(thatisnotorganizedinaformalvocationalprogram)andinternships/traineeships
arecoveredaswell.However,vocationaltrainingreceivedinformalvocationaleducationaswellas
housework,whichwasdoneoutsidefamilybusinesses,arenotcountedasworkepisodestobe
reported.
Table2.11offersanoverviewontheoverallincidenceofworkbeforeleavingeducationforvarious
genderandeducationgroups.Theincidenceiscalculatedattheindividuallevel.Overall,17.0%of
menand8.1%gainedsomeworkexperiencebeforetheylefteducation.

Table2.11:Overallincidenceofworkbeforeleavingeducation,bygenderandeducation,row‐%
 %
Gender
Men17.0
Women8.1
Education
Basicsecondary 5.9
Uppersecondary 7.1
Initialprofessional 22.9
Secondaryprofessional 13.2
Lowertertiary(BA)20.2
Highertertiary(MA/PhD)33.0
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.
Remarks:Incidenceiscalculatedatthepersonlevel.

Theincidenceishigheramonghighereducatedpersons,whichcanbeattributedtothehigherageof
leavingeducationamonghigheducatedpersons.Only5.9%ofpersonswithbasicsecondary
educationand7.1%ofpersonswithuppersecondaryeducationgainedworkexperiencebefore
leavingeducation.Theshareofpersonswithworkingexperience(outsidetheformalvocational
program)beforeleavingeducationismuchhigheramongthosewithinitialprofessionaleducation
(22.9%).Asimilarincidenceisreachedamongstudentswithlowertertiary(BA)degrees.Incontrast,
just13.2%ofsecondaryprofessionalgraduatesreportedanyworkexperience,whichisnotorganized
intheformalvocationalprogram,beforeleavingeducation.Highertertiary(MA/PhD)graduateshave
thehighestincidenceofworkingbeforeleavingeducation.Everythirdhighertertiary(MA/PhD)
graduatesworkedbeforethedateofleavingeducation.
Table2.12offersmoredetailedinformationonthetypesofwork,periodsofworkandreasonsof
workthatisdonebeforeleavingeducation.Theanalysesrefertothesampleofreportedworkspells
beforeleavingeducation,i.e.onepersonmaycontributetotheanalysiswithseveralworkspells.The
analysesaredifferentiatedbyvariousgenderandeducationgroups.
Intermsoftypesofworkthereisagender‐specificpatternasthemajorityofspellsreportedby
womenrefertoformal/registeredemployment(52%),whereasinformal/unregisteredwork
arrangementsarethedominantformofworkformen(56%).Workinfamilybusinessesplaysonly
limitedrole.Workasanemployee/helperinagriculturalfamilybusinessismorecommon(4%of
workspellsreportedbymenand6%ofworkspellsreportedbywomen)thanworkexperiencesasan
employee/helperinnon‐agriculturalfamilybusiness(3%ofworkspellsreportedbymenand1%of
workspellsreportedbywomen).Overall,theshareofworkspellsinfamilybusinesses(7%)isthe
sameformenandforwomen.10%ofworkspellsreportedbymenand4%ofworkspellsreported
bywomenrefertoown‐accountwork,self‐employmentorbeingemployer.Specificwork
arrangementsthatwereexpectedtoplayaroleforthetransitionfromeducationtoworkarenot
oftenreportedbeforeleavingeducation.Only1%ofspellsofmenandonly3%ofspellsofwomen


20

refertoinformalapprenticeships6.Evenlessthan1%ofallreportedworkspellswereinformofan
internshiportraineeship.

Table2.12:Typesofwork,periodsofworkandreasonsofworkofreportedworkspellsbefore
leavingeducation,bygenderandeducation,column‐%
 MenWomenBasicSec./
Upp.Sec.
Init.Prof./
Sec.Prof.
Low.Tert./
High.Tert.
Typesofwork
Formal/
registeredemployee265213050
Informal/
unregisteredemployee5635515746
Informalapprentice13401
Internship/trainee00000
Employee/helperinnon‐agricultural
familybusiness31800
Employee/helperinagricultural
familybusiness461620
Own‐account/self‐employed/
employer10420111
Periodsofwork
Allovertheyear4771335663
Seasonalwork136101310
Duringschoolholidays17329165
Irregularinterval2319281622
Reasonsofwork
Youwantedtoearnyourownmoney7273458680
Youwantedtogainworkexperience2043111938
Youworkedtobuildnetworks7130613
Youhadtoworktofinanceyourstudy11150421
Youhadtoworktosupportyourfamily6254826447
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.
Remarks:%arecalculatedforthesampleofreportedworkspells,i.e.onepersonmaycontributetotheanalysis
withseveralworkspells.Multipleanswercategorieswereallowedforthequestiononthereasonsforworking,
i.e.column‐%donotaddupto100%forthereasonsforworking.

Therearealsostrongeducation‐specificdifferencesinthetypesofworkbeforeleavingeducationare
notverypronounced.Asinpreviousanalyses,thelevelofeducationattainmentrefersheretothe
highestlevelthatiscompletedatthetimeofleavingeducation.Amongsecondarygraduates
informal/unregisteredemployeeworkclearlydominates(51%)asjust1%ofthereportedworkspells
areasformal/registeredemployees.Thedominanceofinformal/unregisteredemployeeworkalso
existforprofessionalgraduatesbuttoalesserextent(57%informal/unregisteredemployeework
comparedto30%formal/registeredemployeework).Thepatternisreversedfortertiarygraduates
thatreach50%ofworkspellsasformal/registeredemployeesand46%ofworkspellsas
informal/unregisteredemployees.Workinthefamilybusinessisamoretypicalworkarrangement
amongsecondarygraduates.16%ofworkspellsofsecondarygraduatesrefertobeing
employee/helperinagriculturalfamilybusinessand8%ofworkspellsofsecondarygraduatesrefer
tobeingemployee/helperinnon‐agriculturalfamilybusiness.Incontrast,thesesharesarebelow2%
forprofessionalandtertiarygraduates.Similarly,beingown‐accountworker,self‐employedor
employerismorecommonatlowerlevelsofeducation.Forexample,20%oftheworkspellsof
6Informalapprenticeshipsolelyrefertoapprenticeshipsthatarenotorganizedinaformalvocationalprogram.
Thelatteriscapturedintheanalysesoneducationprograms(seeSection2.3).


21

secondarygraduatesareinthisworkarrangement,whilethisappliestojust1%oftheworkspellsof
tertiarygraduates.Informalapprenticeships,internshipsandtraineeshipsareequallylowspread
(below4%)amongalleducationgroups.
Regardingtheperiodsofwork,almosteverysecondreportedworkspellreportedbymenandalmost
threequarterofworkspellsreportedbywomenrelatetoworkthatisdoneallovertheyear.The
incidenceofworkingallovertheyearishigheramonghighereducationgroups.Theshareincreases
withthelevelofeducationfrom33%forsecondarygraduatesto63%fortertiarygraduates.Seasonal
workismorecommonamongmenthanwomen(13%vs.6%)butratherequallydistributedamong
educationgroups.Workingduringschoolholidaysismorecommonamongmenthanwomen(17%
vs.3%)andmorecommonamonglowereducationgroups.Whereas29%ofworkspellsofsecondary
graduatesrelatetoschoolholidaywork,thisappliesonlyto5%oftertiarygraduates.Irregularwork
intervalsapplytomenandwomeninasimilarway(23%ofmenand19%forwomen).Regarding
education,irregularworkintervalsaremostoftenreportedbysecondarygraduates(28%vs.22%for
tertiarygraduatesand16%forprofessionalgraduates).
Respondentswerealsoaskedtotellthereasonsforworkingforeachworkspellbeforeleaving
education.Multipleanswercategorieswereallowed.Oneverycommonreasonforworkingisthe
motiveofearningmoney.Almostthreequarterofallworkspellswerejustifiedwiththemotiveof
earningmoneybybothmenandwomen.Themonetarymotiveismorewidespreadamong
professionalgraduates(86%)andtertiarygraduates(80%)thanbysecondarygraduates(45%).In
contrast,themotiveofearningmoneynotforthemselvesbutforthefamilyismuchmorecommon
amonglowereducationgroups.Forexample,82%ofworkspellsreportedbysecondarygraduates
arejustifiedbytheneedoffinanciallysupportingthefamily,whereasthisappliesto47%ofthework
spellsreportedbytertiarygraduates.Intermsofgender,thereisonlysmalldifferenceintermsof
menreportingmoreoftensupportforownfamilyasamotive(62%vs.54%amongwomen).The
motivetogainworkexperienceistwotimesmoreoftenreportedforworkspellsofwomen(43%)
thanformen(20%).Gainingworkexperienceisalsomoreimportantamongtertiarygraduates(38%)
thanforprofessionalgraduates(19%)andsecondarygraduates(11%).Similarly,althoughatamuch
lowerlevelofincidence,themotiveofbuildingnetworksismoreoftenreportedamongtertiary
graduates(13%)thanamongprofessionalgraduates(6%)andsecondarygraduates(0%)andmore
commonamongwomen(13%vs.7%formen).Workinginordertofinancethestudiesismentioned
for21%oftheworkspellsoftertiarygraduatesandjust4%oftheworkspellsofprofessional
graduates.Notsurprisingly,assecondaryeducationisfreeofchargeinAzerbaijan,nosecondary
graduatesreportsthemotiveofworkingtofinanceher/hisstudy.
Table2.13providesinsightsintothelifecoursedynamicsofworkingbeforeleavingeducation.It
reporttheage‐specificincidence(%)ofworkbeforeleavingeducationdifferentiatedbygenderand
educationgroups.Thisanalysisisdoneattheindividuallevel.Theincidenceofworkingisverylow
duringteenageyears.Forexample,atage15,just5.1%ofmalerespondentsand0.6%offemale
respondentsworked.However,thesharesubstantiallygrowswithincreasingage.Forexample,
already16.4%ofmalerespondentsand7.4%offemalerespondentsreportedaworkactivityatage
20.Atage24almosteverysecondmalerespondentandalmosteverythirdfemalerespondentwasin
work.Ingeneral,itisfoundthatmalerespondentsreportedmoreoftenworkactivitiesthanfemale
respondentsforalmosteveryagebeforeleavingeducation.
However,thesefiguresarestronglyinfluencedbythelevelofeducationattainmentbecause
respondentsdropoutoftheanalysesattheagetheylefteducation.Thisinducesan
overrepresentationofprofessionalandtertiarystudentsatlaterage.Hence,supplementary
education‐specificinvestigationswereperformed.Fortheeducation‐specificanalysiscellentriesare
restrictedtoagesuntiltheaverageagebeforeleavingoftherespectiveeducationlevelplustwo
yearsinordertoavoidthedominancebyverysmallgroupofpersonsatlateragesaftertypical
educationleavingage.Theeducation‐specificanalysesshowthattheworkpropensityisratherlow
(below8%)for(prospective)basicsecondarygraduatesuptoage16andjustreaches10.5%atage
18.(Prospective)uppersecondarygraduateshaveaworkincidenceofbelow10%foralltheages


22

reportedinTable2.13.Among(prospective)initialprofessionalgraduatesdouble‐digitratesofwork
experiencearereachedfromage17onwards(withtheexceptionofage19),reachingupto22.6%at
age20.Comparedtoinitialprofessionalgraduates,fewersecondaryprofessionalgraduateswere
workingbeforeleavingeducation.7Theirworkincidenceremainsbelow10%untilage21.Both
(prospective)lowertertiary(BA)and(prospective)highertertiary(MA/PhD)graduatesreportfew
workexperiencesthanlowereducationgroupsuntilage18.Startingwithage20for(prospective)
lowertertiary(BA)graduatesandwithage21for(prospective)highertertiary(MA/PhD)graduates
morethan10%ofstudentsareworking.Withthetransitiontotertiaryeducationworktheiractivity
ratesurges.Forexample,onethirdof(prospective)lowertertiary(BA)worksatage23andonethird
of(prospective)highertertiary(MA/PhD)graduatesworksatage24.

Table2.13:Age‐specificincidence(%)ofworkbeforeleavingeducation,bygenderandeducation
 MenWomenBasicSec.Upp.Sec.Init.Prof.Sec.Prof.Low.Tert.High.Tert.
Age
120.80.10.50.70.00.40.40.0
131.30.01.01.20.00.40.30.0
143.10.14.62.60.01.00.50.0
155.10.66.14.64.81.70.70.0
166.31.28.26.27.62.10.91.8
177.42.010.56.214.63.72.51.8
188.22.79.414.34.73.82.8
199.35.47.48.66.18.62.8
2016.47.422.69.412.96.4
2118.511.812.916.014.813.8
2225.217.921.021.121.4
2338.022.633.126.6
2446.628.644.333.8
2543.925.834.8
2656.77.7 21.4
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.
Remarks:Incidenceiscalculatedatthepersonlevel.%arecalculatedforthesampleofrespondentsforthetime
beforeleavingeducation.Fortheeducation‐specificanalysiscellentriesarerestrictedtotheaverageagebefore
leavingtherespectiveeducationlevelplustwoyearsinordertoavoidthedominancebyverysmallgroupof
personsatlateragesaftertypicaleducationleavingage.AverageageofleavingeducationistakenfromTable
6.1.Thecalculationdoesnottakethelengthofworkspellsintoaccount(seeTable2.12forananalysisoflength
ofworkspells).

Nexttothetimingofworking,itisalsointerestingtostudythetimespentworkingbeforeleaving
education.Table2.14providesinformationontheabsoluteandrelativetimespentworkingbefore
leavingeducationforgenderandeducationsubgroups.Themeasuresarecalculatedattheindividual
level.Theindividualtimeintervalconsideredlastsfromage12totheindividualageofleaving
education.Thetimespentworkingismeasuredonayearlylevelandtheyearisconsideredasayear
ofworkingwheneveraworkactivityisreportedintheyear,irrespectivelyoftheperiodofwork(for
ananalysisofperiodsofworkseeTable2.12).
Theabsolutedurationmeasuresthenumberofyearsbetweenage12andtheindividualyearof
leavingeducation.Wheninterpretingthenumbersitshouldbekeptinmindthattheyearofleaving
7Forthefiguresofinitialandsecondaryprofessionaleducation,itshouldbetakenintoaccountthatour
definitionofworkingbeforeleavingeducationdoesnotentailpracticalworkexperiencesthatwerepartofa
formalvocationaltrainingprogram(seeSection2.3forresultsonsuchkindofpracticaltrainingexperiences
duringeducation).


23

educationand,thus,thetimeintervalconsideredvariesbetweenindividuals.Overall,83%ofmen
and92%ofwomendonotworkbeforeleavingeducation,whichreplicatesthefindingsofTable2.11.
Ifpersonsworked,shortworkexperiencesaremorecommonthanlongtermones.However,the
shortestdurationofoneyearisleastcommon(just1%ofmenandlessthan1%ofwomen).The
mosttypicaldurationistwoyears(4%men,3%women)andthreeyears(5%men,4%women).
Longerworkdurationsarerarelyreached.Theshareofpersonsworkingfiveyearsandmoreisjust
4%formenand1%forwomen.Regardingeducationgroups,theabsolutedurationoftimespent
workingpriorleavingeducationtendstoincreasewiththelevelofeducation,which,amongother
factors,canbetechnicallyrelatedtothelaterageofeducationleavingofhighereducatedpersons.
ThefirstrowreplicatesthefindingsfromTable2.11that93%ofsecondarygraduates,85%of
professionalgraduatesand78%oftertiarygraduatesreportedthattheyneverworkedpriorto
leavingeducation.2%ofsecondarygraduates,5%ofprofessionalgraduatesand6%oftertiary
graduateshaveoneortwoyearsofworkexperience.Threetofouryearsofworkexperienceis
reportedby3%ofsecondarygraduates,6%ofprofessionalgraduatesand11%oftertiarygraduates.
Longworkexperiencesoffiveyearsormoreapplymoreoftentotertiarygraduates(6%)thanto
professionalgraduates(3%)andsecondarygraduates(1%).

Table2.14:Absoluteandrelativetimespentworkingbeforeleavingeducation,bygenderand
education
 MenWomenBasicSec./
Upp.Sec.
Init.Prof./
Sec.Prof.
Low.Tert./
High.Tert.
Absoluteduration
0years8392938578
1year10001
2years43255
3years53257
4years31114
5years21123
6years10011
>6years10002
Relativeduration
0%8392938578
]0%‐20%]22036
]20%‐40%]842912
]40%‐60%]41324
]60%‐80%]10110
]80%‐100%]10100
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.
Remarks:Measuresarecalculatedatthepersonlevel.Theindividualtimeintervalconsideredlastsfromage12
totheindividualageofleavingeducation.Thetimespentworkingismeasuredonayearlylevelandtheyearis
consideredasayearofworkingwheneveraworkactivityisreportedintheyear,irrespectivelyoftheperiodof
work.Thisisbecausetheanswercategoriesofperiodsofwork(seeTable2.12)donotallowaconcretemeasure
oftheexacttimespentwithinayearonwork.Theabsolutedurationmeasuresthenumberofyearsbetween
age12andtheindividualyearofleavingeducation.Therelativedurationofworkexperienceiscalculatedby
dividingtheabsolutenumberofworkingyearspriorleavingeducationbythenumberofyearsthatwere
theoreticallyavailableforworkingfromage12totheindividualageofleavingeducation.


Thelowerpartof2.14calculatestherelativedurationofworkexperiencebydividingtheabsolute
numberofworkingyearspriorleavingeducationbythenumberofyearsthatweretheoretically
availableforworkingfromage12totheindividualageofleavingeducation.Bydefinition,theshares


24

inthefirstrowof0%relativedurationisidenticaltothesharesinthefirstrowofzeroyearsabsolute
duration.
2%ofmenandwomenworkedforupto20%oftheiravailabletimebetweenage12andleaving
education.8%ofmenand4%ofwomenspentbetween20and40%oftheirtimeworking.Just6%of
menand1%ofwomenspentmorethan40%oftheiryouthbetweenage12andleavingeducationin
work.Regardingeducationgroups,ifsecondarygraduatesworked,theyspentonaveragemoreof
theirrelativetimeworkingthanprofessionalortertiarygraduates.5%workedbetween20and60%
and2%workedformorethan60%oftheirtimebetweenage12andtheageofleavingeducation.In
contrast,shorterrelativeworkingtimeistypicalforprofessionalgraduatesandtertiarygraduates.
12%ofprofessionalgraduatesand18%oftertiarygraduatesworkedupto40%oftheiravailable
timebetweenage12andtheageofleavingeducation,whereasonly3%ofprofessionalgraduates
and4%oftertiarygraduatesworkedmorethan40%oftheiravailabletimebetweenage12andthe
ageofleavingeducation.




25

3.Labormarketinactivity,jobsearchandtimeuntilfindingafirstjob
3.1.Labormarketinactivity
Regardingtheperiodafterleavingeducationwestartwithanempiricalanalysisoftheincidenceof
labormarketinactivitybygender.Weaddressthespecificpatternofthe“school‐to‐home
transition”,whichisusuallyignoredintheWesternliteratureonschool‐to‐worktransitionandwhich
gotafirstdetailedattentionbythecomparativestudyonyouthtransitionsbyGebelandHeyne
(2014).Followingthisapproach,wedefine“inactive”personsinoursampleofeducationleaversas
personswhohaveneitherfoundafirstjob8untilthedateoftheinterviewnorengagedinanykindof
jobsearchactivities9sinceleavingeducation.Hence,weuseaverystrictdefinitionof“permanent”
inactivityignoringtheincidenceoftemporaryinactivityorpersonsbecominginactiveafteraperiod
oflabormarketengagement.10Supplementaryanalyses(notdisplayedinTables)showthat52.4%of
womenand14.5%ofmenhavenotyetfoundafirstjobatthetimeoftheinterview.11Amongthose
personswithoutafirstjobatthetimeoftheinterview,77.0%ofwomenand43.5%ofmenreported
thattheywerenotactivelylookingforajobaftertheyhavelefteducation.12Wecalculatethe
inactivityratebycombiningthisinformationontheexistenceofthefirstjobandsearchbehavior
afterleavingeducation.Table3.1showsthat40.4%ofwomenandjust6.3%ofmeninAzerbaijanare
inactive.Thisresulthighlightsthelargegenderinequalitywithrespecttothelabormarket
participationdecisionafterleavingeducation.
Table3.1alsoreportstheinactivityratebyeducationattainmentlevel.13Forwomenthereisaclear
negativeeducationgradient.Thehigherthelevelofeducationattainment,theloweristhe
probabilityofbeinginactiveafterleavingeducation.
8Foradefinitionofa“firstjob”seeSection4fordetailsaswellastheMethodologicalReportoftheTEW‐CCA
YouthTransitionSurveys(Gebel&Mandieva2019).
9Eachrespondentwasaskedwhetherheorshehadbeenactivelyseekingforworkintheperiodafterleaving
education.Activelyseekingmeansapplyingforspecificworks,replyingtoworkoffers,answering
advertisements,appearingforaninterview,sendingCV,goingdirectlytocompanies’offices.
10Theseissuesoftemporaryinactivityanddynamicsintoandoutofinactivityshallbesubjecttofuture
multivariateanddynamicanalyses.
11Thisisjustaninformationwithregardtothecriteriaofdefininginactivity.Asindividualsdifferinthe
durationofthetimeperiodbetweenleavingeducationandthedateoftheinterview,thegivenfigureshave
limitedinformationvaluewithregardtothesuccessprobabilityoffindingafirstjobinadynamicperspective.
FormoreadequateanalysesinthisrespectseeSection3.3,inwhichmoreappropriatemethodsofevent
historyanalysisareapplied.
12Amongthoserespondentswhogotafirstjobafterleavingeducation33.6%reportthattheydidnotactively
seekforworkintheperiodafterleavingeducation.Whenlookingatthereasonsgivenfornotsearching21.5%
ofthesefirstjobholderswithoutsearchexperiencedidnotsearchbecausetheycontinuedthesameworkthey
hadbeforeleavingeducation.Amongtheremainingcases(n=332)9.5%reportself‐employmentastheirfirst
jobtypeand8.7%reportafirstjobinthefamilybusiness,whichbothoftendonotentailanactivesearch
process.Thus,273casesareleftforwhichitseemsimplausiblethattheydidnotsearchforafirstjobbutfound
one.72.7%ofthesecasescanbesomehowexplainedbythefactthattheyreporttheyfoundtheirfirstjobvia
personalcontacts,wheretheinitiativeoftencomesfromthefamilyanddoesnotentailaprocessthatis
perceivedbytherespondentasanactivesearchprocess.Theremaining27.3%(n=73cases)reportmethodsof
findingafirstjoblateronthatimpliesajobsearchprocessmusthavetakenplace.However,amongthose73
cases77%reportedthattheydidnotsearchbecausetheywerewaitingformilitaryservice.Theymayhave
neglectedreportingsearchactivitiesthattookplaceduringoraftermilitaryservice.Fortheremainingcases
thejobsearchprocessmayhavealreadyoccurredbeforeleavingeducationsuchthatitwasnotreported.
Nevertheless,inafewcasesrespondentsmayhavemisreportednon‐search.
13Inthissectionandthefollowingsectionsweuseeducationattainment,i.e.thehighesteducationlevelthat
wascompleted,astheindependentvariableofinterest.Thisisbecausefromatheoreticalperspectiveof


26

Theinactivityratesdropsfrom78.2%forfemalegraduatesfrombasicsecondaryeducationtojust
4.4%amongwomenwithhighertertiary(MA/PhD)graduates.Incontrast,thereisnoclear
associationbetweenthelevelofeducationattainmentandtheinactivityrateformen.

Table3.1:Inactivityrate,bygenderandeducationlevel,column‐%
 MenWomen
Totalinactivityrate 6.340.4
Inactivityratebyeducationattainment
Basicsecondary 6.078.2
Uppersecondary 4.865.6
Initialprofessional 5.633.3
Secondaryprofessional 6.517.8
Lowertertiary(BA)9.917.0
Highertertiary(MA/PhD)0.04.4
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.

Table3.2displaysresultsonthepersonalreasonsgivenbyyoungmenandwomenforbeinginactive,
i.e.notworkingornotlookingforwork,afterleavingeducation.Multipleresponseswereallowed.
Formen,themajorreasonforlabormarketinactivity(reportedby63.9%ofinactiverespondents)is
thattheyhavebeenwaitingfortheirmilitaryserviceafterleavingeducation.Forwomen,themajor
reasonforlabormarketinactivityisthattheirparentsand/orspousedidnotallowthemtowork
(73.9%).Just1.3%directlyreportreligiousandculturalbarrierstotheirlabormarketparticipation.
17.2%ofinactivewomenmentionedmarriageand7.1%ofinactivewomenmentionedcareforother
householdmembersasamajorreasonsfornotengaginginjobsearch.Allthesereasonsarealmost
nevergivenbymen.
Nexttofamily‐relatedreasons10.2%femaleschoolleaversmentionthelackofjobsinthe
immediatesurroundingasareasonfortheirlabormarketinactivity.Thiscanreflectagenerallackin
labormarketdemandbutalsoregionallabormobilitybarriersforwomenbecausejust3.1%of
inactivemeninAzerbaijangivethesamereasonfortheirinactivity.Regardingotherlabormarket
relatedreasonsofnothavingusefulcontacts(4.1%men,2.6%women),beingnotproperlyqualified
ortrained(0.0%men,1.3%women)andbeingtooyoung/inexperienced(2.1%men,1.6%women)is
mentionedbywomenandmentoasimilardegree.Neitherinactivemennorinactivewomentell
thatplanstogoabroadorwaitingforseasonalworkhavebeenreasonsfortheirlabormarket
inactivity.
Comparingthenumbersformenandwomenitbecomesevidentthatthelackofworkmotivationis
moreoftenanissueamonginactivemeninAzerbaijan.Aboutonequarterofinactivemensaidthat
theydidnotwanttowork,whereasthisappliesto18.1%ofinactivewomeninAzerbaijan.Similarly,
healthissuesaremuchmoreoftenmentionedamonginactivemen(10.3%)thanamonginactive
women(0.4%).


signalingtheoryitcanbeexpectedthathavingthesignalofthefinaldegreeisimportantinthelabormarket
attainmentprocess(Gebel&Heineck2019).Moreover,thepersonsspentthefulltimeintheeducation
program,whichshouldenhancetheirhumancapitalcomparedtopersondroppingoutfromthesame
educationprogram.Specificanalysesonthelabormarketvalueoftheadditionaleducationexperienceof
educationdropoutscanbesubjecttofuturemultivariateanalyses(forsuchstudiesonotherEasternEuropean
countries,see,forexample,Matković&Kogan(2012);Matković&Kogan(2014)).


27

Table3.2:Reasonsforinactivityafterleavingeducation,bygender,column‐%
 MenWomen
Therewasnojobintheimmediatesurrounding3.1%10.2%
Youwerewaitingforseasonalwork0.0%0.0%
Youdidnothaveusefulcontacts4.1%2.6%
Youwerenotproperlyqualified/trained0.0%1.3%
Youweretooyoung/inexperienced2.1%1.6%
Youwereplanningtogoabroad0.0%0.0%
Youwereseriouslyillordisabled10.3%0.4%
Yougotmarried0.0%17.2%
Yourparents/spousedidnotallowyouto0.0%73.9%
Youhadtotakecareforotherhousehold2.1%7.1%
Duetoreligiousorculturalreasons0.0%1.3%
Youdidnotwanttowork24.7%18.1%
Youwerewaitingformilitaryservice63.9%0.0%
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.
Remarks:Multipleanswercategorieswereallowed,i.e.column‐%donotaddupto100%.Analysisonthe
reasonsforinactivityareconductedforthesubsampleofinactivepersons.

3.2.Jobsearchmethods
Amongrespondentswhowereactivelylookingforajobthejobsearchbehaviorofyoungpeopleat
theirtransitionfromeducationtoworkwasasked.Thereisanongoingscientificdebateaboutthe
roleofsocialnetworksforlabormarketsuccessinEasternEuropeancountries(Kogan,2011;Kogan
etal.,2013).Inthefollowing,wewillhighlighttheroleofsuchinformaljobsearchmethodas
comparedtoformaljobsearchmethods.Table3.3showsthejobsearchmethodsafterleaving
educationdifferentiatedbygenderandeducationattainment.Theanalysesincludesallrespondents
whoactivelyengagedinseekingforworkafterleavingeducation,irrespectivelyofthefactwhether
therespondentwassuccessfulinfindingajobornot.14Multipleanswerswereallowed,ifthe
respondentusedseveraljobsearchmethods.TheresultsinTable3.3clearlyunderlinethe
importanceofinformalmethodsofjobsearchinthetransitionfromeducationworkinAzerbaijanas
87.4%ofmenand80.0%ofwomenusedpersonalcontactsinthesearchforafirstjob.Onlyveryfew
respondents(1.3%ofmenand3.0%ofwomen)contactedlabormigrantnetworkswhenlookingfora
firstjob.15Nexttothedominanceofinformaljobsearchmethods,formaljobsearchmethodsstill
playaroleinAzerbaijan.37.1%ofmenand43.2%ofwomeninsertedorconsultedajob
advertisementinonlineportals,newspapersorjournalsoransweredoneintheprocessofsearching
forafirstjob.Evenmorethanhalfofthefemaleandmalerespondentswhoengagedinjobsearch
activitiesafterleavingeducationdirectlyappliedtothecompanyoftheirchoiceforthefirstjob
opportunity.Threetimesmorefemalejobseekers(19.5%)thanmalejobseekers(6.3%)tookatest
orparticipatedinacompetitiontogetaccesstoapublicsectorjob.Searchviaemploymentagencies
isnotverycommoninAzerbaijan.Just14.1%ofmalejobseekersand13.5%offemalejobseekers
contactedapublicemploymentagency.Theprobabilitiesareevenmuchlowerforcontactinga
privateemploymentagency(2.9%formenand3.2%forwomen).
14Themethodofsearchingforajobafterleavingeducationshouldnotbeequatedwiththemethodsoffinding
afirstjob.Thisisbecauseeducationleaversmayuseasearchmethodthatdoesnotyieldajobmatch.The
methodoffindingthefirstjobisanalyzedinSection4.3.
15ThisresultmustbeinterpretedagainstthebackgroundofthedefinitionofthetargetpopulationoftheTEW‐
CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijanwhichentailsonlypersonsresidinginAzerbaijanatthetimeofthe
survey.Hence,labormigrantsareunderrepresentedinthissurvey.


28

Thegender‐specificresultsrevealthatmenandwomenusequitesimilarjobsearchmethodswith
fewvariations.WhilewomeninAzerbaijanaremorepronetotakingtestsandparticipatingin
competitionsforthejobsinprivatesector,menaremorelikelytousepersonalcontactsinthejob
searchingprocess.Formaljobsearchmethodsaremorepopularamongwomenthanamongmen.
Education‐specificanalysesshowthatthehighertheeducationlevelofagraduatethelesscommon
isthepracticeofusingthepersonalcontactsinthesearchofafirstjob.While91.1%ofrespondents
withsecondaryeducationusedpersonalcontactsinthesearchforafirstjob,thisappliesto82.9%
and75.2%oftertiarygraduates.Nevertheless,acrossalleducationgroupsatleastthreequarterof
therespondentsreliedonpersonalnetworkasajobsearchmethod.Theshareofformaljobsearch
methodsincreaseswiththelevelofeducationattainment.Forexample,whereasjust30.4%of
secondarygraduatesinsertedorconsultedajobadvertisementinonlineportals,newspapersor
journalsoransweredone,thisshareishigheramonggraduatesfromprofessionaleducation(37.0%)
andtertiarygraduates(56.1%).Thepositiverelationshipbetweeneducationattainmentandformal
jobsearchmethodsisevenmoreevidentwithrespecttotakingatestorparticipatingina
competitionforrecruitmenttothepublicsector.Thisappliestojust0.7%ofgraduatesfrombasicor
uppersecondaryeducationcomparedto32.2%ofgraduatesfromtertiaryeducation.Incontrast,
thereisonlyaweakassociationbetweenthelevelofeducationattainmentandunsolicited
applications.Regardingtheuseofemploymentagencies,thereisapositiveassociationwiththelevel
ofeducationattainmentasprofessionalgraduatesandtertiarygraduatesmoreoftencontactpublic
andprivateemploymentagenciesthansecondarygraduates.

Table3.3:Jobsearchmethodsafterleavingeducation,total,bygenderandbyeducation
attainmentlevel,column‐%
 MenWomen
BasicSec./
Upp.Sec.
Init.Prof./
Sec.Prof.
Low.Tert./
High.Tert.
Youinsertedorconsultedajobadvertisementin
onlineportals,newspapersorjournalsor
answeredone37.143.230.437.056.1
Unsolicitedapplication52.058.349.259.359.1
Youusedpersonalrelations87.480.091.182.975.2
Youcontactedlabormigrantnetworks1.33.00.71.04.7
Youtookatest/Youparticipatedinacompetition
forrecruitmenttothepublicsector6.319.50.77.332.2
Youcontactedapublicemploymentagency14.113.510.616.317.0
Youcontactedaprivateemploymentagency2.93.21.63.44.9
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.
Remarks:Multipleanswercategorieswereallowed,i.e.column‐%donotaddupto100%.


3.3.Timeuntilfindingafirstjob
Inthenextwedoadynamicanalysisoftheindividualtimeelapsedbetweenleavingeducationand
findingafirstjob.Findingajobisacentralmarkerinthetransitiontoadulthoodduetoits
importanceingainingindependencefromthefamily,aswellasforsecuringagoodsocio‐economic
position,careerandlifechances.Usingdetailedmonthlyretrospectiveindividualdata,theduration
oftheschool‐to‐worktransitionismeasuredasthetimeelapsedbetweenleavingtheeducation
systemandfindingstableemployment(Gebel&Noelke,2011).


29

Thedateofleavingeducationreferstothelasteducationprogramtherespondentattended.16
Leavingeducationisdefinedbothas“finishingeducation”intermsofsuccessful
completion/graduation17ofthelasteducationprogramtherespondentwasenrolledintoand
“stoppingeducation”intermsof“failing/droppingout“fromthelasteducationprogramthe
respondentwasenrolledinto.Thus,bothpersonswhosuccessfullycompletedtheirlasteducation
andthosewhofailed/droppedoutwereincluded.Searchperiodspriortoleavingeducationare
disregardedduetomissinginformationonpotentialsearchactivities,andbecausetheyare
fundamentallydifferentfromthetimeelapsedbetweenleavingeducationandfindingafirst
significantjob,asthesearchaftergraduationgivesrisetohighermaterialandpsychologicalcosts
(Allen&vanderVelden,2007).
Followingcommondefinitions(Gebel&Noelke,2011),aswellthedefinitionsgiveninthesurveys
analyzed(Gebel&Mandieva,2019),weoperationalizethefirstjobpositionforaschoolleaverasany
firstjobafterleavingeducation,includingshort‐term,casualworkandunregisteredwork,self‐
employmentandworkasfamilyhelpers,istreatedasafirstjobinordertoaccountforthevarietyof
firstjobpositionsinAzerbaijan.Therespondentswereaskedtofilloutadetailedmonthlyeconomic
activitycalendarforthetimesinceleavingeducation.Theactivitycalendarcoversaminimumperiod
ofoneyearuptoamaximumperiodof10yearsdependingontheyeartherespondentwasleaving
education.Theactuallengthofthecalendarvariesrandomlyduetothecriteriaofselecting
respondents.Basedonthiscalendarthefirstjobwasidentified.Thefewgraduateswhoobtainfirst
significantjobsbeforeleavingtheeducationsystemarecountedasmakinganinstantaneous
transition.
“Permanently”inactivepeople,i.e.personswhohaveneitherfoundafirstjobuntilthedateofthe
interviewnorengagedinanykindofjobsearchactivitiessinceleavingeducation,areexcludedfor
thefollowinganalysesonthetimeelapsedbetweenleavingeducationandfindingafirstjob(for
analysesofthisgroupseeSection3.1).Usingthemonthlyretrospectiveactivitycalendar
information,periodsofmilitaryservicebetweenleavingeducationandfindingafirstjobor,
respectivelythedateoftheinterviewweredeductedfromthedurationmeasurement.Thisis
becausemilitaryserviceisanobligatorytime‐outthatshouldnotbecountedtothedurationof
findingafirstjob.Giventhelargeproportionofrespondentswhoreportedamilitaryserviceactivity
afterleavingeducationtheaveragesearchduration(irrespectivelyoffindingajobornot)dropsfrom
24.4to15.6monthswhenmakingthemilitaryservicecorrectionofthejobsearchduration.Despite
theserestrictionsthetimeelapsedbetweenleavingeducationandfindingafirstjobshouldnotbe
equatedwithjobsearchtime.Itmayhappenthatyoungpeopletemporarilygiveupjobsearch
withinthisperiod,i.e.experiencingtemporaryperiodsoflabormarketinactivitybecauseoffully
engaginginhouseworkorcare,beingsick,etc.
Eventhistoryanalysisisusedtostudythetimeelapsedbetweenleavingeducationandfindingafirst
job.ThetimeelapseduntilfirstsignificantemploymentisdescribedwithKaplan–Meier(product‐
limit)estimatesoftransitionratesbecauseoftheproblemofright‐censoreddurationdataforthose
whohavenotyetfoundemploymentatthetimeoftheinterview(Blossfeldetal.,2019).18Figure3.1
16Thismeansthatrespondentswhointerruptedtheireducationcareerreportedaboutthedateofleavingtheir
lasteducationprogramattended,whichiseasiertorememberGebel&Mandieva(2019).Inthecontextof
Azerbaijan,thefocusonthelasteducationprogramattendedisjustifiedasthephenomenonofeducation
returnersislesswidespreadtheninWesterncountries.Inanycaseallworkactivitiesinparallelorpriortothis
lasteducationspellarestillcapturedintheanalysesofSection2.5.
17Thedateoffinishingeducationforsuccessfulgraduatesisdefinedasthedateofattendingthelastcourseor
participatinginthelastexam,andnottothedateofreceivingthecertificate.Thisrestrictionwasseenas
importantasthenationalexpertsreportedthatasubstantialpartofgraduatesreceivescertificateswitha
delayduetobureaucracy(Gebel&Mandieva2019).
18Specifically,inthecaseof“right‐censoring”weknowthatthetransitiondurationislongerthanthetime
betweenleavingeducationandthedateoftheinterview.Forexample,somebodyleaveseducationseven


30

showsKaplan‐Meiersurvivalfunctionsforfindingafirstjobafterleavingeducationbygender,
educationandVETorganizationaskeyindependentvariablesofinterests.They‐axisshowsthe
proportionofpersonswhohavenotyetfoundafirstjobforagiventimepointafterleaving
educationthatismarkedonthex‐axis.Inaddition,Table3.4showstherespectivefiguresbutfroma
reversedperspective.Forselectedmonthsafterleavingeducationitreportstheshareofpeople
havingfoundafirstjobuntiltherespectivemonthafterleavingeducationbygender,educationand
VETorganization.Thisequivalenttothedistancefromthe100%lineandtheKaplanMeiersurvivor
function.
Wefindthatonlyveryfewactiveeducationleavers(12%ofmenand9%ofwomen)experience
directandquickentriesintotheirfirstjobwithinonemonth.However,aftersixmonthsalready44%
ofmenand39%ofwomenhavefoundafirstjob.Inthefollowingmonths,furtherlabormarket
integrationcanbeobserved,buttheconditionaltransitionprobabilities(so‐called“hazardrates”)
decrease:thelongerthetimeelapsedinnon‐employmentafterleavingeducation,theharderitisto
findafirstjob.Suchapatternofso‐called“negativedurationdependence”inthejobsearchprocess
isusuallyexplainedbydiscouragementeffectsthatleadtoreducedindividualsearchintensities.
Moreover,potentialemployersmayinterprettheprolongedsearchperiodasanegativesignaland
thereforerefrainfrommakingjobofferstothelong‐termunemployed.Asaresult,thereisa
substantialshareofyoungpeoplewhorequirealongtimetofindafirstjoborwhoremain
unsuccessfulevenafteralongsearchperiod.AccordingtotheresultsdisplayedinTable3.4around
onehalfofactivepersonshavegotafirstjobafteroneyear(57%ofmenand45%ofwomen).This
shareincreasesto78%formenand60%forwomenaftertwoyearsand90%formenand75%for
womenafterfouryears.Thus,inthelongrunasubstantialshareofactivepersonshasafirstjob
experience.Comparingmenandwomenitturnsoutthatthegendergapinfindingafirstjobamong
activepersonsincreaseswiththetimesinceleavingeducation.Inthefirstmonthafterleaving
educationthegendergapisjustthreepercentagepoints,whereasitincreasesto12percentage
pointsaftertwoyearsand15percentagepointsafterfouryears.
Educationqualificationsareseenasthecentraldeterminantsofsuccessfullabormarketintegration
(Kogan&Müller,2003;Koganetal.,2011;Shavit&Müller,1998).Thereisthegeneraltendencythat
thehigherthelevelofeducationthespeedieristhejobfindingprocess.However,thenexus
betweeneducationandthespeedoflabormarketintegrationisnotstronglypronounced.For
example,theshareofimmediatetransitions(withinonemonth)is13%bothamongbasicsecondary
graduatesandlowertertiary(BA)graduates.Thehighestincidenceofimmediatetransitionsis
observedamonghighertertiary(MA/PhD)graduates(21%).Aftersixmonthsthegroupof
professionalgraduatesspeedsupintermsoflabormarketintegration.61%ofinitialprofessional
graduateshaveexperiencedafirstjobaftersixmonths,whichisthehighestproportionofall
educationgroups.Secondaryprofessionalgraduatesreach41%aftersixmonths,whichisidenticalto
basicsecondarygraduates.Twoyearsafterleavingeducationhighertertiary(MA/PhD)graduatesare
leadingwith91%firstjobfindingrateaheadofinitialprofessional(79%)andlowertertiary(BA)
(78%)graduates.Thelowestrateisobservedforbasicsecondarygraduatestwoyearsafterleaving
education(56%).Fouryearsafterleavingeducationsecondarygraduatesandprofessionalgraduates
reachthesameleveloffirstjobexperienceofaround80%.Tertiarygraduatesareslightlymore
successfulas89%oflowertertiary(BA)graduatesand97%ofhighertertiary(MA/PhD)graduates
havefoundafirstjobafterfouryears.Inthisrespectitshouldbenotedthatthegroupofhigher
tertiary(MA/PhD)graduates,whichisverysmallinAzerbaijan(seeChapter2.1),isverysuccessfulin
theirlabormarketintegrationbecausemorethan90%havealreadyfoundafirstjobaftertwoyears.
Hence,thissmallandselectivegroupoutperformsallothereducationgroups.


monthsbeforetheinterviewandhasnotyetfoundajob.Inthiscase,theoveralljobsearchdurationwillnot
beexactlysevenmonthsbutlongerandhastobeestimated.


31

Figure3.1:Kaplan‐Meiersurvivalfunctionsforfindingafirstjobafterleavingeducationbygender,
educationandVETorganization




32

Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.
Remarks:Analysisareconductedforthesubsampleofallpersonsexcludinginactivepersons(i.e.personswho
havenotfoundafirstjobyetandwhohavenotactivelysearchedforajobsinceleavingeducation).Survivor
functionshowsforeachmonththeshareofpersonsforaspecificgroupwhohasnotyetfoundafirstjob.
Table3.4:Shareofpeople(%)havingfoundafirstjobuntilaspecificmonthafterleavingeducation
bygender,educationandVETorganization
Monthssinceleavingeducation
 161224364860
Gender
Men12445778859092
Women9394560677578
Education
Basicsecondary 13414756718388
Uppersecondary 9304266748083
Initialprofessional 7616979798386
Secondaryprofessional 9414863717982
Lowertertiary(BA)13526278858992
Highertertiary(MA/PhD)215975919397–
VETorganization
Init.Prof.school‐based 15546572727581
Init.Prof.dual/workplacebased 3657284848989
Sec.Prof.school‐based 8475263728184
Sec.Prof.dual/workplacebased 10374464717680
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.
Remarks:Analysisareconductedforthesubsampleofallpersonsexcludinginactivepersons(i.e.personswho
havenotfoundafirstjobyetandwhohavenotactivelysearchedforajobsinceleavingeducation).


33

Aspecificadditionalanalysishasbeenperformedwithrespecttotheroleoftheorganizationofthe
VETsystemasthereisanongoingscientificandpoliticaldebateaboutthebestorganizationofVETin
termsofitspracticalworkelementsanditsrelevanceforthetransitionfromeducationtowork
(Shavit&Müller,1998;Koganetal.,2011;Kogan,2019).Table3.4showsthatattheinitial
professionallevelpersonswithdual/workplace‐basedtrainingreachabetterlabormarket
integrationthanpersonswhoreceivedschool‐basedtraining.Theonlyexceptionisobservedatthe
verybeginningofthejobsearchperiod.15%ofinitialprofessionalgraduateswithschool‐based
trainingcomparedtojust3%ofinitialprofessionalgraduateswithdual/workplace‐basedtraining
havefoundafirstjobwithinthefirstmonth.Thepatternreversesaftersixmonths,when65%of
professionalgraduateswithdual/workplace‐basedtrainingandjust54%ofprofessionalgraduates
withschool‐basedtrainingcomparedhavegotafirstjob.Anotherpatternemergesatthesecondary
professionallevel.Differencesbetweenschool‐basedanddual/workplace‐basedtrainingareless
pronouncedintermsofthetransitiontoafirstjob.Whiletheshareofimmediatetransitionisrather
equal,secondaryprofessionalgraduateswithschool‐basedtraininghaveaneightto10percentage
pointsadvantageoversecondaryprofessionalgraduateswithdual/workplace‐basedtrainingafter
halfayearandayear.Afterwards,bothgroupsareequalandjustinthelongrun(fourandfiveyears
afterleavingeducation),thereisagainamarginaladvantageoffivepercentagepointsforsecondary
professionalgraduateswithschool‐basedtraining.

3.4.Obstaclesinfindingafirstjob
Inadditioneveryrespondentwhoactivelysearchedforajobwasaskedaboutthemainobstaclesthe
personexperiencedinfindingajobafterleavingeducation.Bothpersonswhosuccessfullyfounda
firstjobandthosewhohavenotyetfoundafirstjobduringtheobservationperiodareincludedbut
analyzedseparatelybecauseitdifferencesintheexperiencesofobstaclesinthejobsearchprocess
canbeexpectedbetweenthetwogroups.
Table3.5showsthedifferentmajorobstaclesoffindingajobafterleavingeducationthatwere
reportedbypersonswhowereactivelyengagedinjobsearchactivity,bysuccessoffindingafirstjob
aswellasdifferentiatedbygenderandeducationlevel.
InAzerbaijan,justasmallproportionofrespondentsreportthattheydidnothaveanyproblemsat
allfindingajob.Theshareis0%amongjobseekersthathavenotyetfoundafirstjob.However,just
onethirdofpersonswithafirstjobtellthattheydidn’thaveanyproblemsatallinfindingajob.This
indicatesthatthemajorityofsuccessfuljobseekersinAzerbaijanfacedproblemsinfindingtheirfirst
job.Personswithoutafirstjobreporthigherratesofthevariousobstaclesinfindingafirstjobthan
thosewhofoundafirstjob.Non‐successfulfirstjobseekersseethelimitednumberofavailablejobs
asthemajorobstacle(81.0%)butalsoamongsuccessfuljobseekersmorethanahalfofthepersons
complainaboutthesameproblemoflimitedjobopportunities.Lackofworkexperienceisreported
by57.8%ofnon‐successfulfirstjobseekersaswellas36.8%successfulfirstjobseekers.Asmaller
proportionofrespondentsmentionthattherequirementforajobwerehigherthantheireducation
and/ortrainingreceived(21.4%ofnon‐successfulfirstjobseekersand14.5%ofsuccessfulfirstjob
seekers).Interestingly,justatinyshareofrespondentsofbelow1.4%reportthattheyexperienced
discriminationbasedongenderorethnicorigin.Incontrast,18.4%ofnon‐successfulfirstjobseekers
and9.8%ofsuccessfulfirstjobseekersreportagediscrimination.Bothnon‐successfulandsuccessful
firstjobseekersseetheproblemofunattractivejoboffersintermsoflowwages(aroundone
quarter)andpoorworkingconditions(5‐10%)inthejobsearchprocess.Aboutonequarterofnon‐
successfulfirstjobseekersbutalso13.8%ofsuccessfulfirstjobseekersreportthattheydidnothave
usefulcontactsasaprobleminthejobsearchprocess.


34

Table3.5:Mainobstaclesoffindingajobafterleavingeducationamongpersonswhowere
activelyengagedinjobsearchactivity,bysuccess,genderandeducationlevel,column‐%

No
firstjob
With
firstjobMenWomenBasicSec./
Upp.Sec.
Init.Prof./
Sec.Prof.
Low.Tert./
High.Tert.
Youdidn’thaveany
problemsatallinfindinga
job.
0.033.925.331.419.130.539.0
Requirementsforjobwere
higherthaneducation/
trainingreceived
21.414.519.310.721.112.89.9
Notenoughworkexperience57.836.843.336.848.435.532.6
Notenoughjobsavailable 81.056.263.057.469.157.750.1
Discriminationbasedonage 18.49.812.99.016.89.14.5
Discriminationbasedon
gender 1.41.01.30.81.70.80.2
Discriminationbasedon
ethnicorigin0.00.00.00.00.00.00.0
Lowwagesinavailablejobs28.223.225.921.527.621.120.9
Poorworkingconditionsin
availablejobs9.95.67.05.48.94.43.9
Youdidnothaveuseful
personalcontacts26.913.815.816.812.317.820.9
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.
Remarks:Analysisareconductedforthesubsampleofallpersonswhowereactivelylookingforajobafter
leavingeducation,irrespectivelyofthefactwhethertheyfoundafirstjobornot.Multipleanswercategories
wereallowed,i.e.column‐%donotaddupto100%.

Regardinggenderdifferences,menmoreoftenreportobstaclesinfindingafirstjobthanwomen.
However,thereareonlysmalldifferencesintheobstaclesnamed.Theonlysubstantialdifferenceis
thatmen(19.3%)telltwiceasoftenthanwomen(10.7%)thatrequirementsforajobwerehigher
thantheireducationand/ortrainingreceived.Education‐specificresultsshowthatrespondentswith
highereducationattainmentaremorelikelytomentionthattheydidnothaveanyproblemsin
findingoffirstjobcomparedtolesseducatedyoungpeople.Amongtertiarygraduatesthisappliesto
39.0%comparedtojust19.1%ofsecondarygraduates.Thecomplaintaboutnotenoughavailable
jobsisprevalentamongamajorityofjobseekersirrespectivelyoftheireducationattainmentlevel.
However,thereisatendencythattheincidenceofthisproblemisloweramongtertiaryeducated
youngpeople.Problemsofunderqualificationaretwiceasoftenreportedamongsecondary
graduates(21.1%)thanamongtertiarygraduates(9.9%).Similarly,thereasonofhavingnotenough
workexperienceandbeingdiscriminatedbasedonageismorewidespreadamongsecondary
graduatesthanamongprofessionalandtertiarygraduates.Complaintsaboutlowwagesandpoor
workingconditionsofavailablejobsarealsomostcommonamongsecondarygraduates.For
example,27.6%ofsecondarygraduatesnamelowwagesand8.9%namepoorworkingconditionsof
availablejobsasproblem,whereastherespectivesharesare20.9%and3.9%amongtertiary
graduates.Genderandethnicdiscriminationplaysnoroleforalleducationgroups.Regardingthe
roleofinformalnetworks,thehighertheeducationthehigheristheshareofrespondentsblaming
thattheydidnothaveusefulpersonalcontactsinthejobsearchprocess.




35

4.Characteristicsoffirstjob
4.1.Typeandqualityoffirstjob
Inthepreviouschapter,weanalyzeddifferencesinthespeedoffindingafirstjobacrossdifferent
socio‐demographicgroups.However,aquicklabormarketentrydoesnotautomaticallyguaranteea
higherqualityofthefirstjob.Hence,itisimportanttoinvestigatethetypeandqualityofthefirstjob
aswell.Inthisregard,weadoptamultidimensionalperspectiveonvariousaspectsofjobqualityand
workingconditionsinsteadofrelyingonasinglejobqualitydimension(suchaswages)or
aggregatingworkingconditionsintoaone‐dimensionalindex.Theadvantageofsucha
multidimensionalperspectiveisthatitcapturespotentialtrade‐offsorcumulativeadvantagesor
disadvantagesintheworkingconditionsoffirstjobholdersindifferentemploymentsegments.
Detectingcumulativedisadvantagesisimportantinordertoassesstheprevalenceanddegreeof
precarious,lowqualityworkamongyoungfemaleworkers.Specifically,thejobtype,typeofcontract
andtheoccupationlevelarethecentralobjectivedimensionsofjobqualitythatareconsideredin
thefollowing.DuetotheretrospectivenatureofthequestionsonthefirstjobtheTEW‐CCAYouth
TransitionSurveysrefrainedfromaskingsubjectivequestions(e.g.onsubjectivejobsatisfaction)or
detailsthatarehardtoremember(e.g.thewageobtainedinthefirstjob).
Forthesubsequentanalyseswefocusonlyonthoserespondentswhoreportthattheysucceededin
findingafirstjob.Table4.1showsthetypeoffirstjobdifferentiatedbygender,educationleveland
theorganizationofVET.Takingregionalspecificitiesintoaccount,engagementinthelabormarketis
definedasaverybroadconcept,encompassingunregisteredinformalworkarrangements,
agriculturalwagedwork,self‐employmentandfamilyhelpers(Gebel&Mandieva,2019).Formal
versusinformalemploymentaredefinedattheindividuallevelandnotatthefirmlevel.Aformal
(registered)jobmeansthatincometaxesforthespecificjobarepaideitherbytheemployeror
employee,whereasthisisnotthecaseforinformal(unregistered)jobs.Overall,itisnoticeablethat
thegreatmajorityoffemalefirstjobholders(77%)gotafirstjobasaformal/registeredemployee,
whereastherateisjust43%amongmalefirstjobholders.Thus,menmoreoftenworkas
informal/unregisteredemployees(39%)butalsoasemployeeorhelperinthefamilybusiness(7%)
aswellasownaccountworkers,self‐employedoremployers(11%).Incontrast,just15%ofwomen
gotafirstjobasaninformal/unregisteredemployees,4%becameemployeeorhelperinthefamily
businessandjust3%hadtheirfirstworkexperienceafterleavingeducationasownaccountworkers,
self‐employedoremployers.
Education‐specificresultsshowthatwiththeincreaseoftheeducationleveloftherespondents,the
probabilityofbeingformallyemployedinthefirstjobincreasesaswell.Forexample,just18%of
basicsecondary,29%ofuppersecondarygraduatesand37%ofinitialprofessionalgraduatesstart
theirworkinglifeasformalemployees,whereastheshareis75%forsecondaryprofessional
graduates.AnalysesbythetypeofVETtrainingrevealthattherearealmostnodifferencesinthe
chancesofgettingformaljobsbetweenprofessionalgraduateswithdual/workplace‐basedtraining
andprofessionalgraduateswithschool‐basedtraining.Thehighestchancesofformalsector
employmentisfoundamongtertiarygraduates(BA:78%,MA/PhD:85%).Thereisanegative
educationgradientwithregardtobecomeaninformalemployeeinthefirstjob.Aroundevery
secondsecondaryandinitialprofessionalgraduatehasafirstjobasaninformal/unregistered
employee,whereastheprobabilityofbeinginformal/unregisteredemployeeisjust20%for
secondaryprofessionalgraduates.Distinguishingthetypeoftrainingforprofessionalgraduates
revealsthatgettingdual‐/workplace‐basedtrainingslightlydecreasestherisksofinformal
employment(by10percentagepointsattheinitialprofessionallevelandthreepercentagepointsat
thesecondaryprofessionallevel).Tertiarygraduatesareleastaffectedbyinformal/unregistered
employmentintheirfirstjob.Just16%oflowertertiary(BA)and14%ofhighertertiary(MA/PhD)
graduatesstartstheirworkcareerasaninformal/unregisteredemployee.Workingasanemployee
orhelperinthefamilybusinessinthefirstjobisobservedfor11%ofbasicsecondaryand13%of
uppersecondarygraduates.Incontrast,thistypeoffirstjobdoesnotplayanyroleforprofessional


36

andtertiarygraduates,whoseincidenceofbeingemployeeorhelperinthefamilybusinessisbelow
2%.Own‐accountwork,self‐employmentandbeingemployerhasthehighestincidenceamong
secondarygraduates(13–16%)aswellasamonginitialprofessionalgraduates(11%).Forhigher
educationgroupstheincidenceisbelow5%.

Table4.1:Typeoffirstjob,bygender,educationlevelandVETorganization,row‐%

Formal/
registered
employee
Informal/
unregistered
employee
Employee/
helperinfamily
business
Own‐account/
Self‐employed/
employer
Gender   
Men4339711
Women771543
Education
Basicsecondary 18551116
Uppersecondary 29461313
Initialprofessional 3750211
Secondaryprofessional 752023
Lowertertiary(BA)781615
Highertertiary(MA/PhD)851401
VETorganization
Init.Prof.school‐based 395525
Init.Prof.dual/workplacebased 3545318
Sec.Prof.school‐based 742222
Sec.Prof.dual/workplacebased 761923
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.
Remarks:Analysisareconductedforthesubsampleofallpersonswhofoundafirstjob,irrespectivelyofthefact
whethertheystillhold(this/a)jobornotatthedateoftheinterview.


Anotherimportantjobqualitydifferentiationsexistalongthetypeofcontractandsocialsecurity
coverage.Table4.2displaysdifferentiatedresultsinthisrespectaccordingtogender,educationlevel
andVETorganization.Theseanalysesarerestrictedtodependentemployees,includingemployees
andhelpersinthefamilybusinesssector,excludingown‐account,self‐employedworkersand
employers.Regardingthetypeofcontractthecrucialdistinctionbetweenworkcontractsof
unlimiteddurationversusworkcontractsoflimitedduration(temporarycontracts)versusseasonal
workcontractsismade.Asseasonalcontractshaveatinynegligibleincidenceof0.25%theyare
mergedwithtemporarycontractsasitisoftendoneinresearchoncontracttypes.Whereas
temporarycontractsplayalessprominentroleatlabormarketentryinEasternEurope,withafew
exceptionssuchasPolandandSlovenia(Baranowska&Gebel,2008),itisimportanttoconsiderthe
caseofawrittenworkcontractfromhavingnowrittenworkcontractinEasternEurope(justaverbal
agreement)(Kogan,2011;Gërxhani&vandeWerfhorst,2013).Thecaseofhavingnowrittenwork
contractisoftenseenasadefiningcharacteristicofinformalworkarrangementsnexttoorin
additiontothedistinctionbetweenregisteredandunregisteredwork.
Gender‐specificanalysesinTable4.2showthat47%ofmenworkwithoutacontractbutonly19%,
whereasareversedpatternisvisibleforthechanceofstartingwithanunlimitedworkcontract.
Almostthreequarterofwomengetanunlimitedworkcontractintheirfirstjob,whereasthisapplies
toonly43%ofmen.Nexttogenderinequalitiesthereisaclearnegativeeffectofeducationonthe
riskofworkingwithoutacontract.Theprobabilityofworkingwithoutacontractis72%forbasic
secondarygraduatesanddropsto53%forinitialprofessionalgraduates.Comparedtotheir
counterpartsfrominitialprofessionaleducationsecondaryprofessionalgraduateshavea30


37

percentagepointslowerprobabilityofworkingwithoutacontract.IntermsoftheVETorganization
thereisanadvantageofgraduateswhoweretrainedinthedualwayormainly/solelyatthe
workplace.Attheinitialprofessionallevelthislowerstheriskofno‐contractworkby15percentage
pointsbutonlybyfourpercentagepointsatthesecondaryprofessionallevel.Tertiarygraduates
havethelowestprobabilityofworkingwithoutcontract.Just15%oflowertertiarygraduates(BA)
and10%ofhighertertiarygraduates(MA/PhD)starttheirworkingcareerwithoutaworkcontract.A
positiveassociationisobservedbetweenthelevelofeducationattainmentandthechancesof
gettinganunlimitedworkcontract.Just17%oflowersecondarygraduates,30%ofuppersecondary
graduatesand40%ofinitialprofessionalgraduatesgetanunlimitedworkcontractintheirfirstjob,
whereasbetween73%and77%allsecondaryprofessionalandtertiarygraduatesbeginwithan
unlimitedworkcontract.IntermsoftheorganizationofVET,thereisnocleareffectonthechanceof
gettinganunlimitedworkcontract.

Table4.2:Typeofcontractandemployerprovidedfreehealthinsurancecoverageinfirstjob,by
gender,educationlevelandVETorganization,row‐%

Typeofcontract
Employerprovided
socialsecurity
no
contract
Unlimited
contract
limited
contract
Don't
knowyesno
Don't
know
Gender 
  
Men47439147531
Women19738076240
Education 
  
Basicsecondary 72177421763
Uppersecondary 603010033671
Initialprofessional 53404339610
Secondaryprofessional 23735072280
Lowertertiary(BA)157510080200
Highertertiary(MA/PhD)107713086140
VETorganization 
  
Init.Prof.school‐based 60400040600
Init.Prof.dual/workplacebased 45399636640
Sec.Prof.school‐based 25715069310
Sec.Prof.dual/workplacebased 21745074251
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.
Remarks:Analysisareconductedforthesubsampleofallpersonswhofoundafirstjob,irrespectivelyofthefact
whethertheystillhold(this/a)jobornotatthedateoftheinterview.Respondentswhowereself‐employedand
employersintheirfirstjobareexcluded.


Menandwomenarealsoequallyaffectedbylimitedworkcontracts(8–9%).Thereisnoclear
relationshipbetweenthelevelofeducationattainmentandtheprobabilityofgettingatemporary
workcontract.Forexample,bothuppersecondarygraduatesandlowertertiary(BA)graduateshave
10%probabilityofstartingwithalimitedworkcontractintheirfirstjob.Attheinitialprofessional
level,theprobabilityoftemporaryemploymentisequalinabsolutepercentages(7%)aswellasin
relativepercentages(amongthesampleofpersonswithaworkingcontractinthefirstjob)for
personswithschool‐basedtrainingandpersonswithdual‐/workplace‐basedtraining
(5%/(5+71%)=7%vs.5%/(5+74%)=6%).Incontrast,attheinitialprofessionallevel,employersuse
temporarycontractsmoreoftenamongpersonswithdual‐/workplace‐basedtrainingthanschool‐


38

basedtraining,bothinabsoluteterms(9%vs.0%)andinrelativeterms(9%/(39%+9%)=19%vs.
0%/(40%+0%)=0).
RegardingsocialsecuritycoveragetheresultsintherightpartofTable4.2showthatcoveragerates
arehigherforwomen(76%)thanformen(47%).Thereisapositiveassociationbetweenthelevelof
educationattainmentandsocialsecuritycoverage.Just21%ofbasicsecondarygraduates,33%of
uppersecondarygraduatesand39%ofinitialprofessionalgraduatesgotsocialsecurityprovidedby
theiremployer.Secondaryprofessionalgraduatesstandoutwithacoveragerateof72%.Intermsof
VETorganizationthereisnoclearpattern.Whereasinitialprofessionalgraduateswhoreceived
school‐basedtraininghaveafourpercentagepointadvantageoverthosewithdual‐/workplace‐
basedtraining,itisreversedatsecondaryprofessionallevel.Atsecondaryprofessionallevel
graduateswhoreceiveddual‐/workplace‐basedhaveafivepercentagepointadvantageoverthose
withschool‐basedtraining.
Anotherjobqualityindicatorweconsideristheoccupationalskillleveloftherespondentinthefirst
job.Thisanalysisisrestrictedtoemployeesandfamilyhelpers,i.e.excludingself‐employedforwhich
aseparateanalysisoftypesofoccupationsisperformed(seebelow).TheTEW‐CCAYouthTransition
Surveysclassifiedfirstjobsbasedonathree‐digitversionoftheInternationalStandardClassification
ofOccupations(ISCO)classification.Weaggregatedtheinformationinto1‐digitISCOlevels.Table4.3
revealsthatyoungmaleandfemalelabormarketentrantsenterdifferentoccupationalpositions.
Onlyaverysmallfractionofmen(1%)andwomen(2%)getdirectaccesstoaISCO‐1positionsas
legislators,seniorofficialsandmanagerspositionatlabormarketentry.However,manyrespondents
gotintojobsasprofessionals(ISCO‐2)ortechnicalandassociatesprofessionals(ISCO‐3).Women
reachISCO‐2positionsalmosttwiceasoftenasmen(37%vs.20%)andISCO‐3positionsthreetimes
moreoftenthanmen(19%vs.6%).Womenalsooutperformmenasclerks(ISCO‐4,women:22%vs.
men:6%).Thegender‐specificpatternreversesatlowerISCOlevels.Forexample,menbecomemore
oftenserviceworkers,shopandmarketsalesworkersthanwomen(ISCO‐5,men:23%vs.men:13%)
andmoreoftenskilledagriculturalandfisheryworkers(ISCO‐6,men:8%vs.women:4%).Thelevels
ISCO‐7toISCO‐9arealmostneverenteredbywomen(incidencebelow1%).Thus,thereisaclear
dominanceofmen,ofwhom18%becamecraftandrelatedtradesworkers(ISCO‐7),6%became
plantandmachineoperators,assemblers(ISCO‐8)and10%workedinelementaryoccupation(ISCO‐
9).
Thereisastrongpositiveassociationbetweenthelevelofeducationandtheoccupationalskilllevel.
Forexample,thehighestISCO‐1andISCO‐2levelsareexclusivelyreachedbysecondaryprofessional
andtertiarygraduates.Evenamongthehighesteducationgroupsthereisacleareducationlevel
effectforISCO‐2positions.Forexample,theshareofhigherprofessionalsincreasesfrom23%for
secondaryprofessionalgraduatesto57%forlowertertiary(BA)graduatesandreachesthehighest
level(71%)forhighertertiary(MA/PhD)graduates.Professionalgraduatesareoverrepresentedat
theleveloftechnicalandassociatesprofessionals(ISCO‐3)(26%forsecondaryprofessional
graduatesand11%forinitialprofessionalgraduates),whereasallothereducationgroupsareat10%
orbelow.Startingtheworkingcareerasaclerk(ISCO‐4)ismostcommonamongsecondary
professionalgraduates(17%),followedbylowertertiary(BA)graduates(14%)andinitialprofessional
graduates(9%).Lowereducatedhavebetterchancestoreachserviceworkers,shopandmarket
salesworkers(ISCO‐5)positions(33%ofinitialprofessionalgraduates,31%ofuppersecondary
graduatesand41%oflowersecondarygraduates).Incontrast,only17%ofsecondaryprofessional
graduatesworkasserviceworkers,shopandmarketsalesworkers(ISCO‐5)andthesharesaresingle
digitfortertiarygraduates.ISCO‐6occupations(skilledagriculturalandfisheryworkers)aremost
commonamongsecondarygraduates(11–14%),whereasallprofessionalandtertiarygraduateshave
aprobabilityof3%orlessofworkinginISCO‐6positions.Graduatesfrombasicsecondaryandupper
secondaryeducationaswellasinitialprofessionaleducationareoverrepresentedatthecraftand
relatedtradesworkers(ISCO‐7)withprobabilitiesofgettingISCO‐7jobsofmorethan20%,whereas
allhighereducationgroupshaveaprobabilityof4%orlesstostartinISCO‐7jobs.Thereisnoclear
education‐specificpatternforworkasplantandmachineoperators,assemblers(ISCO‐8).Lower


39

educationgroupshavethehighestprobabilitytostartinelementaryoccupations(ISCO‐9).For
example,11%ofbasicsecondarygraduatesand13%ofuppersecondarygraduatesworkin
elementaryoccupations,whereasthisappliestojust4–7%ofprofessionalgraduates,1%oflower
tertiary(BA)graduatesandnoonefromhighertertiary(MA/PhD)education.

Table4.3:Occupationalleveloffirstjob,bygender,educationlevelandVETorganization,row‐%

ISCO
1
ISCO
2
ISCO
3
ISCO
4
ISCO
5
ISCO
6
ISCO
7
ISCO
8
ISCO
9Army
Gender
Men12066238186102
Women23719221341010
Education
Basicsecondary 00254111273110
Uppersecondary 00683114215132
Initialprofessional 0011933324875
Secondaryprofessional 22326171734441
Lowertertiary(BA)2571014424312
Highertertiary(MA/PhD)37196600202
VETorganization
Init.Prof.school‐based 005173122412100
Init.Prof.dual/workplacebased 00180363243312
Sec.Prof.school‐based 11726202352510
Sec.Prof.dual/workplacebased 22626141335361
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.
Remarks:Analysisareconductedforthesubsampleofallpersonswhofoundafirstjob,irrespectivelyofthefact
whethertheystillhold(this/a)jobornotatthedateoftheinterview.Respondentswhowereself‐employedand
employersintheirfirstjobareexcluded.ISCOlevelsaredefinedas1"Legislators,seniorofficials,managers",2
"Professionals",3"Technicians,associateprofessionals",4"Clerks",5"Serviceworkers,shopandmarketsales
workers",6"Skilledagriculturalandfisheryworkers",7"Craftandrelatedtradesworkers",8"Plantand
machineoperators,assemblers"and9"Elementaryoccupations".Militarypersonalformsaseparategroup
withoutanydistinctionoftheoccupationalskilllevel.

RegardingtheorganizationofVETthereisnoclearrelationshipwiththeoccupationlevel.All
professionalgroupsalmostneverreachISCO‐1level.Intermsofaccesstoprofessionalpositions
(ISCO‐2)secondaryprofessionalgraduateswhoreceiveddual‐/workplace‐basedtraininghavean
advantageoverthosewhoreceivedschool‐basedtraining(26%vs.17%).ForISCO‐3technicaland
associatesprofessionalpositions,thereisanadvantageofdual‐/workplace‐basedtrainingover
school‐basedtrainingattheinitialprofessionaleducationlevel(18%vs.5%)butnotatthesecondary
professionaleducationlevel(26%forbothgroups).Professionalgraduateswithschool‐based
traininghavehigherchancesofgettingafirstjobasaclerk(ISCO‐4)thanthosewithdual‐/workplace‐
basedtraining(17percentagepointadvantageforinitialprofessionaleducationandsixpercentage
pointsadvantageforsecondaryprofessionaleducation).Patternsaremixedforserviceworkers,shop
andmarketsalesworkers(ISCO‐5).Attheinitialprofessionallevel,thosewithdual‐/workplace‐based
trainingendmoreofteninISCO‐5positionsthanthosewithschool‐basedtraining(36%vs.31%).At
thesecondaryprofessionallevel,thosewithschool‐basedtrainingendmoreofteninISCO‐5
positionsthanthosewithdual‐/workplace‐basedtraining(23%vs.13%).AtlowerISCOlevels6to9
thereisnoclearassociationwiththetypeoftrainingforsecondaryprofessionaleducation.Thesame
appliestoISCOlevels6and7forinitialprofessionaleducation.However,amonginitialprofessional


40

graduates,thosewithschool‐basedtraininghavemuchhigherincidenceofISCO‐8andISCO‐9
positionsthanthosewithdual‐/workplace‐basedtraining.
Asexplainedabovewelookedatvariousdimensionsofjobquality.Inthenextstepwewouldliketo
linkthevariousqualitydimensionstothetypeoffirstjobsinordertobettercharacterizethem.Table
4.4presentstheassociationbetweenjobqualityandfirstjobtype.Thegreatmajorityofformally
registeredemployeeswereworkingwithofficialcontracts,eitherwithunlimitedduration(89%)or
temporary(10%)one.Only1%offormallyemployedfirstjobholderswereworkingonthebasesofa
verbalagreementwiththeemployer.Havingnowrittenworkcontractistheclearlydominating
contractarrangementforinformal/unregisteredemployees(88%)andemployeesandhelpersin
familybusiness(94%).Thisrevealshowclosethefamilybusinessjobsaretotheinformalemployee
positionsintermsofcontracttypes.Ifinformal/unregisteredemployeeshaveacontractitis
predominatelyalimitedworkcontract(9%)insteadofanunlimitedworkcontract(3%).Formal
employeesalsohavethehighestprobability(94%)ofbenefitingfromemployer‐providedsocial
security.Incontrast,employer‐providedsocialsecurityisanalmostunknownphenomenonboth
amonginformalemployeesaswellasemployees/helpersinthefamilybusinesseswithanincidence
below5%.


Table4.4:Qualityoffirstjob,byfirstjobtype,column‐%

Formal/
registered
employee
Informal/
unregistered
employee
Employee/
helperinfamily
business
Typeofcontract
Nocontract18894
Unlimitedcontract8934
Limitedcontract1090
Don'tknow/refusal012
Employerprovidedfreehealthinsurance
Yes9442
No69596
Don'tknow/refusal012
Occupation(ISCO1digit)
Legislators,seniorofficialandmanagers200
Professionals3980
Technicians,associateprofessionals1640
Clerks1480
Serviceworkers,shopandmarketsales
workers93814
Skilledagriculturalandfisheryworkers1184
Craftandrelatedtradesworkers5260
Plantandmachineoperatorsand
assemblers450
Elementaryoccupations5112
Militaryoccupation300
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.
Remarks:Analysisareconductedforthesubsampleofallpersonswhofoundafirstjob,irrespectivelyofthefact
whethertheystillhold(this/a)jobornotatthedateoftheinterview.Respondentswhowereself‐employedand
employersintheirfirstjobareexcluded.


41

Formalemployeeshavethehighestprobabilityofbecominglegislators,seniorofficials,managers
(ISCO‐1level:2%)andprofessionals(ISCO‐2level:39%),whereasinformal/unregisteredemployees
andemployeesandhelpersinfamilybusinessalmostneverreachtheseoccupationallevels.Formal
employeesalsoclearlydominatethejobpositionsastechnicians,associateprofessionals(ISCO‐3
level:16%)andclerks(ISCO‐4level:14%),whichisonlyreachedby4%(ISCO‐3)and8%(ISCO‐4)of
informal/unregisteredemployeesandnoemployee/helperinfamilybusinesses.Employeesand
helpersinfamilybusinessprimarilyworkasserviceworkers,shopandmarketsalesworkers(ISCO‐5
level:14%)andskilledagriculturalandfisheryworkers(ISCO‐level6:84%).Informal/unregistered
employeesworkoftenasserviceworkers,shopandmarketsalesworkers(ISCO‐5level:38%),
whereasjust9%offormal/registeredemployeesworkinthisoccupationallevel.Both
formal/registeredandInformal/unregisteredemployeesalmostnever(1%incidence)workasskilled
agriculturalandfisheryworkers(ISCO‐level6).Informal/unregisteredemployeeshaveahigh
incidenceofworkingascraftandrelatedtradesworkers(ISCO‐7:26%)andelementaryoccupations
(ISCO‐9:11%).Incomparison,only5%offormal/registeredemployeesworkinISCO‐7positionsand
only5%offormal/registeredemployeesworkinISCO‐9positions.
DatapresentedinTable4.5illustratethemaincharacteristicsofthoseyoungpersonswhostarted
theirlabormarketcareerasentrepreneurs.Intermsoftypeofoccupation,themajoritymakeup
self‐employedcraftsmen(45%)followedbyshopkeepers,pettytradersandstreet‐sellers(29%)and
farmer/herders(16%).Just4%enterprofessionalpositions,e.g.aslawyers,consultantsormedical
doctors.Thereisalsojustasmallproportionof5%whobecomemanager/owneroftheirown
company/organization.

Table4.5:Characteristicsoffirstjobsasownaccountworkers,self‐employedandemployers
 %
Occupation
Farmer/herder16
Self‐employedcraftsman45
Shopkeeper/pettytrader/street‐seller29
Professional(Lawyer,consultant,doctor)4
Manager/ownerofthecompany/organization5
Formalityofbusiness
registeredbusiness29
unregisteredbusiness70
Don'tknow/Refusal1
Mainsourceofbusinessfunding
Youtookthebusinessoverfromyour
father/mother/otherrelatives23
Moneyfromfamilyorfriends4
Ownsavings/soldproperty37
Loanfrommicrofinanceinstitutions3
Loanfrombank6
Nomoneywasnecessarytostartyourbusiness27
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.
Remarks:Analysisareconductedforthesubsampleofallpersonswhofoundafirstjob,irrespectivelyofthefact
whethertheystillhold(this/a)jobornotatthedateoftheinterview.Analysisisrestrictedtoownaccount
workers,self‐employedandemployersinfirstjob.Dependentemployeesandfamilyhelpersinfirstjobare
excluded.



42

Gender‐specificanalyses(resultsnotdisplayedinTable4.5)revealnobigdifferencesinthemainjob
characteristics.Thereisjusttheslighttendencythatwomenworkmoreoftenasprofessionalsand
managers,whereasmenworkmoreoftenasself‐employedcraftsmenandfarmer/herders.
70%ofbusinessesownedatlabormarketentrywerenotofficiallyregistered,whichunderlinesthe
importanceoftheinformalsectoralsointheself‐employmentsegmentinAzerbaijan.Intermsof
businessfundingaboutonequarteroftherespondentssaidthatnomoneywasnecessarytostart
theirbusinessandaboutonequartertookoverthebusinessfromtheirfamily.Amongthosewho
neededmoneythemainpartofthemusedownsavingorsoldaproperty(overall37%;74%among
thosewhoneededmoney).Aminorroleplaysthefamilyandfriendswhowerethemainsourceof
businessfundingofjust4%ofbusinessesatlabormarketentryinAzerbaijan.Similarly,loansfrom
banks(3%)andloansfrommicrofinanceinstitutions(6%)arenotasimportantforbusinessesof
youngpeople.ThismightbeahintthatthebankingsysteminAzerbaijanstillhaspotentialtoplaya
biggerroleinthefinancingofbusinessstartupsofyoungpeople.

4.2.Sectoroffirstjob
Therewerealsodifferenceswithregardtotheeconomicsectorsinwhichyoungschoolleaversare
employed(excludingfamilysector)intheirfirstjob.Regardingthesectorofemployment,64%of
womenand32%ofmen,whoareemployedintheirfirstjob,workinthepublicsector,whereas68%
ofmenand35%ofwomenworkintheprivatesectoratthebeginningoftheirlabormarketcareer.
EmploymentinNGOsplaysanegligibleroleastheincidenceis1%orbelow.Thereisapositive
associationbetweentheeducationlevelandtheprobabilityofworkinginthepublicsectorasan
employee.Forexample,just7%ofbasicsecondarygraduatesand22%ofuppersecondarygraduates
workinthepublicsector,whereastheshareofpublicsectoremploymentreaches54%amonghigher
tertiarygraduates(MA/PhD).Graduatesfromlowertertiary(BA)secondaryprofessionaleducation
evenhavehigheremploymentsharesinthepublicsector(58%and63%)thanhighertertiary
graduates(MA/PhD)(54%).
Intermsofindustrysectors19itturnsoutthatwomenmostoftenstartworkintheeducationsector
(41%).Otherimportantsectorsforwomenareothercommunity,socialandpersonalservice
activities(13%),publicadministration(10%)andwholesaleandretailtrade(10%).Incontrast,male
labormarketentrantsdominateconstruction(16%),workinhotelandrestaurants(11%).Menalso
relativelyoftenworkinwholesaleandretailtrade(12%).Overall,malefirstemploymentisrather
equallyspreadacrosstheindustrysectors,whereasthereisastrongerconcentrationofwomenon
specificworksectors.
Thereisalsoarelationshipbetweeneducationattainmentoftherespondentandtheindustrysector
offirstemployment.Forexample,theshareoftheagriculture,huntingandforestrysectorishighest
amongthesecondarygraduates(12–13%)anddeclineswitheducationasalmostnotertiary
graduateworksinthissector.Asimilarpatterncanbeobservedinwholesaleandretailtrade,and
constructionaswellasworkinhotelsandrestaurants.Incontrast, secondaryprofessionaland
tertiarygraduatestendtohaveahigherprobabilitytoworkintheindustrysectorsofpublic
administration,educationandhealthandsocialworkthanlowereducationgroups.




19Respondentswhowereself‐employedandemployersintheirfirstjobareexcludedfromtheanalysisof
ownershipstructure.


43

Table4.6:Sectorofemploymentandindustrysector,bygenderandeducationlevel,row‐%

MenWomenBasic
Sec.
Upp.
Sec.
Init.
Prof.
Sec.
Prof.
Low.
Tert.
High.
Tert.
Sectorofemployment
Public326472237635854
Private6835937863364246
NGO01000000
Industrysector
Agriculture,huntingandforestry8612133530
Fishing 10010000
Miningandquarrying30033021
Manufacturing8366116610
Electricity,gasandwatersupply30013240
Construction160141815373
Wholesaleandretailtrade;
repairofmotorvehicles,
motorcyclesandpersonaland
householdgoods121028195835
Hotelsandrestaurants110221116523
Transport,storageand
communication61648251
Financialintermediation430001108
Realestate,rentingandbusiness
activities53333555
Publicadministrationand
defense;compulsorysocial
security81006710137
Education541145302935
Healthandsocialwork3902513315
Othercommunity,socialand
personalserviceactivities71388161094
Privatehouseholdswith
employedpersons00000000
Extra‐territorialorganizations
andbodies10011102
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.
Remarks:Analysisareconductedforthesubsampleofallpersonswhofoundafirstjob,irrespectivelyofthefact
whethertheystillhold(this/a)jobornotatthedateoftheinterview.Respondentswhowereself‐employedand
employersintheirfirstjobareexcluded.Fortheanalysisofthesectorofemploymentemployees/helpersin
familybusinessareexcluded,whiletheyareincludedfortheanalysisofindustrysector.


4.3.Methodsoffindingthefirstjob
WhereasweanalyzedthemethodofsearchingforafirstjobinSection3.2thisSection4.3isdevoted
totheanalysisofthemethodoffindingthefirstjob.Separateanalysesareneededbecausethese
twoaspectscanbedifferentasnoteverymethodusedinthejobsearchprocesswillyieldajob
match.Morespecifically,noteverybodysearchingforajobwithaspecificmethodhasbeen


44

successfulalreadyandevenamongthesuccessfullabormarketentrantsnoteachmethodapplied
broughtthemintothefirstjob.Whereaseachrespondentcouldreportmultiplemethodsofjob
searchthatheorsheappliedafterleavingeducation,respondentshadtonametheonemethodhow
theyfoundtheirfirstjob.Comparingthejobsearchmethodsapplied(Table3.3)andthemethodsof
findingafirstjob(Table4.7)providessomeinsightsintotheefficiencyofjobsearchmethod.20
Table4.7displaysthemethodoffindingafirstjobintotal,bygenderandbyeducationattainment
level.Theanalysesincludesallrespondentswhobecameemployeesinnon‐familybusinesses.
Respondentswhowereself‐employedandemployersaswellasthosewhowereemployees/helpers
infamilybusinessintheirfirstjobareexcluded.

Table4.7:Methodsoffindingafirstjobintotal,bygenderandeducationlevel,row‐%
 MenWomenBasicSec./
Upp.Sec.
Init.Prof./
Sec.Prof.
Low.Tert./
High.Tert.
Youinsertedorconsultedajob
advertisementinonlineportals,newspapers
orjournalsoransweredone2.32.30.53.43.5
Unsolicitedapplication15.223.512.120.023.0
Youusedpersonalrelations74.258.586.167.152.3
Youcontactedlabormigrantnetworks0.20.20.00.00.5
Youtookatest/Youparticipatedina
competition
forrecruitmenttothepublicsector6.612.80.26.718.5
Youcontactedapublicemploymentagency1.61.71.12.91.5
Youcontactedaprivateemploymentagency0.01.00.20.00.8
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.
Remarks:Analysisareconductedforthesubsampleofallpersonswhofoundafirstjob,irrespectivelyofthefact
whethertheystillhold(this/a)jobornotatthedateoftheinterview.Respondentswhowereself‐employedand
employersaswellasthosewhowereemployees/helpersinfamilybusinessintheirfirstjobareexcluded.

InformalnetworksplayakeyroleinfindingafirstjobinAzerbaijan.Threequarterofmenfoundtheir
firstjobviapersonalcontacts.Thisshareisloweramongwomenbutstillmorethaneverysecond
womenalsofoundtheirfirstjobusingpersonalrelations.Onlyveryfewrespondentscontactedlabor
migrantnetworkswhenlookingforafirstjob.Thiscanbeexplainedbythedefinitionofthetarget
population,whichentailsonlypersonsresidinginAzerbaijanatthetimeofthesurvey,suchthat
labormigrantsareunderrepresentedinthissurvey.Amongformaljobsearchmethodsthemost
commonwayoffindingajobisviaunsolicitedapplications.15.2%ofmenand23.5%ofwomengot
theirfirstjobinthisway.Theshareofwomenwhofoundtheirfirstjobviatakingpartinatestor
competitionforrecruitmentinthepublicsectorwastwiceaslargethanformen(12.8%vs.6.6%).In
contrast,insertingorconsultingajobadvertisementinonlineportals,newspapersorjournalsor
answeringplaysalmostnoroleinAzerbaijanasitwasjustusedby2.3%ofbothmenandwomen.
Similarly,lessthan2%ofbothmenandwomenfoundtheirjobbycontactingpublicandprivate
employmentagencies.
Theeducation‐specificanalysesshowthatthehighertheeducationlevelofagraduatetheless
commonitistofindafirstjobusingthepersonalcontacts.Forexample,86.1%ofsecondary
20Inthiscomparison,itshouldbetakenintoaccountthatTable3.3.includesallactivejobsearchers
irrespectivelyoftheirlatersectorofemployment,whereasTable4.7isrestrictedtoemployeeswhoarenot
employedbytheirownfamily.Hence,respondentswhohadtheirfirstjobinthebusinessoftheirfamilywere
notaskedaboutthewayoffindingafirstjobbecauseitisbydefinitionviapersonalrelations.


45

graduatesgotintotheirfirstemploymentusingpersonalrelations,whichishigherthanfor
professionalgraduates(67.1%)andtertiarygraduates(52.3%).Incontrast,theshareoffirstjobs
foundviaformaljobsearchmethodsstronglyincreaseswiththelevelofeducationattainment.While
just0.2%ofsecondarygraduatesand6.7%ofprofessionalgraduatesgottheirfirstjobbytakinga
testorparticipatinginacompetitionforrecruitmentinthepublicsector,thisappliesto18.5%of
tertiarygraduates.Similarly,findingjobsviaunsolicitedapplicationshappenstwicemoreoften
amongtertiarygraduates(23.0%)thanamongsecondarygraduates(12.1%).Gettingafirstjobvia
insertingorconsultingajobadvertisementinonlineportals,newspapersorjournalsismore
commonamongprofessionalandtertiarygraduates(3.4–3.5%)thanamongsecondarygraduates
(0.5%)buttheoverallincidenceisverylowinalleducationgroups.Jobplacementsviapublicand
privateemploymentagenciesdoesnothappenveryoftenwithanincidenceof2.9%atmaximumfor
professionalgraduates.
Thegender‐specificandeducation‐specificdifferencesinthejobsearchprocessmayalsorelateto
thedifferentsectorsoffirstemploymentamongmenandwomenandthedifferenteducation
groups.Hence,weaddananalysisonthewaysoffindingafirstjobbythesectorofemployment.
Table4.8showthemethodoffindingafirstjobbythesectorofemployment.Asbeforetheanalysis
isrestrictedtoemployeeswhowerenotemployedbytheirfamily.TheNGOsectorwasexcluded
becauseoftheverysmallincidence(lessthan1%)(seeSection4.2).

Table4.8:Methodoffindingafirstjobbysectorofemployment,row‐%
 PublicPrivate
Youinsertedorconsulteda
j
obadvertisementin
onlineportals,newspapersorjournalsoransweredone1.43.0
Unsolicitedapplication23.314.0
Youusedpersonalrelations55.778.7
Youcontactedlabormigrantnetworks0.00.3
Youtookatest/Youparticipatedinacompetition
forrecruitmenttothepublicsector16.72.8
Youcontactedapublicemploymentagency3.00.6
Youcontactedaprivateemploymentagency0.00.6
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.
Remarks:Analysisareconductedforthesubsampleofallpersonswhofoundafirstjob,irrespectivelyofthefact
whethertheystillhold(this/a)jobornotatthedateoftheinterview.Respondentswhowereself‐employedand
employersaswellasthosewhowereemployees/helpersinfamilybusinessintheirfirstjobareexcluded.The
NGOsectorwasexcludedbecauseoftheoverallverylowincidence(lessthan1%)amongfirstjobs.

Table4.8revealsthatfirstjobsintheprivatesectorweremoreoftenfoundusingpersonalrelations
(78.7%)thanfirstjobsinthepublicsector(55.7%).Incontrast,findingajobviatakingatestfor
recruitmentintheprivatesectororparticipatinginacompetitionforrecruitmentinthepublicsector
happensmoreofteninthepublicsector(16.7%vs.2.8%).Similarly,23.3%offirstjobsinthepublic
sectorwerefoundbyunsolicitedapplicationscomparedto14.0%offirstjobsintheprivatesector.
Findingjobsviainsertingorconsultingajobadvertisementinonlineportals,newspapersorjournals
isalsomorecommoninthepublicthanintheprivatesectorbutingeneraloflowincidenceinboth
sectors(3.0%vs.1.4%).Jobplacementsviapublicandprivateemploymentagenciesoccurmore
oftenforfirstjobsinthepublicsectorthanintheprivatesectorbut,again,theoverallincidenceis
verylow(3.0%vs.1.2%).



46

5.Earlycareermobility
5.1.Firstjobtypeandcurrentactivitystatus
Inthefollowing,wewillanalyzethecharacteristicsofthefewmobilityprocessesthattakeplace
afterhavingfoundafirstjobbycomparingthesituationatthetimeoftheinterviewwiththefirst
job.Studyingtheearlycareerdynamicsisacentraltopicofschool‐to‐worktransitionresearch
(Gebel,2015;Scherer,2001).Table5.1startswithananalysiscomparingthefirstjobtypewiththe
currentactivitystatusofrespondents.Aswejustcomparethecurrentsituationwiththesituationof
thefirstjobwedonotcaptureallmobilityprocessesthathavetakenplaceintheearlycareer.It
shouldalsobenotedthattheobservationwindowvariesfortherespondents.

Table5.1:Firstjobtypeandcurrentactivitystatus,column‐%
  Firstjobtype
 Total
Formal/
registered
employee
Informal/
unregistered
employee
Employee/
helperin
family
business
Own‐
account/Self‐
employed/
Employer
Currentactivitystate
Formal/
registeredemployee4979171311
Informal/
unregisteredemployee1715030
Employee/
helperinfamilybusiness500740
Own‐account/Self‐employed/
Employer926279
Unemployed 181725710
Engagedinhomeduties22220
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.
Remarks:Analysisareconductedforthesubsampleofallpersonswhofoundafirstjob,irrespectivelyofthefact
whethertheystillhold(this/a)jobornotatthedateoftheinterview.

AccordingtotheresultsdisplayedinTable5.1thereisahighdegreeofstabilityintheactivitystatus
offormal/registeredemployeesintheearlycareer.79%ofthosewhostartedinaformal/registered
jobarestillformal/registeredemployeesatthetimeoftheinterview.21Onlyaverysmallshareof1%
ofregisteredemployeeschangetoinformal/unregisteredjobs.Thisunderlinesastrong
segmentationoftheemploymentsectorsinAzerbaijanalongtheformal‐informaldivideasthereare
almostnomobilityprocessesbetweenformaltoinformalemploymentintheearlycareer.Justatiny
share(lessthan2%)ofthepersonswithaformal/registeredfirstjobbecameemployeeorhelperin
familybusinessorbecameown‐accountworker,self‐employedoremployer.Ifpersonswitha
formal/registeredfirstjobatthebeginningoftheirworkingcareergetnon‐employedthisisprimarily
informofengagementinhomeduties.17%ofpersonswithaformal/registeredfirstjobhave
becomeengagedinhomedutiesatthetimeoftheinterviewandjust2%areunemployed.
Ahigherdegreeofmobilityisobservedforpersonswhostartedasaninformal/unregistered
employee.Justhalfofthemarestillemployedasaninformal/unregisteredemployeeatthetimeof
theinterview.Whereastherewerealmostnomobilityprocessesfromformal/registered
employmenttoinformal/unregisteredemployment,thereare17%ofrespondentswhomorefrom
21Aswejustcomparethejobtypeofthefirstjobandthecurrentjobtype,employerchangesandchangesin
jobqualitymayhavehappenedforthosewhostayinformalemployment.


47

informal/unregisteredemploymentintheirfirstjobtoformal/registeredemploymentatthetimeof
theinterview.However,thereisalsoalargeproportionofpersonswithaninformal/unregistered
firstjobwhohavebecomenon‐employedatthetimeoftheinterview.Specifically,25%areengaged
inhomedutiesand6%areunemployedatthetimeoftheinterview.
Ahighpersistenceisvisibleforpersonswhostartedtheirworkinglifeasanemployeeorhelperina
familybusiness.Aroundthreequarterofthemarestillemployeeorhelperinafamilybusinessat
thetimeoftheinterview.Outflowprocessesoccurbothintootherformsof(self‐)employmentand
non‐employment.Specifically,13%ofthosewhostartedasanemployeeorhelperinafamily
businessareaformal/registeredemployeeatthetimeoftheinterview,whereasjust3%entered
informal/unregisteredemployment.Justafewpersonsbecameunemployed(2%)orengagedin
homeduties(7%).Thetransitiontoown‐accountwork,self‐employmentorbecominganemployer
alsooccursveryseldom(2%).
Personswhowereown‐accountworker,self‐employmentoremployerintheirfirstjobwerevery
ofteninthesamepositionatthetimeoftheinterview.Just21%leavethisstatus.11%enter
formal/registeredemploymentand10%becomeunemployed.

5.2.Occupationalmobility
Nexttomobilityinthetypeofjobweconsiderthemobilityintheoccupationalskilllevelofthe
respondent.Wedosobycomparingtheoccupationinthefirstjobwiththeoccupationinthecurrent
job(seeTable5.2).Thus,theanalysisisrestrictedtopersonswho(have)hadafirstjobandwhohad
ajobatthetimeoftheinterview.Duetoappliedoccupationscaleanddesignofthequestionnaire
theanalysisisfurtherrestrictedtopersonswhowereemployedinnon‐familybusinessorfamily
business,i.e.excludingown‐accountworkers,self‐employedandemployers.AsinSection4.1the
firstjobaswellasthecurrentjobwereanalyzedatthe1‐digitISCOlevel,whichwastheresultof
aggregatingfromathree‐digitISCOversion.
ConcerningthosewhogotdirectaccesstoaISCO‐1positionsaslegislators,seniorofficialsand
managerspositionatlabormarketentry,almosteverybody(89%)cankeepthisprivilegedposition.
Just11%experiencemovestojobsasprofessionals(ISCO‐2).Similarly,thereisastrongoccupational
immobilityforpersonswhostartedasprofessionals(ISCO‐2)as91%arestillobservedinthis
occupationalpositionatthetimeoftheinterview.Afewoftheprofessionalsareabletomove
upwardtoISCO‐1positionsaslegislators,seniorofficialsandmanagers(3%).3%becometechnical
andassociatesprofessionals(ISCO‐3)and2%becomeclerks(ISCO‐4).Amongthosewhostartedas
technicalandassociatesprofessionals(ISCO‐3)85%remaininthisoccupationalposition,whereas9%
becomeprofessionals(ISCO‐2)and1%getintoISCO‐1positionsaslegislators,seniorofficialsand
managers.Thereisalsosomedownwardmobilityas,insum,2%becomeclerks(ISCO‐4)orshopand
marketsalesworkers(ISCO‐5)and,insum,4%becomecraftandrelatedtradesworkers(ISCO‐7),
plantandmachineoperators,assemblers(ISCO‐8)orendupinelementaryoccupations(ISCO‐9).
80%ofclerks(ISCO‐4)arestillclerksatthetimeoftheinterview.Mostoftheoutflowsfromthe
positionasaclerkoccurintermsofupwardoccupationalmobility.Specifically,8%becometechnical
andassociatesprofessionals(ISCO‐3),6%becomeprofessionals(ISCO‐2)and2%evenreachISCO‐1
positionsaslegislators,seniorofficialsandmanagers.Only4%endupinlowerpositions,mainlyas
shopandmarketsalesworkers(ISCO‐5)andcraftandrelatedtradesworkers(ISCO‐7).Shopand
marketsalesworkers(ISCO‐5)areequallyupwardanddownwardmobile,althoughthegreat
majority(79%)remainsintheiroccupationalclass.11%ofthemreachISCO‐2toISCO‐4positionsand
11%endupinlowerISCO‐6toISCO‐9positions.Ifmobilityoccurs,itisratherdiverseforpersonsin
ISCO‐5positionsastheyenterotherpositionstoaratherequalamount.Ahighdegreeof
occupationallevelpersistenceisvisibleforskilledagriculturalandfisheryworkers(ISCO‐6).86%of
themwerestillinthesameoccupationallevelatthetimeoftheinterviewasatthebeginningoftheir
workcareer.Upwardmobilityisveryseldomforthisgroupasjust4%makeanmovetohigherISCO


48

levels.Ifmobilityoccurs,itispredominatelyinformofdownwardmobility.Forexample,2%become
craftandrelatedtradesworkers(ISCO‐7),3%becomeplantandmachineoperators,assemblers
(ISCO‐8)and3%endupinelementaryoccupations(ISCO‐9).Incontrast,craftandrelatedtrades
workers(ISCO‐7)aremoreoftenupwardmobilethanskilledagriculturalandfisheryworkers(ISCO‐
6).Specifically,15%ofpersonswhostartedascraftandrelatedtradesworkers(ISCO‐7)reacha
higherISCOlevel.Forexample,even6%becameprofessionals(ISCO‐2)atthetimeoftheinterview.
Just6%experiencedownwardmobilitytojobsasplantandmachineoperators,assemblers(ISCO‐8),
whereastheincidenceofdownwardmovestoelementaryoccupations(ISCO‐9)isbelow1%.
However,stillthegreatmajorityof79%ofcraftandrelatedtradesworkers(ISCO‐7)remainatthe
sameISCOlevel.Thehighestdegreeofmobilityisobservedamongplantandmachineoperators,
assemblers(ISCO‐8)as31%ofthemchangestheoccupationallevel.Interestingly,downwardmoves
toelementaryoccupations(ISCO‐9)almostneveroccur(<1%).14%makeupwardmovestoISCO‐5to
ISCO‐7positions.8%evenbecometechnicalandassociatesprofessionals(ISCO‐3)and6%even
becomeprofessionals(ISCO‐2).80%ofpersonswithfirstjobsinelementaryoccupations(ISCO‐9)
remaintrappedinthislowestoccupationallevelatthetimeoftheinterview.Upwardmobilityofthis
groupismainlyrestrictedtomovestojobsasplantandmachineoperators,assemblers(ISCO‐8)(3%)
andjobsascraftandrelatedtradesworkers(ISCO‐7)(8%).However,insum,6%reachISCO‐2to
ISCO‐6positions.

Table5.2:Occupationinfirstandcurrentjob,column‐%
 Occupationfirstjob

ISCO
1
ISCO
2
ISCO
3
ISCO
4
ISCO
5
ISCO
6
ISCO
7
ISCO
8
ISCO
9Army
Current
occupation
ISCO189312000000
ISCO2119196416624
ISCO303858421820
ISCO402180302010
ISCO500137921410
ISCO600002864400
ISCO700113279680
ISCO800202366930
ISCO900104300800
Army00000312296
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.
Remarks:Analysisisconductedforthesubsampleofallpersonswhofoundafirstjob,irrespectivelyofthefact
whethertheystillholdthisjobornotatthedateoftheinterview,andwhoarecurrentlyemployed.Restricted
topersonswhowereemployedinnon‐familybusinessorfamilybusiness.Excludingown‐accountworkers,self‐
employedandemployers.ISCOlevelsaredefinedas1"Legislators,seniorofficials,managers",2
"Professionals",3"Technicians,associateprofessionals",4"Clerks",5"Serviceworkers,shopandmarketsales
workers",6"Skilledagriculturalandfisheryworkers",7"Craftandrelatedtradesworkers",8"Plantand
machineoperators,assemblers"and9"Elementaryoccupations".Militarypersonalformsaseparategroup
withoutanydistinctionoftheoccupationalskilllevel.


5.3.Sectoralmobility
TheanalysisinSection4.2highlightedthattherearedifferenceswithregardtotheeconomicsectors
inwhichyoungschoolleaversareemployedintheirfirstjob.Inthissectionweconsiderthesectoral
mobilitybetweenthefirstandcurrentjob.Hence,theanalysisisrestrictedtopersonswho(have)


49

hadafirstjobandwhohaveajobatthetimeoftheinterview.Duetoapplieddefinitionofsectors
andthedesignofthequestionnairetheanalysisisfurtherrestrictedtopersonswhowereemployed
innon‐familybusinessorfamilybusiness,i.e.excludingown‐accountworkers,self‐employedand
employers.Informationaboutthemobilityoutofthefamilybusinesssectorandself‐employment
wereprovidedinSection5.1.
AccordingtotheresultsinTable5.3thereisaratherhighdegreeofsectoralimmobilityintheearly
career.Thegreatmajorityofpersonsremainintheirinitialsectorofemployment.Thisappliesto
97%oflabormarketentrantsinthepublicsectorand84%oflabormarketentrantsintheprivate
sector.Thus,just16%ofthosewhostartedtheircareerinthepublicsectorchangedtotheprivate
sectoratthetimeoftheinterview.MobilityoutoftheNGOsectorisrestrictedtoprivatesectorjobs.
Thegreatmajority(75%)oflabormarketentrantsintheNGOsectorremaininthissector.

Table5.3:Sectorofemploymentinfirstandcurrentjob,columnpercentages
 Firstsectorofemployment
 PublicPrivateNGO
Currentsectorofemployment
Public97160
Private38425
NGO0075
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.
Remarks:Analysisisconductedforthesubsampleofallpersonswhofoundafirstjob,irrespectivelyofthefact
whethertheystillholdthisjobornotatthedateoftheinterview,andwhoarecurrentlyemployed.Restricted
topersonswhowereemployedinnon‐familybusinessExcludingfamilyhelpers/employees,own‐account
workers,self‐employedandemployers.




50

6.Timingoflifecoursetransitions
6.1.Incidenceandaverageageofexperiencingcentraleventsinthetransitiontoadulthood
Inthissectionweanalyzetheincidenceandaverageageofexperiencingcentraleventsinthe
transitiontoadulthood.InthisregardwefollowtheapproachofGebelandHeyne(2014)andstudy
thetransitionfromeducationtoworkinthebroadercontextofthetransitiontoadulthood
(Buchmann&Kriesi,2011;Corijn&Klijzing,2001;Hogan&Astone,1986).Specifically,weconsider
theeventsofleavingeducation,leavingparentalhome,findingafirstjob,gettinglegallymarried22
andgettingparentforthefirsttime.Theincidencemeasureshowmanypercentoftherespondents
havealreadyexperiencedtherespectivetransitioneventuntilthetimeoftheinterview.Itshouldbe
keptinmindthattheageoftherespondentvariesatthedateoftheinterview.Theageofleaving
educationiscalculatedonaverageforallrespondentsbecausethetargetpopulationoftheTEW‐CCA
YouthTransitionSurveyispersonswholefteducation.Theageoffurtherlifecourseeventsisonly
calculatedonaverageforthosewhoexperiencedthiseventuntilthedateoftheinterview.Dueto
thecensoringofdatawedonotobservealllifecourseevents.
Table6.1presentstheincidenceandaverageageoftherespondentsatthecentrallifeevents.The
eventsareorderedinthechronologicalsequencethatwouldbeexpectedbutindividualdeviations
arecommon(seeSections6.2to6.5forfurtheranalysesontheindividualorderoflifecourse
events).Accordingtotheresultsoftheanalyses,menandwomeninAzerbaijanhaveaboutthesame
averageageofleavingeducation(men:19.0years,women:19.2years).
Regardingthecentrallifecourseeventofleavingparentalhome,bothmenandwomenleavetheir
parentalhomewhentheyareintheageofaround20years(men:20.0years,women:19.9years).
Therearelargegenderdifferencesintheincidenceoftheeventofleavinghome.While64%ofthe
femalerespondentshaveleftparentalhomeatthetimeoftheinterview,thisappliestojust30%of
themalerespondents.
Menstarttheirfirstjobonaverageaboutoneyearyoungerthanwomen(men:20.7years,women:
21.9years).Thisagegapcanberelatedtothelongerfirstjobsearchdurationamongwomen
comparedtomen(seeSection3.3)aswellasthegenderandeducation‐specificselectionpatterns
intothelabormarketinviewofthehighlabormarketinactivityrateamongwomen(seeSection
3.1).23Therearealsogender‐specificdifferencesintheincidenceoffindingafirstjob.85%ofmen
(have)gotafirstjobuntilthedateoftheinterviewcomparedtojust48%ofwomen.Central
technicalexplanationsforthispatternarethehigherinactivityrateofwomenafterleavingeducation
(seeSection3.1)andthelongerdurationoffirstjobsearchforwomen(seeSection3.3).
Stronglygender‐specificpatterncanbeobservedwithregardtotheeventsoffamilyformation.At
thetimeoftheinterview37%ofmenand56%ofwomenhaveexperiencedtheirfirstlegalmarriage.
Asimilargapintheincidenceisalsovisibleforfirstparenthood,whichhasbeenexperiencedby48%
ofwomenand28%ofmenuntilthedateoftheinterview.Theincidenceoffirstparenthoodisrather
similartotheincidenceoffirstlegalmarriageforbothmenandwomen,whichisahintforout‐of‐
wedlockbirthsbeingnotcommoninAzerbaijan(seeSection6.5fordetails).Gender‐specific
differencesalsooccurinthetimingoffirstmarriageandfirstparenthood.Menareonaverageabout
threeyearsolderthanwomenatthesetwolifecourseevents.Specifically,forthetargetpopulation
ofpersonshavinglefteducationduringthelasttenyearspriortheinterview,wefindthatmengot
marriedatage24.1onaveragecomparedtowomenwhogotmarriedatage21.1onaverage.Male
respondentsgotfirsttimefatheronaverageatage24.9comparedtofirsttimemotherswhowere
22ThetopicofreligiousmarriageisstudiedinSection6.3.
23Otherfactorsforthegender‐relatedpeculiaritiesinthetimingoffindingafirstjobsuchasthegender‐
specificeffectsofearlymarriageandchildbirthandthechallengesofcombiningworkandfamilylifeshouldbe
subjecttofurtherin‐depthanalyses.


51

onaverage21.9yearsoldwhenbecomingamother.Comparingtheageatcentrallifecourseevents
itturnsoutthatwomenareattheeventsoffamilyformation(firstlegalmarriageandfirst
motherhood)onaverageofequalageorevenyoungerthanattheeventofgettingafirstjob.In
contrast,menexperiencetheeventsoffamilyformationonaverageatamuchhigheragethanthe
eventofgettingafirstjob.

Table6.1:Incidenceandaverageageofexperiencingcentraleventsinthetransitiontoadulthood,
bygenderandeducation
 Ageof
leaving
education
Leavinghome1stjob1stmarriage
1st
parenthood

Inci‐
denceAge
Inci‐
denceAge
Inci‐
denceAge
Inci‐
denceAge
Gender      
Men19.030%20.085%20.737%24.128%24.9
Women19.264%19.948%21.956%21.148%21.9
Education      
Basicsecondary 15.232%18.259%17.337%19.534%20.4
Uppersecondary 17.230%19.860%19.239%21.331%21.7
Initialprofessional 19.127%19.880%20.537%21.534%22.3
Secondaryprofessional 20.359%20.068%21.750%22.244%23.2
Lowertertiary(BA)21.968%20.080%23.256%24.146%25.0
Highertertiary(MA/PhD)24.159%21.491%24.750%25.836%26.8
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.
Remarks:Ageofleavingeducationiscalculatedonaverageforallrespondentsbecausethetargetpopulationof
theTEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyispersonswholefteducation.Theageoffurtherlifecourseeventsisonly
calculatedonaverageforthosewhoexperiencedthiseventuntilthedateoftheinterview.
Therearealsostrongeducation‐specificdifferencesintheincidenceandtimingoflifecourse
transitionevents.Thisismostevidentintheaverageageofleavingeducation.Respondentswith
basicsecondaryeducationleaveeducationonaverageatageofjust15.2yearsanduppersecondary
educationdosoonaverageatage17.2.Graduatesfrominitialprofessionaleducationareonaverage
just19.1yearsoldwhenleavingeducation,whereastheircounterpartsfromuppersecondary
educationreachanaverageageof20.3years.Tertiarygraduatesareonaveragetheoldestwhen
educationleaving.Personswithlowertertiary(BA)degreesleaveeducationonaverageatage21.9
andrespondentswithuppertertiary(MA/PhD)degreesdosoonaverageatage24.1.
Theeducation‐specificagedispersionismuchlesspronouncedwithregardtoleavingparentalhome.
Itrangesfrom18.2yearsforbasicsecondarygraduatesto21.4yearsforhighertertiary(MA/PhD)
graduates.Foralleducationgroupstheaverageageofleavingparentalhomeislowerthantheage
ofleavingeducation.Theincidenceofleavingparentalhomerangesfrom27to32%forsecondary
andinitialprofessionalgraduates.Itishigherforhighereducationgroup.Theincidenceofleaving
parentalhomeliesbetween59%and68%forsecondaryprofessionalandtertiarygraduates.
Concerningtheageofstartingofthefirstjobitislogicallythatitstimingisstronglyrelatedtotheage
ofleavingofeducationandsoitsaveragevalueishigheramongmoreeducatedyouths.Forexample,
basicsecondarygraduatesareonaverage17.3yearsoldanduppersecondarygraduatesareon
average19.2yearsold,whereaslowertertiary(BA)graduatesonaveragefindafirstjobatage23.2
andhighertertiary(MA/PhD)graduatesareonaverage24.7yearsold.Comparingtheaverageageof
leavingeducationandtheaverageageoffindingafirstjobacrosstheeducationgroupsmirrorsthe
findingswehadwithrespecttotheeducation‐specificjobfindingrates(seeSection3.3).Thegapis
2.1yearsforbasicsecondarygraduatesand2.0yearsforuppersecondarygraduates,whereasitis


52

just1.4yearsbothforinitialandsecondaryprofessionalgraduatesandevensmallerfortertiary
graduates(BA:1.3years,MA/PhD:0.6years).24
Therearealsoeducationdifferenceswithrespecttotheincidenceandtimingoffirstmarriage.The
shareofsecondaryandinitialprofessionalgraduateswhoexperiencedtheirfirstmarriageranges
between37%and39%,whereastherangeisfrom50to56%forsecondaryprofessionalandtertiary
graduates.Incontrast,education‐specificdifferencesintheincidenceoffirstparenthoodareless
pronounced.Itisbetween31%and36%forsecondarygraduates,initialprofessionalgraduatesbut
alsoforhighertertiary(MA/PhD)graduates.Justsecondaryprofessionalgraduates(44%)andlower
tertiarygraduates(BA)(46%)registermoremarriages.Theageoffirstlegalmarriageincreasesfrom
19.5yearsforbasicsecondarygraduatesto25.8yearsforhighertertiary(MA/PhD)graduates.
Similarly,thereisastrongrelationshipbetweenthelevelofeducationandtheageoffirst
parenthood.Itisonaveragelowestforbasicsecondarygraduates(20.4)andhighestforhigher
tertiary(MA/PhD)graduates(26.8).
AsexplainedatthebeginningofthisSection6.1theanalysisoftheincidenceandaverageageoflife
courseeventsdoesnottakethecensoringofdataintoaccount.Thus,inmoredetailedanalysesin
thefollowing,weapplymethodofeventhistoryanalysestothetimingofthedemographiclife
courseeventsofleavingparentalhome,firstlegalmarriageandfirstparenthoodaswealreadydidit
forthetimingoffirstjobinSection3.3.
Inaddition,weprovideforeachofthelifecoursetransitionsmoredetailedanalysesontheordering
oflifecourseeventsinanindividualperspectiveinSections6.2to6.5.Duetothecensoringofdata
wedonothavefulllifecoursesequencesathand.Thus,wecannotsayhowmanypercentofpeople
experiencedfirsteventAandtheneventBandhowmanypercentdidthistheotherwayaround.
However,whatwecandoistoinvestigatehowmanypercentofpersonswhoexperiencedacertain
lifecourseeventhavealreadyexperiencedotherlifecourseeventspriortotheeventofinterest.
WheninterpretingthesekindofanalysesinthefollowingSections6.2to6.5itshouldbekeptin
mindthatduetothedesignofasurveyonrecenteducationleaversnotallfurtherlifecourseevents
ofleavinghomeorfamilyformationhavealreadybeenobservedforeverypersonwhowill
experienceinherorhislifecourse.Hence,theresultsonlyapplytotherespectivegroupofpersons
whohasalreadyexperiencedtherespectivelifecourseevent.Moreover,thewarningisgiventhat
theseanalysesdonotallowanyconclusionshowmanypercentexperienceotherlifecourseevents
afterwards.Thisisbecause,duetothecensoringofdata,wedonotobserveeachfurtherlifecourse
events.AnotherrelatedwarningisthatcomparingnumbersacrossSections6.2to6.5isonlypossible
toalimiteddegreebecausethesampleanalyzedisdifferentineachsection.Thisisbecauseeach
Section6.2to6.5focusesonthoserespondentswhohavealreadyexperiencedthelifecourseevent
ofinterestuntilthedateoftheinterview.Astheincidenceoflifecourseeventsvariesingeneraland
duetocensoringthesearedifferentgroupsofrespondentsthatareinvestigatedasanalytical
samplesineachSection6.2to6.5.

6.2.Thetimingofleavingeducationandfindingafirstjob
Table6.2showsthepercentageofpersonswhoexperiencedotherlifecoursetransitionsbefore
leavingeducation,differentiatedbygenderandeducationgroups.Theincidenceofleavingparental
homebeforeleavingeducationishigheramongwomen(28%)thanamongmen(18%).25Thereisa
24Themoreelaboratedanalysisontherelationshipbetweeneducationlevelandtimeuntilfindingafirstjobis
theeventhistoryanalysisconductedinSection3.3becauseittakesthecensoringofdataintoaccount,whichis
notthecaseinthisSection6.1.
25Asexplainedbefore,thestatementthat28%offemaleeducationleaversleftparentalhomebeforeleaving
educationdoesnotimplythat72%ofwomenleaveparentalhomeafterwards.Thisisbecause,duetothe
censoringofdata,wedonotobservewhetherallremainingwomenwillindeedleaveparentalhome.


53

clearpositiveassociationbetweenthelevelofeducationattainmentandtheshareofrespondents
wholeaveparentalhomebeforeleavingeducation.Just1%ofbasicsecondaryand3%ofupper
secondarygraduatesleaveparentalhomebeforeleavingeducation.Thisshareincreasesto13%
amonginitialprofessionalgraduatesand38%amongsecondaryprofessionalgraduates.Itishighest
amongtertiarygraduates(BA:50%,MA/PhD:47%).Hence,almosteveryseconduniversitystudent
leftparentalhomebeforeleavingeducation.
Just2%ofmenand14%ofwomenexperiencetheirfirstlegalmarriageaheadofleavingeducation.
Theshareis8%orbelowforinitialprofessionalgraduatesandsecondarygraduates.Itranges
between13%and16%amongsecondaryprofessionalandtertiarygraduates.Thus,thereisaslight
positiveassociationbetweenthelevelofeducationandexperiencingeventsoffamilyformation
beforeleavingeducation.Similarly,theincidenceoffirstparenthoodbeforeleavingeducationisvery
low.Itis1%formenand8%forwomen.Thereisaweakpositiverelationshipwiththelevelof
educationattainment.Whilejusttinyshares(0%to3%)ofsecondaryandinitialprofessional
graduatesgotparents,amongsecondaryprofessionalgraduates9%andamonglowertertiary
graduates(BA)10%gotparentbeforeleavingeducation.Anexceptiontothisrelationshiparehigher
tertiary(MA/PhD)graduates,whoseprobabilityoffirstparenthoodbeforeleavingeducationisjust
3%,whichiscomparabletolowereducationgroups.

Table6.2:Shareofpeople(%)experiencingotherlifecoursetransitionsbeforeleavingeducation,
bygenderandeducation
 Beforeleavingeducation…

leaving
home
1st
marriage
1st
parenthood
Gender
Men1821
Women28148
Education
Basicsecondary 101
Uppersecondary 310
Initialprofessional 1383
Secondaryprofessional 38169
Lowertertiary(BA)501310
Highertertiary(MA/PhD)47153
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.
Remarks:Analysisareconductedforthefullsample.

Table6.3reportsthepercentageofpersonswhoexperiencedotherlifecoursetransitionsbefore
gettingafirstjob,differentiatedbygenderandeducationgroups.Theanalysisandfollowing
interpretationsarerestrictedtothesampleofpersonswhohavefoundafirstjobbeforethedateof
theinterview.Wefindthatalready42%ofwomenbutjust19%ofmenwhogotafirstjobleft
parentalhomebeforestartingtowork.26Theincidenceofleavingparentalhomebeforeleaving
educationgrowswiththelevelofeducation.Theincidenceis3to4%forsecondarygraduatesand
13%forinitialprofessionalgraduates.Itismuchhigherforsecondaryprofessionalgraduates(40%)
andforthosewithtertiaryeducation(BA:52%,MA/PhD:48%).Thus,abouteveryseconduniversity
studentleftparentalhomebeforegettingafirstjob.
26Asexplainedbefore,thestatementthat42%ofwomenwhofoundafirstjobleftparentalhomebeforedoes
notimplythat58%ofwomenwhofoundafirstjobwillleaveparentalhomeafterwards.Thisisbecause,dueto
thecensoringofdata,wedonotobservewhetherallremainingwomenwillindeedleaveparentalhome.


54

Whereasonequarterofwomengotmarriedbeforegettingafirstjob,thisappliestoonly4%ofmen.
Thereisatendencythattheshareofexperiencingfirstmarriagebeforegettingafirstjobincreases
withthelevelofeducation.Whereasjust0%ofbasicsecondarygraduates,4%ofuppersecondary
graduatesand11%ofinitialprofessionalgraduatesmarriedbeforeleavingeducationthisappliesto
18%ofallgroupswithpost‐secondaryeducation.Similargenderandeducation‐specificpatternscan
beobservedforthetimingoffirstparenthood.17%ofwomengotmotherbutonly2%ofmengot
fatherbeforestartingtowork.Theprobabilityofgettingfatherormotherbeforefindingafirstjob
increasesfrom1%forbasicsecondarygraduatesto14%forsecondaryprofessionalgraduates.
However,theshareisloweragainfortertiarygraduates(BA:12%,MA/PhD:6%).

Table6.3:Shareofpeople(%)experiencingotherlifecoursetransitionsbeforefindingafirstjob,by
genderandeducation
 Beforeleavingeducation…

leaving
home
1st
marriage
1st
parenthood
Gender
Men1942
Women422517
Education
Basicsecondary 301
Uppersecondary 442
Initialprofessional 13114
Secondaryprofessional 401814
Lowertertiary(BA)521812
Highertertiary(MA/PhD)48186
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.
Remarks:Analysisisrestrictedtothesampleofpersonswhohavefoundafirstjobbeforethedateofthe
interview.

6.3.Thetimingofleavingparentalhome
Leavingtheparentalhomeisseenasanimportantstepinthecomplextransitiontoadulthood
(Baranowska‐Ratajetal.,2016;Gebel,2017;Shanahan,2000;Corijn&Klijzing,2001).Itisan
objectiveindicatoror,socalled“transitionmarker”,ofyoungpeoplebecomingindependentfrom
theirparents.Italsooftenimpliesthatyoungpeoplegainautonomy(Baranowska‐Ratajetal.2016).
However,theobjectiveindicatorofleavingtheparentalhomeshouldnotbeseenasequalfor
gainingautonomyfromparents(Manzoni,2016).Youngpeoplemayberatherindependentoftheir
parentsalthoughtheystillshareaflat.Inasimilarway,youngpeoplemayhavetheirownhousehold
buttheparentsstillstronglysupporttheirchild.Thestandardobjectiveindicatorofthedateof
leavingeducationisusedinordertomaintaincomparabilitytothemajorityofempiricalstudieson
leavingparentalhome.
AsexplainedbyGebelandMandieva(2019)atimerestrictionfordefiningtheeventofleaving
parentalhomeisintroducedrequiringthattheyoungpeoplelivedseparatelyforoneyearormoreto
avoidreportingofshortinsignificantspells.Periodsofmilitaryserviceorlong‐termhospitalstays
wereexcludedbecauseyoungpeopleonlymovefromtheparentalhometoinstitutionalizedliving
arrangements,whichdoesnotrepresentthemovetoresidentialindependenceresearchersare
interestedinwhenstudyingthetransitiontoadulthood.Theinterviewerguidelinespecifiesthat
“parentalhome”isbroadlydefinedaslivingarrangementswiththelegalguardian(s),suchasthe
biological,adoptive,orstepparent(s)therespondentspentmostofhisorherchildhood(uptoage


55

15).Adoptiveandstepparentwerealsoincludedbecause,fromatheoreticalperspective,the
biologicalrelationshipisnotofinterestwheninvestigatingtheprocessofgainingresidential
independence.“Livingseparately”isdefinedaslivinginseparateaccommodation,i.e.witha
separateentrance,livingeitheraloneorwithotherperson(s)(friend(s),partner,spouse,own
children,parents‐in‐law,etc.butnotwithanybiological,adoptiveand/orstepparents).This
definitionwaschosentoaccountformulti‐storydwellings,whicharesharedbyseparatepersonsand
familiesthatformdistincthouseholds.Thus,stayingathomerequiresthatthepersoncontinues
sharingthehouseholdwithhisorherlegalguardian(s).
Eventhistoryanalysisisusedtostudythetimingofleavingparentalhome.AsdescribedinSection
3.3thisaccountsfortheproblemofright‐censoringofdata.Figure6.1showsKaplan‐Meiersurvival
functionsforleavingparentalhomebygenderandeducation.They‐axisshowstheproportionof
personswhohavenotyetleftparentalhomeforagivenagethatismarkedonthex‐axis.Inaddition,
Table6.4showstherespectivefiguresbutfromareversedperspective.Forselectedagesitreports
theshareofpeoplehavingleftparentalhomeuntiltherespectiveagebygenderandeducation
groups.Thisisequivalenttothedistancefromthe100%lineandtheKaplanMeiersurvivorfunction
inFigure6.1.

Figure6.1:Kaplan‐Meiersurvivalfunctionsforleavingparentalhome,bygenderandeducation





56


Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.
Remarks:Analysisareconductedforthewholesample.

Table6.4:Shareofpeople(%)havingleftparentalhomeuntilaspecificage,bygenderand
education
Age
 182022252730
Gender
Men121921273144
Women194055717781
Education
Basicsecondary 2033374444–
Uppersecondary 821293742–
Initialprofessional 91723283131
Secondaryprofessional 183646637077
Lowertertiary(BA)284352636873
Highertertiary(MA/PhD)132633455370
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.
Remarks:Analysisareconductedforthewholesample.Survivorfunctioncannotbeestimatedatage30forthe
secondarygraduatesbecausenoeventswereobserved.

Theempiricalanalysesshowthat12%ofmenandeven19%ofwomenleftparentalhomeatage18
orearlier.Thesharedoublesforwomento40%atage20andalsoincreasesformento19%atage
20.Thegendergapfurtherincreaseswithage.Atage25almostthreequarterofwomenbutonly
aroundonequarterofmenleftparentalhome.Atage30thegenderdifferenceisstill37percentage
pointsas81%ofwomenand44%ofmenleftparentalhome.Thereisnoclearassociationbetween
thelevelofeducationandthetimingofleavingparentalhome.Forexample,already20%ofbasic


57

secondarygraduatesaswellas24%ofprospective27lowertertiary(BA)graduatesbutjust13%of
highertertiary(MA/PhD)graduatesleftparentalhomeuntilage18.Atage22thehighestincidence
ofleavingparentalhomeisobservedamong(prospective)lowertertiary(BA)graduates(52%)and
secondaryprofessionalgraduates(46%).Initialprofessionalgraduateshavethelowestincidence
(23%).Atage25,thehighestcumulativeproportionofhomeleaversisreachedagainbysecondary
professionalandlowertertiary(BA)graduates(63%).Theyarefollowedbyhighertertiary(MA/PhD)
graduates(45%)andbasicsecondarygraduates(44%),whichunderlinesthatthereisnoclearnexus
tothelevelofeducationattainment.
Table6.5showstheshareofpersonswhoexperiencedotherlifecoursetransitionsbeforeleaving
parentalhome,differentiatedbygenderandeducationgroups.Theanalysisandfollowing
interpretationsarerestrictedtothesampleofpersonswhohavefoundafirstjobbeforethedateof
theinterview.
Table6.5:Shareofpeople(%)experiencingotherlifecoursetransitionsbeforeleavingparental
home,bygenderandeducation
 Beforeleavingparentalhome…

Leaving
education
1st
job
1st
marriage
1st
parenthood
Gender
Men362694
Women561621
Education
Basicsecondary 96900
Uppersecondary 902342
Initialprofessional 532600
Secondaryprofessional 361952
Lowertertiary(BA)261751
Highertertiary(MA/PhD)191650
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.
Remarks:Analysisisrestrictedtothesampleofpersonswhohaveleftparentalhomebeforethedateofthe
interview.

56%ofwomenand36%ofmenlefteducationbeforeleavingparentalhome.28Theincidenceof
leavingeducationbeforeleavingparentalhomestronglydeclineswiththelevelofeducation
attainment.Whereas96%ofbasicsecondarygraduatesfirstleaveeducationandthenparental
home,thisappliestojust53%ofinitialprofessionalgraduatesandjust19%ofhighertertiary
(MA/PhD)graduates.Regardingthetimingofthefirstjob,26%ofmenand16%ofwomenstartedto
workbeforeleavingparentalhome.Thereisnoclearrelationshipbetweenthelevelofeducationand
theincidenceofgettingafirstjobbeforeleavingeducation.Forexample,9%ofbasicsecondary
graduatesbut23%ofuppersecondarygraduatesgotafirstjobbeforeleavinghome,whereasthis
27Theeducationvariablereferstothelevelofeducationattainmentatthetimeofleavingeducation.At
youngeragesmostofthehighereducationgroupsarestillineducationandhavenotyetobtainedtheirhighest
educationdegree.
28Asexplainedbefore,thefindingofthisSection6.3that56%ofwomenwholeftparentalhomeuntilthedate
oftheinterviewlefteducationbeforeisnotdirectlycomparabletothefindingofSection6.2that28%of
womenwholefteducationuntilthedateoftheinterviewleftparentalhomebefore.Thetwonumberstonot
addupto100%becausetheanalyticalsamplesofSection6.2and6.3aredifferent.InSection6.2thepersons
wholefteducationuntilthedateoftheinterviewareanalyzed,whichisdifferentfromthesampleofSection
6.3,inwhichonlythosepersonsareanalyzedwholeftparentalhomeuntilthedateoftheinterview.


58

appliesto16–17%oftertiarygraduates.Theincidenceoffamilyformationbeforeleavingeducation
isextremelylowforallgenderandeducationgroups.Just9%ofmaleand2%offemaleparental
homeleaverswerealreadymarriedandjust4%ofmaleand1%offemaleparentalhomeleavers
alreadyhadafirstchild.However,moredetailedanalyses(notshowninTables)revealthat,
especiallyforwomen,theeventsofleavinghomeandfirstmarriagecoincide.Specially,thisapplies
to56%ofwomenand13%ofmenwholefthome.Combiningthesefindingsrevealsthat58%
(=2%+56%)ofwomenand22%ofmen(=9%+13%)wholefthomegotmarriedbeforeorinthesame
monthasleavingeducation.Thus,formorethaneverysecondoffemalehomeleaversandforevery
quarterofmalehomeleaverstherewasapreviousorcoincidingeventofmarriage.Hence,thegreat
majorityofmenexperienceleavingparentalhomewithoutthepreviousorsimultaneousstepof
gettingmarriedorchildbirth.

6.4.Thetimingandarrangementoffirstmarriage
Processesoffamilyformationsuchasmarriageandparenthoodarecentraleventsinthetransition
toadulthoodnexttothetransitionfromeducationtowork.Lifecourseresearchhasshownthat
familyformationandschool‐to‐worktransitionarestronglyinterrelated(forashortoverview,see,
Gebel&Mandieva,2019).
TheTEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijanaskedrespondentsabouttheincidenceand
timingofbothreligiousandlegalmarriages.Detailedanalyses(Resultsnotdisplayedin
Tables/Figures),revealthatamongthoserespondentswhoexperiencedareligiousorlegalmarriage
(orboth)untilthetimeoftheinterview,4%hadareligiousbut(notyet)alegalmarriage,14%hada
legalbut(notyet)areligiousmarriageand82%hadbothareligiousandalegalmarriage.
Amongthoserespondentswhohavehadbothareligiousandlegalmarriageuntilthedateofthe
interview,72%hadthesetwoeventsrathersimultaneouslywithinonemonth,3%hadthelegal
marriagebeforethereligiousmarriageand15%hadthereligiousmarriagebeforethelegalmarriage.
Theaveragetimegapbetweenbotheventisjustabouttwomonths.Duetothesesmalldifferences
betweenlegalandreligiousmarriagewewillfocusontheeventoffirstlegalmarriageinthe
followinganalyses.Thisisalsoinlinewithotherstudiesontransitiontofirstmarriage.
Eventhistoryanalysis,whichaccountsfortheright‐censoringofdata,isalsousedtostudythetiming
offirstlegalmarriage.Figure6.2showsKaplan‐Meiersurvivalfunctionsforfirstmarriagebygender
andeducation.They‐axisshowstheproportionofpersonswhohavenotyetlegallymarriedfora
givenagethatismarkedonthex‐axis.Inaddition,Table6.6showstherespectivefiguresbutfroma
reversedperspective.Forselectedagesitreportstheshareofpeoplewhohavegotmarrieduntilthe
respectiveagebygenderandeducationgroups.Thisisequivalenttothedistancefromthe100%line
andtheKaplanMeiersurvivorfunctioninFigure6.2.
Wefindthatlessthan1%ofmenand7%ofwomenhavealreadygotmarriedatage18orearlier.
Thesharesstronglyincreasewithage,specificallyforwomen.Forexample,atage20,almostone
quarterofwomenbutonly1%ofmenhavegotmarried.Thesharesincreaseto62%forwomenand
to21%formenatage25.Astrongincreaseinmarriageexperiencecanbeobservedformen
betweenage27and30.Theshareofmarriedmenalmostdoublesfrom36%atage27to64%atage
30.Afteramaximumgendergapinmarriagesharesof41percentagepointsatage25,thegender
gapshrinksto14percentagepointsatage30,when78%ofwomenand64%ofmenhavegot
married.Theeducation‐specificanalysesrevealthattheincidenceofearlymarriageishigheramong
lowereducationgroups.Forexample,untilage20,everyfifth(26%)ofbasicsecondarygraduatesgot
married,whiletheshareisjust13–14%among(prospective)professionalgraduatesand0–4%
among(prospective)tertiary(MA/PhD)graduates.Ashighereducationgroupshavenotyetfinished
theireducationattheseagesthereisanoverlapofeducationparticipationandeducationlevel
effect.


59

Figure6.2:Kaplan‐Meiersurvivalfunctionsfor1stlegalmarriage,bygenderandeducation


Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.
Remarks:Analysisareconductedforthewholesample.





60

Table6.6:Shareofpeople(%)whoexperience1stlegalmarriageuntilaspecificage,bygenderand
education
Age
 182022252730
Gender
Men015213664
Women72441627178
Education
Basicsecondary 1026343838–
Uppersecondary 617264051
–

Initialprofessional 414283240
–

Secondaryprofessional 31327556673
Lowertertiary(BA)1617415474
Highertertiary(MA/PhD)003163359
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.
Remarks:Analysisareconductedforthewholesample.Survivorfunctioncannotbeestimatedatage30forthe
secondaryandinitialprofessionalgraduatesbecausenoeventswereobservedduetothedefinitionofthe
targetgroup.

Atage22marriageratesbecomemoresimilarforsecondaryandprofessionalgraduates,ranging
from26to34%.Thegroupoftertiarygraduatesdiffersmostas17%of(prospective)lowertertiary
(BA)graduatesandjust3%of(prospective)highertertiary(MA/PhD)graduateshavegotmarriedat
age22orearlier.Atage27,thecumulativeshareofpersonswithfirstmarriageexperienceislowest
amonghighertertiary(MA/PhD)graduates(33%)butalsoamongbasicsecondarygraduates(38%).
Thehighestshareisobservedforsecondaryprofessionalgraduates(66%).Hence,thenegative
associationbetweenthelevelofeducationandtheincidenceofmarriagegetsblurredathigherages.
Table6.7showstheshareofpersonswhoexperiencedotherlifecoursetransitionsbeforefirstlegal
marriage,differentiatedbygenderandeducationgroups.Theanalysisandfollowinginterpretations
arerestrictedtothesampleofpersonswhohavegotlegallymarriedbeforethedateofthe
interview.94%ofmarriedmenand75%ofmarriedwomenlefteducationbeforegettingmarried.
Theincidenceofleavingeducationbeforegettingmarrieddeclineswiththelevelof(prospective)
educationattainment.Whereasallbasicsecondarygraduatesfirstleaveeducationandthengot
married,thisappliestojust66%ofhighertertiarygraduates(MA/PhD)graduates.Nevertheless,
amongalleducationgroupsthegreatmajorityofpersonswhoexperiencedfirstmarriageuntilthe
dateoftheinterviewleaveseducationbeforegettingmarried.
31%ofbothmenandwomenleftparentalhomebeforegettingmarried.Moredetailedanalyses(not
showninFigures/Tables)revealthatformanyyoungpeople,especiallywomen,theeventsofleaving
homeandfirstmarriagecoincide.Specially,thisappliesto65%ofwomenand13%ofmenwhogot
married.Combiningthesefindingsrevealsthat96%(=31%+65%)ofwomenand44%ofmen
(=31%+13%)whogotmarriedleftparentalhomebeforemarriageorthemonthofmarriage.Hence,
almostallmarriedwomenleaveparentalhomebeforeoronmarriage,whereasthisappliestojust
aboutahalfofmen.Theshareofleavinghomebeforegettingmarrieddoesnotsystematicallyvary
withthe(prospective)levelofeducation.Forexample,theshareis47%forbasicsecondary
graduatesand49%forhighertertiary(MA/PhD)graduates.Itislowestforuppersecondary
graduates(16%).
84%ofmenbutjust24%ofwomengotafirstjobbeforebecomingmarried.Thissharetendsto
increasewiththelevelofeducation.Forexample,just23%ofbasicsecondarygraduatesgotafirst
jobbeforegettingmarried,whereasthisappliesto60%ofhighertertiary(MA/PhD)graduates.


61

Onlyinaveryfewcasesafirstparenthoodoccursbeforethefirstmarriage.Specifically,just4%of
bothmenandwomenwhogotmarriedfirsttimebecamefatherormotherahead.Thisisafirsthint
thatout‐of‐wedlockbirthsareveryrareeventsinAzerbaijan(forfurtherresultsseeChapter6.5).The
incidenceoffirstparenthoodbeforefirstmarriagedoesnotsystematicallyvarywiththelevelof
educationwiththeexceptionthatbasicsecondarygraduates(17%).
Table6.7:Shareofpeople(%)experiencingotherlifecoursetransitionsbefore1stlegalmarriage,
bygenderandeducation
 Before1stmarriage…

Leaving
education
Leaving
home
1st
job
1st
parenthood
Gender
Men9431844
Women7531244
Education
Basicsecondary 100472317
Uppersecondary 9516415
Initialprofessional 7624488
Secondaryprofessional 6728403
Lowertertiary(BA)7444532
Highertertiary(MA/PhD)6649603
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.
Remarks:Analysisisrestrictedtothesampleofpersonswhoexperiencedfirstlegalmarriagebeforethedateof
theinterview.

TheTEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijanaskedrespondentsaboutsomemoredetailson
thefirstmarriage.InthisrespectTable6.8offersinformationonthewayoffindingthespouse,the
decisiononmarriageandtheagedifferencetothespouse,differentiatedbygenderandeducation
groups.29 TheresultsindicatethatyoungpeopleinAzerbaijanusuallymeettheirspouses
occasionallyorthroughparentsand/ortheirfamily.Particularly,39.0%ofmenand34.7%ofwomen
reportthattheyfoundtheirspouseoccasionally.Findingarelativeasapartnerisquitecommonin
Azerbaijan.26.2%ofwomenand23.3%ofmensaythattheirpartnerisarelative.Specifically
arrangedmarriagesbytheparentsand/orthefamilywerereportedby7.3%ofmenand8.4%of
women.11.1%ofwomenand6.8%ofmenreportthattheirspousewasaneighbor.Around9%of
youngpeoplemettheirspousethroughfriends,relatives,oracquaintancesandabout8%gotto
knowtheirspousewhilestudying.Meetingthespouseattheworkplaceisalsonotverycommonas
thisappliestoonly4.9%ofmenand2.1%ofwomen.Findingaspouseviainternetorphone,by
matchmakersorviareligious/charitableactivitiesplaysalmostnoroleinAzerbaijanastheir
incidenceisbelow1%.
Regardingeducationgroupdifferencesitturnsoutthatthehigherthe(prospective)educationlevel
ofarespondentisthehigherisaprobabilitythatheorshemetherspousewhilestudyingoratthe
workplaceorviafriends,relativesoracquaintances.30Incontrast,findingmarriagepartnersamong
29Differencesbetweengenderoccurbecausethemalerespondentswhogotmarriedbeforethedateofthe
interviewaredifferentintheircharacteristics(age,etc.)fromthefemalerespondentswhogotmarriedbefore
thedateoftheinterview.
30Asindicatedbeforewejustreportbivariateassociation.Whetherthisassociationmirrorsacausaleffectof
educationorwhetheritis,forexample,justaspuriousassociationduetoconfoundingwithage(asageis


62

relativesandneighborsismorecommonamongsecondaryandprofessionalgraduatesthanamong
tertiarygraduates.Forexample,28.1%ofsecondarygraduatesand30.1%ofprofessionalgraduates
butonly18.1%oftertiarygraduateshaveaspousethatisarelative.However,arrangedmarriages
occurwithverysimilarprobabilityof8–10%bothamongsecondaryandtertiarygraduates.Only
professionalgraduateshavealowerincidenceofarrangedmarriages(5.0%).Findingaspousevia
internetorphone,bymatchmakersorviareligious/charitableactivitiesplaysalmostnoroleforall
educationgroupsinAzerbaijanastheirincidenceisbelow1%foralleducationgroups.

Table6.8:Waysoffindingspouse,decisiononmarriageandagedifferencetospouse(in%),by
genderandeducation
 MenWomen
BasicSec./
Upp.Sec.
Init.Prof./
Sec.Prof.
Low.Tert./
High.Tert.
Waysoffindingspouse
Occasionally39.034.740.833.033.7
Whileworking4.92.11.42.16.4
Whilestudying7.88.43.39.913.1
Wewereneighbors6.811.111.011.45.8
Wearerelatives23.326.228.130.118.1
Arrangedmarriagebyparents/family7.38.48.15.09.6
Throughfriends/relatives/acquaintances9.08.66.57.812.1
Throughtheinternet/phone1.00.00.50.40.4
Throughreligious/charitableactivities0.00.00.00.00.0
Throughamatchmaker0.00.50.20.40.4
Don'tknow/Refusal0.70.00.30.00.4
Finaldecisiononfirstmarriage
Yourself/yourselves52.847.249.046.852.2
Father1.43.83.43.61.5
Mother0.30.90.20.41.5
Bothfatherandmother19.421.222.323.116.6
Jointdecisionofyourselfandyourparents24.026.324.325.526.4
Otherrelatives0.00.10.00.00.2
Don'tknow/Refusal2.00.40.90.71.7
Ageofspouse
spouseolder6.585.052.659.943.2
spousesameage14.810.410.511.415.2
spouseyounger78.74.637.028.741.6
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.
Remarks:Analysisisrestrictedtothesampleofpersonswhoexperienced1stlegalmarriagebeforethedateof
theinterview.

Whenaskedaboutthefinaldecisiononmarriageabouthalfoftherespondents(52.8%ofmenand
47.2%ofwomen)reportthatheorshemadethefinaldecisiononher/hisfirstmarriagepartner
herself/himself.Aroundonequarter(24.0%ofmenand26.3%ofwomen)indicatethatitwasajoint
relatedtoeducationandindependenceindecisionmakingbecomesstrongerwithage)shallbesubjectto
futuremultivariateanalyses.


63

decisionofthemselveswiththeirparents.Insum,21.1%ofmenand25.9%ofwomensaythatitwas
thedecisionofthefather,themotherorbothparents.Regardingeducationgroups,thereareonly
smalldifferences.Theshareofrespondentswhomadethefinaldecisionoftheirfirstmarriageon
theirownincreasesfrom49.0%ofbasicsecondarygraduatesto52.2%fortertiarygraduates.The
decisionwasmadebythefather,themotherorbothparentsfor27.1%ofsecondarygraduatesbut
only19.6%oftertiarygraduates.
RegardingagedifferencestothespouseTable6.8showsacleargender‐specificpattern.Whereas
85.0%ofyoungwomenwhogotmarriedreportthattheirhusbandwasolderthenthemselves,this
appliestojust6.5%ofyounggrooms.78.7%ofmentellthattheyhaveawifethatisyounger,
whereasthisappliestojust4.6%ofwomen.14.8%ofmenand10.4%ofwomenreportthattheir
spousehadthesameage.Thereareweakassociationswitheducation.Theshareofpersonreporting
havinganolderspouseisslightlylowerfortertiarygraduates(43.2%)thanforsecondarygraduates
(52.6%).31

6.5.Thetimingoffirstparenthood
Eventhistoryanalysis,whichaccountsfortheright‐censoringofdata,isalsousedtostudythetiming
offirstparenthood.Figure6.3showsKaplan‐Meiersurvivalfunctionsforfirstparenthoodbygender
andeducation.They‐axisshowstheproportionofpersonswhohavenotyetgotachildforagiven
agethatismarkedonthex‐axis.Inaddition,Table6.9showstherespectivefiguresbutfroma
reversedperspective.Forselectedagesitreportstheshareofpeoplewhohavegotafirstchilduntil
therespectiveagebygenderandeducationgroups.Thisisequivalenttothedistancefromthe100%
lineandtheKaplanMeiersurvivorfunctioninFigure6.3.
Wefindthatjust2%ofmengotfatheratage22orearlier.Incontrast,3%ofwomenarealready
motheratage18orbeforeandtheshareevenincreasesto32%atage22.Thegendergapinfirst
parenthoodincreasesfrom30percentagepointsatage22to42percentagepointsatage25,when
thecumulativeincidenceoffirstmotherhoodis56%andthecumulativeincidenceoffirstfatherhood
is14%.Atlaterages,thegendergapdecreasesagain.Asinthecaseoffirstmarriage,men
experienceastrongrunonfirstparenthoodbetweenages27and30,whenthecumulativeincidence
offirstfatherhoodincreasesfrom28%to53%.Thus,atage30,as77%ofwomenhaveexperienced
theirfirstmotherhood,thegendergapinparenthoodshrinksto24percentagepoints.
Theeducation‐specificanalysesrevealthattheincidenceofearlyparenthoodismuchhigheramong
lowereducationgroups.Forexample,untilage18,11%ofbasicsecondarygraduatesand2%of
uppersecondarygraduatesbecamefirstparent,whereastheincidenceisbelow1%forallother
educationgroups.Atage22,33%ofbasicsecondarygraduatesgotafirstchild,whereasfortertiary
graduatestheincidenceoffirstparenthoodisbelow10%.Atage25,secondaryandprofessional
graduatesreachcumulativesharesoffirstparenthoodofaround34–46%.Lowertertiary(BA)
graduatesreach31%buthighertertiary(MA/PhD)graduatesarefarbehindwith7%.Thereisstill
largeeducationdifferencesatage27,when70%ofbasicsecondarygraduateshavegottheirfirst
child,whereasthisappliestoonly24%ofhighertertiary(MA/PhD)graduates.




31Asindicatedbeforewejustreportbivariateassociation.Whetherthisassociationmirrorsacausaleffectof
educationorwhetheritis,forexample,justaspuriousassociationduetoconfoundingwithgender(aswomen
tendtomarrymenwhoareolderandgenderaffectseducation)shallbesubjecttofuturemultivariate
analyses.


64



Figure6.3:Kaplan‐Meiersurvivalfunctionsfor1stparenthood,bygenderandeducation

Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.
Remarks:Analysisareconductedforthewholesample.




65


Table6.9:Shareofpeople(%)whoexperience1stparenthooduntilaspecificage,bygenderand
education
Age
 182022252730
Gender
Men012142853
Women31432566877
Education
Basicsecondary 1122333970–
Uppersecondary 210223846
–

Initialprofessional 06253447
–

Secondaryprofessional 1719466173
Lowertertiary(BA)029314765
Highertertiary(MA/PhD)00072441
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.
Remarks:Analysisareconductedforthewholesample.Survivorfunctioncannotbeestimatedatage30forthe
secondaryandinitialprofessionalgraduatesbecausenoeventswereobserved.

Table6.10showstheshareofpersonswhoexperiencedotherlifecoursetransitionsbeforefirst
parenthood,differentiatedbygenderandeducationgroups.Theanalysisandfollowing
interpretationsarerestrictedtothesampleofpersonswhohavegotafirstchildbeforethedateof
theinterview.95%ofmenand84%ofwomenlefteducationbeforegettingafirstchild.The
incidenceofleavingeducationbeforegettingbecomingparentslightlydeclineswiththelevelof
(prospective)educationattainment.Whereas96%ofbasicsecondarygraduatesand99%ofupper
secondarygraduatesfirstleaveeducationandthenbecomemotherorfather,thisappliesto78%of
lowertertiary(BA)graduatesand88%ofhighertertiary(MA/PhD)graduates.Nevertheless,among
alleducationgroupsthegreatmajorityofpersonswhoexperiencedfirstparenthooduntilthedateof
theinterviewleaveseducationbeforegettingachild.
Justhalfofthemenbutalmostallwomenleftparentalhomebeforefirstparenthood.Thus,moving
outofparentalhomebeforefirstparenthoodisthestandardlifecoursesequenceforwomen.The
shareofleavinghomebeforegettingafirstchilddoesnotsystematicallyvarywiththe(prospective)
levelofeducation.Theshareislowestamonginitialprofessionalgraduates(65%)andsecondary
professionalgraduates(89%).
89%ofmenbutjustaquarterofwomengotafirstjobbeforebecomingmarried.Thissharetendsto
increasewiththelevelofeducation.Forexample,just20%ofbasicsecondarygraduatesgotafirst
jobbeforegettingmarried,whereasthisappliesto72%ofhighertertiary(MA/PhD)graduates.
Theoverwhelmingmajorityof90–91%ofmaleandfemalerespondentswhobecamefatheror
mothergotmarriedbeforechildbirth.Thus,out‐of‐wedlockbirthareveryuncommoninAzerbaijan.
Withtheexceptionofbasicsecondarygraduates(67%)anduppersecondarygraduates(87%)all
professionalandtertiaryeducationgroupsreachanincidenceofmorethan90%intermsofmarriage
beforefirstchildbirth.


66

Table6.10:Shareofpeople(%)experiencingotherlifecoursetransitionsbefore1stparenthood,by
genderandeducation
 Before1stparenthood…

Leaving
education
Leaving
home
1st
job
1st
marriage
Gender
Men95518990
Women84972791
Education
Basicsecondary 96842069
Uppersecondary 99773987
Initialprofessional 91656591
Secondaryprofessional 79894492
Lowertertiary(BA)78875796
Highertertiary(MA/PhD)88847296
Source:TEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan,owncalculation.
Remarks:Analysisisrestrictedtothesampleofpersonswhoexperienced1stparenthoodbeforethedateofthe
interview.


7.References
Allen,J.,&vanderVelden,R.(2007).Transitionsfromhighereducationtowork.InU.Teichler(Ed.),
Careersofuniversitygraduates.Viewsandexperiencesincomparativeperspectives(pp.55–78).
Dordrecht:Springer.
Badurashvili,I.,Gebel,M.,Kobakhidze,N.,Meladze,G.,&Nadiradze,R.(2019).Descriptiveanalyses
ofyouthtransitionsinGeorgia.TEW‐CCAWorkingPaperNo.4.2.Bamberg:TEW‐CCAProject,
UniversityofBamberg.
Baranowska,A.,&Gebel,M.(2008).TemporaryemploymentinCentral‐ andEasternEurope.
Individualriskpatternsandinstitutionalcontext:MZESWorkingpaperNo.106.Mannheim:
MannheimCentreforEuropeanSocialResearch.
Baranowska‐Rataj,A.,Bertolini,S.,Bolzoni,M.,Ghislieri,C.,Goglio,V.,Martino,S.,Meo,A.,Moiso,
V.,Musumeci,R.,Ricucci,R.,Shapoval,N.,&Torrioni,P.M.(2016).“Reportontheimpactofthe
institutionalsettingandpoliciesontheautonomyofyouthininsecurelabourmarketpositionsin
EU‐28&Ukraine”:EXCEPTWorkingPapersNo.9.Tallinn:TallinnUniversity.
Baranowska‐Rataj,A.,&Unt,M.(2012).IsitworthbecominganengineerinCentralandEastern
Europe?TheevidencefromPolandandEstonia.EuropeanSociologicalReview,28(6),717–728.
Blossfeld,H.‐P.,Rohwer,G.,Schneider,T.,&Halpin,B.(2019).EventhistoryanalysiswithStata.
(Secondedition).London,NewYork:Routledge.
Breen,R.(2005).Explainingcross‐nationalvariationinyouthunemployment.Marketand
institutionalfactors.EuropeanSociologicalReview,21(2),125–134.
Buchmann,M.C.,&Kriesi,I.(2011).TransitiontoadulthoodinEurope.AnnualReviewofSociology,
37(1),481–503.
Corijn,M.,&Klijzing,E.(Eds.)(2001).TransitionstoadulthoodinEurope.Dordrecht:Kluwer
AcademicPublishers.


67

Edeling,S.,&Pilz,M.(2017).‘ShouldIstayorshouldIgo?’–theadditivedoublequalification
pathwayinGermany.JournalofVocationalEducation&Training,69(1),81–99.
Gebel,M.(2015).Labormarketinstability,labormarketentry,andearlycareerdevelopment.InR.A.
Scott,&S.M.Kosslyn(Eds.),Emergingtrendsinthesocialandbehavioralsciences:An
interdisciplinary,searchable,andlinkableresource(pp.1–16).[Hoboken,N.J.]:JohnWiley&
Sons.
Gebel,M.(2017).Theeffectsofunemploymentandtemporaryemploymentonleavingtheparental
homeinGermany.InA.Baranowska‐Rataj,S.Bertolini,&GoglioValentina(Eds.),Countrylevel
analysesofmechanismsandinterrelationshipsbetweenlabourmarketinsecurityandautonomy:
EXCEPTWorkingPapersNo.11(pp.97–130).Tallinn:TallinnUniversity.
Gebel,M.,Badurashvili,I.,Olimova,S.,&Sattarov,R.(Eds.)(2019).MethodologicalreportonTEW‐
CCAYouthTransitionSurveysinAzerbaijan,GeorgiaandTajikistan.TEW‐CCAWorkingPaperNo.
3.Bamberg:TEW‐CCAProject.
Gebel,M.,&Baranowska‐Rataj,A.(2012).Newinequalitiesthroughprivatizationand
mleuarketization?:AnanalysisoflabourmarketentryofhighereducationgraduatesinPoland
andUkraine.EuropeanSociologicalReview,28(6),729–741.
Gebel,M.,&Heineck,G.(2019).Returnstoeducationinthelifecourse.InR.Becker(Ed.),Research
handbookonthesociologyofeducation(pp.454–475).Cheltenham,UK,Northampton,MA:
EdwardElgarPublishing.
Gebel,M.,&Heyne,S.(2014).TransitionstoadulthoodintheMiddleEastandNorthAfrica:Young
women’srising?Basingstoke,Hampshire:PalgraveMacmillan.
Gebel,M.,&Mandieva,E.(2019).GeneralMethodologyoftheTEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveysin
Azerbaijan,GeorgiaandTajikistan.InM.Gebel,I.Badurashvili,S.Olimova,&R.Sattarov(Eds.),
MethodologicalreportonTEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveysinAzerbaijan,Georgiaand
Tajikistan.TEW‐CCAWorkingPaperNo.3.(pp.7–54).Bamberg:TEW‐CCAProject.
Gebel,M.,&Noelke,C.(2011).ThetransitionfromschooltoworkinCentralandEasternEurope:
theoryandmethodology.InI.Kogan,C.Noelke,&M.Gebel(Eds.),Makingthetransition:
EducationandlabormarketentryinCentralandEasternEurope(pp.29–57).Stanford,California:
StanfordUniversityPress.
Gerber,T.P.,&Cheung,S.Y.(2008).Horizontalstratificationinpostsecondaryeducation‐forms,
explanationsandimplications.AnnualReviewofSociology,34,299–318.
Gërxhani,K.,&vandeWerfhorst,H.G.(2013).Theeffectofeducationoninformalsector
participationinapost‐communistcountry.EuropeanSociologicalReview,29(3),464–476.
Hogan,D.P.,&Astone,N.M.(1986).Thetransitiontoadulthood.AnnualReviewofSociology,12,
109–130.
Jacob,M.,Gerth,M.,&Weiss,F.(2018).Studentemployment:socialdifferentialsandfield‐specific
developmentsinhighereducation.JournalofEducationandWork,31(1),87–108.
Kogan,I.(2011).Wheninformalisnormal…Ontheroleofcredentialsandcontactsforthejobentry
inSerbia.ResearchinSocialStratificationandMobility,29(4),445–458.
Kogan,I.(2019).Stillasafetynet?Revisitingtheroleofvocationaleducationandtraininginschool‐
to‐worktransitionsinEurope.InR.Becker(Ed.),Researchhandbookonthesociologyof
education(pp.329–346).Cheltenham,UK,Northampton,MA:EdwardElgarPublishing.
Kogan,I.,Matković,T.,&Gebel,M.(2013).Helpfulfriends?:Personalcontactsandjobentryamong
youthsintransformationsocieties.InternationalJournalofComparativeSociology,54(4),277–
297.


68

Kogan,I.,&Müller,W.(Eds.)(2003).School‐to‐worktransitionsinEurope.AnalysesoftheEULFS
2000adhocmodule.Mannheim:MannheimCentreforEuropeanSocialResearch.
Kogan,I.,Noelke,C.,&Gebel,M.(Eds.)(2011).Makingthetransition:Educationandlabormarket
entryinCentralandEasternEurope.Stanford,California:StanfordUniversityPress.
Manzoni,A.(2016).Conceptualizingandmeasuringyouthindependencemultidimensionallyinthe
UnitedStates.ActaSociologica,59(4),362–377.
Matković,T.,&Kogan,I.(2012).Allornothing?:Theconsequencesoftertiaryeducationnon‐
completioninCroatiaandSerbia.EuropeanSociologicalReview,28(6),755–770.
Matković,T.,&Kogan,I.(2014).Relativeworthofabachelordegree.ActaSociologica,57(2),101–
118.
Noelke,C.,Gebel,M.,&Kogan,I.(2012).Uniforminequalities:Institutionaldifferentiationandthe
transitionfromhighereducationtoworkinpost‐socialistCentralandEasternEurope.European
SociologicalReview,28(6),704–716.
Noelke,C.,&Horn,D.(2014).Socialtransformationandthetransitionfromvocationaleducationto
workinHungary:ADifferences‐in‐differencesapproach.EuropeanSociologicalReview,30(4),
431–443.
Nunley,J.M.,Pugh,A.,Romero,N.,&Seals,R.A.(2016).Collegemajor,internshipexperience,and
employmentopportunities:Estimatesfromarésuméaudit.LabourEconomics,38,37–46.
Rashidova,A.,Faradov,T.,&Sattarov,R.(2019).Theinstitutionalcontextofthetransitionfrom
educationtoworkinAzerbaijan.TEW‐CCAWorkingPaperNo.2.2.Bamberg.:TEW‐CCAProject,
UniversityofBamberg.
Roksa,J.,&Velez,M.(2010).Whenstudyingschoolingisnotenough:Incorporatingemploymentin
modelsofeducationaltransitions.ResearchinSocialStratificationandMobility,28(1),5–21.
Sattarov,R.,Faradov,T.,Rodin,V.,&Isayeva,N.(2019).MethodologyoftheTEW‐CCAYouth
TransitionSurveyinAzerbaijan.InM.Gebel,I.Badurashvili,S.Olimova,&R.Sattarov(Eds.),
MethodologicalreportonTEW‐CCAYouthTransitionSurveysinAzerbaijan,Georgiaand
Tajikistan.TEW‐CCAWorkingPaperNo.3.(pp.55–67).Bamberg:TEW‐CCAProject.
Scherer,S.(2001).Earlycareerpatterns:acomparisonofGreatBritainandWestGermany.European
SociologicalReview,17(2),119–144.
Shanahan,M.J.(2000).Pathwaystoadulthoodinchangingsocieties:variabilityandmechanismsin
lifecourseperspective.AnnualReviewofSociology,26,667–692.
Shavit,Y.,&Müller,W.(Eds.)(1998).Fromschooltowork.Acomparativestudyofeducational
qualificationsandoccupationaldestinations.Oxford:ClarendonPress.
Shavit,Y.,&Müller,W.(2000).Vocationalsecondaryeducation.Wherediversionandwheresafety
net?EuropeanSocieties,2(1),29–50.
Shwed,U.,&Shavit,Y.(2006).Occupationalandeconomicattainmentsofcollegeanduniversity
graduatesinIsrael.EuropeanSociologicalReview,22(4),431–442.
Weiss,F.,Klein,M.,&Grauenhorst,T.(2014).Theeffectsofworkexperienceduringhighereducation
onlabourmarketentry:Learningbydoingoranentryticket?Work,Employment&Society,
28(5),788–807.
Wolbers,M.H.J.(2003).Learningandworking.Doublestatusesinyouthtransitions.InW.Müller,&
M.Gangl(Eds.),TransitionsfromeducationtoworkinEurope.TheintegrationofyouthintoEU
labourmarkets(pp.131–155).Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.


69

Wolbers,M.H.J.(2007).Patternsoflabourmarketentry.Acomparativeperspectiveonschool‐to‐
worktransitionsin11Europeancountries.ActaSociologica,50(3),189–210.
