Social efficiency of employment in three sectors — a comparison of Polish regions

  • Magdalena Cyrek University of Rzeszów
Keywords: social efficiency, employment, three sectors, regions, DEA method

Abstract

Research background: Regions that are able to use their resources in the most efficient way could be perceived as valuable benchmarks when shaping socio-economic policy. The concept of efficiency, however, may be related not only to pure economic categories but to social goals as well. The economic and social spheres overlap and often have some common origins, among which, the sectoral structure of employment seems to be an important one.

Purpose of the article: The aim of the study was to compare the social efficiency of employment in three sectors in Polish voivodeships. Not only were we evaluating the relative performance of each region, but we were also paying attention to the efficiency of engagement of human resources in the agricultural, industrial and service sectors.

Methods: We adopted the DEA method to assess the social efficiency of Polish regions. We have evaluated social cohesion concerning its two output dimensions: positive, which may be described by social activity, and negative, which may be reflected in the form of social exclusion stemming from material sources. We took into account the level of employment in agricultural, industrial and service sectors as inputs in the model and thus focused our attention on the three sectoral structure of the regional economies. Our model assumed non-radial developmental paths and was input oriented (NR-CCR). The data described the 16 Polish voivodeships in the year 2015, and were extracted from the Central Statistical Office of Poland’s databases.

Findings & value added: The research conducted indicates that Polish regions which were the most efficient in terms of social integration were simultaneously those with the best economic results in terms of GDP per capita. The highest social efficiency level was characteristic for employment in the service sector, while agriculture was placed at the lowest level. The same pattern was revealed when social activity and the danger of poverty were considered separately. Thus, structural development appears to be favourable for regional economies also in terms of social cohesion, which is a factor often neglected in the literature.

References

Abbott, P., Wallace, C., Lin, K., & Haerpfer, Ch. (2016). The quality of society and life satisfaction in China. Social Indicators Research, 127. doi: 10.1007/s11205-015-0989-3.
Andrews, R. (2014). Coordinating for cohesion. The contribution of public man-agement to the cohesiveness of society. Public Performance & Management Review, 37(4). doi: 10.2753/PMR1530-9576370408.
Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2.
Clark, C. (1940). The conditions of economic progress. London: Macmillan and Co. Ltd.
Dekker, K., & Bolt, G. (2005). Social cohesion in post-war estates in the Netherlands: differences between socioeconomic and ethnic groups. Urban Studies, 42(13). doi: 10.1080/00420980500380360.
Fisher, A. B. G. (1935). The clash of progress and security. London: McMillan.
Fourastié, J. (1949). Le grand espoir du XXe siècle. Progrès technique, progrès économique, progrès social. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
GUS, Bank Danych Lokalnych. Retrieved form www.stat.gov.pl (02.12.2016, 27.03.2017).
GUS. Strateg. Retrieved form www.stat.gov.pl (12.2016).
Hulse, K., & Stone, W. (2007). Social cohesion, social capital and social exclusion. A cross cultural comparison. Policy Studies, 28(2). doi: 10.1080/014428707013 09049.
Kaasa, A. (2016). Social capital, institutional quality and productivity: evidence from European regions. Economics and Sociology, 9(4). doi: 10.14254/2071-789X.2016/9-4/1.
Loktieva, I. (2016). Approaches to empirical analysis of social exclusion: interna-tional comparison. Economics and Sociology, 9(2). doi: 10.14254/2071-789X.2016/9-2/10.
Maudos, J., Pastor, J. M., & Serrano, L. (2000). Efficiency and productive speciali-zation: an application to the Spanish regions. Regional Studies, 34.
New Strategy and Council of Europe Action Plan for Social Cohesion, approved by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe on 7 July 2010, Retrieved form http://www.coe.int/t/dg3/socialpolicies/socialcohesiondev/source/2010S trategy_ActionPlan_SocialCohesion.pdf.
O’Leary, E., & Webber, D. J. (2015). The role of structural change in European regional productivity growth. Regional Studies, 49. doi: 10.1080/00 343404.2013.839868.
Sassi, M. (2011). Convergence across the EU regions: economic composition and structural transformation. International Advances in Economic Research, 17(1). doi: 10.1007/s11294-010-9286-8.
Published
2017-09-30
How to Cite
Cyrek, M. (2017, September 30). Social efficiency of employment in three sectors — a comparison of Polish regions. Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 12(3), 417–432. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.24136/eq.v12i3.22
Section
Socio-economic consequences of (in)equality