AccLabPY

24/01/2023

Formalization of employment (through knowledge and awareness of rights to social security)

This activity is framed within the frontier challenge "Employment formalization", since the learning cycle aims to observe the changes that can occur in the perception of informal workers in the construction sector about social security, after an intervention which provided different formats of training on social security and labor rights for these workers. It is expected that this change in the perception of workers will have an impact on their assessment of social security and labor formalization. 

The original learning question of our action learning plan is: how can we increase access to social security and improve the economic and physical security of employment in Paraguay's informal economy, particularly for women and in the recycling, construction, domestic work, and apparel industries?

Ministerio de Trabajo, Empleo y Seguridad Social (MTESS), International Labour Organization (ILO)

Evaluate the impact of different training formats for construction workers on their labor rights: one offering information, and another combining information with a methodology for reflection on their own knowledge and awareness of social security rights.

The experimental hypothesis establishes that the values of labor rights and solidarity can be strengthened, through reflection on the right to social security, helping to denaturalize risks and generating recognition of workers as subjects of rights. The spaces for reflection, combined with the provision of accurate information on social security, its benefits, and institutional regulations, would increase the positive assessment of social security by workers. This hypothesis is fully shown in the causal chain of our blog post on how to build good knowledge of social security and formalization.

Our hypothesis: access to information and reflection spaces improves workers’ assessment of social security. We designed a randomized control trial in order to test our hypothesis. In this experiment: a group of individuals were randomly assigned to three different subgroups: a control group, treatment group 1, and treatment group 2. Each treatment group receives a different treatment, while the control group does not receive any treatment. 281 construction sector workers were convened for this experiment via a socioeconomic questionnaire circulated on social media. There were two criteria for inclusion: (1) having completed a technical training course in construction work, and/or (2) having construction work experience. Unfortunately, the rise in COVID-19 infections limited how many participants we would have in a physical meeting space and affected worker participation. In total, 70 workers attended workshops in the month of December 2020. Of these, 24 were assigned to the control group, 18 to the treatment group 1, and 28 to treatment group 2.

Construction workers from Asunción and the Metropolitan area

For data collection, a registration form was socialized to capture the main socioeconomic characteristics (education, income level, work experience, etc.) of the construction workers interested in participating of the intervention. After completing the registration form, the individuals were assigned to three groups through simple random sampling: control group, treatment group 1 and treatment group 2. The first group corresponds to the control group, which received only messages with some relevant information about access to social security through WhatsApp. The second, treatment group 1, in addition to receiving informative messages, participated in an informative workshop on social security. The third, treatment group 2, in addition to the informative messages and the informative workshop on social security, also received a reflective workshop on social security with a rights-based approach. The randomization performed ensured that the individuals in the three groups were, on average, similar to each other with respect to all observable characteristics before the implementation of the intervention. This allows to compare the results of the groups after the intervention and to ensure that any differences found in the evaluation can be attributed to the impact of the intervention. To evaluate the results, a questionnaire was applied to the participants. The evaluation instrument contains three sections. Section I asks a series of multiple-choice questions about the perception that participants have about social security, in terms of rights of access, coverage and importance that they assign to it. The second section on "knowledge on social security" consists of multiple-choice questions, with the aim of capturing the degree of specific knowledge of the construction workers on aspects related to social security benefits (health coverage, economic benefits, retirement, etc.). The last section of the instrument is presented as stories in the form of moral dilemmas to encourage reflective thinking. These stories were proposed to cover aspects related to four central themes of social security: joint responsibility, integrity of the social security system, the right of access to social security, and finally equality in access to social security. The questionnaire was applied to all the participants of the intervention. The participants of treatment groups 1 and 2 answered the questions after participating in the workshops according to the assigned treatment. In contrast, the members of the control group completed the instrument and then received information about social security and informative talks about technical training options related to the construction sector.

3 months

Approximately 20% of the time of our Head of Experimentation, 20% of the time of our Head of Solutions Mapping, 20% of the time of our Head of Exploration, plus 100% of the time of two people hired for the learning cycle on formalization, was dedicated to the design, management, analysis, reporting, and monitoring of results, throughout the duration of the intervention. Moreover, the lab also counted with the help of, at the time, a Data Analyst, who devoted over 50% of her time to both implementation and analysis of the experiment. And for a brief time at the beginning, we had a part-time assistant helping in the process of sending out invitations to workers.  

In general terms, our experimental hypothesis was verified, with heterogeneous results according to the dimension observed and the treatment group. In general, the two treatments show positive and significant effects on the degree of knowledge on social security of the participants. We create a knowledge index to estimate the effect of the treatment on the knowledge about social security of the participants. This index includes three dimensions: knowledge on economic benefits, knowledge on health benefits and knowledge about institutional regulations of IPS.  The results show a greater effect of treatment 1 (32.1% vs 24%) compared to treatment 2 on the degree of knowledge of the individuals. This highlights the relevance of the informative workshops as a treatment and potential venue to increase the knowledge on social security of the construction workers, taking into account the ease of implementation with respect to the workshops that include the reflection component. In the same way, we propose an index that measure the perception that construction workers have about the social security. For this, we consider three dimensions: economic valuation, health valuation, and right-based valuations.  The results show positive and significant effects in general terms. In this sense, the treatment 1 increments in 21.5% the positive perception of social security of workers, an effect greater than that found as a result of treatment 2 (13.7%). Finally, the reflection spaces do not show significant effects on the valuation of social security of construction worker in any of its four topics: solidarity responsibility, comprehensiveness of the social security system, right to access social security, and equality in access to social security. The results that emerge from this analysis indicate that, in general, the intervention of information (treatment 1) had a significant effect on increasing knowledge and improving the perceptions about the social security of the participants, in relation to the control group that received informative messages through WhatsApp. In other words, the informative workshops carried out by the MTESS and by other institutions have greater potential to improve knowledge and perceptions that digital communication campaigns. In some of the calculated indices, the informative workshop had a greater effect than the reflective one, and vice versa. In general, the difference of the impact between the two types of workshops is not very large, so we conclude that integrating reflective exercises into an informative workshop adds value to this type of offer formative. The results show the importance of the information campaigns as a tool to change both the knowledge and the perception that construction workers have on social security. However, since this intervention does not assess the role of information in increasing formalization, it is necessary to consider other types of obstacles to determine if this strategy is an effective tool to overcome barriers to formalization.

We detect some limitations of our study, that are mainly related to the lack of administrative data and the COVID-19 pandemic: 1. The lack of direct access to construction workers due to the absence of updated databases from government institutions forced us to make a call through publications on social networks (Facebook). The participants were asked to fill out a registration form to collect their contact and socioeconomic information. Therefore, the sample presents a self-selection bias, since the participants decided to participate in the study. This bias may imply that participants previously had some type of interest in social security. Although the 281 participants were then randomly assigned to each type of treatment, it is important to keep this limitation in mind when interpreting the results. 2. The study was carried out with a sample of 70 individuals. Although the three assigned groups have optimal balancing conditions, the size of the sample can interfere with the results obtained, especially those related to the statistical power of the estimates. That is, it must be considered that the effects detected may be greater, or that there are some effects that have not been quantified in a significant way due to the low number of individuals. 3. One of the main consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic on the intervention refers to the conditions of implementation, since, due to the restrictions imposed to reduce the circulation of the virus, we could not carry out the different treatments in a single day. 4. Although the research team ensured compliance with all the requirements designed for each intervention, it is important to mention that the treatments could have suffered certain differences in terms of schedules, physical spaces, etc. It should also be noted that the two sessions of treatment  2  were given by different people, due to an outbreak of the virus within the facilitation staff. Although the impact of these conditions on the intervention cannot be determined, they must be considered for the interpretation of the results. 5. Finally, the results obtained in this analysis refer only to the 70 participants of the intervention and that they cannot be extrapolated to other individuals or populations. Furthermore, it cannot be inferred that an experiment of this type can have the same effects when applied by other experimenters and to another target population. 6. One important improvement would be on how we managed the logistics and overall implementation of the experiment. At the time, we were still figuring out most of our project management process, and we realize now, looking in retrospective, that we invested more resources than were needed in this experiment, and that we were inefficient to some extent in how we managed the time of the people we contracted for the implementation and analysis of this experiment. We feel that much more could have been done if we better managed their time. 

7 months

For evaluation purposes only:   Implementation of the pilot:  i) hiring a specialist for the methodological design and systematization of the workshops,  ii) costs associated with the logistics of the implemented workshops: ~ USD 6,500 iii) Incentives for workshop participants: ~ USD 1,000 iv) Other resources: time spent by AccLab members (average or 2h-4h/week throughout the pilot period), full-time commitment of two people hired for the formalization project, time spent by officials from the Ministry of Labor for the training in workshops.

Lessons learned in this experiment are incoporated in the new Funding Window funded project named Local. 

The evidence we generated with the experimental intervention suggests that providing treatment groups with accurate information about social security benefits, policies, and procedures substantially improved their assessment of social security. Informative workshops or seminars seem to be especially effective in improving the assessment of economic and health benefits. The informative seminars carried out by the Ministry of Labor and other institutions represent an effective and efficient strategy to improve the interest of workers in accessing social security. Combined with other interventions designed to generate interest in social insurance of the employers, these seminars have a high potential to increase the number of formalized workers in the construction industry in Paraguay. As we found in the exploration activities of this learning loop, making access to social security effective requires addressing other barriers in combination with the one addressed in this work. These other barriers include the need to better clarify the legal responsibility of contractors and subcontractors, streamline procedures, identify incentives for labor inspection, among others. The experimental approach presented in this work and throughout the learning cycle developed allows us to address each of these barriers from a logic based on evidence and on the meaningful participation of workers.

We face many obstacles throughout the realization of our intervention, related to different types of barriers: 1. COVID-19 pandemic limited the number of participants of the informative and reflection workshops.   2. Adverse weather conditions forced the suspension and rescheduling of the workshops, affecting the number of participants. 3. Cultural beliefs regarding masculinity and gender are strongly embedded in construction workers. Therefore, generating changes in these aspects may require more time and dedication to observe the effects of the interventions on them.

The Inclusive Development Portfolio of our CO also focuses on some activities related to employment formalization and our findings could help to shape and design new projects and activities oriented to reduce the barriers to formalization in some industries such as construction, domestic work, among others. 

1. The Ministry of Labor can benefit from the results obtained, since the findings show that offering informative workshops on social security strengthens the perception that workers have on this topic, and in particular, they show that the workshops offered by the MTESS are effective to improve their knowledge and perception of social security. 2. Workers who receive the informative and/or reflective workshops can improve their knowledge about social security and labor rights.

No, this experiment did not require iterations.

One of the most important lessons we learned from this experiment and that we think is essential to consider when replicating this activity is the need to approach the actors involved in the phenomenon studied before planning the intervention strategy. In this case, the team conducted several interviews with the relevant actors: real estate brokers, contractors, construction companies, and the workers themselves. This allowed us to have a better understanding of the dynamics of work in the construction sector, but above all the needs of each actor, which allowed our intervention to be designed with its beneficiaries in mind, that is, the intervention took as its center the construction worker. In addition, having the support of both governmental and civil institutions related to the sector helped to resolve the logistical issues of the experiment more quickly than if we did it independently. Thus, the previous approach also made it possible to have institutional allies that facilitated the intervention process and made its execution possible even during the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Yes, this experiment can be replicated in any thematic area or SDG where the problem detected involve misinformation or lack of spaces to make reflections on some specific topic. To replicate this activity, it is necessary to consider the type of misinformation detected and its consequences, to design the best content for the informative workshops. Likewise, it should be noted that a prior approach to the actors involved would shed light on the specific themes and ideas that should be reflected in the reflective workshops. Once these aspects are identified, the logic of offering two types of treatments and a control group could easily be replicated in any area.

Both sensing and exploration activities influenced greatly the design of the experiment, the hypotheses we decided to test, the places and people we engaged, and the things we needed to observe as the experiment unfolded. The activities designed as a part of the mapping and exploration phases, make it possible to made it possible to know in depth the needs of the actors involved, so that the experimentation was fully based on the findings of these phases.

Carrying out this experiment that had a strong component of interaction with the workers, in the midst of the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Also, we were surprised by the interest of the workers in participating in the intervention. Meeting their realities and perceptions about social security gave us new information and ideas on how to articulate new learning cycles to address the problem of employment informality in Paraguay. Finally, the interest and constant methodological and logistical collaboration that we received from the Ministry of Labor, specifically from the Social Security Directorate, for this experiment was a great surprise.