Gender Differences in Unemployment and Poverty in Four ...
57
0 Gender Differences in Unemployment and Poverty in Four Palestinian Refugee Camps in Jordan Dr. Abdel Baset Athamneh Dept. of Economics- Yarmouk University Irbid-Jordan
Transcript of Gender Differences in Unemployment and Poverty in Four ...
0
Gender Differences in Unemployment and Poverty in Four
Palestinian Refugee Camps in Jordan
Dr. Abdel Baset Athamneh
Dept. of Economics- Yarmouk University
Irbid-Jordan
1
Gender Differences in Unemployment and Poverty in Four Palestinian
Refugee Camps in Jordan
Dr. Abdel Baset Athamneh
Abstract
This study aims at investigating the effect of gender differences on causing unemployment and
poverty inside Palestinian refugee camps in Jordan through estimating the rates of
unemployment and poverty among families headed by women and those headed by men. To
attain its objectives, this study picked the needed data using an accidental (convenience)
sampling technique that included 674 families in four camps: Irbid, Al-Husn, Jerash, and Suf
Camps. Descriptive analysis was used to illustrate the impact of the gender of the family head on
those rates.
The study found differences in the socioeconomic characteristics of the sample, including family
size, family residence space, income levels, education levels, school dropout rates, child labor,
dependency rates, etc. The results of the study also showed that unemployment rates among
families in the sample as a whole were higher in families headed by women (24.4 percent) than
in families headed by men (22.0 percent). Conversely, at the camp level, unemployment rates
among families headed by men were higher, except in Irbid camp. However, poverty rates were
found to be higher among families headed by women in the sample as whole and in all camps as
well; the abject poverty rates in the sample amounted 18.8 percent for families headed by women
versus 5.6 percent for families headed by men. The absolute poverty rates were 67.8 percent and
45.6 percent respectively.
Finally, the study recommends further research on gender issues concerning refugee
communities, concentrating on qualitative analyses to provide deep interpretations for the
phenomena with which refugees live, especially unemployment and poverty.
Keywords: gender inequality, unemployment, poverty, Palestinian refugees
2
1. OVERVIEW:
1.1 INTRODUCTION:
The study of the socioeconomic characteristics of any community is considered the key to
diagnosing the reality of that community and the problems it faces especially those have direct
impacts on the life of individuals. Taking into consideration the abilities of individuals and
society and the possibilities of the national economy, the diagnosis of the causes and
consequences of unemployment and poverty in any community and tackling their negative
effects helps decision makers to plan systematically to alleviate such problems. This may come
true through adopting strategies to combat poverty and setting macroeconomic policies to push
the economic growth forward and therefore creating new job opportunities and increasing the
employment levels. Accordingly, decreasing the rates of unemployment will decrease the rates of
poverty which in turn improves life standards of people and increases their welfare as well.
Moreover, unemployment and poverty are interdisciplinary problems which they have social,
economic, psychological and political consequences and are related to other important issues in
society such as: the high dependency rates, the negative attitudes for public opinion, the inequity
of income distribution, low productivity, the increase in the rate of crime, etc., which requires
comprehensive and long-lasting treatments to the causes, aspects and effects of those issues
simultaneously.
Refugee community usually differs from hosting communities in terms of the overall social and
economic circumstances due to the lack of the opportunities available to refugees in general in
attending schools and acquiescing in specialized training, in addition to their legal status as
refugees which in sometimes prevent them get jobs that guarantee permanent income sources.
This applies more to female refugees who suffer more than males in getting self-sufficiency and
economic empowerment.
The influx of Palestinian refugees to Jordan started in May 1948 due to the Arab-Israeli war;
where about 500 thousand refugees expelled from their original homeland Palestine to Jordan
(UNRWA, 1995). In 1967, a new forced migration began to the Kingdom as a result of the war
between Israel and some of the Arab states, and therefore, Palestinian refugees and displaced
3
persons obliged to flee from the West Bank to the East Bank of the Hashemite Kingdom of
Jordan. Before that time, particularly in 1950, Jordan witnessed a unification between the two
banks, yet, since that time the majority of Palestinian refugees (more than 95%) residing in
Jordan have full citizenship including political rights and the right of voting. Nevertheless, about
18% of them still live in refugee camps (Athamneh, 2016).
The United Nations Works and Relief Agency for Palestinian refugees in the Near East
(UNRWA) has defined a Palestinian refugee as anyone whose “normal place of residence was
Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948 and who lost both home and means of
livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict” (UNRWA, 2006). Consequently, Palestinian refugees
fled to Jordan, Syria, Lebanon, the West Bank, and Gaza Strip, which were called later the
UNRWA’s operational regions. While Palestinian displaced persons in Jordan are Palestinians
originating from the West Bank of the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, who were internally
displaced for the first time during the 1967 Israeli-Arab war to the East Bank of the Kingdom,
and who are unable to return to their homes.
The majority of Palestinian refugees and displaced persons in Jordan lives outside camps since
they are well-integrated in the Jordanian society and the rest in thirteen refugee camps; ten of
them are under the mandate of the UNRWA, they are: Irbid, Zarqa, Jabal Al-Hussein, Marka
(Hiteen), Suf, Jerash, Azmi Al-Mufti, Baqa, Talbia, and Al-Wihdat, while the other three camps
are: Assokhneh, Madaba, and Al-Amir Hassan Quarter (Hnakeen) (DPA, 2016).
The temporary status of the Palestinian refugees and displaced persons camps in the Hashemite
Kingdom of Jordan, or in the rest of the UNRWAS’s operations does not in any way mean the
omission of any of the aspects which directly affect human resources, as a focal point of
economic and social development process. It is also an important source of economic growth as
an essential determinant of the aggregate demand and aggregate supply in the national economy
at the same time. In addition, sustainable economic and social development of the society should
target all sectors, classes, and categories regardless the legal status of individuals in the society
whether they are permanent residents or refugees.
The crude economic activity rate in Jordan is low in general (24.3%) in 2015 and the labor
market suffers from a gender gap. this rate came to 39.3% for males and to only 8.9% for
females of the same year, and this gap seems significant where the refined economic activity
4
rates came to 36.7%, 60.5% and 11.0% for the same year respectively. Additionally,
unemployment rates in Jordan have experienced big differences between females (22.5%) and
males (11.0%) of that year (DOS, 2016a). And because Palestinian refugees have been integrated
into the Jordanian society they almost have the same socioeconomic characteristics and
circumstances, this study aims at investigating the impact of the gender of the head of the family
on unemployment and poverty.
In addition, the study of gender issues became today one of the most important developmental
topics which concerns countries and nations as it refers to the empowerment of woman and/ or
man and therefore reinforcing their roles in serving the community and emerging economic
sufficiency. Whereas gender differences could be a reason for some economic and social
problems among of which unemployment and poverty especially in marginalized communities
and in groups which suffer from social and economic exclusion.
Hence, this study becomes significant because gender gap became true in Jordan, which impedes
woman empowerment and reinforces social exclusion in the society. So the study aims to
investigate the impact of gender differences as a cause for unemployment and poverty inside
Palestinian refugees and IDPs inside camps in Jordan.
1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY:
This study aims to study the effect of gender differences on causing unemployment and poverty
inside Palestinian Refugee Camps in Jordan, and in detail, as follows:
1. Identifying some of the demographic and social characteristics concerning families in
camps such as sex, age, age structure, the number of the family members, nationality,
marital status, education, and the ownership of the housing and its area.
2. Investigating the effect of the gender of family head on some economic variables
(indicators) concerning the families such as income, the number of employed, number of
unemployed, and place of work, dependency rates, and unemployment rates.
3. Investigating the impact of gender differences on the levels of unemployment through
calculating unemployment rates in the sample.
4. Measuring the absolute and abject poverty rates for the sample according to camps and to
the gender of the head of the family.
5
1.3 PROBLEM AND SIGNIFICANCE:
Gender issues became today one the important topics which scientific research aims to tackle
as they have interdisciplinary relation with all economic, social, demographic and/ or
developmental dimension in the society. The importance of such topic is growing, especially
in developing countries, where a woman suffers in general from many problems such as
unemployment, social exclusion, poverty, marginalization, etc. This situation is clear larger
in vulnerable groups and disadvantaged classes, where refugee communities are considered
real examples for low educational levels and modest life opportunities among females than
males. Female refugees, in particular, have few chances in getting an education, training and
rehabilitation and so little opportunities in getting jobs and emerging, empowerment, and
economic sufficiency. Therefore, unemployed-females indicate that idle and unproductive
resources exist, which in turn decrease the national income and the total productivity, which
means that economic welfare and standards of living of the society are modest.
So, this study comes to elaborate the reasons behind the unemployment and poverty in
female-headed families inside the camps in comparison to male-headed families, and through
answering the following main question:
“Do the differences in gender have an impact on causing unemployment and poverty among
families inside Palestinian camps in Jordan?”
1.4 JORDAN AS A HOST COMMUNITY FOR REFUGEES:
Jordan is considered one of largest host communities for refugees in the Middle East, where the
continuous waves of forced immigrations to the country constitute today about one-third of the
total population. By the beginning of the nineteenth century, the country received, before its
independence, waves of Circassian, Chechnya, and Armenian forced-immigrants. Just two years
after independence in 1946, Jordan received in 1948 a tremendous influx of refugees in May
1948 due to the Israeli-Arab war where about 500 thousands of Palestinian refugees fled to
Jordan and therefore the total population was doubled at that time. After that and particularly in
6
1950, a political unification occurred between Jordan and the West Bank (the rest of Palestine
after 1948 war) and a new what state had the name of The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan
including the East Bank the West Bank (Athamneh, 2016).
A new wave of forced immigration of Palestinians to Jordan, but this time the influx happened
internally from the west bank to the east bank of the kingdom in 1967 as a result of the war
between Israel and Jordan, Egypt, and Syria in June of that year, so the new immigrants have
been called as “displaced persons”. The number of Palestinian IDPs was estimated by about 390
thousand individuals, where the majority of them (88.5%) fled from the west bank while the rest
(11.5%) came to Jordan later from Gaza Strip (The Higher Ministerial Committee, 1967).
After that, Jordan also received during the second half of the seventies of the past century forced-
immigrant individuals and families from Lebanon due to the civil war which took place during
the period (1975-1990), but the influx in that time was limited and most of the immigrants chose
Amman as a final destination. In 1982 and as a result of accidents occurred in Syria especially in
Hammah City, many families from Syria had their asylum in Jordan to live in the main cities at
that time. Another chapter of involuntary migration to Jordan began in early 1991, where more
than 300 thousand of compelled Jordanians, returned home on account of the disputes in the
official stands of Jordan and some Arab states from the Gulf War II. Those returnees worked in
Kuwait and other Gulf states for a long time and were obliged to return within three months at
the end of 1990 and the beginning of 1991 causing a sudden increase of total population by 10%.
However, the involuntary immigrants at that time hadn’t been considered refugees because the
return to their country which they hold its citizenship (Athamneh, 2016).
The Iraqi refugees represented another mass influx of refugees to Jordan and took place in two
phases; the first was after the Gulf War II (January-February 1991) and the second was in 2003
and later, as a result of the US invasion of Iraq (March-April 2003). In May 2007, the number of
Iraqi refugees in Jordan was estimated somewhere between 450-500 thousand (FAFO &
UNFPA, 2007), while the last census in Jordan (30 November 2015) indicated that the number of
Iraqis in Jordan was 130.9 thousand (DOS, 2016b). The journey of Syrian refugees to Jordan has
begun since March 2011 and continued till now, where the influx of Syrian immigrants was in
mass movements. The momentum of this immigration occurred during the period (2012-2014)
and caused major economic, social, demographic, and security impacts on Jordan as a host
7
community among of which, a rapid increase in population by 20%, where the number of
Syrians in Jordan according to 2015 census amounted 1.3 million (DOS, 2016b). About half
(629034 thousands) of those immigrants were registered refugees at the UNHCR (UNHCR,
2016), while the rest were considered immigrants have legal residence in Jordan.
Table No. (1)
The distribution of Non-Jordanians in Jordan according to nationalities
Nationality Palestinians Syrians Egyptians Iraqis Yemenis Libyans Others Total
Number 634182 1265514 636270 130911 31163 22700 197385 2918125
% of the total
Population 6.65 13.28 6.68 1.37 0.33 0.24 2.07 30.61
Source: Department of Statistics (2016b), Results of the General Population and Housing Census 2015.
Table No. (2) shows that about 31% of the total population of Jordan is non-Jordanians. This
ratio, of course, doesn’t include the Palestinian refugees in Jordan where the majority of them
(more than 95%) have full citizenship according to the unification of the two banks in Jordan in
1950. By the 1st of December 2015, the number of registered Palestinian refugees in Jordan came
to 2,117,361, about 18% of them live inside ten official camps (under the mandate of the
UNRWA), in addition to other three camps are administrated by the Jordanian Government,
whilst the rest live within the Jordanian society that is because they have full citizenship.
Nevertheless, 634182 Palestinians who are originally from Gaza Strip still haven’t the Jordanian
citizenship despite they have been living in the country since more than four decades where they
are classified as stateless people. Some of them live inside refugee camps especially Suf Camp
which is unofficially known as “Gaza Camp” because the majority of its inhabitants are
originally from Gaza Strip (DOS, 2016b).
1.5 UNEMPLOYMENT AND POVERTY IN JORDAN:
During the past four decades, the labor market in Jordan witnessed noticeable fluctuations in the
rates of unemployment, which ranged from 1.6% in 1976 to 18.8% in 1993, while the rate came
to 13% in 2015 (Ibrahim, 1989 and MOL, 1993 & 2015). The main reasons for the high rates of
unemployment in the Jordanian labor market since the fifties of the ex-century are attributed to
the economic and political conditions, which Jordan has passed through. Successive waves of
forced- immigrants and foreign labor flows, which the country has experienced, caused high
8
rates of population growth. Consequently, labor supply has increased dramatically in the short-
run and in the long-run leading to an increase in the numbers of job-seekers which pushed
unemployment rates to rise.
This coincided with the slowdown in the economic growth in Jordan since the eighties of the
twentieth century, compared with the seventies when Jordan witnessed important economic leaps
and high growth rates (Al-Omari, 2002), in addition to the rapid increase in the output of the
educational system at different stages. The absorptive capacity of the public sector in Jordan also
retreated as a main employer in the labor market (employed about 37% of the total employment
in 2015) due to the orientation of the country towards the private sector as a motive for economic
growth and creating new jobs in on the macro economy.
Economic participation rates are considered low, where the crude economic activity rate came to
only 24.3% (39.3% for males and 8.9% for females) in 2015, while the refined-economic activity
rate was 36.7% (60.0% for males and 13.3% for females) for the same year. This gender gap in
economic participation was reflected in a parallel gap in unemployment rates which reached
13.0% (11.0% for males and 22.5% for females), which is not necessarily related to the rates of
educational enrollment where the female/ male ratio in the bachelor stage in Jordan amounted
107.6% (DOS, 2016a). However, in Jordan education is not the only qualification of females in
particular to get a job, the nature of the society as a macho society, the nature of labor market in
terms of the employment in most of the public sector bodies where males are preferred due to the
work hardship (especially military and security work), and the misbelief, woman productivity is
lower than that of man in the labor market. Wherefore, unemployment between females is widely
spread phenomenon in Jordan and aggravating from year to year.
Poverty is one of the problems which people face in Jordan as poverty affects negatively the life
standards and the welfare of individuals and society as a whole. The state of poverty in Jordan
hasn't been yet diagnosed well due to lack of information where the surveys concerning this issue
are old. The last survey concerning poverty in Jordan was conducted in 2010 where the absolute
poverty rate in the Kingdom came to 14.4% where this figure refers to the percentage of
Jordanians who located below the absolute poverty limit. This limit is equivalent to the annual
expenditures of an individual and amounted 814 JODs. While on family limit was 4395.6 JODs
in which 118995 families and 876590 individuals in Jordan suffered from income poverty
9
Concerning the abject (food) poverty limit in Jordan, it was 0.32% where this figure represents
the percentage of Jordanians who located below the annual abject poverty limit, which came to
336 JODs per individual (equivalent to 1814.4 JODs per family). This implies that there were
2206 families and 19540 individuals suffered from abject (food) poverty (UNDP, 2013).
In 2010, there were disparities in poverty rates in different governorates of the Kingdom at which
the absolute poverty rates was highest in Ma’an (26.6%) and lowest in Jerash (6.8%). The two
governorates also registered the extreme rates of abject poverty (Ma’an:2.7% and Jerash: 0%)
(UNDP, 2013).
Table No. (2)
0oea sAds t Ai easo fs tcajes Ana etsl sbA fo seRaR
eAna A oea t Ai eas Ana ets
0oea
tcajes Ana ets0oea
no'o 26.6% 2.68%
ciA 25.6% 0.26%
aoiao 20.9% 0.00%
aoto 19.2% 0.60%
nod oa 19.2% 1.27%
hodlioTs 17.2% 0.33%
nofoto 15.1% 0.00%
d tlf 15.0% 0.10%
ao ao 14.1% 0.34%
ko oK 13.4% 0.59%
mmo 11.4% 0.35%
ba o T 6.8% 0.00% - Source: United Nations Developmental Program (UNDP) (2013), Jordan Poverty
Reduction Strategy Final Report, Amman.
10
Figure No. (1)
Abject and absolute poverty rates in Jordan according to governorates (2010)
2. LITERATURE REVIEW- CONCEPTUAL THEORETICAL ISSUES:
2.1 CONCEPT OF UNEMPLOYMENT:
The International Labor Organization (ILO) “defines the unemployed as numbers of the
economically active population who are without work, but available for and seeking work,
including people who have lost their jobs and those who have voluntarily left work" (World
Bank, 2007, p59).
The following definitions are based on the Resolution concerning statistics of the economically
active population, employment, unemployment and underemployment, adopted by the Thirteenth
International Conference of Labor Statisticians (October 1982) (ILO, 2016), where the labor
force comprises all persons of working age who furnish the supply of labor for the production of
goods and services during a specified time-reference period. It refers to the sum of all persons of
working age who are employed and those who are unemployed, where the employed comprise
0,00%
5,00%
10,00%
15,00%
20,00%
25,00%
30,00% 26,60% 25,60%
20,90% 19,20% 19,20%
17,20% 15,10% 15,00% 14,10% 13,40%
11,40%
6,80%
14,40%
2,68% 0,26% 0,00% 0,60% 1,27% 0,33% 0,00% 0,10% 0,34% 0,59% 0,35% 0,00% 0,32%
Abject and absolute poverty rates in Jordan according to governorates (2010)
Absolute Poverty Rate Abject Poverty Rate
11
all persons of working age who during a specified brief period, such as one week or one day,
were in the following categories: (ILO, 2016)
(i) Paid employment (whether at work or with a job but not at work); or
(ii) Self-employment (whether at work or with an enterprise but not at work).
While the unemployed comprise all persons of working age who were: (ILO, 2016)
(i) Without work during the reference period, i.e. we’re not in paid employment or self-
employment;
(ii) Currently available for work, i.e. were available for paid employment or self-employment
during the reference period; and
(iii) Seeking work, i.e. had taken specific steps in a specified recent period to seek paid
employment or self-employment. For purposes of international comparability, the period of
job search is often defined as the preceding four weeks, but this varies from country to
country.
Therefore, unemployment rate (UR) is defined as the percentage of unemployed persons in the
labor force, and would be calculated as follows:
UR = 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑢𝑛𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑦𝑒𝑑
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑟 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒∗ 100%
But for a given component group of the labor force, the unemployment rate is the percentage of
this group that is unemployed. For example, the URf for females would be calculated as:
URf = 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑢𝑛𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑦𝑒𝑑 𝑓𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑠 in the working age
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑒𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑟 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒∗ 100%
Similarly, URm for males would be calculated as:
URm = 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑢𝑛𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑦𝑒𝑑 𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑠 in the working age
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑛𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑟 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒∗ 100%
12
2.2 CONCEPT OF POVERTY:
The classical definition of poverty is based on monetary terms through using the levels of
income or consumption to measure poverty and then determining the poor of those who fall
below a specific poverty limit or a given level of income or consumption (Grusky and Kanbur,
2006). While the definition has been widened and became a composite measure of three
dimensions: life expectancy, educational attainment, and standard of living, measured by income
in terms of its purchasing power parity (UNDP, 2006). Low income levels is considered the main
aspect of poverty, despite that this problem is not restricted to limited income (DSS, 199 &
Pantazis and Levitas, 2006). An extended definition of poverty indicated that the poor shall be
taken to mean persons, families and groups of persons whose resources (material, cultural and
social) are so limited as to exclude them from the minimum acceptable way of life in the
Member State in which they live (EEC, 1985). While the United Nations (UN) defined absolute
poverty as “a condition characterized by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including
food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It
depends not only on income but also on access to services” (UN, 1995, p 57).
However, absolute poverty implies the inability of a person or a group to get essential needs of
food, clothing, shelter, health services, basic education, transportation, and work, whereas abject
poverty indicates to the inability of getting the food-needs only (UNDP, 1997). Hence, for any
person or human group, poverty means the absence of basic necessities of life implying the
insufficiency of the means of earning relative to human needs (Adefolalu, 1992).
Moreover, there are many causes and aspects of poverty including regional, community and
household dimensions. Household and individual characteristics have an important impact in
causing poverty through the differences in many variables, such as age structure, dependency
ratio, gender of family head, employment status, hours worked, property owned, health and
nutritional status, education, shelter (World Bank Institute, 2005).
2.3 GENDER ANALYSIS:
Gender refers to the socially constructed characteristics of women and men – such as norms,
roles and relationships of and between groups of women and men (WHO, 2011). It is also the
relations between men and women, both perceptual and material. Gender is not determined
13
biologically, as a result of sexual characteristics of either women or men, but is constructed
socially (FAO, 1997). According to the UNESCO, gender refers to the roles and responsibilities
of men and women that are created in our families, our societies and our cultures. The concept of
gender also includes the expectations held about the characteristics, aptitudes and likely
behaviors of both women and men (UNESCO, 2003).
Before determining the relation between gender and each of employment, poverty and migration,
it is important to refer that the relationship between unemployment and poverty is not explicitly
direct, where any conclusions about the impact of unemployment on poverty depends on the
particular way in which poverty is measured (DeFina, 2002). Additionally, no conclusive
evidence has been found for such relation, which actually needs quantitative analyses in a
systematic way (Ryscavage, 1982). On this regard, migration can result from poverty, but this
doesn't necessarily mean that poorer people has a higher tendency to migrate than others, due to
the costs of migration as an economic process including the opportunity costs (World Bank,
2005). Unemployment and poverty are organically related with social exclusion which refers to
the processes by means of which individuals and groups of people have limited rights and
opportunities to become fully integrated into society (García & Romero, 2016). It refers to some
patterns of social differentiation and inequalities due to religion, ethnicity, caste, social class,
and/ or gender (Mathieson, J. et al., 2008). Females are considered as largely marginalized
classes in the South, where they suffer unequal opportunities and little chances for social and
economic empowerment compared to males due to many factors mainly related to the conditions
of their primitive or developing communities.
Furthermore, Poverty could be existed due the disparities of the wages and salaries paid to men
and women, which called gender wage gap and measured by dividing the average wage paid to
men on that paid to women, where wage differences could be per hour, week, month, or year
(ILO, 2013). While the OECD (2016) defined the gender wage gap as the difference between
male and female median wages divided by the male median wages, the European Union (2014)
recognized the gender pay gap as the difference between men’s and women’s pay, based on the
average difference in gross hourly earnings of all employees”.
Moreover, poverty could prevail amongst unemployed persons who haven't permanent sources
of income, where women are considered more vulnerable to being unemployed and/ or
14
economically inactive due to fewer opportunities in education and training, and therefore, getting
jobs. As for the reasons for the existence of gender wage gap in pay, some theories attributed that
to supply factors, due to the difference in the size and quality of invested human resources
between men and women. While other theories attributed the gap to the demand side, where
there is a structural bias is in action often against women in the labor market, either by the
employer or community through the inherited restrictions on women and their working fields
(Meulders et al, 2010). However, this phenomenon imposes negative impacts on women's
productivity and standard of living of the family, in addition to the country's economic growth.
So, the overlapping of gender, unemployment and poverty could be illustrated as follows:
Figure No. (2)
The relationship between gender, unemployment and poverty
Social Exclusion Based on Gender + Macho Society
↓
Fewer Opportunities for
Education → Low Economic Participation
Rates
↓
Fewer Job Opportunities → Unemployment
↓
Gender Wage Gap →
Low Levels for Income
↓
Limited Sources of Income + Wage Discrimination
↓
Poverty
15
2.4 EMPIRICAL LITERATURE REVIEW:
Many empirical studies found that female-headed families are more likely than male-headed
families to be persistently poor (Kelso, 1994), and such families remain in poverty longer than
male-headed families. Also female-headed families were at risk of poverty (McLanahan, 1985),
and were causing concern even in industrialized countries (Kamerman, 1984). Unemployment
rates were also found higher in those families than in married couple families (Levitan & Gallo,
1988).
Tiltnes & Zhang (2014) conducted a field study during October and November 2011on the living
conditions of the Palestinian refugee population residing inside Jordan’s 13 Palestinian refugee
camps, through a large survey of a linear systematic random sample of 4000 households. This
study found that four in five households own their homes; the university studies increasingly
popular in camps and educational attainment varies by economic standing; Low labor force
participation, especially for women; More education brings about increased labor force
participation, particularly for women; few children in the labor force; women tend to work fewer
hours than men and specially in the informal sector; slightly higher unemployment amongst
women (19% for males versus 15% for males); unemployment amongst youth aged 15 to 24
came to 33%; the mean annual household income for all camp dwellers was 3,276 JD; the
poverty rate at the 814 JD poverty line is nearly % (the highest in Jerash 53% and the lowest in
Zarqa 19%.
Dermott & Pantazis (2014) presented an analysis of the relationship between gender and poverty
in the UK Poverty and Social Exclusion (PSE) survey (2012). They found that women living in
Britain were marginally poorer and more deprived than men across all our measures, but the gaps
are not consistently significant. Also, poverty rates and deprivation levels declined with age and
the largest gender gaps are present between women and men in the middle age groups, where
older women and men have the lowest rates of poverty and the gap between them is around one
percentage point.
Rivera (2013) analyzed women’s economic participation in Mexico estimating an econometric
model to investigate the influence of various socio-economic factors on that participation. The
study found that the main barriers to female participation were the lack of education and the
absence of diverse work possibilities in industries, in addition no significant relationship between
16
women headed households and WEP was approved, indicating that women in this group are
likely to be in the labor market when they are the family head as well as when they are not. The
study also showed that the poorer the community the more likely it is that women will participate
The National Women’s Law Center (2011) used a gender analysis of national Census data for
2010 in the United States, where the data revealed that women and children in 2010 continued to
be disproportionately impacted by poverty. The highest poverty rates were among female-headed
families with children, black, Hispanic, and Native American women, children, women with
disabilities, and women 65 and older living alone. Concerning adult women in 2010, more than 1
in 7 women, over 17.2 million, lived in poverty, the poverty rate for women (14.5 percent) was
3.3 percentage points higher than it was for men (11.2 percent), the poverty rate for female-
headed families with children was 40.7 percent, compared to 24.2 percent for male-headed
families with children. The study also showed that the poverty rate for female-headed families
with children was 40.7 percent, compared to 24.2 percent for male-headed families with
children, and 8.8 percent for families with children headed by a married couple.
Atom & Athamneh (2008) aimed at determining the demographic and economic motives of
poverty in Irbid and Al-Husn Camps for Palestinian Refugees as well as determining the ratio of
poor families there.. The study based on a data base derived from the survey that carried out in
2006. The survey included some socio-economic and demographic variables related to the
households residing the two camps. A random sample of about 20% of the total dwellings was
chosen therefore. The results of the study showed that the problem of poverty in the two camps
was aggravated as a result of the large family size, low family's average expenditure on
education, high unemployment rates, and limited income sources. The study also showed low
rates of economic participation, especially for women, at which the rate reached 6.0% only.
Moreover, the study revealed that monthly average income was also low (193.3 JDs)
simultaneously with a small dwellings area (3.19 rooms for each), low annual average
expenditure of the family on education, and relatively low dependency.
Faridi, et al. (2009) estimated the various factors which affect the women work participation
basing on the cross-section data collected through field survey in Bahawalpur District of
Pakistan. The study found that educational attainment levels turn out to be very significant
determinant of female’s labor force participation, where female education is necessary for better
17
employment opportunities. In addition, the presence of children in early age groups reduced the
female labor force participation. The study concluded that the basic level of education is not
sufficient to enter in the labor market, while the female labor market participation increases with
the rising levels of higher education. It also concluded that females are more likely to participate
in rural market activities. Consequently, rural infrastructure is needed to be improved and
government should also start the rural development programs for creating more employment
opportunities for women.
Moepeng & Tisdell (2008) attempted to explore the socio-economic situation of female heads
and poor heads of household in rural Botswana by means of a case study of the village of
Nshakazhogwe The survey of household heads in Nshakazhogwe revealed that 57 of the 218
female-headed households in the village were in poverty, which is 26.15 percent compared with
18 of the 112 male-headed households, that is 16.07 percent. Thus if this is a representative
village for rural eastern Botswana, the incidence of rural poverty is likely to be higher in female-
headed households than male headed households. The results of this study indicated that poverty
tends to rise with household size.
Spierings, et al. (2008) conducted using bivariate cross tabulations and multilevel logistic
regression analysesa study includes six MENA countries: Algeria, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco,
Syria, and Tunisia, and combined large representative datasets (using data for 65,000 women)
from the Pan Arab Project for Family Health (PAPFam) and the Demographic and Health
Surveys (DHS). The study found different factors at different levels to influence women’s
employment simultaneously, which depends on whether a job is needed, whether a job can be
obtained, and whether having a job is considered acceptable. Needs, opportunities and values at
both macro and micro level manifest themselves in constraining or enabling form. The study also
revealed that the effect of education was stronger for women with less care duties and women
married to higher educated partners, and stressed the importance of education as a major road
towards women’s empowerment in these countries.
Snyder, et al. (2005) examined race and residential variation in the prevalence of female-headed
families with children through using data from the U.S. Census. Special attention is paid to
cohabiting female-headed families with children, and those that are headed by a single female
caring for at least one grandchild because these have been identified as important living
18
arrangements for single mothers and their children. The study found that cohabiting and
grandparental female-headed households with children comprised in 2000 one-third of all
female-headed households with children, and cohabiting households are found disproportionately
in nonmetropolitan areas. The study ended that household poverty is highest for single mother
household heads that do not have other adult household members, where the earned income from
a cohabiting partner and retirement income account for much of the additional income sources
that life cohabiting and grandparental female-headed households out of poverty.
Rodgers (1994) introduced a systematic investigation of why poverty rates for female-headed
families are so much higher than those of male-headed families and married-couple families. She
found differences between the poverty rates of female-headed families and other family types
can be explained partially by the fact that families headed by females have less desirable levels
of these factors. The study also concluded that female-headed families, on average, have less
education, have more dependents, have fewer nondependent adults, are more likely to have a
work disability, where the marginal effects of education were more favorable to female- headed
families than to other family types suggesting that improved access to education may close the
gap between the poverty rates of female-headed families and other family types.
3. METHODOLOGY:
3.1 THE STUDY QUESTIONS:
This study seeks to answer the following questions:
1. What are the most important changes in the economic, social and demographic variables for
respondents?
2. Are there significant differences between the averages of each level of economic variables for
families, as well as socio-demographic variables between camps have attributed to the
difference in gender of the head of the family or other members?
3. What is the impact of the difference in gender of the head of the family on unemployment
rates and dependency ratios inside camps?
19
3.2 POPULATION AND SAMPLE:
The population of this study included all the families in camps of Irbid, Al-Husn, Jerash and Suf
for Palestinian refugees and displaced persons. At the time of the interviews, the total number of
families was 17122. The regions of the study are:
1. Irbid camp in is located the Northern part of Irbid city and it is considered an integral part
thereof. This camp is one of four camps set up in Jordan after 1948 war to host
Palestinian refugees, and specifically in 1950 on an area of 234 acres. In the first stage,
4,000 Palestinian refugees were inhabited in tents, and then in 1954 they moved to
modest construction. By the end of 2014, the number of registered Palestinian refugees
came to about 25 thousand and the number of families to 3862 (DPA, 2016).
2. Al-Husn camp is considered one of the six camps established in Jordan in 1968 after the
1967 war, where it was established on an area of 758 acres just 10 Kilometers to the
south of Irbid City and becomes today very close to Southern part of Al-Husn Town.
When it was established, 12500 Palestinians refugees and displaced persons inhabited the
camp. By the end of 2014the number of registered refugees was 22 thousand while the
number of families was 4505 (DPA, 2016).
3. Suf camp was established in 1967 on an area of 536 acres to the north of Jerash City. The
number of registered refugees residing the camp came by the end of 2014 to 19,927,
where the number of families in which the family was 4029, and the number of housing
units which amounted to 1179 units (DPA, 2016).
4. Jerash camp was established in 1968 on 531.4 acres near to Jerash City. By the end of 2014,
the total number of its population came to 24,713, the number of families to 4726, the
number of housing units to 2130 (DPA, 2016).
The sample of the study was selected using non-probability sampling technique through the
convenience (accidental) sample, where field researchers hadn’t predetermined the interviewees
but interviewed respondents who agreed to participate. This type of sampling is characterized by
the ease in the selection of observations, low cost, and time saving (Saunders and Thornhill,
20
2012). The sample included 674 families and was distributed between the regions of the study
are as follows: Irbid camp 262 families, Al-Husn camp 140 families, Jerash camp 107 families
and Suf camp 165 families. The distribution of the sample according to camp is shown in the
following figure:
Figure No. (3)
The distribution of sample according to camp (%)
3.3 THE STUDY TOOL:
The researcher designed a questionnaire that covered all variables and questions necessary to
ensure the achievement of the study objectives and included social, economic, and demographic
dimensions related to the members of the sample. The questionnaire consisted initially of 64
items.
To ascertain the validity of the study tool, it was sent to 10 professional referees from faculty
members in some of the Jordanian universities, so as to ensure that the tool suits the purposes of
the study. Referees concentrated on the content of paragraphs according to the following criteria:
appropriateness of paragraphs, thoroughness of paragraphs, accuracy of the formulation of
paragraphs, and the clarity of the expressions far from dual meanings. However, any paragraph
which didn't get the 80% agreement from referees was omitted, and therefore the tool became
Irbid camp 39%
Al-Husn camp 21%
Jreash Camp 16%
Suf Camp 24%
The distribution of sample according to camp (%)
Irbid camp Al-Husn camp Jreash Camp Suf Camp
21
consisted of 61 items. In addition, a pilot survey was conducted in the four camps by 15
interviews in each camp, taking care that the 60 families of this survey were excluded from the
sample of the study so as to verify the building validity of the tool by calculating the Pearson
correlation coefficients for the tool as whole, and between its paragraphs as well.
3.4 THE STUDY METHODS:
In order to answer the questions of the study, the descriptive statistical analysis was used to
summarize the results of the study, through frequencies, averages, standard deviations etc.,
particularly in clarifying the characteristics of the study sample. The study used that to hold
comparisons between the families headed by women and that headed by men in terms of some
demographic and economic variables:
1. Demographic variables concerning the head of the family, such as sex, age, place of
residence, marital status, the level of education, and family size.
2. Economic variables related to the family including average income, the number of
employed individuals, and the number of unemployed individuals, as well as the
employment status of husband and wife.
3.5 STUDY LIMITATIONS:
The findings of the current study are limited to the sample only, which was chosen in a non-
probability sampling technique (convenient sample), and therefore, a generalization of findings
on the population of the study is invalid. The study is also spatially limited on the areas that the
sample was selected from, i.e. the four camps (Irbid, Al-Husn, Jerash, and Suf), and within the
time frame which through it data was collected, which was during 2014.
4. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE STUDY SAMPLE:
In this part, the characteristics of the study sample will be displayed through estimating the mean
and the standard deviation for the main variables included in the tool of the study for the sample
as a whole. Table No. (2) indicates that the average family size for the sample is relatively high
(7.4004) compared to that of the Jordanian society as whole which according to the General
22
Census results (2015) came to 4.8 persons (DOS, 2016) where the maximum family size was 19
persons, and the minimum case was two persons. The relatively low standard deviation of the
family size (2.4) points out that most of the families in the sample are large. With respect to the
average number of family members who hold the Jordanian citizenship, it amounted to 6.35
persons referring the fact that the majority of Palestinian refugees residing in Jordan have full
citizenship due to the unification between the two banks of Jordan in 1950. While the average
number of IDPs, who fled to Jordan due to the war of 1967, was 1.5 per family.
Table No. (3)
The average of variables concerning families in the study sample
Variable Mean Standard deviation
Family size (person) 7.4004 2.42068
Number of family members who hold the Jordanian
citizenship (person)
6.3502 5.30653
Number of IDPs in the family (person) 1.5047 5.55479
Father age (year) 46.9058 8.10503 Mother age (year) 42.2950 6.30377 Duration since the family lived in the camp (year) 36.8232 19.33197
Family residence space (squared meter) 119.1419 102.03231
Family monthly income (Jordanian Dinar) 471.1 363.05246
Number of female children who are studying in public schools 1.4518 1.25799
Number of male children who are studying in public schools 1.0541 1.17622
Annual family expenditure on education (Jordanian Dinar) 1083.7241 2326.7703
Number of employed males in the family 0.8968 0.98235
Number of employed females in the family 0.7205 1.384246
Number of unemployed males in the family 0.3804 1.18893
Number of unemployed females in the family 0.5513 1.64461
Number of employed below working age in the family 0.1513 0.62207
The table also shows that there were average age differences between father and mother of the
same family, where the average was 46.9 years for fathers with a maximum observation of 95
years and a minimum one of 17 years. On the other hand, the average for mothers was 42.1 years
with a maximum average of 84 and a minimum one of 16 years.
Concerning the family residence inside camps, the average duration since the family residence
came to 36.8 with a high standard deviation (19.3) because the population of the study included
23
Irbid camp which was established in 1950 and the other three camps which were established
after the war of 1967. Here, the stupendous thing that some families have witnessed the
establishment of the camp and they are still living inside it today. Anyway, the family residence
space measured by squared meter was 119.1 accompanied with the high standard deviation (102)
showing the disparities in the standards of living even inside camps. This was reflected in the big
difference between the maximum and minimum observation here which run to 240 and 30 square
meters respectively. These disparities look more obvious through the modest level of average
family monthly income (471.1 JDs) with a tremendous sign for income inequality, where the
standard deviation came high (363.1). Considerably more, the maximum average of family
monthly income was 6000JDs, while the study found some families didn't have income sources,
but they depend on urgent assistance and charity.
Regarding education, the results of table No. (2) shows that the average number of children who
are enrolled in public schools was 1.45 for females and 1.05 for males confirming the fact that
school enrolling rates in Jordan, in general, is higher for females, where the female/ male
students ratio in the Secondary stage was 111.5 in 2015 (DOS, 2016). Moreover, the annual
family expenditure on education in all stages came to 1083.7 JDs. Disparity appeared again, but
this time in spending on education ranging from null to 32000 JDs.
According to males, the table shows that the average number of employed persons in the family
was about 0.90, while the average number of unemployed ones was 0.3804. Unlike females,
where the average number of unemployed came to 0.5513, and was close to that of employed
(0.72). Families stated that child labor is a profound phenomenon inside camps where the
average number of employed below working age in the family run to 0.15 person which means
that, on average, there is at least one case of child labor amongst any seven families.
According to the ownership of the family residence, the results refers that 81.5% of them are
owned by the family, 17.2% are leased, and 1.3% of the families stated that their residences are
neither owned nor leased. This is related to families who have had approvals, from other families
which left camps, to live free of charge in their places. This is widely spread between close
relatives in particular.
24
Figure No. (4)
The distribution of families according to residences ownership (%)
Based on the results, wages and salaries came first as the main source of the family’s income
(56.0%), then the remittances of their workers abroad (17.3%), while the rest income sources
were distributed as follows: rents from land (1.1%), interests from money saved in banks (0.4%),
commercial profits (4.1%), charitable aid (4.6%), Zakat committees (1.8%), supports from
parents and relatives (2.1%), social development aid (5.3%), hardship cases aid provided by the
UNRWA (2.0%), and other sources (5.2%).
Figure No. (5)
The distribution of families according to their main income source (%)
Owned 82%
Leased 17%
Other 1%
The distribution of families according to residences ownership (%)
Owned Leased Other
25
Concerning the family property outside the camp, 88.2% of the respondents stated that their
families haven’t any kind of property (excluding their residences if they are originally owning
them), while 12.8% of the respondents mentioned that they have property and have been
distributed according to main property pattern, which they determined as follows: real estates
(28.4%), land (45.7%), cars (12.3%), craft shops (2.5%), groceries (1.2%), and other forms of
property (9.9%). This distribution expresses the priority of camp residents to possess things that
have low risk, depreciation, and decrease in value, but high returns.
Figure No. (6)
The distribution of families according to their main property form (%)
Child labor seems a serious problem inside camps for both males and females, where 18.9% of
the families of the sample have at least one working child below the age of 15. The distribution
56 1,1 0,4
4,1 4,6
1,8 2,1
5,3 2
17,3 5,2
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Wages and salariesRents from land
Interests from money saved in banksCommercial profits
Chartible aidZakat committee
Supports from parents and relativesSocial development aid
Hardship cases aid provided by the UNRWARemittances from abroad
Other sources
The distribution of families according to their main income source (%)
28,4
45,7
12,3
2,5 1,2
9,9
0
10
20
30
40
50
Real estates Land Cars Craft shops Greceries Other
The distribution of families according to their main property form (%)
26
of those families according to the number of working children was as follows: one worker
(51.0%0, two workers (22.4%), three workers (14.3%), four workers or more (12.2%).
Figure No. (7)
The distribution of families which had child labor according to the number of working children
(%)
The results also showed that 78.0% of the families mothers don’t seek for jobs and they are
indeed housekeepers only, while 4.7% of them are considered unemployed, despite they were
able, qualified and seeking seriously for getting jobs. Also, 2.9% of wives were retired, while the
rest of wives (14.4%) were employed. The percentage distribution of the employed wives
according to the employer was as follows: Jordanian Government (39.8%), private sector
(21.5%), own business (12.9%), UNRWA (22.6%), and other employers (3.2%).
One working child 51%
Two working children 23%
Three working children 14%
Four or more working children
12%
The distribution of families which had child labor according to the number of working children (%)
One working child Two working children Three working children Four or more working children
27
Figure No. (8)
The distribution of the employed wives according to employer (%)
Another important phenomenon found in camps, which is school dropout, especially at early
ages. The results indicated that 24.5% of the families in the sample had one or more kids who
experienced school dropout. Families attributed that to some factors, the main motive behind that
in the perception of families was distributed as follows: school failure (28.0%), early marriage
(8.6%), disintegration of family (14.3%), sufficiency in a certain phase of education (7.4%),
helping family in daily needs (6.9%), family poverty (9.7%), desire to work (3.4%), reasons
related to school administration practices (2.9%), careless and indifference among students
(13.7%), and other motives (5.2%).
Figure No. (9)
The distribution of the main motive behind school dropout (%)
39,8%
21,5%
12,9%
22,6%
3,2%
0,0% 5,0% 10,0%15,0%20,0%25,0%30,0%35,0%40,0%45,0%
Jordanian Government
Private sector
Own business
Unrwa
Other employers
The distribution of the employed wives according to employer (%)
28
The number of working dropout students was very small and came to 64 (37 males and 27
females). Males were distributed according to workplace or nature of work as follows: car
garages and services (16.2%), homes of other families (8.1%), peddlers (21.6%), agriculture
(8.1%), industry (8.1%), construction (8.1%), begging (2.7%), other places (27.0%), where
females were found working in four places: homes of other families (59.3%), peddlers (18.5%),
agriculture (3.7%), and other places (18.5%). The figures related to "other places" were relatively
high for both males and females and interpret that although admitting that their kids who became
out of school were working, a significant portion of families declined to specify those kids’
workplace. Also, the aforementioned figures express the differences between females and males
in their workplaces and reflect the appropriateness of the nature of the work to each group.
Figure No. (10)
The distribution of students who dropped out schools according to gender and workplace (%)
28,0% 8,6%
14,3% 7,4%
6,9% 9,7%
3,4% 2,9%
13,7% 5,2%
0,0% 5,0% 10,0%15,0%20,0%25,0%30,0%
School failure
Disintegration of family
Helping family in daily needs
Desire to work
Careless and indifference…
The distribution of the main motive behind school dropout (%)
29
The overwhelming majority (94.9%) of students in school age who dropped out didn’t join any
to kind of training courses versus only 5.1% of them who enrolled. The persons who enrolled
training were distributed according to training bodies as follows: Jordanian Vocational Training
Corporation (64.6%), public institution (6.3%), private institution (14.6%), voluntary
organization (6.3%), international agency (6.3%), and other bodies (2.1%). Taking into
consideration that only 48 persons who took the training courses. It should be noted here that the
number of workers among the dropped out children in the sample was 64, which is greater than
the number of their counterparts who joined to training courses. While the total number of the
dropped out students was 245 including 127 males and 118 females.
Figure No. (11)
The distribution of children enrolled in training courses according to training bodies (%)
0,00%
59,30%
18,50%
3,70%
0,00%
0,00%
0,00%
18,50%
16,20%
8,10%
21,60%
8,10%
8,10%
8,10%
2,70%
27,00%
0,00% 10,00% 20,00% 30,00% 40,00% 50,00% 60,00% 70,00%
Car garages and services
Homes of other families
Peddlers
Agriculture
Industry
Construction
Begging
Other places
The distribution of students who dropped out schools according to gender and workplace (%)
Males Females
30
In general, those working children were not exposed to the employer exploitation, where 85.1%
of the families stated that they didn’t notice that. The rest of families (14.4%) believed that their
working children were exposed to one or more forms of exploitation. They determined the main
forms of exploitation in low wages, physical (hard nature of work), long working hours, moral
(lack of respect), and otherwise. However, the number of cases were exposed to exploitation
came to 10 only.
Despite exploitation, the working children still in their work due to some reasons which were
determined by families, such as the continuing financial need, the absence of government
control, attempt to self-prove by a child, the absence of a suitable alternative.
In addition, 77.4% of the families in the sample believed that unemployment is a serious problem
among youth in camps and they attributed that to some reasons. The main reason for youth
unemployment in the perceptions of families were distributed as follows: low educational level
(11.2%), ineffective employment policies (8.7%), lack of harmony between their education and
the requirements of labor market (9.2%), shame culture (37.4%), the lack of feasible job
opportunities (22.7%), and other reasons (10.9%).
Figure No. (12)
The distribution of the main reason behind youth unemployment in camps (%)
64,6%
6,3%
14,6%
6,3% 6,3% 2,1%
0,0%
10,0%
20,0%
30,0%
40,0%
50,0%
60,0%
70,0%
JordanianVocational
TrainingCorporation
Publicinstitution
Privateinstitution
Voluntaryorganization
Internationalagency
Other bodies
The distribution of children enrolled in training courses according to training bodies (%)
31
On the other hand, families suggested some solutions tackle unemployment among youth in
camps through adopting policies and procedures. According to those families, the distribution of
the most effective-suggested solution was as follows: education enrollment (23.7%), vocational
education enrollment (15.8%), enroll in training and rehabilitation courses (2.6%), the
establishment of public projects so as to increase the employment in camps (39.5%), increasing
the direct governmental aid to camps (10.5%), overcoming the culture shame (5.3%), and other
suggestions (2.6%). It seems clear that about half of the families counted on the role of
government in solving unemployment. Furthermore, despite that 37.4% of the families attributed
the problem to shame culture only 5.3% of them suggested overcoming this culture as a solution
to unemployment.
Figure No. (13)
The distribution of the main suggestion to solve youth unemployment in the camps (%)
11,20%
8,70%
9,20%
37,40%
22,70%
10,90%
0,00% 10,00% 20,00% 30,00% 40,00%
Low educational level
Ineffective employment policies
Lack of harmony between theireducation and the requirements of…
Shame culture
Lack of feasible job opportunities
Other reasons
The distribution of the main reason behind youth unemployment in camps (%)
32
5. GENDER DIFFERENCES AS A CAUSE FOR AND UNEMPLOYMENT POVERTY:
In this section, the study will introduce the differences in some socio-economic characteristics of
the sample resulted from the differences in the gender of the head of the family. Those
characteristics will be represented by using the averages and standard deviations of some
important variables concerning families (Table No. (4)). Then, the study will answer the central
question which rose, whether gender differences determine the rates of unemployment and
poverty concerning families in the sample.
5.1 GENDER AND THE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE:
The results showed differences in terms of some of the socioeconomic variables of the sample,
where the family size was larger in those headed by men (7.5467) persons versus 6.5326 persons
for families headed by women. The number of family members who hold the Jordanian
citizenship was also larger in families headed by men (6.7667) against 6.1574 which were
headed by women. In addition, the number of IDPs in the family in the two groups came to
1.6712 and 0.8529 respectively. While the age of the family’s father and family’s mother were
higher in families headed by women (47.1308 and 43.3784 years respectively) than those in
families headed by men (46.8574 and 42.0650 years respectively). Concerning the family
residence space measured by squared meters, it was larger for families headed by women
23,7%
15,8%
2,6%
39,6%
10,5%
5,4%
2,6%
0,0% 5,0% 10,0% 15,0% 20,0% 25,0% 30,0% 35,0% 40,0% 45,0%
Education enrollment
Vocational education enrollment
Enroll in training and rehabilitation courses
The establishment of public projects
Direct governmental aid to camps
Overcoming the culture shame
Other suggestions
The distribution of the main suggestion to solve youth unemployment in camps (%)
33
(114.3929) whilst it was 112.8321 in families headed by men. However, contrary to the
differences in the averages of the aforementioned variables due the gender differences were
small, the differences in the family monthly income measured by Jordanian Dinar was
considerable where the monthly income for families headed by men was 492.7 versus only 330.8
for families headed by women. Table No. (4) also shows that employment levels for males was
higher in families headed by men, while unemployment levels for females was higher in families
headed by women, which indicates the inequivalent opportunities between males and males in
getting jobs in general. Also, child labor phenomenon seemed to be more widely spread in
families headed by women as the number of employed below working age in the family was
0.2111 and about 1.6 times of that in families headed by men.
Lower income for females was accompanied by fewer opportunities to be employed especially in
case of the families headed by men, unlike who have a relatively higher income and low levels of
unemployment in families headed by women in particular. Unless family residence space and
family expenditure on education, the rest of variables in the latest table indicated better life
conditions of families headed by men. Nevertheless, an important indicator came for the benefit
of families headed by women, that is the expenditure on education, which is despite low levels of
income of that families is indeed considered a real investment in human capital to pave the way
for children to better future. Although, child labor in those families expresses some kind of
sacrifice afforded by one or more child in the family to rescue other children through assisting
the mother and increasing income sources and therefore allocating additional expenditures on
education, especially in higher education in universities.
Table No. (4)
The average of variables concerning families in the study sample
34
Variable
The head of the family
Females Males
Mean Standard
deviation
Mean Standard
deviation
Family size (person) 6.5326 2.39638 7.5467 2.21800
Number of family members who hold the Jordanian
citizenship (person)
6.1574 3.14200 6.7667 3.54949
Number of IDPs in the family (person) 0.8529 2.38143 1.6712 6.08418
Father age (year) 47.1308 5.54924 46.8574 8.55881
Mother age (year) 43.3784 5.88381 42.0650 6.37100
Duration since the family lived in the camp (year) 35.6395 19.7775 36.6705 19.35192
Family residence space (squared meter) 114.3929 133.726 112.8321 54.80214
Family monthly income (Jordanian Dinar) 330.8 159.412 492.7 325.346
Number of female children who are studying in public schools 1.5269 1.41107 1.4440 1.22991
Number of male children who are studying in public schools 0.9674 1.01040 1.0873 1.21649
Annual family expenditure on education (Jordanian Dinar) 1096.51 1295.29 780.833 972.0570
Number of employed males in the family 0.8037 0.78234 1.0333 0.66868
Number of employed females in the family 0.4095 0.53160 0.1000 0.40258
Number of unemployed males in the family 0.3778 0.94534 0.3808 1.52414
Number of unemployed females in the family 0.5222 1.22492 0.5562 1.82606
Number of employed below working age in the family 0.2115 0.66352 0.1333 0.43417
Table No. (5) shows the existence of some differences in the socio-economic characteristics for
the sample between camps, where the largest average family size (7.6824 persons) was in Jerash
camp for families headed by women, while the smallest size (6.2084) was found in Suf camp.
However, concerning the average size for families headed by woman it was also a maximum in
Jerash camp (7.6495) and a minimum in Irbid camp (7.6495). Moreover, noticeable differences
in the average number of family members who hold the Jordanian citizenship, at which it was the
highest in Irbid camp (7.6) for families headed by men and the lowest in Jerash camp (3.0) for
families headed by women, unlike the average number of IDPs in the family, where it ranged
between 0.8 in Suf camp and 2.0 in Jerash camp for families headed by women in both cases.
The averages concerning the number of IDPs are negatively correlated with the averages of
35
family members who hold the Jordanian citizenship, as unlike refugees, the majority of the IDPs
inside camps don’t hold the Jordanian citizenship. Also, families headed by men registered the
highest average residence space (157.5) in Jerash camp, while the lowest average (101.6) was for
families headed by women in Suf camp.
It worth to mention that the average monthly income of the family was higher in all camps for
the families headed by men, where the average reached its highest level (560.0 JDs) in Jerash
camp and was a minimum (296.7JD) at the same camp, but for families headed by women. The
concern in education for families headed by women was more than that for families headed by
men, this was obvious in allocating much more funds to finance their kids’ education. The
annual average family expenditure on education was the highest in Suf camp (1746.3 JDs) and
the lowest in Al-Husn camp (523.6 JDs) for families headed by women in both camps. In the
same context, the average number of female children who are studying in public schools was a
maximum in Jerash (2.8) for families headed by women, while, the maximum average for male
came to (1.1) in Suf camp, but for families headed by men noting to the big difference between
the two averages.
Employment levels represented by the average number of employed in the family, according to
table (5) without a specific trend toward families headed by females or by males. This also
applied to unemployment levels, represented by the average number of unemployed in the
family. But, concerning child labor, although this phenomenon was not widespread in camps, but
it seemed scantily existed only amongst families headed by women.
36
Table No. (5)
The differences in the socioeconomic variables for the sample according to the family head and camp
Variable Irbid camp AL-Husn camp Jerash camp Suf camp
Women Men Women Men Women Men Women Men
Family size (person) 6.3810 7.4187 6.4286 7.5711 7.6824 7.6495 6.2084 7.6215
Number of family members who hold the Jordanian citizenship (person) 6.7 7.6 5.7 4.6 3.0 6.8 6.2 6.8
Number of IDPs in the family (person) 1.3 1.3 1.1 2.1 2.0 1.6 0.8 1.9
Duration since the family lived in the camp (year) 32.4 24.7 36.9 32.0 33.4 35.5 35.9 37.3
Family residence space (squared meter) 114.4 112.8 132.0 110.0 143.0 157.5 101.6 114.6
Family monthly income (Jordanian Dinar) 310.1 553.9 336.7 453.7 296.7 560.0 379.6 402.5
Number of female children who are studying in public schools 1.8 1.6 1.9 2.3 2.8 2.2 1.3 2.4
Number of male children who are studying in public schools 0.6 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 0.6 0.6 1.1
Annual family expenditure on education (Jordanian Dinar) 907.6 791.4 523.6 550.0 1166.7 773.3 1746.3 1004.3
Number of employed males in the family 0.6 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.9
Number of employed females in the family 0.4 0.8 0.5 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.4 0.6
Number of unemployed males in the family 0.5750 0.4342 0.1905 0.5357 0.2000 0.6598 0.2500 0.3139
Number of unemployed females in the family 0.7000 0.6244 0.3333 0.4160 1.000 0.6082 0.2917 0.5548
Number of employed below working age in the family 0.1 0.0 0.4 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.0
37
5.2 DEPENDENCY RATIOS:
The dependency ratio is defined as the number of the persons who are out of the age of labor
force divided by labor force (the number of those who are within the working age) (The United
Nations, 2002). So this ratio could be expressed as follows:
Dependency ratio = 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑠𝑏𝑒𝑙𝑜𝑤 15 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠 + 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑎𝑔𝑒𝑠 𝑜𝑓 65 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠 𝑜𝑟 𝑚𝑜𝑟𝑒
𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑠𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑤𝑜𝑟𝑘𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑎𝑔𝑒 (15 − 65)𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠∗ 100%
This ratio reflects the burden that the people in the labor force bear in taking care of the rest of
the society, so the higher the ratio the heavier the burden is. Also, it refers the quality of life of
families and the country as well, where the higher the ratio is, the larger the economically
inactive people in the society are.
Table No. (6) shows that the dependency ratio for the sample as a whole was 62.4% which is
close to that concerning to Jordan (61.4%) in 2015 (DOS, 2016). This ratio became high in the
families headed by women (75.2%) compared to that headed by men (60.7%). This significant
difference also applied on camps, where dependency ratios in families headed by men were
lower than those in families headed by women in all camps, but in different degrees. Concerning
camps, the highest dependency ratio was found in Jerash camp (72.4%) and the lowest in Suf
camp (56.5%), while in term of families headed by women it was the highest in Al-Husn camp
(90.1%) and the lowest in Irbid camp (70.7%). For families headed be men, the ratio was the
maximum in Jerash camp (71.8%) and the minimum in Irbid camp (55.6%). Consequently,
dependency ratios regarding camps were mainly determined by the ratios related to families
headed by men as the number of families headed by women in the sample were only 90 out of
674 families.
Serious gaps were found in camps between ratios related to families headed by women and those
headed by men. The greatest gap was found in Al-Husn camp where the previous two ratios
came to 90.1% and 66.9% respectively. Unlike Suf camp where the gap was minimum; the same
two ratios were 60.2% and 56.0% respectively. It is noticeable to mention here that maximum
dependency ratio for families headed by women (90.1%) was accompanied with a relatively
small family size (6.4286 persons), while the maximum dependency ratio for families headed by
men (7.8%) coincided with a relatively large family size (7.6495 persons).
38
Table No. (6)
Dependency ratios according to the family head gender and camp (%)
Camp Head of the
family
The average number of family members
according to age (years)
Average
No. of
family
members
Dependency
ratio (%)
aae aa saes
o fsna
sne
A smA a
a seTo s
ae
Female 3.7381 0.1667 2.4762 6.3810 70.7
d tlfsjomI Male 4.7688 0.1152 2.5347 7.4187 55.6
Total 4.5892 0.1245 2.5246 7.2383 57.7
Female 3.3810 0.0000 3.0476 6.4286 90.1
i-p sjomI Male 4.5357 0.1770 2.8584 7.5711 66.9
Total 4.3534 0.1493 2.8881 7.3908 69.8
Female 4.4000 0.2000 3.0824 7.6824 89.8
Jerash camp Male 4.4536 0.0619 3.1340 7.6495 71.8
Total 4.4388 0.0875 3.1266 7.6529 72.4
Female 3.8750 0.2917 2.0417 6.2084 60.2
p dsjomI Male 4.8978 0.1460 2.5985 7.6215 56.0
Total 4.7453 0.1677 2.5155 7.4285 56.5
Female 3.7283 0.1630 2.6413 6.5326 75.2
The whole Male 4.6972 0.1264 2.7231 7.5467 60.7
sample Total 4.5573 0.1317 2.7114 7.4004 62.4
This indicates the hard conditions which families headed by women live in general due to the
absence of a father in most of the cases resulting in distortions in the age structure of families,
where the number of subordinates who are out of the labor force increases at the expense of
economically active persons within the labor force. This could be the motive behind families
headed by women in concentrating on education to prepare their children to become
economically active in future so as to improve the life quality of the families.
39
Figure No. (14)
Dependency ratios according to the family head gender and camp (%)
5.3 UNEMPLOYMENT RATES:
The International Labor Organization (ILO) defines unemployment to covers persons aged 15 to
64 who during the reference period were available for work, seeking for work, but were unable
to find work. The unemployment rate is defined as
the percentage of the labor force that is unemployed at any given date (ILO, 2009) & (Dornbusch
and Fischer, 1994). So unemployment rate could be expressed by the following equation:
Unemployment rate = 𝑁𝑢𝑚𝑏𝑒𝑟 𝑜𝑓 𝑢𝑛𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑦𝑒𝑑
𝑇𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑟 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒∗ 100%
The labor force includes the people who are economically active within the working age (15-64)
years regardless their employment status whether employed or unemployed. Unemployment rate
indicates to the idle human capital in the national economy or in a given community, and the
reduction in output and income there, therefore.
70,7
90,1 89,8
60,2
75,2
55,6
66,9 71,8
56 60,7
57,7
69,8 74,2
56,5 62,4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Irbid camp Al-Husn camp Jerash camp Suf camp Sample
Dependency ratios according to the family head gender and camp (%)
Female Male Total
40
Table No. (7)
Unemployment rates of the sample according to camp (%)
Camp Head of the
family
The average number of
unemployed family
members
The average
number of
family
members
(15-64) years
Unemployment
rate (%)
Females Males
Total
Female 0.7000 0.5750 0.6375 3.7381 34.1
d tlfsjomI Male 0.6244 0.4342 1.0586 4.7688 22.2
Total 0.6884 0.4087 1.0971 4.5892 23.9
Female 0.3333 0.1905 0.5238 3.3810 15.5
i-p sjomI Male 0.4160 0.5357 0.9517 4.5357 21.0
Total 0.5180 0.3657 0.8837 4.3534 20.3
Female 1.000 0.2000 1.2000 4.4000 27.3
Jerash camp Male 0.6082 0.6598 1.2680 4.4536 28.5
Total 0.6373 0.6275 1.2648 4.4510 28.4
Female 0.2917 0.2500 0.5417 3.8750 14.0
p dsjomI Male 0.5548 0.3139 0.6887 4.8978 17.7
Total 0.4938 0.3209 0.8147 4.7453 17.2
Female 0.5319 0.3778 0.9097 3.7283 24.4
The whole Male 0.6526 0.3808 1.0334 4.6972 22.0
sample Total 0.6365 0.3804 1.0169 4.5573 22.3
The results according to table No, (7) show the unemployment rate for the sample as a whole
was 22.3%, while no significant differences in these rates between females and males seemed
except in Irbid camp. Unemployment rate among families headed by women in the sample came
to 24.4% versus 22.0% among families headed by men noting that the previous three rates
concerning Jordan were in (2015) 13.0%, 22.5%, and 11.0% respectively. In other words,
unemployment rates in the sample are obviously higher than their counterparts in the Jordanian
41
economy. However, the highest unemployment rate was registered among families headed by
women in Irbid camp (34.1%). The lowest rate was also among families headed by women but in
Suf camp (14.0%). In addition, and concerning camps, Jerash camp witnessed the highest
unemployment rate (28.4%), whilst Suf camp experienced the lowest unemployment rates
(17.2%). The result also showed a big gap in unemployment rates between families headed by
women and those headed by men at the same camp, where the gap was the maximum in Irbid
camp which unemployment rate among families headed by women was 34.1% against 22.2% for
families headed by men. Such gap was the minimum in Jersah where the two rates came to
28.5% and 27.3 respectively noting that the last two rates are extremely high. Moreover, the
average rates of unemployment in the camps of Irbid and Jerash were higher than the rate of the
whole sample, unlike the rates in Al-Husn and Suf camps.
The results exhibited that gender played an essential role in determining unemployment rates
whether for the sample as a whole or for each camp, where unemployment rates in all cases were
higher among families headed by males than those headed by females except Irbid camp. This
despite that females have fewer opportunities for education and at the same time, macho society
stands as an obstacle to the economic empowerment of woman, where employers in labor market
prefer males to females in general. This also applies to the Jordanian labor market at which the
unemployment rate between females was in 2015 more than twice of that between males (22.5%
versus 11.0%) (DOS, 2016). Despite that, the employment gap between females and males still
in the sample of this study less than that in the Jordanian labor market taking into consideration
that all females and males inside camps do have equal opportunities with those who are outside
camps to get jobs. This is due to the differences in the rates of economic participation between
the two categories and to the readiness extent of unemployed to work in formal or informal
sectors regardless any other considerations except real wages.
42
Figure No. (15)
Unemployment rates according to the family head gender and camp (%)
5.4 POVERTY RATES:
The level of income is considered as one of the most important indicators of poverty in any
society, where low-income and retreat in the rates of economic growth are the main cause of
poverty. As mentioned before, there are two measurements for poverty; the abject limit and
absolute limit. While absolute poverty is the level of the minimal requirements necessary to
afford minimal standards of food, clothing, health care and shelter, abject poverty is concerned in
the minimal requirements necessary to afford minimal standards of food only. Abject poverty
line expresses the lowest level of basic food needs without which man can live only for a short
period, on contrary to the absolute poverty line, which is based on the required lowest standard
of consumption level for meeting the basic requirements of food and non-food commodities such
as clothes, residential house, education and health (Baker, 1996)
The family annual absolute poverty limit was in the latest poverty survey in 2010 about 4395.6
JODs while the abject limit was 1814.4.
34,1
15,5
27,3
14
24,4 22,2
21
28,5
17,7
22 23,9
20,3
28,4
17,2
22,3
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Irbid camp Al-Husn camp Jerash camp Suf camp Sample
Unemployment rates according to the family head gender and camp (%)
Female Male Total
43
Table No. (8)
Family monthly income according to the family head gender and camp (JDs)
Camp Head of
the family
The
average
monthly
income of
the family
(JDs)
The
average
annual
income
of the
family
(JDs)
Unemplo
yment
rate (%)
Average
No. of
family
members
Family
home
space
(m2)
Depende
ncy ratio
(%)
Female 310.1 3721.2 34.1 6.3810 114.3929 70.7
d tlfsjomI Male 553.9 6646.8 22.2 7.4187 112.8321 55.6
Total 521.3 6255.6 23.9 7.2383 113.1069 57.7
i-p sjomI
Female 336.7 4040.4 15.5 6.4286 132.0000 90.1
Male 453.7 5444.4 21.0 7.5711 109.3373 66.9
Total 438.1 5257.2 20.3 7.3908 113.0000 69.8
Female 296.7 3560.4 27.3 7.6824 143.0 89.8
Jerash camp Male 560.0 6720.0 28.5 7.6495 159.7 71.8
Total 524.8 6297.6 28.4 7.6529 157.5 72.4
Female 379.6 4555.2 14.0 6.2084 101.6111 60.2
p dsjomI Male 402.5 4830.0 17.7 7.6215 114.5780 56.0
Total 399.4 4792.8 17.2 7.4285 112.7402 56.5
Female 330.8 3969.6 24.4 6.5326 131.5373 75.2
The whole Male 492.7 5912.4 22.0 7.5467 117.3672 60.7
sample Total 471.1 5653.2 22.3 7.4004 119.4723 62.4
The results as shown in table No. (8) indicate that average annual income of the family in the
sample was 5653.2 JDs. The results show a big difference in the annual income between families
headed by men (5912.4 JDs) and those headed by women (3969.6 JDs). In addition, the highest
annual income was 6720 JDs and registered for families headed men in Jerash camp, while the
lowest income was also in Jerash camp, but for families headed by women and came to 3560.4
JDs. This, of course, means that the gender gap in terms of annual income was the maximum in
Jersh camp. Despite that, the average annual income of the family was the highest in Jerash camp
44
(6297.6 JDs) narrowly from Irbid camp (6255.6 JDs), while the minimum average was in Suf
camp (4792.8 JDs). Unlike Jerash camp, Suf camp witnessed the minimum income gap between
males and females (4830.0 versus 4555.2 JDs respectively). Although, the highest average
income for families headed by women between camps was in Suf camp and came to 4555.2 JDs,
while the lowest average was in Jerash camp (3560.4 JDs).
One could conclude from the results that the maximum average income of families headed by
men was in Jerash camp (6720.0 JDs) and associated with the highest male unemployment rate
(28.5%) and also with an extremely high family size (7.6495 persons). While the maximum
average income of families headed by women was in Suf camp and associated with the lowest
female unemployment rate (14.0%), the minimum family size (6.2084 persons), lowest
dependency ratio (60.2%), and the lowest family home space (101.6111m2) . Additionally, for
families headed by women, the lowest annual average income was in Suf camp (3560.4 JDs) and
associated with the highest family home space (143.0m2) and also with a high dependency ratio
(89.8%).
This shows that the poverty indicators are well correlated, where income level, home space,
unemployment rate, dependency ratio, and family size reflect the standard of living in any
community.
Figure No. (16)
Family monthly income according to the family head gender and camp (JDs)
310,1 336,7
297,6
379,6
330,8
553,9
453,7
560
402,5
492,7 521,3
438,1
524,8
399,4
471,1
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Irbid camp Al-Husn camp Jerash camp Suf camp Sample
Family monthly income according to the family head gender and camp (JDs)
Female Male Total
45
Table No. shows the percentage of families in the sample which falls below the abject and
absolute poverty lines, where 7.4% of the families in the sample fell below the abject poverty
line versus 48.6% were below the absolute poverty line. A significance differences in those
percentages appeared according to gender differences, while only 5.6% of families headed by
men in the sample were below the abject poverty line, the percentage came to 18.8% for families
headed by women. This also applied to the absolute poverty line, where the previous two
percentages were 45.6% and 67.8% respectively. This, of course, indicates that food poverty is
narrowly spread in families headed by men compared to families headed by men. With respect to
camps, and in terms of families fell below abject poverty line, the lowest rate was 4.3% for
families headed by men in Suf camp, while the highest rate was in the Jerash camp (25.0%) for
families headed by women. Moreover, the maximum percentage concerning the absolute poverty
level (71.4%) was among families headed by women in Irbid camp, while the minimum one
came 36.5 % for families headed by men in Jerash camp.
46
Table No. (9)
The percentages of families below the limits of abject poverty
and absolute poverty according to camp (%)
Camp Head of
the family
The
average
monthly
income of
the family
(JDs)
The
average
annual
income
of the
family
(JDs)
% of
families
below the
abject
poverty
line *
% of
families
below the
absolute
poverty
line**
Female 310.1 3721.2 14.3 71.4
Irbid camp Male 553.9 6646.8 7.1 40.5
Total 521.3 6255.6 8.3 45.5
Al-Husn camp
Female 336.7 4040.4 15.8 68.4
Male 453.7 5444.4 5.8 52.9
Total 438.1 5257.2 7.2 55.0
Female 296.7 3560.4 25.0 60.0
Jerash camp Male 560.0 6720.0 5.6 36.5
Total 524.8 6297.6 6.5 37.6
Female 379.6 4555.2 20.8 62.5
Suf camp Male 402.5 4830.0 4.3 53.9
Total 399.4 4792.8 6.7 55.2
Female 330.8 3969.6 18.8 67.8
The whole Male 492.7 5912.4 5.6 45.6
sample Total 471.1 5653.2 7.4 48.6
* Abject poverty limit for a family in Jordan equals 1814.6 JDs/ year.
** Absolute poverty limit for a family in Jordan equals 4395.6 JDs/ year.
It should be noted that although the percentages concerning both lines of poverty were lower for
families headed by men in all camps, some convergence was found in some camps between the
percentages concerning absolute poverty line for families headed by women and those headed by
men. Those percentages are relatively close in Suf camp (62.5% and 53.9% respectively) and
also in Al-Husn camp (52.9% and 68.4% respectively). In addition, the absolute poverty rate was
so close to each other, where it, where they came to 55.0% in Al-Husn camp, and 55.2% in Suf
47
camp. While the rate concerning the abject poverty line was very close to each other in two
camps only: Jrreash camp (6.5%) and Suf camp (6.5%).
It is obvious from the results that the families in the sample in general and according to camps as
well suffer more from poverty in families headed by women more than families headed by men.
This could be interpreted that the annual average income was different between the two
categories; it came to 5912.4 JDs for families headed by men versus only 3969.6 for families
headed by women. Also, there was some kind of convergence in the income of families headed
by men coincided with relatively higher levels of income, lower unemployment rates, and lower
dependency rates. Furthermore, the differences in the sources of income between the two
categories confirmed that most of the families headed by men depended on stable sources of
income such as wages and salaries and remittances from abroad, which in turn improved income
distribution equality. This becomes clear through the values of the standard deviation of income,
where they were lower in the case of the families headed by men. However, inequality of income
distribution seems serious amongst families in the sample as about half (48.6%) of those families
fell below the absolute poverty line and 7.4% below the abject poverty line.
Figure No. (17)
Percentages of families below abject poverty line
0
5
10
15
20
25
Irbid camp Al-Husn camp Jerash camp Suf camp Sample
14,3 15,8
25
20,8 18,8
7,1 5,8 5,6
4,3 5,6
8,3 7,2 6,5 6,7 7,4
% of families below abject poverty line
Famalies headed by women Families headed by men Whole sample
48
Figure No. (18)
Percentages of families below abject poverty line
CONCLUSION:
This study aimed at explaining the impact of gender differences on causing unemployment and
poverty in a sample from four Palestinian refugee camps in Jordan, namely: Irbid, Al-Husn,
Jerash, and Suf camp. The study also aims to answer the main following inquiry: “Do the
differences in gender have an impact on causing unemployment and poverty among families
inside Palestinian camps in Jordan?”. Therefore, in order to attain the objectives of the study
through collecting the needed data from interviewees, a comprehensive questionnaire was
designed. The collected data were analyzed and getting a completed characterization for the
study sample which included 674 families, and then explaining whether gender differences stand
as a cause for unemployment and poverty inside camps through using descriptive statistics. The
study used two levels of analyses, the first at the level of the camp with the overall sample, while
the second at the level of the families whether they were headed by women or men with the
overall sample.
Concerning to the characteristics of the study sample, the results showed that the average family
size was large (7.4004 persons) and more than 85% of the families had acquired the Jordanian
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Irbid camp Al-Husn camp Jerash camp Suf camp Sample
71,4 68,4
60 62,5 67,8
40,5
52,9
36,5
53,9
45,6 45,5
55
37,6
55,2 48,6
% of families below asolute poverty line
Famalies headed by women Families headed by men Whole sample
49
citizenship, while the average number of family members who were classified as Palestinian
displaced persons reached 1.5047. that was accompanied with both a relatively low family
residence space which came to only 119.1419 m2, and a modest monthly average income of the
family which was 471.1 JDs. Moreover, families allocated on average about 19.2% of their
income on financing the education of their kids, where the annual family expenditure on
education amounted 1083.7241 JDs. At the same time students in camps still enroll public
schools side by side with UNRWA schools, and on this regard, the average number of children
who were studying in public schools was 1.45 females and 1.05 males. However, the living
conditions of families looked simple, where 82.0% of the them owned their residences, wages
and salaries contributed 56.0% of the family income, land and real estate forms 74.1% of the
main family property outside camps
With respect to employment in the sample, the results exhibited that the average number of
employed in the family was 0.90 males and 0.72 females, while the average number of
unemployed in the family came to 0.38 males and 0.55 females. That simply means that the
number working persons was higher than unemployed in camps. Jordanian government and the
UNRWA are considered the main employer of wives (62.4%). Additionally, the average number
of employed under working age in the family was 0.15 persons, where only one working child
was found in about half of the families which had child labor, which indicates that child labor is
a narrowly spread phenomenon in camps, but warns of the dangers of future if not tackled.
Dropping out schools seems a significant problem in camps, respondents determined the reasons
behind that, where the main motives were school failure (28.0%), disintegration of family
(14.3%), and careless and indifference (13.7%). Those who dropped out female children work
mainly at the homes of others (59.3%) while peddling and working at garages were the main
work for dropped out males (21.6% and 16.2% respectively). For children who seek vocational
training rather than academic education, where 64.6% of who enrolled training programs were
under the supervision of the Jordanian vocational training corporation.
Youth unemployment became worry and concern in camps and respondents attributed this
problem to some reasons, while 37.4% of them imagined that shame culture stands behind youth
unemployment in camps 22.7% imputed the problem to the lack of feasible job opportunity.
Therefore, 39.6% of the respondents urged the Jordanian government to establish public projects
50
devoted mainly to serve camps and to solve youth unemployment there, while 23.7%
concentrated on the enrollment of children in education as the way for the future.
The results also showed substantial differences in the characteristics of the sample due to
differences in the gender of the head of the family, where the families headed by men were larger
in terms of size (7.5467 persons) compared to those headed by women (6.5326 persons), which
resulted in a higher number of both family members who hold the Jordanian citizenship (6.7667
versus 6.1574person), and IDPs in the family (1.6712 versus 0.8529 person). Also, the average
ages of both mother and father were higher in families headed by women demonstrating that
woman have been responsible for the sustenance of her children, and in sometimes her elderly
and impotent husband. Concerning education, families headed by women gave more interest in
investing in human capital through increasing their expenditures on sons’ education more than
families headed by men, where the average number of children in the family who enrolled in free
education in public schools, was higher for the families headed by men. In addition, living
conditions between the two categories seem disparate, although the slight differences in the
residences space for all families, considerable differences in the level of income were found for
the favor of families headed by men (492.7 versus 330.8 JDs for families headed by women).
Moreover, unemployment levels measured by the average number of unemployed in the family
demonstrated that this problem was more prevalent in families headed by women, unlike
employment levels, at which the average number of employed, was higher in the families headed
by men. Although child labor is not widespread phenomenon in camps, its existence was more in
families headed by women mainly due to the absence or retreat of father’s role in those families,
which are in need for additional income sources so as to cover the costs of life requirements,
even if child work became the way for attain that. One of the interesting findings of this study
that dependency rate in the sample was so close to the rate in Jordan. Despite that, big
differences were registered among families in camps, where the highest rate was in Jarash camp
(72.4) while the lowest rate was in Suf camp (56.5). Gender differences were correlated with
differences in dependency rates in the sample as a whole, at which this rate came to 75.2 for
families headed by women against 60.7 for families headed by men. counter differences were
also found between camps, where high dependency rates were registered in families headed by
women, in Irbid camp (90.1) and then in Jerash Camp (89.8), whilst the minimum rate was for
families headed by men in Irbid camp (55.6).
51
High unemployment rate stands out as one of the most challenges facing youth in Jordan in
general and inside camps in particular. The study ended with important conclusion that
unemployment rates were higher than the rate in Jordan, and also higher amongst females in all
levels whether the family headed by women or men. the maximum unemployment rate was for
families headed by women in Irbid camp (34.1%) whilst the minimum rate was for families
headed also by women in Suf camps (14.0%). On camps level, the highest unemployment rate
was in Jerash camp (28.4%) while the lowest rate was in Suf camp (17.2%). It is important to say
here that unemployment rate for females in Jordan is more than the double rate for males (22.5
against 11.0% in 2015) unlike the unemployment rates in the whole sample which demonstrated
a convergence (24.4 against 22.0% respectively). This also applies to all camps except Irbid
camp, where big difference appeared between unemployment rate among families headed by
women (34.1%) and those headed by men (22.2%). This is because Irbid camp had a relatively
average number of unemployed females (0.70) and unemployed males (0.5750) in the family
taking into consideration that this camp included 42 out of 90 families headed by women.
The study found significant differences in the income levels due to the gender the family head, of
course to the benefit of families headed by men and in all camps. those differences came in
varying degrees, where they were highest in Jerash camp and lowest in Suf camp. furthermore,
the relatively low income levels of the families in the sample coincided with other variables
which reflected the hard circumstances the families live, such as high unemployment rates, high
dependency rates, small residences space, large family size...etc. However, the gender of the
family head played a vital role in determining the poverty extent of the family, where the
families below both abject and absolute poverty limits were higher in the case of families headed
by women in all camps. The rates of poverty for the sample were extremely high despite that this
study was based on poverty limits which were extracted from the last poverty survey which was
conducted before six years, where the cost of living in Jordan has drastically increased since
2010.
This study introduced to further research on socio-economic characteristics of refugee
community in Jordan in general, and particularly inside camps. Such scientific research is to test
whether refugees have analogous living conditions with the hosting community, which in turn
enable policy makers to devote public policies to improve the lives of marginalized groups in the
52
society and among of which refugee community. Gender issues became today one of the most
important determinants of economic sufficiency of families and individuals as well, where the
gender is organically linked with many economic, social, and demographic variables which all
determine the empowerment of individuals and groups. Therefore, it is rather than important to
investigate the role of gender differences in enforcing the empowerment of women and men on
an equal foot. This quantitative study has diagnosed the impact of the gender on two important
and related phenomena; unemployment and poverty using a non-probabilistic sample in four
Palestinian refugee camps in Jordan, which is in fact considered an addition to the research
efforts in this field. But qualitative research in this vital field became a need to interpret the
behavior of variables and phenomena concerning refugees, gender, unemployment and poverty
at the same time. Hence, this study recommends to conduct its phase II via adopting a qualitative
analysis depending on the outcome of this study.
Finally, although refugee women inside the camps suffer from common difficulties which other
women face in hosting communities, they improved the living condition of their families, which
was shown through bridging the gender gap with men in terms of some important indicators.
Unemployment and poverty constitute an obsession for males and females alike, nevertheless
refugee women who headed their families succeeded to control the hard conditions by turning
the challenge into an opportunity. This was clear out of the relatively low unemployment rates
among those families, as well as, their allocation of much money to invest in educating their kids
for a better future.
53
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Adefolalu, A.A. (1992): Poverty in Nigeria; Some of Its Dimensions and Consequences.
SECOM Associate Publication, Ibadan, Nigeria.
- Athamneh, Abdel Baset (2016), Jordan Refugee Policy, Institute for Migration Research and
Intercultural Studies (IMIS), University of Osnabrück, Germany, Retrieved from
http://www.bpb.de/gesellschaft/migration/laenderprofile/234510/jordanian-refugee-policy.
- Atom Basem & Abdel Baset Athamneh (2009), Poverty diagnosis in two refugee camps-
Jordan, ABHATH AL YARMOUK JOURNAL –Humanities and Social Sciences Series,
Vol. 25, No. 1, pp 193-206.
- Baker, Mohammed Hussein (1996) Poverty Measurement in the Countries of Economic and
Social Commission of West Asia, UN, NY.
- DSS (Department of Social Security) (1999) Opportunity for All: Tackling poverty and social
exclusion, London: The Stationery Office.
- DeFina, Robert H. (2002), "Does Lower Unemployment Reduce Poverty?", Business Review,
Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Third Quarter, pp. 34-41.
- Dermott, E., & Pantazis, C. (2014). Gender and Poverty in Britain: Changes and Continuities
between 1999 and 2012. Journal of Poverty and Social Justice, 22(3), 253-269.
- Dornbusch, Rudiger and Fisher, Stanley (1994), Macroeconomics, sixth edition, McGraw-Hill,
Inc, USA.
- EEC (European Economic Community) (1985) On Specific Community Action to Combat
Poverty (Council Decision of 19 December 1984) 85/8/EEC, Official Journal of the EEC, 2/24
- European Commission (2014), Tackling the gender pay gap in the European
Union, http://ec.europa.eu/justice/gender-equality/files/gender_pay_gap/140319_gpg_en.pdf ILO
(2014), ILO’s
- FAFO and UNFPA (2007), Iraqis in Jordan: Their Number and Characteristics, Amman.
- Faridi, M. Z., Chaudhry, I. S. & Mumtaz, A. (2009). The socio economic and demographic
determinants of women work participation in Pakistan: Evidence from Bahawalpur District. A
Research Journal of South Asian Studies, 24(2), 351-367
- Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations (FAO) (1997), Gender: the key to
sustainability and food security, SD Dimensions, May 1997.
- García, L. M. R., & Romero, D. M. (2016). Impact of Social Exclusion in Transsexual People in
Spain from an Intersectional and Gender Perspective. SAGE Open, 6(3), 2158244016666890.
54
- Garduño-Rivera, R. (2013). Factors that Influence Women’s Economic Participation in
Mexico. Economía Mexicana NUEVA ÉPOCA, 22(4, Cierre de época (II)), 541-564.s
- Grusky, D. and Kanbur, R. (2006), ―Introduction: The conceptual foundations of Poverty and
Inequality Measurement‖, in Grusky, D. and Kanbur, R. (eds.), Poverty and Inequality. Stanford:
Stanford University Press. Handley.
- The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Department of Palestinian Affair (2016), Palestinian refugee
camps. Retrieved from http://www.dpa.gov.jo/en/.
- The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Department of Statistics (DOS) (2016a), Jordan in Figures
2015.
- The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Department of Statistics (DOS) (2016b), Results of the
General Population and Housing Census 2015, Amman.
- The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan, Ministry of Labor (2016), Annual Report, various issues
(2011-2015), Amman. Retrieved from http://mol.gov.jo/Pages/Reports.aspx.
- The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan (1967), Reports of the Higher Ministerial Committee for the
Relief of Refugees and Displaced Persons.
- Ibrahim, Issa et al. (1989), the study of the reality and future of the Jordanian labor market, the
third part, the Jordanian labor market database, Royal Scientific Society, Amman.
- International Labor Organization (2013), Equal Pay: An Introductory Guide, ILO Publishing,
Geneva, Switzerland.
- International Labor Organization (2009), Guide to the New Millennium Development Goals
including the Full Set of Decent Work Indicators. Geneva: International Labor Office
Employment Sector. Retrieved from http://www.ilo.org/wcmsp5/groups/public/ -
edemp/documents/publication/wcmsl 105 1 1 .pdf.
- International Labor Organization (ILO) (2016), ILOSTAT Database: Definitions,
https://www.ilo.org/ilostat/faces/home/statisticaldata/conceptsdefinitions?_adf.ctrl-
state=58apy9jzl_21&_afrLoop=31011326101938#!
- Kamerman, S. B. (1984). Women, children, and poverty: Public policies and female-headed
families in industrialized countries. Signs, 10(2), 249-271s
- Kelso, W. A. (1994), Poverty and the underclass: Changing perceptions of the poor in America.
NYU Press.
55
- Lewis, P, Saunders, M, Thornhill, A (2012), Research Methods for Business Students. Harlow:
Pitman Publishing.
- Levitan, S. A., & Gallo, F. (1988). A Continued Federal Commitment.
- Mathieson, J., J. Popay, E. Enoch, S. Escorel, M. Hernandez, H. Johnston et L. Rispel (2008).
Social Exclusion: Meaning, Measurement and Experience and Links to Health Inequalities: A
Review of Literature, background paper no. 1, WHO Social Exclusion Knowledge Network.
- McLanahan, S. (1985). Family structure and the reproduction of poverty. American journal of
Sociology, 873-901.
- Meulders, Danièle and Plasman, Robert and Rigo Andrey and O’Dorchai, Síle (2010), Horizontal
& Vertical Segregation, Université Libre de Bruxelle- Département d’Économie Appliquée.
- Moepeng, Pelotshweu and Tisdell, Clem (2008). The socio-economic situation of female heads
and poor heads of households in rural Botswana: A village case study. Working Papers on Social
Economics, Policy and Development 48, School of Economics, The University of Queensland.
- The National Women’s Law Center (2011), Poverty among women and families, 2000-2010:
extreme poverty reaches record levels as a congress faces critical choice, Washington, DC.
- OECD (2016), OECD Social and Welfare Statistics Database, http://www.oecd-
ilibrary.org/social-issues-migration-health/data/oecd-social-and-welfare-statistics_socwel-data-
en.
- Omari, Mokhullud 2002, the Absorption Capacity of Labor in Jordanian Economy: An
Econometric Study (1968-2000), Unpublished MA Thesis, Department of Economics, Yarmouk
University, Irbid-Jordan.
- Pantazis, C., Gordon, D. and Levitas, R. (2006), Poverty and Social Exclusion in Britain, Bristol,
The Policy Press.
- Rodgers, Joan R. (1994) Female-Headed Families: Why Are They So Poor? Review of Social
Economy, 52:2, 22-47, DOI: 10.1080/758519572.
- Ryscavage, P. (1982). Employment problems and poverty: Examining the linkages. Monthly
Labor Review, 105(6), 55-59. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/41841832.
- Snyder, Anastasia; McLaughlin, Diane K.; Findeis, Jill; Coleman, Alisha; Demi, Mary Ann
(2005), Race, residence and family structure: race / ethnic differences in poverty among female-
headed families, Population Research Institute, VA, USA.
- Spierings, Niels, Smits, Jeroen, & Verloo, Mieke (2010). Micro and macro level determinants of
women's empowerment in 6 Arab countries. Journal of Marriage and Family, 72(5), 1391–1407.
56
- Tiltnes, Å. A., & Zhang, H. (2014). The socio-economic conditions of Jordan’s Palestinian camp
refugees, Fafo-report 2014:47, OSLO, Norway.s
- UN (1995), The Copenhagen Declaration and Program of Action: World Summit for Social
Development 6-12 March 1995, New York, NY: United Nations Department of Publications. van
den Bosch, K. (1998) ‘Perceptions
- United Nations Development Program (2006); ―Human Development Report‖ Beyond Scarcity:
Power, Poverty and the Global Water Crisis. ‘UNDP, New York.
- United Nations Developmental Program (UNDP) (2013), Jordan Poverty Reduction Strategy
Final Report, Amman.
- United Nations/ Department of Economic and Social Affairs / Population Division (2002), World
Population Ageing: 1950-2050, New York: United Nations.
- United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2003), UNESCO'S
Gender Mainstreaming Implementation Framework: Baseline definitions of key concepts and
terms.
- United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) (2016), Jordan fact sheet (October
2015), Amman. Retrieved from http://www.unhcr.org/news/updates/2014/9/4c90819a9/jordan-
fact-sheet.html.
- United Nations Relief and Work Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Middle East (UNRWA)
(2006), Consolidated and Eligibility Instructions,
http://www.unrwa.org/userfiles/2010011995652.pdf [Accessed 20/11/2010], p.32.
- The United Nations (1995), the Report of General Commissioner of the United Nations Relief
and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, 1995, p. 65
- World Bank (2005), Global Economic Prospects 2006, Washington, D.C.
- The World Bank (2007), World Development Indicators. Washington, D.C.: World Bank.
- The World Health Organization (WHO) (2011), Gender mainstreaming for health managers: a
practical approach, http://www.who.int/gender-equity-rights/knowledge/glossary/en/.
