**_Table 2: Labor market impact of COVID-19, by season_**

||**P**|**articipatio**|**n**|**U**|**nemployme**|**nt**|**Employ**|**ment to po**|**pulation**|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||**2019/20**|**2020/21**|**Diff yoy**|**2019/20**|**2020/21**|**Diff yoy**|**2019/20**|**2020/21**|**Diff yoy**|
|**Spring**|44.37|41.76|-2.61***|10.81|9.51|-1.3***|39.57|37.79|-1.78***|
|**Summer**|44.31|41.28|-3.03***|10.45|9.54|-0.91***|39.68|37.35|-2.33***|
|**Fall**|43.80|41.19|-2.61***|10.67|9.57|-1.1***|39.13|37.25|-1.88***|
|**Winter**|43.75|40.83|-2.92***|10.67|9.84|-0.83***|39.08|36.81|-2.27***|

Note: survey weights used in the analysis Source: LFS various years Similar to what has been observed in other countries, women were affected the most by the labor market impact of the pandemic. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, two out of three jobs that were lost between 2019-20 and 2020-21 were previously held by women. As shown in Table 3, the gendered impact of the pandemic is clearly seen on the extensive margin, with Iranian women being more likely than Iranian men to withdraw from the labor force after either losing their jobs or after terminating their search for employment. On the other hand, Iranian men were more likely than women to reduce the intensity of their labor market engagement, as shown by a relatively larger reduction in hours worked and underemployment (Table 4).

**_Table 3: Changes in participation and unemployment 2019-20/2020-21, by_** **_<u>gender</u>_**

||**Participa**<br>|**tion rate**<br>|**Employme**<br>**ra**<br>|**nt to WAP**<br>**te**<br>|**Unemploy**<br>|**ment rate**<br>|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||**female**|**male**|**female**|**male**|**female**|**male**|
|**2019/20**|17|71.1|14.02|64.69|17.53|9.01|
|**2020/21**|13.9|68.66|11.72|62.9|15.65|8.39|
|**_Difference (yoy)_**|_-3.1***_|_-2.44***_|_-2.3***_|_-1.79***_|_-1.88***_|_-0.62***_|
|**_Differential covid impact (F/M)_**|_1.27_|_***_|_1.28_|_***_|_3.03_|_***_|

Note: Notes: Stars indicates levels of significance of t-test on equality of means between the two years: * p<0.1, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01. Survey weights used in the analysis Source: LFS 2019-20, 2020-21

**_Table 4: Changes in work hours and underemployment 2019-20/2020-21, by_** **_<u>gender</u>_**

||**Hour worke**<br>|**d (total)**<br>|**Hours w**<br>**(mainj**<br>|**orked**<br>**ob)**<br>|**Under-em**<br>**rat**<br>|**ployment**<br>**e**<br>|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
||**female**|**male**|**female**|**male**|**female**|**male**|
|**2019/20**|32.6|46.7|33.8|48.9|10.5|13.4|
|**2020/21**|31.2|44.1|34.0|47.5|11|16.3|
|**_Difference (yoy)_**|-1.4***|-2.6***|_0.2_|_-1.4***_|_0.5**_|_2.9***_|
|**_Differential covid impact_**<br>**_(F/M)_**|_0.54*_|_**_|_-0.12*_|_**_|_0.17_|_***_|

Notes: underemployment defined as share of employed individuals working less than 44 hours per week and willing/able to work more hours. N Stars indicates levels of significance of t-test on equality of means between the two years: * p<0.1, ** p<0.05, *** p<0.01. Survey weights used in the analysis Source: LFS 2019-20, 2020-21 The labor market impact of the pandemic was not uniform across socio-economic groups. On average, the decline in labor force participation was relatively stronger for women with tertiary education, and 5