used to review the cross-country and regional evidence in line with much of the worldwide work on the U-shape hypothesis and to put MENA countries in the context of this type of analysis. The parametric analysis will start from the same premises but will dig further into the within countries evidence to test the consistency of the hypothesis and seek how well the U-shape hypothesis applies longitudinally to individual countries.

# **Nonparametric estimates**

Can economic development explain low FPRs in the MENA region? Take Morocco as an example of the MENA region. If we compare female labor participation in Morocco with that of the US when this country had a similar GDP per capita to Morocco today, then the female LFPR does not look as low. According to the Maddison’s historical data,<sup>3</sup> GDP per capita in Morocco in 2008 was 3,465 USD. To find the closest value for the US we have to go back to 1889 when the value was 3,413 USD. The FLP in the US in 1890 was 22.1%, which is lower than the female LFPR observed in Morocco in 2008. The current FLP in Morocco would nicely fit with the U hypothesis and the long-term trend of low and more recently declining FLP could find an explanation in the context of economic development.

Of course, the US in 1890 and Morocco in 2008 operated in a very different global context. The US, for example, did not face in 1890 the same level of competition from other countries comparable with that faced by Morocco today from countries such as India and China and global trade was not as developed in 1890 as it is today. But the level of economic development in terms of a transition from an agrarian to an industrialized society remains a distinctive feature of an economy today as it was 120 years ago. The global context has changed but some essential elements of the process of economic development remain true. As described in section two of this paper, this is a distinctive assumption of the literature that relates economic development to FLP.

If we reconsider the U-shape hypothesis cross-country using more recent data and bring MENA countries and Morocco into the picture, we find some important stylized facts (Figure 1). First, the U hypothesis holds as it did for Goldin (1994) if we consider more countries and more recent data for 1990, 2000 and 2010. The quadratic fit shown in all panels is clearly U-shaped. Second and continuing with our Morocco example, Morocco finds itself in correspondence of the bottom of the U curve in all three time periods. In the long-run of history, Morocco has not moved yet to the upward part of the curve according to the figure but it could be about to turn the corner. Third, as compared to other world countries at the same level of GDP per capita, Morocco has a lower FPR. Hence, Morocco lags behind relatively to other countries at the same level of economic development. Fourth, Morocco appears to move (very) slowly from the downward part towards the upward part if we compare the three points in time considered, although the country remains significantly below the interpolation line throughout the period.

If we plot the same graph for the MENA region only (bottom panels, Figure 1) the U curve holds despite the small number of countries (it is useful here to use Morocco as a reference point to compare the top and bottom panels of the figure). To be precise, many of the MENA countries occupy a particular space of the curve, the section where countries transit from the bottom flat part of the curve to the upward part. As compared to other MENA countries, Morocco exhibits a higher FLP indicating that Morocco is relatively more advanced among MENA countries. Assuming that MENA countries represent a more

> 3 See the Maddison Project: http://www.ggdc.net/maddison/maddison-project/home.htm.

7