**Employed, Unemployed, Inactive.** Taking the sum of the bilateral flows between the active and inactive population equal to 100, we can calculate the percentage of people who moved from inactivity to activity for the period 2007–2011 and by year. Table 3 shows the results. Given that the flows from inactivity to activity are all above 50%, it is clear that participation to the labor market has increased for all groups (men and women in urban and rural areas) and for all years (2007–2011). This is a positive result overall that concerns the panel sample, the population that was in working age at the beginning and at the end of each period. Therefore, the negative LFPR trend observed in Figure 2 for the period 2007  2011 is explained by the new labor market entrants, those turning 15 who are out of school or those older than 15 who leave school.

Transitions into activity are higher for men as compared to women and this is true in urban and rural areas and for all years considered. With one exception, transitions into activity are higher in rural than in urban areas for both men and women. There is a difference between urban and rural areas in terms of response to the 2007–2008 global crisis as rural areas have increased transitions into activity in 2008-2009 as compared to urban areas where transitions have declined. As already mentioned, this can be explained by the exceptional agricultural production in 2009.

**Table 3 – Transitions from inactivity to activity (% of total transitions)**

||**Urb**<br>**Men**|**an**<br>**Women**|**R**<br>**Men**|**ural**<br>**Women**|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|2007-2008|58.2|52.0|61.9|51.0|
|2008-2009|54.3|50.9|62.1|52.4|
|2009-2010|55.0|52.2|59.5|55.4|
|2010-2011|56.0|51.7|57.2|54.3|

Source: Authors’ estimations from LFSs 2007-2011.

If we look at the quarter to quarter transitions, we find different trends for urban and rural areas and also different trends for men and women. Figure 5 shows the <u>net</u> upward transitions for the four groups.<sup>7</sup> In Urban areas, men’s upward transitions are always positive indicating constant increases in labor force participation but for women there are several negative spells so that net participation varies depending on the quarter considered. Overall, the gender gap in urban areas is small but men outperform women throughout the period with the exception of a couple of quarters.

In rural areas, both genders manage to increase participation throughout the period with the exception of two quarters for women. The gender gap seems a bit larger in rural areas as compared to urban areas with men clearly outperforming women throughout the period. Also, the female and male trends in rural areas seem to be pro-cyclical, a phenomenon less clear in urban areas. Therefore, in rural areas, seasonality and shocks (good or bad agricultural seasons) drive the quarterly performance while in urban areas these factors are less important in explaining the gender gap. One possible explanation of this phenomenon is rural-urban migration which cannot be captured by the transition matrixes. A good agricultural season may attract more workers to agricultural areas (males and females) but has also a positive impact on urban areas via commercial and production activities.

> 7 The net upward transitions are the difference between the sum of upward movements and the sum of downward movements across the statuses considered.

10