DecentWorkTurin

8/8/2019 DecentWorkTurin

1/15

ILO:EMP/ANALYSIS, June 2003

Points for discussion The resilience of the long term job, but some

changes

Tenure, employment security and job quality

The paradox of tenure and perceived employmentsecurity

Tenure and mobility

Protected and unprotected mobility

Conclusions: what are the implications for decentwork?

Employment tenure, employment security and labour market policies


2/15


0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

Unite

dStat

es(a)

Unite

dKing

dom

Denm

ark

Spain

Nethe

rland

sIrelan

d

Finlan

d

Swed

en

Germ

any

Fran

ce

Luxe

mbourg

Belgi

um

Portu

gal

Italy

Japa

n(b)

Gree

ce

1992

2002

Average employment tenure*, 1992 and 2002

*Ranked by year 2002

(a) Data from 1998 (b) Data from 2001

Source: Based on Eurostat


3/15


Distribution of employment by class of tenure (%)

(a) Data refer to 2001

* For the US data refer to 1991 instead of 1992. For Japan data refer to 1998 instead of 2002

** Change from 1995 to 2002 instead of 1992 2002. *** Without Austria. AAC = Average Annual Change

Source : Own calculations based on Eurostat and national sources

Employment tenure Les s than 1 year % AAC 10 years and over % AAC

1992 2002 1992-2002 1992 2002 1992-2002

Belgium 10.4 12.2 1.6 45.3 46.7 0.3

Denmark 17.9 20.9 1.6 33.6 31.5 -0.7

Finland** 17.6 19.8 1.2 39.6 40.0 0.1

France 13.8 15.3 1.0 42.9 44.2 0.3

Germany 14.0 14.3 0.2 41.7 41.7 0.0

Greece 7.2 9.8 3.1 53.0 52.1 -0.2

Ireland 12.1 16.3 3.0 42.1 34.6 -1.9

Italy 7.0 10.8 4.4 48.8 49.3 0.1

Luxembourg 17.4 9.9 -5.5 38.8 45.3 1.6

Netherlands 14.5 21.6(a)

4.1 34.5 39.0 1.2

Portugal 17.0 13.2 -2.5 48.8 44.9 -0.8

Spain 23.6 19.5 -1.9 39.7 38.7 -0.2

Sweden** 14.8 14.1 -0.5 39.7 40.4 0.2

United Kingdom 15.6 19.1 2.1 31.5 32.1 0.2

EU-14*** 14.5 15.5 0.7 41.4 41.5 0.0

Japan* 9.8 8.3 -1.8 42.9 43.2 0.1United States * 28.8 24.5 -1.8 26.6 26.2 -0.2

Average 15.1 15.6 0.4 40.6 40.6 0.0

Standard deviation 5.6 4.8 -1.5 6.8 6.9 0.1


4/15


Ranks in: Quality tenure security

1=best 1=lowest 1=bestNorway n.a. 4* 1

Denmark 1 3 2

Ireland 8 10 3

Netherlands 3 5 4

Finland 2 8 5

Belgium 6 14 6

Austria 5 9 7

Italy 10 15 8

Germany 4 6 9

Sweden n.a. 12 10

France n.a. 11 11

United Kingdom 7 2 12

Greece 12 17 13United States n.a. 1 14

Portugal 11 16 15

Spain 9 6 16

Japan n.a. 13 17

* Data refer to 1991

Source: ILO, OECD, EU

Job quality,Average tenure and Employment Security, 1996


5/15


France

Germany

Sweden

Austria

Finland

Netherlands

Denmark

Norway

Ireland

Belgium

Italy

Greece

Portugal

Japan

Spain

United Kingdom

United States

R2 = 0.0718

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

0 5 10 15 20

Average tenure

Job insecurity and tenure (ranking), 1996

Note: Coefficients are not significant

Source: Data supplied by International Survey research,OECD, Eurostat and national sources

High

High

Low


6/15


Job insecurity and job quality (ranking), 1996

Note: the coefficients are significant at 5% level

Source: Data supplied by International Survey research OECD, Economic commission

Denmark

Netherlands

Finland

Belgium

Austria

Germany

Ireland

United Kingdom

Italy

Spain

Portugal

Greece

R2 = 0.4989

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Job quality

Jobi

nsecurity

High

Low High


7/15


Job tenure and job quality (ranking), 1996

Coefficients are significant at 5% level

Source: Based on Eurostat, Economic Commission

Germany

Austria

Belgium

Ireland

Italy

Portugal

Greece

Finland

Spain

United Kingdom

Netherlands

Denmark

R2 = 0.4712

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14

Average tenure

LowHigh

High


8/15


Job insecurity and tenure, 2000

Note: Coefficients are not significant

Source: Data supplied by International Survey research,OECD, Eurostat and national sources

Sw edenGermany

France

Denmark Ireland

Netherlands

Finland Belgium

Italy

Greece

Portugal

Japan

Spain

United Kingdom

United states

Adj. R2 = 0.031

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0

Average tenure (years)

Jobinse

curity(%)


9/15


Job insecurity and Labour Market Policies, 2000

Coefficients are significant at 5 level

worried = percentage worried about the future of their compan ,

unsure = percentage unsure of a job with their compan even if the perform well

ote: job insecurit is the average percentage among worried and unsure people.

Source: Data supplied b nternational Surve research, cited from OECD

elgium reland

inland

apan

nited ingdom

ortugal

erman

S w eden

rance

etherlandsDenmarustria

ta l

reece

Spain

nited States

R

= . 5

5

5

5

55

. . . . . 5. .

Public expenditures (% of GDP) in LMP High

High

Low


10/15


Distribution of Employment by Class of Tenure, Percent Share, 1995-1998

Based on Eurostat

United Kingdom

Denmark

Spain

Netherlands

Germany

Luxemburg Finland

Italy

Greece

Belgim

PortugalSweden France

Ireland

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35

Less than 1 year

10yeras

andmor

A B

C


11/15


Denmarnited

ingdom Net erlandsIrelan d

Port ga l

reece

France

Ital

ain

Germany Be lgi m

15

25

35

45

55

65

75

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Average tenur e


Transition rates (temp to perm jobs) and Tenure, 1995-1998

C

B A


12/15


Denmark

Belgium

Netherlands

United Kingdom

France

Greece

Italy

Portugal

GermanySpain

Ireland

15

25

35

45

55

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Average tenure

Based on Eurostat

Transition rates (low to higher quality) and Tenure, 1995-1998

C A

B


13/15


Note: Countries are clustered by tenure distribution, therefore some with high employment rates are in group A (Swe, Port.) and one

(Fin) is in group B. This would be different, if another cluster criteria would be used.


Different employment systems in 2001

Temporary Tenure distribution (%)

Total Young Older Female job (%) Total Youth Long term under 1 year 10 years +

Group AGreece 55.4 26.0 38.0 40.9 12.6 10.2 28.1 5.4 6.6 53.2

Luxemburg 62.9 32.4 24.4 50.9 5.8 2.0 7.5 0.5 11.1 43.9

Italy 54.8 26.3 28.0 41.1 9.8 9.4 28.1 5.9 11.1 49.9

Belgium 59.9 32.7 24.1 50.5 9.0 6.6 17.6 3.0 13.3 47.3

Portugal 68.9 43.8 50.3 61.1 20.6 4.1 9.3 1.5 12.9 44.0

Sweden 71.7 36.6 66.5 70.4 13.5 5.1 11.1 1.2 12.4 42.2

Average 62.3 33.0 38.6 52.5 11.9 6.2 17.0 2.9 11.2 46.7

Group B

France 63.1 29.5 31.0 56.1 14.9 8.6 19.5 2.9 16.4 44.0

Germany 65.8 46.5 37.7 58.8 12.4 7.9 9.4 3.9 15.2 40.8

Finland 68.1 41.7 45.7 65.4 16.4 9.1 19.7 2.5 21.7 40.8

Spain 56.3 33.1 38.9 41.9 31.7 10.6 21.5 5.1 20.5 38.5

Average 63.3 37.7 38.3 55.6 18.9 9.1 17.5 3.6 18.5 41.0

Group CDenmark 76.2 62.3 58.0 72.0 9.2 4.3 8.5 0.9 21.5 30.9

Netherlands 74.1 70.4 39.6 65.2 14.3 2.4 5.5 0.8 21.6 35.9

Ireland 65.7 49.6 46.8 55.0 3.7 3.8 6.6 1.3 19.7 34.4

United Kingdom 71.7 56.9 52.3 65.1 6.8 5.0 11.9 1.3 19.9 32.7

Average 71.9 59.8 49.2 64.3 8.5 3.9 8.1 1.1 20.7 33.5

Employment rate (%) Unemployment rate (%)


14/15


High social

protection

Low social

protection

High

employment

protection

France(EPL21 / SP08) (AT11.1 / S16)

Germany, Sweden

Japan(EPL25* / SP24) (AT12 / S25)

Portugal, Greece, Italy, Spain

Low

employment

protection

Denmark(EPL08 / SP01) (AT8.3 / S02)

Belgium, Netherlands, Finland, Ireland

United States(EPL01 / SP25) (AT6.6 / S21)

United Kingdom

Employment protection or Employability protection

Rank 1: EPL strictness, 1 = less strict, 26 = most strict (*Estimation for Japan)

Rank 2: SP = Expenditures for labour market policy, 1 = highest, 25 = lowest;

Rang 3: S = Employment security indicator, 1 = most secure, 26 = least secure. AT= Average

employment tenure (years)

Source: OECD, Eurostat


15/15


ConclusionsTenure alone seems not enough for transmitting employment security

Medium tenure and social protection seems to yield best perceivedsecurity, good labour market performance and also good job qualityand the specific interaction between the economy and its instituions

producing such an outcome appears to be resulting in decent work in aglobalising world

Tenure and productivity

What are the policy implications?analysis has to be refined and does not imply strong causal relationships

Difficulties of transposing national employment models: shaped by nationalpolicies, culture and institutions

However: stability and flexibility (flexibility/security) instead of flexibilityalone

Employment protection/social protection by labour market policies: trade offor complementary?

Not necessarily more but better LMP for flexibility and security

Employment tenure, employment security and labour market policies

Documents

DecentWorkTurin