ILO - Thailand Labour Market Profile

7/29/2019 ILO - Thailand Labour Market Profile

1/88


2/88


3/88

Regional Oce or Asia and the Pacic

A labour market proleThailand


4/88

ii Thailand A labour market prole

Copyright International Labour Organization 2013

First published 2013

Publications o the International Labour Oce enjoy copyright under Protocol 2 o the Universal Copyright Convention.

Nevertheless, short excerpts rom them may be reproduced without authorization, on condition that the source is indicated.

For rights o reproduction or translation, application should be made to ILO Publications (Rights and Permissions),

International Labour Oice, CH-1211 Geneva 22, Switzerland, or by email: [email protected]. The International LabourOce welcomes such applications.

Libraries, institutions and other users registered with reproduction rights organizations may make copies in accordance

with the licences issued to them or this purpose. Visit www.irro.org to nd the reproduction rights organization in your

country.

Thailand A labour market prole ILO Regional Oce or Asia and the Pacic Bangkok: ILO, 2013

73 p.

ISBN 9789221269038; 9789221269045 (web pd)

Regional Oce or Asia and the Pacic

labour market / employment / unemployment / wages / labour shortage / labour migration / social protection / gender

equality / Thailand

13.01.2

ILO Cataloguing in Publication Data

The designations employed in ILO publications, which are in conormity with United Nations practice, and the presentation

o material therein do not imply the expression o any opinion whatsoever on the part o the International Labour Oce

concerning the legal status o any country, area or territory or o its authorities, or concerning the delimitation o its rontiers.

The responsibility or opinions expressed in signed articles, studies and other contributions rests solely with their authors,

and publication does not constitute an endorsement by the International Labour Oce o the opinions expressed in them.

Reerence to names o irms and commercial products and processes does not imply their endorsement by the

International Labour Oce, and any ailure to mention a particular rm, commercial product or process is not a sign o

disapproval.

ILO publications can be obtained through major booksellers or ILO local oices in many countries, or direct rom ILO

Publications, International Labour Oce, CH-1211 Geneva 22, Switzerland. Catalogues or lists o new publications are

available ree o charge rom the above address, or by email: [email protected] or [email protected]

Visit our website: www.ilo.org/publns and www.ilo.org/asia

Photos copyright ILO

Layout by Sync Design Co. Ltd. Thailand

Printed in Thailand


5/88

iiiThailand A labour market prole

Tailand is an export-reliant, middle-income country that now conronts new challenges. Te global situation

remains unstable and volatile, which can seriously aect jobs in Tailand, especially in the export sector. On

the other hand, as the 2015 Association o Southeast Asian Nations economic integration approaches, the

labour market dynamics in the region are likely to change, which also will impact Tailands labour market.

A comprehensive prole o the current labour market scenario based on reliable inormation is thus critical orpolicy-makers in the country.

Tis publication, Tailand A labour market profle, brings together available labour market indicators to provide

the most up-to-date picture o the Tai labour market in a simple, easy-to-read style. It spans a wealth o socio-

economic and labour market inormation rom gross domestic product growth rates, disparities, employment

and unemployment to migration, labour shortages and working time and includes the gender and regional

implications. Te impact o the recent economic crisis on the labour market is also assessed, and the nal chapter

provides some conclusions and recommendations.

Te indicators presented in this report go beyond the usual labour market indicators and include demography,

literacy and inequality data all o which are relevant or labour market policies. Te choice o indicators wasbased on discussions with a number o colleagues in the Decent Work eam and echnical Cooperation projects

working in Tailand and reects the comments and queries that they received rom partners and constituents. Te

document thus should be particularly useul or ILO constituents in Tailand representatives o government

and workers and employers organizations and anyone else interested in knowing the current state o Tailands

labour market.

Tis publication was prepared by Sukti Dasgupta, Ruttiya Bhula-or and iraphap Fakthong rom the ILO Regional

Ofce or Asia and the Pacic, with contributions rom Teerawit Chainarongsophon and Jiun Kim. Bill Salter,

the previous Director o the ILO DW or East and South-East Asia and the Pacic was very supportive o this

work and provided several comments on earlier versions. Special thanks are also due to Jiyuan Wang, Director o

the ILO Country Ofce or Tailand, Cambodia and Lao Peoples Democratic Republic, whose guidance and

support throughout the process has been noteworthy. Te publication also benetted extensively rom reviews

by ILO colleagues Nilim Baruah, uomo Poutainen, Max unon and ite Habiyakare in Bangkok and Makiko

Matsumoto and Miranda Kwong in Geneva. Comments received rom colleagues in the Bank o Tailand,

especially rom Somsachee Siksamat, during seminars and discussions where these indicators were presented, are

grateully acknowledged. Karen Emmons edited the text and Masaki Matsumoto designed the presentation.

I grateully acknowledge the nancial contribution towards the editing and printing o the report rom the ILO-

IPEC Combatting the Worst Forms o Child Labour in the Shrimp and Seaood Processing Areas in Tailand

Project and the ripartite Action to Protect Migrant Workers Within and From the Greater Mekong Subregion

From Labour Exploitation (RIANGLE) Project, both based in Bangkok, along with the Regional Ofce or

Asia and the Pacic.

Tis document is meant to be a quick reerence that highlights the main socio-economic and labour market

variables or Tailand. I am sure that it will be extremely useul or our constituents and others because it oers

current and insightul details about the Tai labour market against the backdrop o an unstable global economy

and the shadow o the European crisis, which continues to impact on growth and labour markets worldwide.

Yoshiteru Uramoto

Regional Director

ILO Regional Ofce or Asia and the Pacic

Foreword


6/88

iv Thailand A labour market prole

Contents

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii

Abbreviations and acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

2. Socio-economic issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.1 GDP and GDP per capita . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.2 Regional disparity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

3. Population . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

4. Literacy, school enrolment and skills . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4.1 Literacy rates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

4.2 School enrolment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

4.3 Skills training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

5. Labour orce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

5.1 Labour orce participation rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

5.2 Inactivity rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

6. Employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

6.1 Employmentpopulation ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

6.2 Employment by sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

6.3 Employment by status . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

6.4 Employment by occupation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

6.5 Employment by educational attainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

6.6 Working poverty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

6.7 Inormal employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

7. Unemployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

7.1 Unemployment rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

7.2 Youth unemployment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

8. Wages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

8.1 Nominal average wage rates and indices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

8.2 Minimum wage rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

9. Labour productivity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44


7/88

vThailand A labour market prole

10. Labour shortage and migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

10.1 Shortage o labour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

10.2 Labour migration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

11. Social protection. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

11.1 Health care and social security schemes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

11.2 Hours o work per week . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

11.3 Saety in the workplace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

12. Gender equality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

13. Concluding remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

Reerences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62

Appendix: Additional data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Figures

Figure 1. GDP growth rates in constant prices, 200110 (p1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Figure 2. Real per capita GDP and GDP growth, 200110 (p1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Figure 3. Export, import growth and trade dependence index, 200110 (p1) . . . . . . . . . . 4

Figure 4. Share o GDP, by expenditure in constant prices, 200110 (p1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Figure 5. Gross regional product per capita (baht), 200209 (Q1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Figure 6. Average monthly income per capita, by quintile, 1988 and 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Figure 7. Gini index (income based), by urban and rural area, 200009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Figure 8. Gini index (income based), by region, 200009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Figure 9. Thai demographic structure, by age and sex, 2000 and 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Figure 10. Thai demographic structure, by age and sex, 2020 and 2030 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Figure 11. Proportion o population aged 6 or older who are illiterate, by region, 2008 . . . . . . 9

Figure 12. Average years o schooling, 200409 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Figure 13. Share o population aged 15 or older, by education attainment, 200110 . . . . . . 10

Figure 14. Trainees in government-sponsored skill-upgrading courses, 200610 . . . . . . . . . 12

Figure 15. Proportion o employed persons who are vocational school graduates among all


8/88

vi Thailand A labour market prole

highly educated employed persons, 200110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Figure 16. Labour orce participation rate, by sex, 200110 (Q3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 17. Unemployment rate, by sex and gender gap, 200110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 18. Classication o the labour orce, 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 19. Distribution o the labour orce and inactive persons, by sex,

2001 and 2010 (Q3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Figure 20. Employmentpopulation ratios, 200110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Figure 21. Employmentpopulation ratios in Asian countries, 19962007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Figure 22. Elasticity o total employment to total GDP in Thailand, 19922008 . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Figure 23. Share o employed persons, by sector, 200110 (average o our quarters) . . . . . 21

Figure 24. Employed persons, by sector, 200110 (000s) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Figure 25. Labour productivity, by economic activities, 200110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

Figure 26. Share o employment, by status in employment, 200110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 26a. Share o male employment, by status in employment, 200110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 26b. Share o emale employment, by status in employment, 200110 . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

Figure 27. Vulnerable employment, 200110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Figure 28. Share o vulnerable employment to total employment

in selected Asian economies, 2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Figure 29. Share o total employed persons, by occupation, 200110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Figure 29a. Share o male employed persons, by occupation, 200110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure 29b. Share o emale employed persons, by occupation, 200110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Figure 30. Total employment, by education level, 200110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Figure 30a. Male employment, by education level, 200110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Figure 30b. Female employment, by education level, 200110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Figure 31. Ratio o employed persons o vocational graduates to total upper secondary or

higher graduates, 200110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Figure 32. Working poverty rate, 19922004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Figure 33. Share o inormal employment to total employment, 200510 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Figure 34. Inormal employment, by industry, 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Figure 35. Share o inormal employment, by occupation, 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

Figure 36. Unemployment rate, by sex, 200110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Figure 37. Unemployment rate, by region, 200109 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34


9/88

viiThailand A labour market prole

Figure 38. Unemployment rate and vulnerable employment rate, 200209 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Figure 39. Unemployment rate, by level o education in selected Asian economies, 2007 . . 35

Figure 40. Unemployment rate, by age, 200209 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Figure 41. Youth unemployment rate, by sex, 2001 09 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Figure 42. Youthadult unemployment ratio, 200109 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Figure 43. Share o youth unemployment to total unemployment in selected Asian economies,

2007 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

Figure 44. Nominal wage rate, by industry and the consumer price index, 200109 . . . . . . 39

Figure 45. Gender wage dierentials, 200110 (baht) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

Figure 46. Average monthly wages (baht), by industry and sex, 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Figure 47. Monthly wage (baht) o ormal and inormal sector employees, by industry, 2010 . . . . . . 40

Figure 48. Average monthly wage (baht) o registered migrant workers and Thais, by sex, 2010 . . . . 41

Figure 49. Growth in minimum wage rate, compared with infation and nominal GDP,

19962010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

Figure 50. Real GDP per employed person, 19902008 (index 1990 = 100) . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Figure 51. Real GDP per employed persons, by industry, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Figure 52. Projected labour demand, by occupation, 2011 and 2014 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Figure 53. Actual and projected labour demand and labour shortage, 200414 . . . . . . . . . . 48

Figure 54. Number registered and unregistered migrant workers in Thailand, 19962007 . 50

Figure 55. Share o Thai immigrant workers, by destination, 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

Figure 56. Internal migrant workers, by sector and region, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

Figure 57. Number and share o population, by type o health insurance, 2007 and 2009 . 54

Figure 58. Share o employed persons, by hours worked, 200110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Figure 59. Share o underemployment to total employment, 200110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Figure 60. Average hours o work, by economic sector, 2001 and 2009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Figure 61. Rate and number o workplace-related accidents or injuries, 200508 . . . . . . . . 57

Figure 62. Share o employed persons who experienced an accident or injury, 200508 . . . 57

Figure 63. Share o injured workers to total injuries, by type o accident, 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Figure 64. Ratio o male to emale employment in category o legislators, senior ocials and

managers, 200110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

Figure 65. Share o employment in non-agriculture sectors, by sex, 200110 . . . . . . . . . . . 60


10/88

viii Thailand A labour market prole

Tables

Table 1. Minimum wage rates (baht per day) and percentage changes,

by region and province, 201112 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

Appendix table 1. GDP and its composition, 200110 (p1) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Appendix table 2. Import, export growth and trade dependence index, 200110 (p1) . . . . 66

Appendix table 3. Gini index (income based), 200009 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Appendix table 4. Number o population, aged 6 years or older, who are illiterate,

by causes o illiteracy, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Appendix table 5. Number o population, by health coverage, 2007 and 2009 . . . . . . . . . . 67

Appendix table 6. Employment to population, 200110 (Q3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Appendix table 7. Elasticity o total employment to total GDP, by sex and period, 19922008

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Appendix table 8. Share o employed persons, by sector, 200110 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Appendix table 9. Employment share, by status (%), 200110 (Q3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

Appendix table 10. Employed persons, by level o education attained and by sex, 200110 69

Appendix table 11. Working poverty ratio, 19922004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

Appendix table 12. Vulnerable employment, 200110 (Q3) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Appendix table 13. Share o emale wage employment, 19962010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Appendix table 14. Coverage o minimum wage rate on daily expense required

or low-skilled labour, by region, 2010 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Appendix table 15. Average wage, by sex and gender wage dierentials, 200110 . . . . . . . . 71

Appendix table 16. Employees, by occupation o registered migrant workers and Thais, 2010 . . . . 71

Appendix table 17. Source o Thai labour productivity, 200208 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Appendix table 18. Foreign workers as percentage o total population and labour orce, 2005

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

Appendix table 19. Employed persons, by hours o work per week (000s), 200110 (Q3) . . 73

Appendix table 20. Employed persons, by type o accident, 2008 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73


11/88

ixThailand A labour market prole

Boxes

Box 1. Denition o gross domestic product and trade dependence index . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

Box 2. Denition o the Gini coecient and poverty line . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Box 3. Denition o age dependency ratio and youth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Box 4. Denition o literacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Box 5. Denition o average years o schooling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Box 6. Denition o skills training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Box 7. Denition o labour orce participation rate and working-age population . . . . . . . . . 13

Box 8. Denition o inactivity rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

Box 9. Denition o employment-population ratio and employment elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . 17

Box 10. Denition o employment by sector and labour productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

Box 11. Denition o employment by status and vulnerable employment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

Box 12. Denition o job and employment by occupation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Box 13. Thailands national classication o educational attainment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

Box 14. Denition o working poor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

Box 15. Denition o inormal sector, employment in the inormal sector,

inormal employment and inormal employment in Thailand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Box 16. Denition o unemployed person . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

Box 17. Denition o youth unemployment rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

Box 18. Denition o average monthly wage rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Box 19. Denition o wage and minimum wage rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Box 20. Denition o labour productivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Box 21. Denition o labour shortage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

Box 22. Denition o registered and unregistered migrant workers and irregular migrant . . 49

Box 23. Denition o health care and social security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Box 24. Denition o hours worked . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54

Box 25. Denition o accident and injury rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Box 26. Denition o gender equality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59


12/88

x Thailand A labour market prole

ASEAN Association o Southeast Asian Nations

BOT Bank o Thailand

CMHI compulsory migrant health insurance

CSMBS civil servants medical benet scheme

DSD Department o Skill Development

DVT dual vocational training

GDP gross domestic product

GESS Global Extension o Social Security

ICLS International Conerence o Labour Statisticians

ICSE International Classifcation by Status in Employment adopted by 15th ICLS in 1993

IES Inormal Employed Survey

ILO International Labour Organization

ISCO-08 International Standard Classication o Occupations, 2008

LFP labour orce participation

MOL Ministry o Labour o Thailand

NESDB National Economic and Social Development Board o Thailand

NSO National Statistical Oce o Thailand

SSF social security und

TFP total actor productivity

UCS universal coverage scheme

UNDP United Nations Development Programme

UNWOMEN United Nations Entity or Gender Equality and the Empowerment o Women

Abbreviations and acronyms


13/88

1

Introduc

tion

1

Thailand A labour market prole

At the International Labour Organizations Fourteenth Asian Regional Meeting in 2006,

representatives o government and workers and employers associations rom Tailand and elsewhere

in Asia and the Pacic committed themselves to the Asian Decent Work Decade (200615). Te

representatives unanimously agreed that the regular collection o labour market indicators and

related inormation is critical or an improved understanding o how labour markets operate and or

reecting a countrys achievements in the world o work as well as its continuing challenges. Tis

knowledge is the basis or raming guidelines and policies or the labour market.

In response and in collaboration with country ofces, the ILO Regional Ofce or Asia and the

Pacic initiated country-specic labour market proles that are easy to read and understand. Tispublication is in that spirit aimed towards providing labour market data or constituents, policy-

makers and all those who are interested in the world o work in Tailand. It includes the available

indicators or which data can be presented and which are relevant or the country.

Tailand has made signicant progress in ostering economic development in the past ew years, even

though it was severely aected by the economic crisis in 1997 and to a lesser extent by the recent

one in 2008. It is a middle-income country with a large export sector and in the past decade has had

stable macro-economic indicators. But it is also a country with a signicant share o employment in

agriculture and emerging labour shortages in some sectors. While this makes Tailand an attractivedestination or migrant workers rom neighbouring countries, many Tai workers look outside

Tailand or work. As the global situation becomes more unstable and prospects or intraregional

integration increases, a well-unctioning labour market will become crucial or Tailands inclusive

growth. By providing inormation on various labour market indicators, this publication presents a

comprehensive picture o Tailands labour market and its uture challenges.

Te labour market data are organized into 11 thematic chapters. Each chapter highlights a labour

market aspect, with supporting gures where relevant. Tere are additional data tables in the

appendix. Where possible, the data are disaggregated by sex and regions in the country.

Tailand A labour market prole is data driven and ocuses on the variables that are relevant or

labour market policy analysis. Te data largely derives rom the labour orce surveys and the socio-

economic surveys o the National Statistical Ofce o Tailand, while the GDP growth gures

are rom the National Economic and Social Development Plan o Tailand. For easy reerence, a

denition o the indicators accompanies all sections. Where possible, trends over a period o time

are provided.

1. Introduction


14/88

2

Introduc

ti on

1


Te aim o the publication is to provide quick and easy access to available labour market data or a

particular country; thus, lengthy analysis o the indicators and relationships among the indicators

are not included. Instead, there are spotlights with supporting data and graphs and gures where

relevant.

Although eorts were made to include as many relevant indicators as possible, based on Tailands

comprehensive statistical system, there were some problems with data availability and reliability.

Tus, such indicators as child labour, collective bargaining coverage and union density are not

included.


15/88

3

Socio-ec

onomicissues

2


2.1 GDP and GDP per capita

Box 1. Defnition o gross domestic product and trade dependence index

Gross domestic product, or GDP, is a measurement o the aggregate value o the production

o goods and services, calculated as the sum o the value added o nal goods and services

rom all sectors in an economy within a specic year. Using the expenditure approach, GDP

represents our components: private consumption, private investment, government spending

and net export value (exports minus imports). GDP per capita is total GDP divided by the

population o a country.

The trade dependence index is the value o total trade (imports plus exports) as a percentage

o GDP. The trade dependence index (oten called the openness index) measures the

importance o international trade in the overall economy.

ailandsaverageannualgrossdomesticproductgrowthwas5.1percentperannumfrom2001 to 2007 (gure 1). Growth slowed and during the global economic crisis was in thenegative, at -2.3 in 2009. Recovery was quick, however, and GDP bounced back to an average

rate o 7.8 per cent in 2010 (NESDB, 2011).

Beforetheonsetoftheglobaleconomiccrisis,theannualaveragegrowthofGDPpercapitawas 3.9 per cent (gure 2). During the economic recession, GDP per capita growth ell to -2.9per cent in 2009. Te quick recovery, together with the GDP growth, spurred the growth oGDP per capita to rise to 7.1 per cent the next year (NESDB, 2011).

Intheearly2000s,GDPgrowthratesandpercapitaGDPgrowthratesshowedaconsistentdivergence, by about 1 per cent. Te gap between the two growth rates gradually narrowed to0.7 per cent in 2010 (gure 2). During that time, there was no signicant change in population

growth (NESDB, 2011).

ActualGDPgrowthinthefourthquarterdroppedby9percent,comparedwiththe3.7percent increase in third quarter 2011 (gure 2), ater the economy suered rom a major oodcrisis that aected around 65 provinces, including Bangkok (NESDB, 2011).

ailandhasbeenquitedependentoninternationaltrade.etradedependenceindex,whichis calculated by dividing the value o exports and imports by GDP, was 107130 per cent overthe past decade (gure 3). In 2009, during the height o the economic crisis, it contracted to111 per cent (NESDB, 2011).

2. Socio-economic issues


16/88

4

Soci oec

onomi ci ssues

2


From2001to2010,netexportscontributedbetween10and20percenttototalGDP(gure3). In 2009, the share o net exports was 18 per cent, despite a decrease in the share o bothexports and imports. Tis was because the share o imports contracted more than the share oexports in 2009. By 2010, this share had urther dwindled to 16.4 per cent (NESDB, 2011).

In2010,privateconsumptionandprivateinvestmentaveragedabout54and22percentofGDP, respectively, while the share o government expenditure was around 810 per cent onaverage (gure 4). However, government expenditure increased in 2009 with the onset o astimulus package in response to the economic crisis (NESDB, 2011).

Note: p is preliminary, based on the annual gure; p1 is the gure rom the quarter data without an annual gureSource all our gures: National Economic and Social Development Board (NESDB), 2011.

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

-5%

-10%

-15%

Export growth Other growth GDP growth

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Figure 1. GDP growth rates in constant prices, 200110 (p1)

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0%

-2%

-4%

120 000

100 000

80 000

60 000

40 000

20 000

GDP per capita (baht) at 2001 price Per capita GDP growth GDP growth

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Figure 2. Real per capita GDP and GDP growth, 200110 (p1)

140%

120%

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

-10%

-20%

-40%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009p 2010p1

Figure 3. Export, import growth and trade dependence index,

200110 (p1)

Export growth Import growth Net export growth Trade dependence index

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Private consumption Government expediture Private investment Net export

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009p 2010p1

Figure 4. Share of GDP, by expenditure in constant prices,

200110 (p1)


17/88

5

Socio-ec

onomicissues

2


2.2 Regional disparity

Box 2. Defnition o the Gini coefcient and poverty line

Beyond the measurement o economic growth, the distribution o growth and income arealso important issues because they indicate the extent to which economic prosperity is

evenly distributed in a society. This measurement prioritizes the equity aspect. Two suggested

indicators to use are the gross regional product per capita and the Gini coecient index,

measured across geographical regions and ruralurban areas.

The Gini coecient is an indicator or measuring inequality o a specic area, country,

region or zone. A higher index implies worse income distribution or greater concentration in

a measured area, while a lower index implies better income distribution.

The poverty line (national) is the income level below which people are dened as poor.The denition is based on the income level people require to buy lies basic necessities

ood, clothing, housing and satisy their most important socio-cultural needs. The poverty

line changes over time and varies by region; it is also called subsistence minimum. Each

government determines its ocial national poverty line (World Bank, 2012).

Bangkokconsistentlyranksastherichestregioninailand,exceptduring200608whentheeastern region claimed the highest per capita GDP (gure 5). In contrast, the north-easternregion consistently ranks as the poorest, with incomes about eight times lower on average than

in Bangkok (NESDB, 2011).

eaverageregion-specicGiniindexin thepastdecaderangedfrom0.44to0.47(gure8). Among regions over the decade, the Gini coefcient had the largest increment change inBangkok, rising rom 0.42 in 2000 to 0.47 in 2009 (NESDB, 2011).

In2001,more than40per centofailandspopulation lived underthepoverty lineinten provinces, mostly in the north-east region. In 2009, only one province, Mae Hong Son,continued to have 40 per cent o its population living below the poverty line. Te share opeople living below the poverty line declined considerably in the other provinces in that same

time period (NESDB, 2011).

In2000,theGinicoecientinbothurbanandruralareasregisteredat0.47(gure7).By2009, the Gini coefcient reected a widened gap, with the index in the urban areas at 0.48and in rural areas at 0.44. Te change implies that the income distribution in the rural areasimproved compared with urban areas (NESDB, 2011).

Between1988and2009inthenominalterm,theaveragemonthlyincomepercapitaamongthe rst quintile (the poorest households) increased by 516 per cent (gure 6), while the thquintile (the richest households)s average monthly income per capita increased by 486.6 per


18/88

6

Soci oec

onomi ci ssues

2


cent. Te ratios o average monthly income per capita between the richest and the pooresthouseholds in 1988 and 2009 were 11.9 and 11.3, respectively (NESDB, 2011).

Source: NESDB, 2011.

Source: NESDB, 2011.

Source: NESDB, 2011.Source: NESDB, 2011.

First quintile (the poorest group)

Second quintile

Third quintile

Fourth quintile

Fifth quintile (the richest group)

Total

Population by level of income

244 1 503

429 2 622

660 3 941

1 098 6 299

2 897 16 993

1 066 6 272

1988 2009

Average income per capita (baht per month)

Figure 6. Average monthly income per capita, by quintile, 1988 and 2009

400 000350 000

300 000

250 000

200 000

150 000

100 000

50 000

Bangkok and vicinities

Eastern region

Central region

Average of Thailand

Western region

Southern region

Northern region

North-eastern region2001200019991998199719961995 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Figure 5. Gross regional product per capita (baht), 200209 (Q1)

0.49

0.48

0.47

0.46

0.45

0.44

0.43

0.42

Urban Rural

2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2009

Figure 7. Gini index (income based), by urban and rural area,

200009 0.5

0.48

0.46

0.44

0.42

0.4

North-eastBangkokCentral

SouthNorth

2000 2002 2004 2006 2007 2009

Figure 8. Gini index (income based), by region, 200009


19/88

7

Population

3


Box 3. Defnition o age dependency ratio and youth

The demographics o the Thai population in this publication are based on the total number

o people registering as Thai citizens with the Department o Provincial Administration within

the Ministry o Interior. The data are annually collected and presented in provincial, regional

and national databases.

The age dependency ratio is the ratio o dependants people younger than 15 or older than

64 to the working-age population those aged between 15 and 64. Although the retirement

age in Thailand is 60 years, the dependency ratio used in this publication is based on the

international classication. The data are typically shown as the proportion o dependants

per 100 working-age population. The higher ratio implies a greater nancial burden on the

productive population to maintain the upbringing and pension o the dependants.

Youth is any person aged between 15 and 24 years.

Populationprojectionsfor2030suggestadeclineintheshareoftheworking-ageandyouthpopulations (gures 9 and 10); the ormer is likely to decrease by 4.5 per cent while the latterby as much as 11.1 per cent. Currently, the shares o working-age population and youth

population are 25.1 and 11.9 per cent, respectively (NESDB, 2007).

By2030,thoseagedyoungerthan15yearsareprojectedtoaccountforonly13.5percentofthe total Tai population (gures 9 and 10), which would represent a considerable drop romthe 20.5 per cent in 2010 (NESDB, 2007).

Incontrast,theratiooftheelderlypopulationtototalpopulationwillexperienceanupwardtrend until 2030 (gures 9 and 10), rising rom 9.4 per cent in 2010 to almost 25 per cent in2030 (NESDB, 2007).

Asaconsequenceofthedemographicchanges,thedependencyratiooftheyoungerpopulationdropped rom 37.4 per cent in 2000 to 30.3 per cent in 2010, while the dependency ratio othe elderly population (64 years and older) increased rom 14.3 per cent in 2000 to 17.6 percent in 2010 (gures 9 and 10). From 2010 to 2030, this ratio is predicted to jump to 41 percent a 24 per cent increase within 20 years (NESDB, 2007).

Basedonthatprojection,theaieconomyneedstoprepareitselfforaperiodofahighelderlydependency ratio. Accessibility to decent health care is one o the most important publicprovisions that need to be developed with such a situation. Pension schemes also will be criticalor Tailand to cope with the continuing change in demographic patterns (NESDB, 2007).

3. Population


20/88

8

Popul ati on

3


Source: NESDB, Population projections for Thailand 20002030, October 2007.

Source: NESDB, Population projections for Thailand 20002030, October 2007.

80+

75-79

70-74

65-69

60-64

55-59

50-54

45-49

40-44

35-39

30-34

25-29

20-24

15-19

10-14

5-9

0-4

80+

75-79

70-74

65-69

60-64

55-59

50-54

45-49

40-44

35-39

30-34

25-29

20-24

15-19

10-14

5-9

0-4

MaleFemale MaleFemale

Figure 9. Thai demographic structure, by age and sex, 2000 and 2010

3 000 2 000 1 000 0 1 000 2 000 3 000 3 000 2 000 1 000 0 1 000 2 000 3 000

2000 2010

80+

75-79

70-74

65-69

60-64

55-59

50-54

45-49

40-44

35-39

30-34

25-2920-24

15-19

10-14

5-9

0-4

80+

75-79

70-74

65-69

60-64

55-59

50-54

45-49

40-44

35-39

30-34

25-2920-24

15-19

10-14

5-9

0-4

MaleFemale MaleFemale

Figure 10. Thai demographic structure, by age and sex, 2020 and 2030

3 000 2 000 1 000 0 1 000 2 000 3 000 3 000 2 000 1 000 0 1 000 2 000 3 000

2020 2030


21/88

9

Literacy,schoolenrolmen

tandskills

4


4.1 Literacy

Box 4. Defnition o literacy

Literacy is dened as the skill to read and write a simple sentence about everyday lie. The

illiteracy rate is measured as the proportion o a population aged 6 years or older who do not

read.

Accordingto the2008Readingofpopulationsurvey, the female illiteracyratewashigherthan the male illiteracy rate in every region and in the country as a whole (gure 11). In thenorthern area, one o every ten women was illiterate in 2008. Compared with males, emalesare almost twice as likely to be illiterate, regardless o the reason (NSO, 2008).

enorthernregionalsohadthelargestshareofpeoplewhoareilliterateinthewholecountryin 2008 (gure 11), while Bangkok had the smallest share among the total population (NSO,2008).

Source: National Statistical Oce (NSO), Reading of population survey, 2008.

4. Literacy, school enrolment and skills

Total Male Female

Figure 11. Proportion of population aged 6 or older who are illiterate, by region, 2008

12%

10%

8%

6%

4%

2%

0

4.8%

3.4%

6.1%

8.5%

6.5%

10.4%

4.3%

3.0%

5.6%

4.9%

3.7%

5.9%

3.9%

2.5%

5.2%

2.4%

1.3%

3.3%

Thai land NorthernCentral Central region Southern region North-eastern region Bangkok


22/88

10

Li teracy

school enrol men

tandski l l s

4


4.2 School enrolment

Box 5. Defnition o average years o schooling

Average years o schooling is dened as the years o ormal schooling received, on average,among people older than 15.

eaverageyearsofschoolinginailandincreasedfrom7.6yearsin2004to8.1yearsin2009 (gure 12). People aged between 15 and 39 had approximately 1011 years o schoolingas o 2009, the most o all age groups. Elderly Tais (60 years or older) had the lowest average,at our years (Ministry o Education, 2010).

eproportionofaipeoplewithahighereducationisincreasing,particularlythosewith

an upper secondary level education (gure 13). Te proportion o the population aged 15 orolder with an upper secondary level o education expanded rom 11.4 per cent in 2001 to 13.7per cent in 2010, while the number o people with less than a primary education diminished,rom 38.3 to 29.5 per cent, in the same time period (Labour Force Survey, 2001 and 2010).

About65percentofthetotalpopulation(gure13)hadlessthananelementaryeducationin2010 (Labour Force Survey, 2010).

Source: Ministry o Education, Bureau o Inormation andCommunication, Technology Oce o the Permanent Secretary,2010.

Source: NSO,Labour Force Surveys, 200110.

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

(Total) Age 15 and older 15 - 39 40 - 59 60 and older

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

7.6 7.8 7.8 7.98 8.1

Figure 12. Average years of schooling, 200409

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

2001 2006 2010

None Less thanelementary

Elementary Lowersecondary

Uppersecondary

Higher level Other andunknown

Figure 13. Share of population aged 15 or older,

by education attainment, 200110


23/88

11

Literacy,schoolenrolmen

tandskills

4


4.3 Skills training

Box 6. Defnition o skills training

Public policies and measures dealing with vocational education and training all under thedomain o both the Department o Vocational Education within the Ministry o Education and

the Department o Skill Development within the Ministry o Labour.

The Department o Vocational Education and Training promotes cooperation with the private

sector in dual vocational training (DVT), in which students train at a job site; this requires

training contracts that are signed between companies and trainees. Core to the success o

DVT is the participation o the private sector, whether by providing training allowance or

trainees or the training curriculum that is developed to target a job in the workplace.

The Department o Skill Development (DSD) deals directly with skills development o the 30million people in the workorce. The DSD is the core organization that carries out schemes

related to skills development coordination and promotion. The DSD is responsible or skills

training, retraining and upgrading skills o the workorce to meet the national qualication

standards. The three main areas or both technical and non-technical skills are manuacturing,

services and commercial sectors (Ministry o Labour, 2012).

In2006,government-subsidizedshortskillscoursesenrolled69,477trainees(gure14).Asa result o the policy to cope with the spike in unemployment during the 2009 economic

recession, the number o trainees skyrocketed that year to 169,285, which was more thandouble the number or the previous three years. Te majority o courses were service related(Ministry o Labour, 2010).

eproportionofemployedpersonswhograduated fromvocationalschoolsto theuppersecondary or higher level o school dropped signicantly, rom 32 per cent in 2001 to 28 percent (gure 15) in 2010 (Labour Force Survey, 2001 and 2010).


24/88

12

Li teracy

school enrol men

tandski l l s

4


Source: Ministry o Labour, 2010.

Source: NSO, Labour Force Surveys, 200110.

Figure 14. Trainees in government-sponsored skill-upgrading courses, 200610

33%

32%

31%

30%

29%

28%

27%

26%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Figure 15. Proportion of employed persons who are vocational school graduates among all highly educated employed persons,

200110


25/88

13

Labourf

orce

5


5.1 Labour orce participation rate

Box 7. Defnition o labour orce participation rate and working-age population

The labour orce participation rate is the share o the labour orce to the working-age

population (1564 years). According to the Ministry o Labour, the total labour orce covers

all persons aged 1564 years who, during the Labour Force Survey week, were engaged in

the labour orce (either employed or unemployed) or were classied as seasonally inactive

labour orce (neither employed nor unemployed but were waiting or the appropriate season,

as persons who usually worked without pay on arms or in business enterprises engaged in

seasonal activities owned or operated by the head o the household or any other member o

the household).

Working-age population is the total population in a region who are considered able and

likely to work. The publication uses the international standard o 1564 years.

Ofthecountrystotalpopulationof67millionin2010,54millionwereofworkingageand39 million were in the labour orce (gure 18). Tis translates to a labour orce participation

rate o 73 per cent (Labour Force Survey, 2010).

From2001to2010,totallabourforceparticipationrateremainedsteady(gure16),althoughit was much higher or men than or women (Labour Force Surveys, 200110).

Asof2010,theagriculturesectorgeneratedmorethan40percentofailandsemployment,although there was high seasonal variation in some o the agricultural employment (gure17).

5. Labour force


26/88

14

Labourf

orce

5


Source: NSO, Labour Force Survey, 2010 (Q3).

Source: NSO, Labour Force Surveys, 200110.Source: NSO, Labour Force Surveys, 200110.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Male FemaleTotal

Figure 16. Labour force participation rate, by sex,

200110 (Q3)

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Male unemployment rate (%)Female unemployment rate (%)Unemployment rate (%)

Figure 17. Unemployment rate, by sex and gender gap,

200110

Figure 18. Classification of the labour force, 2010

Total population67.4 million

Population below working age (15)53.6 million


27/88

15

Labourf

orce

5


5.2 Inactivity rate

Box 8. Defnition o inactivity rate

The inactivity rate is the proportion o the working-age population not in the labour orce.Persons not in the labour orce are dened in Thailand as those who were neither employed

nor unemployed during the Labour Force Survey week nor classied as seasonally inactive

labour orce. They include persons who, at the time o the survey, were o working age but were

neither employed nor available to work because, or example, o being engaged in household

work; engaged in studies or training; retiring early; being incapable to work because o physical

or mental disability or illness; being voluntarily inactive; or working without payment.

Working-agepersons(1564years)whoareoutofthelabourforcemeasuredbytheinactivity

rate remained at around 27 per cent or most o the decade 200010 (gure 19). Withinthe total share, 35 per cent were inactive women, compared with 19 per cent o inactive men(Labour Force Survey, 2001 and 2010).

In2001,approximately47percentofworking-agemalesattendedschoolratherthanworkinthe labour orce, while only 3 per cent o them did household work (gure 19). In 2010, 41per cent o working-age men studied, while the proportion doing household work increasedby 1 per cent (Labour Force Survey 2001 and 2010).

Overthepastdecade,the reasonmostfrequentlycited for femalesremaining inactivewas

participation in household work, which accounted or 44 per cent o the total emale inactivepersons (gure 19). In 2001, only 26 per cent o working-age emales were out o the labourmarket or education purposes, while in 2010 that proportion had declined to 24 per cent(Labour Force Survey, 2001 and 2010).


28/88

16

Labourf

orce

5


Source: NSO, Labour orce survey, 2001 and 2010.

Thailand, 2001

Male, 2001

Female, 2001

Thailand, 2010

Male, 2010

Female, 2010

1. Household work 30%

2. Studies 33%

3. Too young/old /incapable of work 30%

4. Others 6%

Persons not inlabour force, 26.8%

Total labour force, 73.2%


2. Studies 47%


4. Others 10%




2. Studies 26%


4. Others 5%

Persons not inlabour force, 35%


2. Studies 30%


4. Others 8%

Persons not inlabour force, 27%

Total labour force, 73%


2. Studies 41%


4. Others 14%




2. Studies 24%


4. Others 5%


Total labour force, 65% Total labour force, 65.3%

Figure 19. Distribution of the labour force and inactive persons, by sex, 2001 and 2010 (Q3)


29/88

17

Employm

ent

6


6.1 Employmentpopulation ratio

Box 9. Defnition o employment-population ratio and employment elasticity

The employmentpopulation ratio is the proportion o employed persons relative to the

overall working-age population (aged 1564 years). According to the ILO, an employed person

is someone aged 1564 who, during a labour orce survey week, worked or at least one hour

or wage/salary, prot, dividends or any other payment in kind or did not work at all or worked

less than one hour but received wage/salary, prot rom business enterprise or arm during

a period o absence or did not receive wage/salary, prot rom business enterprise or arm

during the period o absence but had a regular job or business that they would return to. Or

it is someone who worked or at least one hour without pay in a business enterprise or on a

arm owned or operated by the household head or amily member.

An increase in the employmentpopulation ratio indicates that more working-age people have

employment. This indicator provides inormation on the ability o an economy to provide

employment. It can be complemented by other indicators to measure not only the quantity o

employment but also the quality o employment (ILO, 2009).

The employment elasticity is dened as the average percentage point change in employmentor a given employed population group (total, emale, male) associated with a 1 percentage

point change in output over a selected period. In its most basic application, it serves as a

useul way to examine how growth in economic output and growth in employment evolve

together over time. It also can provide insight into trends in labour productivity and employment

generation or dierent population subsets in a country and assist in detecting and analysing

structural changes in employment over time (Key Indicators of the Labour Market, 2010).

ailands employmentpopulation ratio, averaging 72.1per cent during the 20012010

period and standing at 72.2 per cent in 2010, ranks as one o the highest among Asianeconomies, second to that o Chinas (gure 21). From 1996 to 2000, the ratio declined, roman approximate average o 75 per cent to 70 per cent, and a urther 5 percentage points inthe late 1990s, ater which it has consistently increased (Key Indicators o the Labour Market,2010).

From2001to2010, theaiemploymentpopulationratio showedthatmenweremorelikely to be employed than women, at an average ratio or the decade o 80.1 and 64.4 percent, respectively (gure 20). Even though there was a slight uctuation, the overall trendreected a rise in the employment rate o both women and men, with a consistent gap between

6. Employment


30/88

18

Empl oym

ent

6


the two sexes (Labour orce survey, 2001 and 2010).

During the economic crisis in 2009, the female employmentpopulation ratio declined,but the male employmentpopulation ratio rose (gure 20). It is possible that there was acrowding out o women in employment during the crisis. On the whole, however, the total

employmentpopulation ratio was 72.5 per cent in 2009, which then dropped 0.2 percentagepoints in 2010 (Labour Force Survey, 2001 and 2010).

eelasticityofemploymenttototalGDPrangedbetween0.1and0.2from1992to2008(gure 22). From 1992 to 1996, when GDP growth was at its highest, at 8.1 per cent, theemployment elasticity o the Tai economy was only 0.1. Ater the nancial crisis in 1997,

when economic growth contracted and Tailand posted a negative GDP growth rate, thesensitivity o employment to economic uctuation was higher and elasticity (in which bothGDP and employment are in a declining trend) was 0.2. Tis characteristic, however, did nothold true rom 2000 to 2008 (Key Indicators o the Labour Market, 2010).

Menandwomenweredealtwithdierentlyintermsofemploymentadjustmentoverthepast decade. Ater 2000, when economic growth began to decline, the elasticity o totalemployment to total GDP o males was higher than or emales, implying higher sensitivity omale employment to the uctuation o the Tai economy. Te gap between males and emalesgrew larger rom 2004 to 2008, when economic growth declined urther (Key Indicators o theLabour Market, 2010).

Source: ILO, Key Indicators of the Labour Market, 2010.


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Male FemaleTotal

Figure 20. Employmentpopulation ratios, 200110

200120001996 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

80%

75%

70%

65%

60%

55%

50%

Thailand China

ASEAN

Viet Nam

PhilippinesMalaysiaIndonesia

Figure 21. Employmentpopulation ratios in Asian countries,

19962007


31/88

19

Employm

ent

6


6.2 Employment by sector

Box 10. Defnition o employment by sector and labour productivity

Employment by sector demonstrates the contribution o job creation o each sector to

overall employment in an economy. In short, it reveals the capability o each sector to absorb

labour as well as the intensity o labour used as a actor o production. Also, it supports the

employment-to-population ratio by decomposing the eect o economic growth on sector

employment. Thus, it is capable o showing exactly which sector is positively and negatively

impacted rom such growth. Employment by sector is also inormative in terms o showing

where the economy is in the stages o development. I most o employment occurs in the

agriculture sector, or instance, it could imply that a country is an agriculture-based economy.

The more developed a country is, the more employment is generated in the manuacturing

and service sectors. At a certain point in the development process, the country will reach the

industrialized stage and a service-driven growth pattern.

Labour productivity is a measure o the eciency o production and dened as the ratio

o output (GDP) per unit o input (here, labour). Labour productivity growth may be due to

either increased eciency in the use o labour, without more o other inputs, or because

each worker works with more o the other inputs, such as physical capital, human capital or

intermediate inputs.

Source: ILO, Key Indicators of the Labour Market, 2010.

0.00

0.05

0.10

0.15

0.20

0.25

0.30

0.35

0.40

1992-96 1996-2000 2000-04 2004-08

Figure 22. Elasticity of total employment to total GDP in Thailand, 19922008

Male FemaleTotal


32/88

20

Empl oym

ent

6


Ofthetotalemployedpopulationof38.7millionin2010,employmentin theagricultureand shery sectors was 15.7 million, while in manuacturing activities it was 5.2 million; theremainder, at 17.7 million, was engaged in service activities (Labour Force Survey, 2010).

In2001,theproportionsofemploymentintheagriculture,industryandservicesectorswere

46, 14.3 and 39.7 per cent, respectively (gures 23 and 24). A decade later, the share othe service sector had increased to 45.8 per cent (2010), while the share o employment inagriculture declined to 40.7 per cent. Te share o the manuacturing sector was relativelystatic over the decade, at around 15 per cent. Te share o employment in agriculture andservice diverged considerably (Labour Force Surveys, 200110).

Despitestructuralshifts,agricultureremainstheprimaryemploymentsector,with40percent

o the employment share (gures 23 and 24). Te transition to non-agriculture rom agriculturehas slowed down. Tis suggests that the expansion o the industry and service sectors is edby new entrants to the labour orce rather than by movements rom the agriculture sector

(Labour Force Surveys, 200110)

Productivity,measuredasGDPpercapita,islowestintheagriculturesector.Althoughtheagriculture sector contributed only 10 per cent o GDP in 2001, it employed up to 38 percent o total workers in Tailand (gure 25). Accountable or roughly 43 per cent and 49per cent o total production, the proportions o the industry and service sectors to overallemployment were 14 per cent and 48 per cent, respectively. Te estimated labour productivityo the industry sector, with the average labour productivity in each year at 100 in real 1988GDP, signicantly increased, rom 246.8 in 2001 to 303.1 in 2010, while in other sectors itdeclined. In the agriculture sector, labour productivity in 2001 was 124.6 and slightly declined

to 121.7 in 2010. In that same period, the service sector experienced a airly large decrease,rom 121.9 in 2001 to 102.4 in 2010 (Labour Force Surveys, 200110).

Althoughtheemploymentstructureofmenandwomenissimilar,womenmadeafastershiftthan men rom agriculture to the service sector (gure 23). Te proportion o women workersin the service sector (at 48 per cent) surpassed those in the agriculture sector (at 36 per cent)in 2010. Te share o men workers was 47.3 per cent in the service sector and 40.1 per centin the agriculture sector at the same time. Te proportion o men and women in industry in2010 was 12.6 and 16 per cent, respectively (Labour Force Surveys, 200110).


33/88

21

Employm

ent

6




Note: Authors calculation: 1) The sector-based real GDP was divided by sector-based employment, then 2) the whole economy labourproductivity was estimated, using a weight (the overall labour productivity then became 100).Source: NSO, Labour Force Surveys, 200110.

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

2001 2003 2005 2007 2009

Figure 23. Share of employed persons, by sector, 200110 (average of four quarters)

Industry Servicesagriculture

Total Male Female

0

2 000

4 000

6 000

8 000

10 000

12 000

14 000

16 000

18 000

20 000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Figure 24. Employed persons, by sector, 200110 (000s)

Industry

Services

Agriculture

124.6

246.8

121.9122.7

265.8

110.8121.7

303.1

102.4

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Agriculture Industry Services

2001 2006 2010

Figure 25. Labour productivity, by economic activities,

200110


34/88

22

Empl oym

ent

6


6.3 Employment by status

Box 11. Defnition o employment by status and vulnerable employment

The employment status classies employed persons to refect the strength o the institutionalattachment between a worker and a job and the authority over other workers, based on the

type o explicit or implicit contract. The criteria used to dene status o employment are based

on the type o contract that a person has with other persons or organizations when perorming

a particular job, according to the International Classication o Status in Employment, adopted

at the Fiteenth International Conerence o Labour Statisticians in 1993 (ICSE-93). Workers

are separated into employees, employers, own-account workers, members o producers

cooperatives, contributing amily members and workers not classied by status.

The ILO combines own-account workers and contributing amily workers into the group o

vulnerable employment. Vulnerable employment is oten characterized by inadequateearnings, low productivity and dicult conditions o work that undermine workers undamental

rights.

etotalemploymentdataindicatesthatwageandsalariedworkersrepresentthelargestsharein total employment (gure 26). In 2010, the share o wage and salaried workers was 42.6 percent o all workers. However, the number o contributing amily workers, who mostly workin the inormal sector, demonstrated a decreasing trend, reaching 32 per cent in 2010 (LabourForce Surveys, 200110).

esexdisaggregationoftheemploymentdataindicatesthatin2010alargeshareofmen,at37.3 per cent, worked as an own-account worker (gures 26a and 26b). Te share o unpaidamily workers o women (at 31.3 per cent) was double the share o men (at 15.3 per cent),

while the share o women employers was 1.5 per cent and men was 3.7 per cent. Interestingly,the share o own-account workers signicantly increased over the past decade, rom 22.7 in2001 to 25.7 per cent in 2010 (Labour Force Surveys, 200110).

eindicatorofvulnerableemploymentismeasuredasthesumofown-accountworkandunpaid amily work (gure 27). For Tailand, this proportion was 56.7 per cent in 2001;

it reduced to 53 per cent in 2004 beore increasing again, to 54.6 per cent in 2010. Terewas in particular a signicant change in the upward direction in this indicator during therecent economic crisis implying perhaps a larger incidence o inormal employment duringthe economic crisis instead o open unemployment because ew people can aord to remainunemployed in the absence o social protection strategies (Key Indicators o the Labour Market,2010).

Althoughtheproportionofvulnerableemploymentislargeinailand,withmorethanhalfofall workers considered as own-account workers and unpaid amily workers, it is still smaller thanthe average among the Association o Southeast Asian Nation countries, which was at almost


35/88

23

Employm

ent

6


60 per cent in 2007 (gure 28). However, the proportion o vulnerable employment amongtotal employment within ASEAN has a wide range. For example, vulnerable employment inCambodia represented more than 80 per cent o all employment in 2007, while in Malaysia it

was only around 20 per cent (Key Indicators o the Labour Market, 2010).

Source: NSO, Labour Force Surveys, 200110. Source: NSO, Labour Force Surveys, 200110.


Members of producers' cooperatives

Wage and salaried workers

Contributing family workers

Own-account workersEmployers

05

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Figure 26a. Share of male employment, by status

in employment, 200110

Members of producers' cooperatives

Wage and salaried workers

Contributing family workers

Own-account workersEmployers

05

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Figure 26b. Share of female employment, by status

in employment, 200110

Members of producers' cooperativesWage and salaried workers Contributing family workersOwn-account workersEmployers

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Figure 26. Share of employment, by status in employment, 200110


36/88

24

Empl oym

ent

6


6.4 Employment by occupation

Box 12. Defnition o job and employment by occupation

A job is dened as a set o tasks and duties perormed, or meant to be perormed, by one

person or an employer or in sel-employment. An occupation is dened as a set o jobs

whose main tasks and duties are characterized by a high degree o similarity. Occupational

classications categorize all jobs into groups, which are hierarchically structured in a number

o levels.

The indicator or employment by occupation classies jobs into major groups, with the

groups dened by the classication that is used. For the Thai data, the employment by

occupation indicator is classied by the National Statistical Oce (NSO) according to the

International Standard Classication o Occupations, 2008 (ISCO-08), with the ollowing major

groups: legislators, senior ocials and managers; proessionals; technicians and associate

proessionals; clerks; service workers and shop and market sales workers; skilled agricultural

and shery workers; crat and related trades workers; plant and machine operators and

assemblers; elementary occupations; and armed orces (although the NSO changed armed

orces to workers not classiable by occupation) (Key Indicators of the Labour Market,

2010; NSO, 2012).

Skilled agricultural andsheryworkers accounted for the largest share ofemploymentbyoccupation in 2010, at about 38 per cent (gure 29). Next in line but relatively ar behind interms o share was sales and service workers, at 23 per cent (which was an increase rom 18 percent in 2001). Te number o legislators, senior ofcials and managers plunged beginning in2008, rom 6.7 per cent in 2007 to 2.6 per cent in 2008 (Labour Force Surveys, 200110).

esex-disaggregateddataofemploymentshowsmorementhanwomenamongtheskilled

Source: ILO, Key Indicators of the Labour Market, 2010.Source: ILO, Key Indicators of the Labour Market, 2010.

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

0

5 000

10 000

15 000

20 000

25 000

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Vulnerable employment Invulnerable employment Total

Figure 27. Vulnerable employment, 200110

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

ASEA

N

Camb

odia

Indon

esia

Malay

sia

Philip

pines

Thail

and

VietN

amJapa

n

Repu

blic

ofKo

rea

To ta l Fe ma le s Ma le s

Figure 28. Share of vulnerable employment to total

employment in selected Asian economies, 2007


37/88

25

Employm

ent

6


agriculture workers in 2010, at 39.6 and 37.5 per cent, respectively (gures 29a and 29b). Farmore women, however, were in sales and service, at 23.1 per cent, compared with men, at 12.5per cent. Yet, twice as many men were classied as cratsmen and trade workers in 2010, at14.4 per cent, compared with 6.8 per cent o women (Labour Force Surveys, 200110).


0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

1. Legislators, senior officials and managers 2. Professionals 3. Technicians and associate professionals 4. Clerks

5. Service workers and shop and market sales workers 6. Skilled agricultural and fishery workers 7. Craftsmen and related trade workers

8. Plant and machine operators and assemblers 9. Elementary occupations 10. Workers not classifiable by occupation

Figure 29. Share of total employed persons, by occupation, 200110


38/88

26

Empl oym

ent

6




0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010




Figure 29a. Share of male employed persons, by occupation, 200110

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010




Figure 29b. Share of female employed persons, by occupation, 200110


39/88

27

Employm

ent

6


6.5 Employment by educational attainment

Box 13. Thailands national classifcation o educational attainment

Thailands national classication o educational attainment and the National Statistical Oceuse the ollowing categories:

1) No education reers to all persons who have never attended school.

2) Lower secondary level reers to all persons who have completed Matayom 3, which is the

lower o secondary school.

3) Upper secondary level:

Academic reers to all persons who completed Matayom 6 in a general educationschool.

Vocational and technical reers to all persons who have completed lower secondaryschool and then completed a three-year course in a vocational and technical

college. Teacher training reers to all persons who have completed the teacher training course

and received a certicate equivalent to upper secondary level.

4) Higher level includes those who graduate the general/academic, vocational and teacher

training levels.

eoveralleducationlevelofthepopulationisimprovinginailand.From2001to2010,the share o employed persons who had completed the lower secondary level o school declined,rom 80 to 70 per cent, while the share o graduates increased, rom 21 to 30 per cent (gure

30). Te share o employed persons aged 15 or older who had never attended school stood atonly 3 per cent over the period (Labour Force Surveys, 200110).

ereisstillroomforimprovement.From2001to2010,6776percentofthoseemployedhad completed the lower secondary level o school, while only 914 per cent had completedthe upper secondary level and 1116 per cent had a tertiary education (gures 30a and 30b).Te data reect no signicant dierence between women and men in Tailands labour orcein terms o education level over the past decade (Labour Force Surveys, 200110).

Eventhoughthenumberofvocationalgraduatescontinuedtoincrease,theshareofemployed

persons graduating rom vocational school to the upper secondary or a higher level o schooldropped signicantly, rom 32 per cent in 2001 to 28 per cent in 2010 (gure 31). Tedecrease is one actor driving the seriousness o the current skill shortages (Labour ForceSurveys, 200110).


40/88

28

Empl oym

ent

6


6.6 Working poverty

Box 14. Defnition o working poor

The working poor are dened as individuals who are working and living in households

that are below the poverty line, based either on the national or international threshold.

According to the World Bank, the international poverty line is either US$1.25 or $2.00 per

day, depending on the level o economic development and standard o living, which are

dierent across countries. Working poor is unlike the traditional measure o poverty in that

the working poor incorporate only poor people who are categorized as employed persons

(previously dened).

The working poverty rate is the ratio o working poor people to total employed persons and is

considered an important indicator linking macroeconomic and labour market perspectives.


Source: NSO, Labour Force Surveys, 200110



2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

10%

0%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Lower secondary Upper secondary Higher levelNo education

Figure 30. Total employment, by education level, 200110

10%

0%

20%

30%40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


Figure 30a. Male employment, by education level, 200110

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

10%

0%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%


Figure 30b.Female employment, by education level, 200110 Figure 31. Ratio of employed persons of vocational graduates

to total upper secondary or higher graduates,

200110

0.26

0.27

0.28

0.29

0.3

0.31

0.32

0.33

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010


41/88

29

Employm

ent

6


eincidenceofpovertyinailandhasdeclinedsubstantiallyfourteen-foldoverthepasttwo decades, illustrated by the huge reduction in the headcount ratio (gure 32), rom 5.5 percent in 1992 to 0.4 per cent in 2004 (Key Indicators o the Labour Market, 2012).

According to ILO (Key Indicators o the Labour Market, 2012) and World Bank statistics

(World Bank, 2010), the working poverty rate stayed more or less equal to the head countratio, which is the ratio o poor people to the whole population (gure 32). Te workingpoverty rate was 5.2 per cent in 1992 and 0.4 per cent in 2004 (more recent data on workingpoverty is currently not available).

Ahigheremploymentpopulationratiomeansalargershareofpoorpeoplewhoworkedincomparison with the total poor population (gure 32). Te employmentpopulation ratioollows a changing trend similar to changes among the working poortotal poor populationratio. Tis highlights the act that more employment does not always lead to better socio-economic conditions and a decline in poverty, as many believe. Tis is at least true or Tailand

over the past 20 years (Key Indicators o the Labour Market, 2012).

Note: The headcount ratio calculation is based on the international poverty line o US$1.25 per day.Source: World Bank, 2010; ILO, Key Indicators of the Labour Market, July 2012.

Figure 32. Working poverty rate, 19922004

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

1992 1996 1999 2000 2002 2004

Working poverty rate Headcount ratio


42/88

30

Empl oym

ent

6


6.7 Inormal employment

Box 15. Defnition o inormal sector, employment in inormal sector, inormal employment

and o inormal employment in Thailand

Employment in the inormal sector reers to all workers with jobs in inormal sector enterprises

or all persons who were employed in at least one inormal sector enterprise, irrespective o

their status in employment and whether it was their main or a secondary job.

Inormal employment is the total number o inormal jobs, whether carried out in ormal

sector enterprises, inormal sector enterprises or households, including: employees with

inormal jobs; employers and own-account workers employed in their own inormal sector

enterprises; members o inormal producers cooperatives; contributing amily workers in

ormal or inormal sector enterprises; and own-account workers engaged in the production o

goods or own end use by their household (Key Indicators of the Labour Market, 2010).

Thailands ocial denition o inormal employment, which is the denition used in this

publication, is all employed persons without social security coverage.

Ofthenearly39millionemployedpersonsinailandin2010,24millionwereinformallyemployed, amounting to 62.4 per cent o total employment (gure 33). Te share o inormalemployment uctuated at around 6164 per cent during the late 2000s (Labour Force Survey,200510).

Agriculture(includingshing)aswellassomeserviceindustries(wholesaleandretailtrade,hotel and restaurant and other community works) embodied the largest proportion o theinormalormal employment ratio (gure 34). Inormal employment in the agriculture andshing sector alone was approximately 58.9 per cent o total inormal employment. Electricity,gas and water supply, nancial intermediation, education and extra-territorial organizationsengaged very ew inormal sector workers (Labour Force Survey, 200510).

elargeproportionoftheinformalemploymentbyindustryisinaccordancewiththelargeproportion o inormal employment by occupation (gure 35). Within the mostly skilled

agricultural and shery worker occupation, inormal employment accounted in 2010 or 93.4per cent. Inormal service workers and sales accounted or 73.7 per cent o total employment(Labour Force Survey/Inormal Employed Survey, 2010).

Aspercentageofnon-agriculturalemployment,thesharesofwomenandmen ininformalemployment are 43.5 per cent and 41.2 per cent, respectively (Labour Force Survey/InormalEmployed Survey, 2010).


43/88

31

Employm

ent

Documents

ILO - Thailand Labour Market Profile