A European job quality index: methodology and results Janine - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

A European job quality index: methodology and results

Janine Leschke, ETUI Working Conditions and Health and Safety Surveys in Europe: Stocktaking, Challenges and Perspectives Expert Seminar – Brussels, 18th and 19th March 2009

2

Background information

Lisbon strategy: more AND BETTER jobs Clear targets in EES for more jobs Targets on better jobs much less clear (Laeken indicators) Contrasting hypotheses: ‚bad jobs‘ and rising precarity vs.

sectoral shifts that reduce incidence of poor working conditions

Response by policymakers and academics

• Eurofound EWCS and other work (e.g. ESWT)
• ILO Decent work agenda
• Numerous national and some comparative studies

3

Data sources, problems and short-comings

What‘s needed?

Job quality index that allows comparisons between EU 27 countries,

• ver time and between men and women

Scope?

Focus on the quality of ‘jobs themselves’ (not welfare states or

quantitative labour market indicators) Which data is used?

European labour force survey (LFS); European Working Conditions

Survey (EWCS); AMECO data base; Survey of Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC); ICTWSS database Shortcomings:

For some fields no (e.g. health and safety for EU-27) or limited

information (collective interest representation and skills and career development) that meets the index requirements

EWCS data only available every 5 years (e.g. field of ‘working

conditions and job security’ will not change regularly)

Data constraints mean that backward-looking time comparison is only

possible for EU-15 and there are slight definitional differences between 2006 indicator for EU-15 and EU-27

4

Components of the job quality index (JQI)

The JQI is an unweighted average of the following six sub-indices that each consist of a number of weighted indicators

Wages Non-standard forms of employment Working time and work-life balance Working conditions and job security Skills and career development Collective interest representation

Example: indicators of ‘working conditions and job security’ sub- index

Work intensity (EWCS) (25%) Work autonomy (EWCS) (25%) Physical work factors (EWCS) (25%) “I might loose my job in the next six month” (EWCS) (25%)

5

Aggregation method

Data series have to be normalised to be comparable and suitable

for aggregation

Max and min values of each indicator are identified (some

indicators are inverted)

Each country is scored between 0 and 1:

(country value - min)/(max - min)

Using total (m+f) values for a base year allows analysis of change

• ver time and by gender

Weighting Indicators within each sub-index are weighted (plausibility,

sensitivity tests)

Sub-indices are not weighted (JQI is simple average)

6

JQI for EU-15: developments over time by sub-index

Source: ELNEP (2008).

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Wages Non Standard Employment WLB and Working Time Working Conditions Skills and Career Development Collective Interest Representation Final JQI

2000 2006

7

JQI for EU-15: developments over time by gender and sub-index

Source: ELNEP (2008).

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Wages Non Standard Employment (inverted) WLB and Working Time Working Conditions Skills and Career Development Collective Interest Representation Final JQI

Female 2000 Female 2006 Male 2000 Male 2006

8

JQI for EU-15: developments over time by country

Source: ELNEP (2008). Note: not fully comparable with EU-27 JQI for 2006.

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Greece Portugal Spain Italy Germany EU15 France Ireland Austria Luxembourg Belgium Finland United Kingdom Netherlands Sweden Denmark

2000 2006

9

Final job quality index for EU-27, 2006

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1

Poland Romania Greece Bulgaria Slovakia Hungary Spain Lithuania Latvia Portugal Czech Rep. Estonia Italy Germany Cyprus EU27 Slovenia EU15 France Malta Austria Ireland Belgium Luxemb. Finland Sweden UK Netherl. Denmark

Male Female Total

10

JQI, 2006, sub-index ‘working conditions and job security’ by gender

0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 Czech Rep. Greece Slovenia Cyprus Spain Romania Germany Hungary Portugal Slovakia Bulgaria Austria Poland Lithuania EU27 EU15 Estonia Malta Finland France Sweden Belgium Italy UK Latvia Denmark Netherl. Luxemb. Ireland Male Female Total

11

Country profiles: e.g. UK and Germany

United Kingdom

3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27

Wages NSE WLB Work cond Skills Int rep

Germany

3 6 9 12 15 18 21 24 27

Wages NSE WLB Work cond Skills Int rep

12

Correlation JQI and employment rates (more and better jobs)

DK NL UK SE FIN LUX BE IR AT MT FR SLV CY DE IT EE CZ POR LV LT ES HU SLK BU GR RO PO 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 5 10 15 20 25 30 Final JQI ranking employment rate

13

Conclusions

Data issues

Comparability (time, geographical, gender) make compromises

necessary so results need to be interpreted cautiously

Data situation unsatisfactory in a number of areas (e.g. training/skills,

collective interest representation, health and safety)

Not possible to break results further down (educational levels, age,

sector) Conclusions from the analysis

Job quality (in EU15) seems to be improving along some dimensions

and declining in others. No major improvement in JQ but overall no evidence of serious decline. Neither of the two polar hypotheses is confirmed

Findings point to increasing divergence over time within the EU-15 Those countries that perform well on quantitative labour market

indicators also do so on job quality