Measurement of decent work...2 TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2 contained a detailed section on...

TMEMDW/2008

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR ORGANIZATION

Measurement of decent work

Discussion paper for the Tripartite Meeting of Experts on the Measurement of Decent Work

Geneva, 8–10 September 2008

INTERNATIONAL LABOUR OFFICE GENEVA

Copyright © International Labour Organization 2008 First published 2008 Publications of the International Labour Office enjoy copyright under Protocol 2 of the Universal CopyrightConvention. Nevertheless, short excerpts from them may be reproduced without authorization, on condition thatthe source is indicated. For rights of reproduction or translation, application should be made to ILO Publications(Rights and Permissions), International Labour Office, CH-1211 Geneva 22, Switzerland, or by email [email protected]. The International Labour Office welcomes such applications. Libraries, institutions and other users registered with reproduction rights organizations may make copies inaccordance with the licences issued to them for this purpose. Visit www.ifrro.org to find the reproduction rights organization in your country.

ILO Cataloguing in Publication Data Measuring decent work : tripartite meeting of experts on measurement of decent work, 8-10 Sept. 2008 (TMEMDW/2008) / International Labour Office. - Geneva: ILO, 2008 iii, 61 p. ISBN: 9789221216414; 9789221216421 (web pdf) Tripartite Meeting of Experts on Measurement of Decent Work; (Geneva, Switzerland; 2008); International Labour Office conference paper / decent work / measurement 13.01.1 Also available in French: La mesure du travail décent : réunion tripartite d'experts sur la mesure du travaildécent: document d'information: Genève, 8-10 septembre 2008 (ISBN: 9789222216413 (print); 9789222216420 (web pdf)); in Spanish: La medición del trabajo decente : documento de debate para la reunión tripartita deexpertos sobre la medición del trabajo decente : Ginebra, 8-10 de septiembre de 2008 (ISBN: 9789223216412 (print);9789223216429 (web pdf)).

The designations employed in ILO publications, which are in conformity with United Nations practice, and thepresentation of material therein do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of theInternational Labour Office concerning the legal status of any country, area or territory or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers. The responsibility for opinions expressed in signed articles, studies and other contributions rests solely with theirauthors, and publication does not constitute an endorsement by the International Labour Office of the opinions expressed in them. Reference to names of firms and commercial products and processes does not imply their endorsement by theInternational Labour Office, and any failure to mention a particular firm, commercial product or process is not a sign of disapproval. ILO publications can be obtained through major booksellers or ILO local offices in many countries, or direct fromILO Publications, International Labour Office, CH-1211 Geneva 22, Switzerland. Catalogues or lists of new publications are available free of charge from the above address, or by email: [email protected]. Visit our web site: www.ilo.org/publns.

Printed by the International Labour Office, Geneva, Switzerland

TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2 iii

Contents Page

Part I. Introduction: Monitoring progress towards decent work.................................................... 1 1. Governing Body discussion and scope of the Tripartite Meeting of Experts ............. 1 2. Outline for a global methodology............................................................................... 3

Part II. Key aspects of decent work and implications for its measurement .................................... 6 3. Key aspects of decent work and implications for statistical indicators ...................... 6

3.1. The multidimensional nature of decent work ..................................................... 7 3.2. Concern for all workers ...................................................................................... 7 3.3. Concern for the improvement of the conditions of the most vulnerable ............ 8 3.4. Concern for the living conditions of workers and their families ........................ 9 3.5. Gender as a cross-cutting concern ...................................................................... 9 3.6. The social and economic context for decent work and sustainable enterprises.. 10

4. The need for systematic information on rights at work and the legal framework for decent work ........................................................................................................... 10 4.1. Complementarity of statistical indicators and information on

the legal framework............................................................................................ 10 4.2. Mapping rights at work and the legal framework for decent work

at the country level ............................................................................................. 11 5. Monitoring progress towards decent work ................................................................. 13

5.1. Change over time in decent work indicators ...................................................... 14 5.2. Demographic and sectoral influences................................................................. 16 5.3. Reflecting legal changes and monitoring the progressive implementation

of rights at work.................................................................................................. 17 5.4. Drawbacks of indexing for the purpose of measuring progress

towards decent work........................................................................................... 17 Part III. Statistical indicators and information on rights at work and the legal framework

for decent work ................................................................................................................... 18 6. Approaches to organizing decent work indicators and legal framework information 18 7. Statistical indicators to monitor progress towards decent work ................................. 20

7.1. Review of past proposals for decent work indicators......................................... 20 7.2. Identifying a consolidated set of main and additional decent work indicators... 22 7.3. Data availability.................................................................................................. 26

8. Information on rights at work and the legal framework for decent work ................... 27 8.1. A template for legal framework information...................................................... 27 8.2. Possibilities to measure progress on the implementation of fundamental

principles and rights at work .............................................................................. 30 9. Taking the gender dimension of decent work into account ........................................ 31

Part IV. Conclusions and a way forward .......................................................................................... 33 Appendix tables................................................................................................................................. 1. Overview of previous compilations of statistical decent work indicators .......................... 35 2. Discussion of statistical indicators and suggestions for inclusion as main

and additional decent work indicators ................................................................................ 40 3. Data availability by region of selected suggested main decent work indicators................. 54 4. Template for information on rights at work and the legal framework for decent work...... 56

TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2 1

Part I

Introduction: Monitoring progress towards decent work

1. Governing Body discussion and scope of the Tripartite Meeting of Experts

1. Monitoring progress towards decent work is a long-standing concern for the ILO’s constituents. Yet, the multifaceted nature of the Decent Work Agenda that combines access to full and productive employment with rights at work, social protection and the promotion of social dialogue means that measurement is a complex task. Constituents have debated the intricacies of finding a measurement framework that takes full account of the multidimensional nature of decent work on several occasions, most notably in the Governing Body. 1 In its March 2008 session, the Governing Body approved a Tripartite Meeting of Experts to provide further detailed advice on the viability of the options, and to provide guidance on the various possible ways of measuring the dimensions of decent work in order to prepare comprehensive recommendations for consideration by the Governing Body.

2. Adopted in June 2008, the ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization reaffirmed the commitment of the ILO and its Members to the four strategic objectives of the Decent Work Agenda. 2 The Declaration highlights the importance of national and regional strategies towards decent work and emphasizes that member States may consider

… the establishment of appropriate indicators or statistics, if necessary with the assistance of the ILO, to monitor and evaluate progress made. (paragraph II.B.ii.)

With the ILO Governing Body beginning the development of a Strategic Policy Framework 2010–15 for the implementation of the Declaration, the Tripartite Meeting of Experts on the Measurement of Decent Work thus comes at a crucial time. It can make a vital contribution by providing guidance to the ILO’s constituents on a global methodology to monitor progress towards decent work at the country level. A key issue is finding the right way to balance the desirable with the feasible within a perspective of a dynamic framework.

3. To inform the debate among constituents, the Office has undertaken a significant amount of research into methods of measuring the four dimensions of decent work. The General Report to the 17th International Conference of Labour Statisticians (ICLS) in 2003

1 ILO: Report of the 17th International Conference of Labour Statisticians, doc. GB.289/STM/6, 289th Session, Geneva, Mar. 2004; ILO: Measuring decent work, Report of the Director-General, doc. GB.300/20/5, 300th Session, Geneva, Nov. 2007; ILO: Measuring decent work, Report of the Director-General, doc. GB.301/17/6, 301st Session, Geneva, Mar. 2008.

2 See ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization, ILC, 97th Session, Geneva, June 2008; see also Resolution on strengthening the ILO’s capacity to assist its Members’ efforts to reach its objectives in the context of globalization, adopted at the 97th Session of the ILC, Geneva, June 2008.

2 TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2

contained a detailed section on measuring and monitoring decent work. 3 Further, the Office has carried out tests of some of the proposed indicators in pilot countries, leading to a seminar on the use of labour force surveys for the collection of some indicators; 4 undertaken several thematic and regional compilations of statistics and statistical indicators for measuring dimensions of decent work; 5 carried out pilot experiments in measuring some of the qualitative aspects of decent work; established a task team, coordinated by the Bureau of Statistics, to consolidate the various proposals for relevant indicators into an integrated set; published a special issue of the International Labour Review in 2003 devoted to measuring decent work; 6 collaborated with the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE), the Statistical Office of the European Communities (Eurostat) and the European Foundation for the Improvement of Working and Living Conditions to develop measures of the quality of employment, which encompasses some of the dimensions of decent work; 7 and discussed the possibility of a joint ILO–EC project on “monitoring and assessing progress on decent work in developing countries” to strengthen the capacity of member States to improve the collection and analysis of statistics on decent work.

4. The Governing Body discussion and a review of the research work suggests five considerations that could help guide thinking about how the ILO could develop a system for measuring progress towards decent work.

5. First, before embarking on a significant effort to draw together a variety of indicators for the multifaceted dimensions of decent work, it is important to have a clear goal in mind that reflects the needs of constituents as well as country circumstances. In this respect, the main value of measuring the dimensions of decent work would be to assist constituents in assessing progress at national level towards the goal of decent work against a set of indicators that are also available for other countries. By increasing transparency of information on decent work it would contribute to improved policy accountability. The measurement of the dimensions of decent work would be of particular value for assessing progress in countries with Decent Work Country Programmes (DWCPs) alongside the more specific data related to programme targets and outcomes. This work would thus also

3 ILO: General Report, ICLS/17/2003/1, 17th ICLS, Geneva, Nov. 2003; see also R. Anker et al.: Measuring decent work with statistical indicators, Integration Working Paper No. 2 (Geneva, ILO, 2002).

4 ILO International Seminar on the Use of National Labour Force Surveys for Collecting Additional Labour-Related Statistics, Geneva, 24–26 October 2005.

5 ILO: Key Indicators of the Labour Market (fifth edition) (Geneva, 2008, Chs 1A and 1B); ILO: Global Employment Trends (Geneva, 2008); ILO: Labour overview: Latin America and the Caribbean (Lima, 2007); ILO: Labour and social trends in Asia and the Pacific (Bangkok, 2006); ILO: Labour and social trends in ASEAN 2007. Integration, challenges and opportunities (Bangkok, 2007); ILO: Decent work indicators for Asia and the Pacific. A guidebook for policy-makers and researchers, Bangkok (forthcoming); S. Lawrence and J. Ishikawa: Social dialogue indicators: Trade union membership and collective bargaining coverage. Statistical concepts, methods and findings, Dialogue Paper No. 10 (Geneva, ILO, 2005).

6 ILO: International Labour Review: Special issue: Measuring decent work (Geneva, 2003), Vol. 142, No. 2, Feb.

7 J.A. Ritter: Patterns of job quality attributes in the European Union, Integration Working Paper No. 51 (Geneva, ILO, 2005); see also Joint UNECE–ILO–Eurostat Seminar on Quality of Work, 18 April 2007.

TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2 3

contribute to results-based management and it could strengthen the knowledge base and analytical capacity of the Office. 8

6. Second, ILO constituents and others appreciate comparative information which is often used as an important element in analysis and policy development. In so far as possible, country information should therefore be presented in a format and using methodologies that facilitate comparisons.

7. Third, the development of an aggregate composite index that ranks countries has little value for policy analysis as such indices fail to provide appropriate context and often require the use of restrictive assumptions in order to build a comparative database. Such an index does not therefore seem the best way for the ILO to proceed.

8. Fourth, given the nature of decent work as a multifaceted concept, progress towards its achievement cannot be assessed by standard numerical indicators alone. The use of such indicators to assess progress must take cognizance of the contextual environment in which such progress occurs. Furthermore, numerical indicators by themselves cannot adequately capture the wide-ranging and inherently qualitative nature of many aspects of decent work. Some, like employment, wages and incomes, working time and social security, lend themselves more easily to statistical measurement while other dimensions such as social dialogue, the functioning of labour markets and the application of international labour standards (ILS) require different methodologies to generate objective measures.

9. Fifth, demands for a more comprehensive picture of progress are likely to increase with the recognition accorded to the goal of decent work within the agreed international development agenda, including the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). The new Target 1.B, “Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people”, will be monitored on the basis of four indicators, based on data collected and prepared by national statistical agencies and compiled by the ILO from national sources and international data repositories. These are the employment-to-population ratio; the proportion of employed people living below US$1 purchasing power parity (PPP) per day; the proportion of own-account and contributing family workers in total employment; and the growth rate of gross domestic product (GDP) per person employed (i.e. labour productivity). 9 Data on these dimensions are based on comparable estimates and are widely available at the country level. However, it would be desirable to supplement this initial set with further information and analysis on a broader range of the dimensions of decent work.

2. Outline for a global methodology

10. Based on these considerations, the development of a methodology to measure progress towards decent work might be conceived of as a process which could involve work on:

(i) the identification of a global template of qualitative and quantitative indicators that can be used to measure progress towards decent work at the country level;

8 See ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization (2008), op. cit., and Resolution on strengthening the ILO’s capacity to assist its Members’ efforts to reach its objectives in the context of globalization (2008), op. cit.

9 See United Nations: Official list of MDG indicators, effective 15 Jan. 2008; for further discussion, see ILO: Key Indicators of the Labour Market (fifth edition), op. cit.

4 TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2

(ii) the collection of statistical data and qualitative information related to selected decent work indicators;

(iii) the presentation in country profiles of decent work indicators and statistics identifying both country-specific information as well as a global dynamic picture.

11. Decent work indicators: Decent work indicators should capture all four dimensions of the concept of decent work, namely: (1) labour standards and fundamental principles and rights at work; (2) employment opportunities; (3) social protection; and (4) social dialogue. Beyond a common set of main indicators, decent work indicators should also reflect country-specific circumstances and priorities, as expressed in the DWCPs or other policy documents. Hence, it is proposed that the Tripartite Meeting of Experts take stock of indicators discussed in the existing literature and identify the most relevant indicators to capture all dimensions of decent work. The list of indicators could then be examined in a limited number of member States in the context of a tripartite dialogue. The objective would be to establish a template of international relevance that, nevertheless, is capable of adaptation to reflect national circumstances.

12. Data collection: Countries would be encouraged to collect statistics related to the identified decent work indicators. National statistical offices could be encouraged to broaden or adjust their existing statistical instruments to measure the decent work indicators. Administrative data-collection efforts, such as databases from labour inspection services, for example, could also be used if necessary. For decent work indicators which are inherently qualitative (such as in the field of social dialogue), meaningful assessments of progress at the country level could be constructed through other methods such as textual analysis of authoritative reports, including reports submitted to and produced by the ILO supervisory system, local surveys or administrative data. 10 Consideration could also be given to the construction of additional ways of assessing the quality of social dialogue institutions.

13. Country profiles: To be useful for policy-making, trends need to be identified and the data must be interpreted to facilitate subsequent use in policy analysis and development. With a large number of qualitative and quantitative indicators this can be difficult. It is often highlighted that the most tangible added value of the concept of decent work is that “it encapsulates an integrated approach, ensuring that the strategic objectives are addressed together and as effectively as possible”. 11 This suggests that the measurement of decent work should go beyond the collection of a disparate set of labour market indicators. At the same time, it is unreasonable to expect aggregation of qualitative and quantitative indicators. It is, thus, suggested that the Office will intensify work on the development of methodologies to assess country-level progress over time towards decent work objectives. Such progress may be recorded in decent work country profiles using, in so far as possible, an agreed methodology and a standard list of indicators on which information would be compiled. These country profiles could be made available both in print form and through the Internet, which would make it possible to layer information and to provide readers with links to further information, including national and ILO statistical and legal databases or other sources of relevant and reliable information.

10 D. Kucera: Measuring trade union rights: A country-level indicator constructed from coding violations recorded in textual sources, Integration Working Paper No. 50 (Geneva, ILO, 2005).

11 ILO: Strengthening the ILO’s capacity to assist its Members’ efforts to reach its objectives in the context of globalization, Report V, ILC, 96th Session, Geneva, June 2007. See also ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization, op. cit.

TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2 5

14. Bearing these considerations in mind, it is suggested that the Tripartite Meeting of Experts provide guidance to the Office and the Governing Body on a conceptual framework to measure decent work at the country level. This includes advice on which kind of information should be collected; how and under which headings information should be organized; and which indicators should be prioritized in the short term. By standardizing the way that information on decent work is organized, comparison over time and between countries, and thus of progress, is facilitated. A robust framework that is based on sound measurement principles will also provide the flexibility for its adaptation as new challenges arise or new indicators become available. The framework should thus have the potential to evolve dynamically over the years.

15. This paper is organized as follows. Part II is devoted to an examination of measurement principles that follow from the comprehensive nature of the Decent Work Agenda. In Part III, it will then discuss some possibilities of how these general guiding principles can be applied in practice. This includes a parsimonious set of possible main indicators that could be complemented with additional indicators where data are available. Further, the scope for embedding statistical indicators with information on rights at work and the legal framework is explored. Part IV concludes and maps a possible way forward. The paper contains four appendix tables that provided additional information. The first one cross-references different proposals that have been made in the past for statistical indicators, and the second lists detailed comments on these indicators. The third table provides information on data availability for four indicators, and the fourth table contains proposals for a template on rights at work and the legal framework for decent work.

6 TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2

Part II

Key aspects of decent work and implications for its measurement 1

16. The Director-General’s 1999 Report, Decent work, to the International Labour Conference described the primary objective of the ILO as “to promote opportunities for women and men to obtain decent and productive work in conditions of freedom, equity, security and human dignity”. 2 The 2005 World Summit of the United Nations General Assembly, attended by leaders from more than 150 countries, committed to the policy goal of productive employment and decent work for all as part of efforts to achieve the MDGs. 3 Further, the Ministerial Declaration of the 2007 High-level Segment of ECOSOC resolved “to make the goals of full and productive employment and decent work for all, including for women and young people, a central objective of relevant national and international policies as well as national development strategies”. 4 The ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization summarizes the Decent Work Agenda as having four equally important strategic objectives: promoting employment; social protection; social dialogue and tripartism; and fundamental principles and rights at work; with gender equality and non-discrimination as cross-cutting issues. 5

17. The interrelated character of the four strategic objectives of the Decent Work Agenda poses a number of challenges for assessing progress at the country level. In particular, a meaningful assessment of progress will need to be based on both statistical indicators and also information on the legal framework for decent work. Section 3 therefore outlines the implications for statistical indicators that arise from the decent work concept, and section 4 how statistical indicators could be embedded with information on rights at work and the legal framework for decent work. Section 5 discusses the issues involved in monitoring progress at the country level.

3. Key aspects of decent work and implications for statistical indicators

18. The following section addresses the multidimensional nature of the Decent Work Agenda; its concern for all workers and especially for the improvement of the situation of the most vulnerable; its concern for the living conditions of workers and their families; gender as a cross-cutting issue; and the importance of the economic and social context of decent work.

1 This part draws extensively on a background paper commissioned by the Office. See R. Anker and P. Annycke: Reporting on decent work in the world: Ways forward for the ILO (Geneva, ILO, forthcoming).

2 ILO: Decent work, Report of the Director-General, ILC, 87th Session, June 1999.

3 United Nations: 2005 World Summit Outcome, resolution adopted at the 60th Session of the General Assembly, New York, 2005 (A/RES/60/1, para. 47).

4 United Nations: Report of the Economic and Social Council for the 2007 Ministerial Declaration of the High-level Segment, adopted at the 62nd Session of the General Assembly, New York, 10 July 2007 (A/62/3).

5 ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization, op. cit., para. I.A.

TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2 7

Under each heading, it will summarize the implications that arise for the measurement of decent work.

3.1. The multidimensional nature of decent work

19. As the ILO Declaration for Social Justice for a Fair Globalization stresses, the four strategic objectives of the Decent Work Agenda “are inseparable, interrelated and mutually supportive. The failure to promote any one of them would harm progress towards the others”. 6

Implication 1: The comprehensive nature of decent work implies that its measurement needs to cover all aspects of decent work. A compilation of indicators that covers only selected aspects – such as employment – would, thus, be insufficient to map progress towards decent work at the country level.

3.2. Concern for all workers

20. Decent work is relevant for, and a concern of, all workers. This includes women as well as men; workers in the formal economy as well as in the informal economy; and self-employed and unpaid family workers as well as wage employees and employers.

21. Most data on labour supply are collected through labour force surveys that cover all workers, regardless of their status in employment or the type of establishment they work in. Labour demand data and some data on labour supply are collected through establishments. However, the establishments that are covered tend to be limited in size or in the form of registration. It is therefore not always practical to have indicators that measure the situation for all workers. It is important to be aware of such cases. For example, fatal injuries data are typically collected on employees in registered enterprises through a notification system. Therefore, analysts need to always keep in mind that these types of data may exclude the self-employed and those who are employed in unregistered enterprises.

Implication 2: Whenever possible, decent work indicators should be based on data that cover all workers (including women and men in the informal economy). However, it is often useful to disaggregate data for different subsets of the employed population (for example by age, by gender or by status in employment).

22. Decent work is relevant for workers everywhere and therefore in countries at all stages of development. 7 Decent work indicators should, thus, be conceptually relevant for developing and industrialized countries alike. The question of conceptual relevance should not be confused with current data availability. For example, poverty affects workers in both developing and industrialized countries and the concept of the “working poor” is thus relevant for countries at all stages of development. However, data on the working poor are currently predominantly available for developing countries, mainly for MDG indicator 1.6. that refers to the proportion of employed people living below US$1 PPP per day. 8 It is

6 ibid., para. I.B.

7 ILO: Decent work, Report of the Director-General to the ILC, 87th Session, 1999, p. 3. See also Section V of the Declaration of Philadelphia, adopted by the General Conference of the ILO at the 26th Session, Philadelphia, 10 May 1944.

8 See United Nations: Official list of MDG indicators, op. cit. See also ILO, 2007: Key Indicators of the Labour Market (fifth edition), op. cit., Ch. 9.

8 TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2

based on an absolute definition of poverty and an international poverty line that facilitates comparisons across countries. 9 The drawback is that it does not capture poverty in industrialized countries and many upper-middle-income countries, where poverty is often defined as relative poverty (i.e. the working poor are poor relative to the standard of living in their own country). However, this does not render the concept of the working poor as irrelevant, rather, it implies that different national poverty lines (whether relative or absolute) could be used to reflect the different meaning of poverty in different countries.

Implication 3: Decent work indicators should have conceptual relevance for countries at all stages of development or be developed in a way that makes them relevant for all countries.

23. Since decent work is relevant for all countries, it is important that sufficient information and data on decent work be available for all regions. This need for data and information availability is taken into consideration in Part III, where core sets of decent work statistical indicators and legal framework information are discussed.

Implication 4: National data and information on decent work should be available for countries at all stages of development, and in every region to facilitate comprehensive reporting on progress towards decent work.

3.3. Concern for the improvement of the conditions of the most vulnerable

24. The ILO has, since its foundation, been especially concerned with improving conditions of workers most vulnerable to inhumane or abusive conditions of work, not least through its system of international labour standards (ILS). Moving out of such situations is thus an important aspect of the Decent Work Agenda. ILO Conventions and Recommendations provide reference points which, taking due account of relevant factors such as levels of development, can be used to focus in particular on the position of the most vulnerable workers.

Implication 5: Concern for the improvement of the conditions of the most vulnerable workers implies that whenever relevant and practical, decent work statistical indicators should measure how many workers work under unacceptable conditions with respect to the aspect of decent work that is measured. This will often mean that it is preferable to collect data on the tail of a distribution (or on the entire distribution), rather than only on the mean or the median.

25. For example, the Hours of Work (Industry) Convention, 1919 (No. 1), stipulates that working time should not exceed 48 hours per week. Therefore, it might be preferable to measure the percentage of workers who work hours in excess of 48 rather than to collect statistics only on average hours of work that can mask the polarization between very short and very long working hours. Similarly, rather than reporting only average wage rates, it is useful to measure how many workers have low incomes.

9 Critics do however point out that the choice of a single global poverty line masks differences in country situations which are not adequately accommodated by using PPP exchange rates in calculating the comparisons.

TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2 9

3.4. Concern for the living conditions of workers and their families

26. The Decent Work Agenda is concerned with the living conditions of workers and their families, not just with paid productive work and the workplace. This has deep roots in the ILO’s history. In the Declaration of Philadelphia, constituents stated that “poverty anywhere constitutes a danger to prosperity everywhere” and mandated the ILO to promote programmes to raise living standards. Explicitly mentioned are, among others, the provision to provide basic incomes and comprehensive medical care to all in need; the provision of child welfare and maternity protection; the provision of adequate nutrition, housing and facilities for recreation and culture; and the assurance of equality of educational and vocational opportunity. 10 More recently discussion has moved to consideration of how to measure more appropriately care work that is typically unpaid and often performed by women within the household and that sustains and “reproduces” families. 11

Implication 6: The concern for living conditions of workers and their families means that indicators should go beyond statistics on work and the workplace and could include, for example, aspects such as unpaid care work and reproductive work and access to health care and the incidence of working poverty.

3.5. Gender as a cross-cutting concern

27. Gender is a cross-cutting concern of the Decent Work Agenda, i.e. gender is relevant to all facets of decent work and not a topic that should be treated in isolation. In all countries, gender inequalities persist in a wide range of aspects, including access to employment opportunities, working conditions (including occupational health and safety), social security coverage and participation in social dialogue. 12

Implication 7: In order to shed light on gender aspects of decent work, indicators should be measured separately for women and men whenever possible.

28. In addition, male and female workers often have different needs and constraints, including the extent of unpaid care work and reproductive work that is often undertaken by women and which acts as a serious gender barrier to their participation in the labour market. Some aspects of decent work can also have particular relevance for women workers. For example, maternity protection is relevant only for women, while parental leave affects both male and female workers.

Implication 8: Decent work indicators should therefore reflect the different needs and constraints of women and men workers, including taking into account unpaid care work and reproductive work.

10 Declaration of Philadelphia, op. cit., section III.

11 See UNIFEM: Progress of the world’s women: Women, work and poverty, New York, 2005, Ch. 2, “The totality of women’s work”, provides a review of the concepts of unpaid care work and reproductive work.

12 ILO: Decent work, op. cit.

10 TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2

3.6. The social and economic context for decent work and sustainable enterprises

29. Decent work is not an isolated concern, but embedded in sustained economic and social progress: decent work in itself can be a productive factor that contributes to overall development. 13 Conversely, adverse economic and social conditions can hinder progress towards productive employment and decent working conditions. Their impact can often be directly felt at the level of individual enterprises, with negative consequences for growth and employment. A social and economic environment that is conducive to sustainable enterprises is thus an important factor in attaining progress towards decent work. Such an environment includes sound and stable macroeconomic policy and good management of the economy, education, training and lifelong learning, and social justice and social inclusion. 14

Implication 9: Decent work indicators should be placed in the context of the social and economic situation in a country, so that factors that hinder and promote progress towards decent work can be identified.

30. This implies the need for indicators that measure for example: growth in labour productivity (that is an important determinant for increases in wages), inflation (high inflation erodes the purchasing power of wages and can make enterprises unviable), education and skills development (skills and capabilities of workers are an important determinant of productivity), and income inequality (social justice as a prerequisite for stability, sustainable enterprise development and economic growth).

4. The need for systematic information on rights at work and the legal framework for decent work

4.1. Complementarity of statistical indicators and information on the legal framework

31. The previous section discussed some desirable properties of statistical indicators to measure decent work. However, statistical indicators on work and working conditions alone are insufficient to monitor progress towards decent work – they need to be complemented with information on rights at work and the legal framework for decent work. The Decent Work Agenda emphasizes the rights of workers codified in ILS and it would therefore be useful to know how far national legislation protects such rights in practice. In addition, information on the legal framework is often necessary to interpret statistical indicators. Therefore, two types of information could be used to jointly describe and measure decent work: (i) statistical indicators; and (ii) information on rights at work and the legal framework for decent work. 15

13 ILO: Reducing the decent work deficit – A global challenge, Report of the Director-General, ILC, 89th Session (Geneva, June 2001).

14 See conclusions concerning the promotion of sustainable enterprises, Provisional Record, ILC, 96th Session (Geneva, June 2007).

15 Researchers have used different terminology for what is referred to as information on rights at work and the legal framework for decent work: Block uses “laws and legislation”; the National Research Council uses “legal framework and governance performance”; ILO–IFP–SES uses “input and process variables”; VERITE uses “laws and legal system”. For a review, see D. Kucera (ed.):

TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2 11

32. The two types of information can complement each other, whereas one alone will often be insufficient to monitor progress towards decent work. A useful example to demonstrate this is social dialogue and workers’ representation. Convention No. 87 states that

Workers and employers, without distinction whatsoever, shall have the right to establish and, subject only to the rules of the organisation concerned, to join organisations of their own choosing without previous authorisation (Convention No. 87, Article 2).

Further, the Convention states that public authorities shall refrain from any interference. Information on whether national law guarantees freedom of association that is laid down in Conventions Nos 87 and 98 and on whether trade unions are free from interference is hence important in itself, even when workers choose not to join trade unions. However, to voice their concerns effectively and to facilitate meaningful social dialogue, workers have to exercise their right and organize. Thus, it is useful to complement information on trade union rights with statistics on how many workers are union members. Conversely, unionization rates are meaningless unless one knows whether trade unions are free or not. To assess whether conditions for meaningful social dialogue exist, it is necessary to jointly interpret information on trade union rights and statistical indicators on unionization. The same applies to employers, whose right to associate freely is protected by the same Convention.

33. This is just one of many examples that could be made. It is indicative that ILO Conventions and Recommendations cover all aspects of the Decent Work Agenda, be it equality of opportunity and treatment; vocational guidance and training; employment security; wages; working time; occupational safety and health; or maternity protection, among others. International labour standards are not an isolated aspect of decent work. Rather, they are applicable to every aspect of decent work.

Implication 10: Two types of information can be used to monitor progress towards decent work: (i) statistical indicators on work and working conditions; and (ii) information on rights at work and the legal framework for decent work, including the effective application of rights.

4.2. Mapping rights at work and the legal framework for decent work at the country level

34. The legal framework for work in a country is complex. For example, mapping workers’ right to organize and bargain collectively in a country is not as simple as knowing if a country has ratified ILO Conventions Nos 87 and 98. One would want to know for example whether there were restrictions on the right to organize; were trade unions free from state or management interference; had the ILO received complaints and representations with respect to Conventions Nos 87 and 98; and what the allegations brought forward in them were; 16 whether the Committee on Freedom of Association (CFA) or the Committee of Experts on the Application of Conventions and Recommendations (CEACR) had made any recommendations; and whether it had later reported that progress had been made. In another example, knowing that a country has ratified an ILO Convention on maternity protection or even that there is a national paid maternity leave law does not indicate whether the situation in a country is advantageous

Qualitative indicators of labour standards: Comparative methods and applications, Social Indicators Research Series, Vol. 30 (Geneva, ILO, 2007), Ch. 1.

16 Note that the number of complaints and representations in itself need not be indicative of the severity of rights’ violations. It is therefore essential to report their substance and the comments made by the ILO supervisory system.

12 TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2

for women workers as regards maternity leave. To meaningfully represent the situation in a country, one would want to know: how generous the law was in terms of weeks of absence and replacement pay; which types of workers the law covered (e.g. does the law cover agricultural or private domestic workers?); and how many workers received maternity leave in practice (e.g. does only a select group of women workers in the modern or in the public sector actually get paid maternity leave?).

35. Given the complexity of legal issues, it is not surprising that legal experts are often reticent about the use of quantitative indicators to represent the legal framework. Jurisprudence at the national level allows for complexity, with each case judged on its own merits and circumstances. For example, the United States Supreme Court applies a common-law test to determine whether someone can be considered an employee, using the following criteria:

… the hiring party’s right to control the manner and means by which the product is accomplished. …; the skill required; the source of the instrumentalities and tools; the location of the work; the duration of the relationship between the parties; whether the hiring party has the right to assign additional projects to the hired party; the extent of the hired party’s discretion over when and how long to work; the method of payment; the hired party’s role in hiring and paying assistants; whether the work is part of the regular business of the hiring party; whether the hiring party is in business; the provision of employee benefits; and the tax treatment of the hired party. 17

Moreover, the common-law test contains “no shorthand formula or magic phrase that can be applied to find the answer, but all of the incidents of the relationship must be assessed and weighed, with no one factor being decisive”. 18

36. In contrast to lawyers, researchers and scholars interested in studying whether labour standards and rights affect national economic performance and/or international trade have used quantitative variables to measure the legal framework for work. The most common approach for international comparisons has been to rely on ratification by countries of ILO Conventions to measure labour laws and regulations. However, ratification of Conventions is not necessarily a good indicator of the actual implementation of labour standards, and constructing a numerical measure for respect for labour standards simply on the basis of the number of ratifications could introduce a significant measurement error. 19 Nonetheless, such a measure has been accepted by researchers who do econometric cross-country analysis, on the grounds that errors in national values are random and unbiased across countries. This technique is however disputed by others.

37. The ILO’s International Labour Standards Department (NORMES) has also been engaged in a project on the economic dynamics of ILS, which has been discussed in the Governing

17 United States Supreme Court Cases and Opinions, Commun. for Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 US 730 (1989), p. 751.; footnotes omitted.

18 United States Supreme Court Cases and Opinions, NLRB v. United Ins. Co. of America, 390 US 254 (1968), p. 258.

19 S. Lee and D. McCann: “Measuring labour market institutions: Conceptual and methodological questions on ‘working-hour rigidity’”, in J. Berg and D. Kucera (eds), in In defence of labour market institutions: Cultivating justice in the developing world (London/Geneva, ILO and Palgrave MacMillan, 2008).

TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2 13

Body. 20 This has involved five interdisciplinary research teams, which undertook global reviews and critical analyses of current economics literature on the interaction of ILS and economic systems in five areas (social security; occupational safety and health; skills and vocational training; working time and equality; and non-discrimination). Each study evaluated the state of research from a wide range of perspectives, mapping out areas of consensus, areas of debate and areas where further research is warranted. A second phase of this project envisages the association of well-known economists from all regions to undertake an empirical and evidence-based study that would help with the development of indicators to better assess the economic impact of ILS.

38. In seeking to monitor the legal aspects of progress towards decent work at the country level the Office has the advantage of gathering accurate legal information and reviewing it (as well as statistical indicators) with governments and social partners before publication to improve accuracy. In recent years, the Office has built databases that provide information on the legal framework for decent work in a substantial number of member States. First and foremost, the ILO’s International Labour Standards Department (NORMES) now brings together information on national labour law and the application of ILS in one new portal, the NATLEX Country Profiles. 21 It contains information on ratifications of ILS; comments of the ILO’s supervisory bodies (the CEACR, the Conference Committee and the CFA); the basic laws of the country; and, where available, legislative profiles for occupational safety and health and migrant workers. In addition, the Conditions of Work and Employment Programme (TRAVAIL) has developed databases on national legislation on maternity leave, working time, and statutory minimum wages. 22 Significant improvements to measuring the legal framework for work with numerical variables (usually ordinal variables) have also been spearheaded by the Office. 23

Implication 11: Information on the legal framework for work should include information on laws, jurisprudence, coverage and effectiveness of implementation.

Implication 12: Information on the legal framework for work, as well as statistical indicators, should be transparent and verifiable; it needs to be regularly updated and errors systematically eliminated.

39. Major point for debate and guidance: Should the ILO endeavour to offer legal and statistical information at the country level in an integrated framework?

5. Monitoring progress towards decent work

40. The previous two sections outlined that different types of information could be used to measure decent work. One purpose of this is to monitor progress towards decent work at the country level. This implies that the emphasis is on outcome indicators and their change

20 See ILO: Project on economic dynamics of international labour standards, doc. GB.300/LILS/10, 300th Session, Geneva, Nov. 2007; see also ILO: Report of the Committee on Legal Issues and International Labour Standards, doc. GB.300/13(Rev.), 300th Session, Geneva, No. 2007.

21 The country profiles draw on the ILO’s APPLIS, ILOLEX, LIBSYND and NATLEX databases as well as other ILO sources. The database can be accessed online at http://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/country_profiles.home?p_lang=en.

22 http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/condtrav/database/index.htm.

23 See D. Kucera, 2007, op. cit.

14 TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2

over time within countries, and that the data need to be analysed to ascertain whether a country has made progress with respect to a certain aspect of decent work. For some indicators, this is relatively straight-forward: If the share of workers who work excessive hours has fallen in a country, this would signal progress towards “decent hours”; if this reduction was sharp, it would be warranted to speak of substantial progress. Likewise, if the share of those who work excessive hours has remained high and unchanged, this would mark lack of progress. However, assessing outcomes is difficult for other indicators and therefore needs to be based on a careful consideration.

41. The current section will address several aspects that deserve particular attention, for example, the needs to be borne in mind when looking at change over time; the influence of changing demographic structure and the sectoral distribution on indicators; the legal changes and the progressive implementation of rights at work that need to be reflected; and why measuring progress towards decent work at the country level is distinct from developing a decent work index.

5.1. Change over time in decent work indicators

42. When analysing change over time in statistical indicators, four aspects in particular should be thought through carefully:

(i) the size of change over one year and what this means for the time horizon of the assessment (e.g. what to do when change over one year in an indicator is small and gradual);

(ii) measurement error that is large in relation to the size of annual change, erratic change over time, and what this means for indicating direction of change over a one-year period (e.g. what to do when annual change in an indicator is generally small relative to measurement error);

(iii) the possibility that the direction of change is counter cyclical (e.g. what to do when an indicator moves in a generally undesirable direction as the economy improves, and vice versa);

(iv) the size of change relative to the initial value and the maximum value possible, or the desirable value.

Each of these issues will be addressed in the following subsections.

Gradual change

43. Under normal circumstances, change will be gradual for most statistical indicators used to measure progress towards decent work. 24 For example, labour force participation rates, percentage of children at school, percentage of workers with a pension, and union density rates (using one obvious indicator from each of the ILO’s four pillars of decent work) normally change only gradually from year to year. However, these indicators are not static, and over the longer term meaningful progress can be detected. Thus, it is clear that values and information should be provided for more than just the last one or two years and

24 However, change can be abrupt when a country faces a major economic crisis. See, for example, the discussion of unemployment rates in countries affected by financial crises in R. van der Hoeven and M. Luebker: “Financial openness and employment: The need for coherent international and national policies”, in J.A. Ocampo and K.S. Jomo (eds), in Towards full and decent employment (New York, United Nations, 2007).

TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2 15

include values and information for, say, the preceding ten years so that secular change over time can be discerned.

Implication 13: Most statistical decent work indicators should present a time series that covers the recent past (such as the previous ten years) in addition to the value for recent years, so that it is possible to observe change over time as, generally, most aspects of decent work only change gradually from year to year.

Measurement error and erratic change

44. Measurement error is large relative to observed annual change for some numerical indicators, and this needs to be taken into consideration when selecting, presenting, analysing and discussing decent work indicators. This problem is most likely to occur for indicators where change is small from year to year. A related problem for some decent work indicators is that change from one year to the next is sometimes erratic. Examples of this occur for occupational fatalities and strikes and lockouts. Annual fatality rates can be greatly affected in a particular year by a disaster such as a major mining accident, which could cause the fatality rate for a country to be unusually high in a particular year. Strike and lockout data are often greatly affected by periodic strikes by a major union. This would mean that the number of days lost per 100,000 workers due to strikes and lockouts is often “saw-toothed” in nature. Decisions on smoothing variables such as the fatal occupational injury rate and strikes and lockouts need to be considered on a case-by-case basis, because an unusual annual value can be as meaningful as smoothed longer run trend values.

Implication 14: Since measurement error and erratic change from one year to the next can be large, annual values for some indicators could be smoothed out by using a running average calculated over several years such as the last three or five years. At the same time, annual values for some variables are also worth reporting even when they are erratic from year to year as they can also have meaning.

Counter-cyclical indicators

45. The possibility of counter-cyclical decent work indicators is real. For example, the percentage of workers with more than one year tenure in their present work can be counter cyclical. 25 This percentage often decreases when an economy improves and employment expands, because newly hired employees have short job durations; the percentage can increase in an economic downturn, because workers with shorter tenure are typically laid off first and few new workers are hired. It can be appropriate to include counter-cyclical indicators in a core set of ILO decent work indicators if they are important. But at the same time, it is necessary to make sure that, when a decent work indicator is counter cyclical, discussion and analysis take this into account. For example, while it would be appropriate to look at secular change over ten to 30 years in the extent to which work security based on job tenure data has changed across countries, regions and the world, it would not be appropriate to discuss how work security based on job tenure data has changed in the last year.

Implication 15: The analysis of decent work indicators should take into consideration whether decent work indicators are counter cyclical. When an indicator is counter cyclical, longer run secular changes could be discussed rather than annual change.

25 However, a recent ILO study found a pro-cyclical pattern in Central and Eastern Europe, confirming that this need not always be the case. See S. Cazes and A. Nesporova (eds): Flexicurity: A relevant approach in Central and Eastern Europe (Geneva, ILO, 2007).

16 TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2

Change relative to the initial value and the maximum value

46. While the statistical indicators will typically help towards gauging whether progress towards decent work has been made in a country, it will often be more difficult to assess how sizeable this progress has been. Such an assessment will have to take a number of factors into account, namely the initial value of the indicators, the maximum/minimum possible values, and what would constitute a desirable value. For example, a reduction of the unemployment rate by five percentage points could either be considered to be substantive progress or insufficient progress, depending on whether the initial unemployment rate was 7 per cent or 17 per cent. Also, once full employment has been achieved, a country can no longer make progress on this indicator. Further, while a low unemployment rate would be desirable under most circumstances, 26 it is not always clear what would constitute a “desirable” value for other indicators. For example, while decent work promotes access to employment opportunities for women and men, it does not imply that everyone of working age should work. Thus, since some people will prefer education over work or choose to remain economically inactive, it cannot be the goal of policy-makers to achieve an employment-to-population ratio of 100 per cent.

Implication 16: When selecting indicators, attention should be paid to whether a generally desirable level for an indicator can be identified, and whether change towards this level would indicate progress towards decent work.

Implication 17: An assessment of progress towards decent work at the country level needs to take into account the initial value of an indicator, and what would be a desirable range for this indicator.

5.2. Demographic and sectoral influences

47. National values of some decent work indicators are sensitive to the age distribution of the labour force and/or to the distribution of employment across sectors. This occurs when rates for an indicator differ greatly by age or sector. For example, the average number of years of job tenure is sensitive to the age distribution of the labour force, because young workers have much shorter tenure than other workers; and the occupational fatality rate in a country is sensitive to the distribution of production by sector, because some sectors (such as mining, agriculture, fishing and construction) have much higher fatality rates than other sectors.

Implication 18: Since changes in demographic structure and the sectoral distribution of employment will influence trends in some statistical indicators, contextual information needs to be provided and statistical indicators need to be interpreted in conjunction with data on demographic structure and the sectoral distribution of employment.

Implication 19: To neutralize the influence of demographic shifts and changes in the sectoral distribution of employment, some indicators could be restricted to certain age groups (e.g. age 25+ for tenure) and/or to certain sectors (e.g. the manufacturing sector for occupational fatality rate).

26 An exception would be a counter-cyclical reduction in unemployment that can sometimes be witnessed in the context of economic crises.

TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2 17

5.3. Reflecting legal changes and monitoring the progressive implementation of rights at work

48. The legal framework for decent work in any given country is not static, but it evolves over time. Particular attention could be paid to the implementation of fundamental principles and rights at work that all Members have an obligation to respect, to promote and to realize, in good faith and in accordance with the Constitution. At the same time, many ILO Conventions and Recommendations allow for progressive implementation, depending on member States’ level of development.

Implication 20: To monitor progress towards decent work, information on rights at work and the legal framework for decent work should reflect changes that have been made by countries to develop their national legislation or the application of laws, or both, with reference to ILO standards.

5.4. Drawbacks of indexing for the purpose of measuring progress towards decent work

49. Following the guidance by the Governing Body, the Tripartite Meeting of Experts is concerned with the measurement of decent work to monitor progress at the country level. This is distinct from the development of an index. The two differ fundamentally in many respects:

(i) an index aims at aggregating information into a single index number; measuring decent work describes detailed information on all aspects of decent work;

(ii) an index requires assigning a weight to different aspects of decent work; measuring decent work does not require such a judgement;

(iii) an index lends itself to the ranking of countries and the comparison between countries; measuring decent work focuses on individual countries and the progress they have made over time;

(iv) an index is blind to country-specific circumstances; measuring decent work takes them into account ;

(v) an index would need to convert information on rights at work into a number; measuring decent work can provide detailed information on rights at work and the legal framework for decent work.

While this list could be expanded upon, it should suffice to demonstrate that the measurement of decent work poses requirements that are fundamentally different from the development of an index.

Implication 21: Monitoring progress towards decent work at the country level should not be linked to an index.

18 TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2

Part III

Statistical indicators and information on rights at work and the legal framework for decent work 1

50. Based on the general principles developed in the previous sections, Part III is concerned with translating these into a practical template for monitoring progress towards decent work. Use of a global template as a guide for the compilation of country profiles would facilitate the comparison of country experiences without losing sight of the vital aspect of country context. In section 6, two alternative approaches to the thematic organization of information are contrasted. Section 7 then takes stock of previous compilations of decent work indicators, identifies candidates for inclusion into a consolidated list of decent work indicators and explores data availability in more detail for four selected indicators. Section 8 discusses and suggests a framework for information on rights at work and the legal framework for decent work, and section 9 discusses gender issues and measuring male–female differences.

51. The entire discussion is based on the premise that while a template needs to reflect the multidimensional and comprehensive nature of the Decent Work Agenda, it needs to remain parsimonious, and carefully balance ambition with a realistic appreciation of what is feasible at the country level.

6. Approaches to organizing decent work indicators and legal framework information

52. The discussion in Part II developed one important argument, namely that rights at work and a country’s legal framework are relevant across the entire Decent Work Agenda. It was argued that detailed information on a country’s legal framework should be presented in a way that complements statistical indicators. This has direct implications for the way indicators and legal framework information should be organized. In the past, two main approaches have been followed:

(i) Grouping of information under the four strategic objectives of the Decent Work Agenda: Under this approach, one grouping of indicators has to capture labour standards and fundamental principles and rights at work. This has frequently prompted the inclusion of proxy measures of questionable meaningfulness, such as the number of Conventions ratified or the number of complaints made against a member country. Where this has been avoided, only indicators on child labour or non-discrimination (which can be more readily expressed in numerical terms) have been included under the heading of labour standards. However, this creates the misleading impression that the relevance of labour standards is limited to a few selected issues; it does not sufficiently highlight the importance of rights at work as an integral component of the Decent Work Agenda.

(ii) Grouping of information under substantive elements of decent work: This approach groups statistical indicators and information on the legal framework and the actual implementation of laws in a country under headings that reflect substantive elements of the Decent Work Agenda (such as decent hours or social dialogue and workers’

1 This part draws extensively on a background paper commissioned by the Office; see R. Anker and P. Annycke, op. cit.

TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2 19

representation). As argued above, this is of great use as it allows, for example, union density rates in conjunction with information on legal restrictions on the right to organize or state interference in trade unions. Under such a framework, statistical indicators and information on the legal framework complement each other.

53. The second approach was previously used in the General Report submitted to the 17th ICLS in 2003. 2 The rationale for this was to capture decent work as an integrated and multidimensional concept while covering all four dimensions. Table 1 presents a slightly amended version of the groupings used in the report to the 17th ICLS and lists ten substantive elements of the Decent Work Agenda, namely access to employment opportunities; work that should be eliminated or abolished; adequate earnings and productive work; decent hours; stability and security of work; combining work and family life; equal opportunity and treatment in employment; safe work environment; social security; social dialogue and workers’ representation. Under the headings of these substantive elements, two kinds of information would be provided:

(i) relevant statistical indicators that permit the monitoring of progress made with regard to the substantive elements; and

(ii) a description of relevant national legislation in relation to the substantive elements of the Decent Work Agenda; where relevant, information on the benefit level; evidence of implementation effectiveness and the coverage of workers in law and in practice; complaints and representations received by the ILO; observations by the ILO supervisory system and cases of progress; information on the ratification of relevant ILO Conventions.

54. This approach covers the four strategic pillars of the Decent Work Agenda in a comprehensive way and has at least two main advantages: Firstly, it highlights that rights at work are a cross-cutting concern and that ILS cover the entire spectrum of the Decent Work Agenda. Secondly, by grouping statistical indicators alongside information on rights at work, these two sources of information can be interpreted together. This is particularly relevant for the qualitative aspects of decent work where statistical indicators alone are insufficient to monitor progress. In table 1 all four strategic objectives are covered in a disaggregated manner with standards and their application a cross-cutting dimension (figures in brackets show under which strategic objectives the suggested substantive element mainly falls).

55. Major point for debate and guidance: Under which thematic headings of the substantive elements of the strategic objectives of the Decent Work Agenda should statistical indicators and information on rights at work and the legal framework be grouped?

2 ICLS/17/2003/1, op. cit.

20 TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2

Table 1. Suggested organization of statistical indicators and information on rights at work and the legal framework for decent work

Substantive elements of the Decent Work Agenda

Statistical indicators Information on rights at work and the legal framework for decent work

Employment opportunities (1 + 2) Work that should be abolished (1 + 3) Adequate earnings and productive work (1 + 3) Decent hours (1 + 3) Stability and security of work (1, 2 + 3) Combining work and family life (1 + 3) Equal opportunity and treatment in employment (1, 2 + 3) Safe work environment (1 + 3) Social security (1 + 3) Social dialogue and workers’ representation (1 + 4)

Selection of relevant statistical indicators that allow monitoring progress made with regard to the substantive elements.

Description of relevant national legislation in relation to the substantive elements of the Decent Work Agenda; where relevant, information on the benefit level; evidence of implementation effectiveness and the coverage of workers in law and in practice; complaints and representations received by the ILO; observations by the ILO supervisory system and cases of progress; information on the ratification of relevant ILO Conventions (1, 2, 3 + 4)

Note: ILO strategic objectives: 1. Standards and fundamental principles and rights at work; 2. Employment; 3. Social protection; 4. Socialdialogue.

Source: ILO compilation.

7. Statistical indicators to monitor progress towards decent work

7.1. Review of past proposals for decent work indicators

56. Before embarking on the discussion of individual statistical indicators, it is useful to take stock of existing lists of decent work indicators. This section will be devoted to this task and draw on existing lists of indicators:

(i) The General Report to the 17th ICLS in 2003 presented a list of 29 core decent work indicators. 3 This list was based on considerable thought, consultation and discussion and has since been used to compile information at the country or regional level so that some experience on its feasibility and potential shortcomings has been gained. 4

(ii) The ILO’s Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific (RO–Bangkok) has suggested a list of decent work indicators and produced a guidebook that provides a detailed overview of the individual decent work indicators. 5 The Regional Office has also commissioned nine country studies on data availability, sources and definitions and compiled a preliminary database of national decent work indicators.

(iii) The ILO’s Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean (RO–Lima) has developed a proposal for decent work indicators for use within the region.

3 ICLS/17/2003/1, ibid.

4 See Anker et al.: op. cit.; J.Y. Amankrah: Ghana decent work statistical indicators: Fact-finding study (Geneva, ILO, 2003); M.K. Mujeri: Bangladesh decent work statistical indicators: Fact-finding study (Geneva, ILO, 2004); S.K. Huang: Job quality: Indicator developments and assessments at macro, enterprise and individual levels (Seoul, Korea Labour Institute, 2007, published in Korean).

5 ILO: Decent Work Indicators for Asia and the Pacific, op. cit.

TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2 21

(iv) In preparation for the Eighth European Regional Meeting, to be held in January 2009, the Regional Office for Europe has compiled a range of decent work indicators.

(v) At the ILO’s headquarters, an intersectoral task force led by the Bureau of Statistics has collected suggestions for decent work indicators from all four sectors and evaluated their feasibility. 6

(vi) Effective in January 2008, the United Nations has adopted four indicators for the new MDG Target 1.B, “Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all, including women and young people”. 7

(vii) A European joint task force set up by the UNECE, Eurostat and the ILO is currently compiling a list of statistical indicators to measure the quality of employment. Despite the fact that this task force aims to measure a different concept (quality of employment, rather than decent work), many of the indicators are similar to those used to measure decent work.

57. Appendix table 1 lists all indicators that have been suggested in any of the above-named compilations, 8 leading to a relatively long and complex list. However, there is considerable overlap between the different proposals. Many of the indicators are identical, and others are conceptually related. For example, the youth unemployment rate was included in three of the six compilations; two compilations also include the youth inactivity rate and one the share of youth not in education and not in employment. All three indicators have their own statistical definition, but aim to provide information on one phenomenon: the exclusion of youth from access to employment opportunities. The overview in appendix table 1 thus groups conceptually related indicators. Each group is given one indicator number (in the case of youth unemployment – No. 4), and variants are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) and given the same number and a letter suffix (for example – Nos 4a and 4b). In total, there are 34 different decent work indicators on the list, plus 21 variants (and seven context indicators, plus one variant).

58. Common ground exists, in particular, between the first five compilations: two indicators (the employment-to-population ratio and the unemployment rate) are included in all five lists, and eight indicators appear on four of the five lists in identical form. The remaining two compilations differ from the other five in important respects: the list of indicators for MDG Target 1.B contains only four indicators 9 and thus far fewer than the other compilations, and the proposal made by the European task force concentrates on the quality of employment and thus, unlike the Decent Work Agenda, does not cover access to employment opportunities.

59. The considerable overlap between the different proposals is a welcome finding. It offers the prospect that the expert meeting can identify a common core set of statistical indicators that incorporates previous work done by the Office, and to suggest this for use at headquarters and across the ILO’s field structure.

6 Only the suggestions received from the four sectors are included in table 2; suggestions made by the RO–Bangkok and the RO–Lima are reported in the respective columns.

7 See the United Nations official list of MDG indicators, effective 15 Jan. 2008.

8 Indicators that were included only on the list drawn up by the European Task Force, but not included on any of the other lists, were excluded from the comparison.

9 In addition, MDG Indicator 3.2 is listed.

22 TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2

7.2. Identifying a consolidated set of main and additional decent work indicators

60. While the Tripartite Meeting of Experts need not restrict itself to indicators that have previously been identified, the overview presented in the previous section nonetheless provides a useful basis for the meeting’s deliberations. Appendix table 2 therefore lists all indicators that have been previously suggested, and discusses merits and shortcomings of individual indicators and constraints in terms of data availability. 10 The length of the list calls for a significant reduction in the number of indicators to arrive at a parsimonious set of indicators. The table therefore contains suggestions for the experts’ consideration in the form of the following letter codes:

– M – the indicator has the potential to be included as a main indicator;

– A – the indicator could be included as an additional indicator that can be used by technical departments and regional and country offices where they feel this is appropriate, and where data are available;

– C – the indicator could be included as a context indicator for the economic and social context of decent work;

– F – the indicator is a candidate for future inclusion, as data is expected to become available more widely;

– L – the information is of a complex legal nature and could be included in textual form under “rights at work and the legal framework for decent work”, rather than as a numerical indicator;

– E – the indicator is a candidate for exclusion from a core list of decent work indicators.

61. Apart from the previously identified indicators, appendix table 2 also highlights which aspects are missing from the list (marked: “Others: Not measured”) and contains a few additional indicators where data have recently been compiled (e.g. an indicator for health-care expenditure) or where data collection efforts are under way that could make the inclusion of an indicator feasible in the future (hazardous and other worst forms of child labour; and forced labour). While the existing compilations establish no precedent, experts might want to pay special attention to those indicators that have been selected by the United Nations as MDG indicators for Targets 1.B. and 3.A. The comments in appendix table 2 therefore again highlight which of the indicators are used for MDG monitoring.

62. As mentioned previously, the first list of decent work indicators in the General Report to the 17th ICLS in 2003 initiated debate on measuring decent work. 11 Some of the suggestions made in that report have not been taken up by the ILO intersectoral task force or regional offices other than that for Europe, primarily due to poor data availability in developing countries. This is the case for the following indicators: employees with recent job training; tenure less than one year; temporary work; employment rate for women with children under compulsory school age; public expenditure on needs-based cash income support; beneficiaries of cash income support as a percentage of the poor; and average monthly pension. All seven indicators are candidates for exclusion from the decent work

10 For ease of reference, the indicator numbers previously used in table 2 are repeated.

11 ICLS/17/2003/1, op. cit.

TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2 23

indicator list. Poor data availability, as well as conceptual considerations, might also lead the experts to consider the exclusion of other variables (that have equally been marked as candidates for exclusion in appendix table 2).

63. Based on the discussion in the appendix, table 2 below summarizes one possible approach of a three-tier structure towards measuring decent work though statistical indicators:

(i) The first set of indicators is used by the United Nations in monitoring progress towards MDG Target 1.B “Achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all including women and young children”, and the related MDG Indicator 3.2. under Goal 3 “Promote gender equality and empower women”. It is an extremely parsimonious set of indicators that is compiled by the Office for a large number of countries. 12 However, as outlined above, measuring decent work would need to go beyond this to reflect all dimensions of the Decent Work Agenda in a more comprehensive way.

(ii) Table 2 identifies 18 indicators that are strong candidates to serve this purpose as main indicators. Such a main set of decent work indicators would be parsimonious enough to remain manageable, while covering a wide range of elements of the Decent Work Agenda: five indicators are concerned with employment opportunities, three with social security, three with social dialogue and workers’ representation, two with adequate earnings, two with equal opportunity and treatment in employment and one each with work that should be abolished, decent hours, and a safe work environment. There is an overlap with the MDG indicators, so that no additional data collection is required for these; other indicators (such as on health-care expenditure) are compiled by other international organizations. Where data gaps exist, national statistical offices would be encouraged to prioritize their efforts to collect data on these main indicators.

(iii) The table also identifies some 16 additional indicators that could be included in country-level or regional analyses where data are available and where their use appears informative. Many of these are already used by the Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, in particular, and it would seem inappropriate to curtail the laudable progress made there.

64. Note, however, that the proposals in table 2 have some shortcomings: no main indicator was identified as a candidate for stability and security of work. However, the indicator “informal employment” captures how many workers lack the stability and security that are associated with formal job-holding. Further, equally due to data limitations, no indicator was identified for combining work and family life. Other shortcomings are that workers’ representation is only partially captured by trade union membership and there is the added problem of the need to take into consideration situations where unions are not free; and that social dialogue is (at best) only partially measured by the collective bargaining coverage rate. Statistical indicators for discrimination are limited to gender, whereas Convention No. 111 refers to “any distinction, exclusion or preference made on the basis of race, colour, sex, religion, political opinion, national extraction or social origin, which has the effect of nullifying or impairing equality of opportunity or treatment in employment or occupation” (Article 1.1.a). The proposals also fail to address equality of opportunity and treatment for disabled men and women workers, and their access to vocational rehabilitation and employment (compare Convention No. 159). In some countries, further indicators for these issues are available and can be included under the relevant thematic headings.

12 See also ILO: Global Employment Trends, 2008, op. cit.

24 TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2

Tabl

e 2.

MDG

indi

cato

rs an

d ca

ndid

ates

for c

onsid

erat

ion

as st

atist

ical d

ecen

t wor

k ind

icato

rs

MDG

targ

ets 1

.B an

d 3.A

Main

dec

ent w

ork i

ndica

tors

(c

andi

date

s for

cons

ider

atio

n)

Ad

ditio

nal d

ecen

t wor

k ind

icato

rs

(can

dida

tes f

or co

nsid

erat

ion)

Empl

oym

ent o

ppor

tuni

ties

Em

ploym

ent-t

o-po

pulat

ion ra

tio (M

DG in

dicato

r 1.5)

Prop

ortio

n of o

wn-a

ccou

nt an

d con

tributi

ng fa

mily

worke

rs in

total

emplo

ymen

t (MD

G ind

icator

1.7)

Emplo

ymen

t-to-

popu

lation

ratio

(S) (

2)

Un

emplo

ymen

t rate

(tota

l) (S)

(3)

Yo

uth un

emplo

ymen

t rate

(S) (

4)

Pr

opor

tion o

f own

-acc

ount

and c

ontrib

uting

fami

ly wo

rkers

in tot

al em

ploym

ent (

S) (5

b)

Inf

orma

l emp

loyme

nt (S

) (6)

Unem

ploym

ent b

y lev

el of

educ

ation

(S) (

3a)

Yo

uth no

t in ed

ucati

on an

d not

in em

ploym

ent (

S) (4

b)

Em

ploym

ent b

y stat

us in

emplo

ymen

t (S)

(5)

Sh

are o

f wag

e emp

loyme

nt in

non-

agric

ultur

al em

ploym

ent

(S) (

5a)

Nu

mber

and w

ages

of ca

sual/

daily

wor

kers

(S) (

6b)

Wor

k tha

t sho

uld

be ab

olish

ed

Child

ren i

n wag

e emp

loyme

nt or

self-e

mploy

ment

(S) (

8)

Haza

rdou

s chil

d lab

our (

S) (n

.a.)

Adeq

uate

earn

ings

and

prod

uctiv

e wor

k

Pr

opor

tion o

f emp

loyed

peop

le liv

ing be

low U

S$1

(PPP

) per

day [

worki

ng po

or] (

MDG

indica

tor 1.

6)

Wor

king p

oor (

S) (9

)

Low

pay r

ate (S

) (10

)

Av

erag

e ear

nings

in se

lected

occu

patio

ns (S

) (12

a)

Nu

mber

and w

ages

of ca

sual/

daily

wor

kers

(S) (

12b)

Manu

factur

ing w

age i

ndex

(12c

)

Dece

nt h

ours

Ex

cess

ive ho

urs (

S) (1

4)

Usua

l hou

rs wo

rked (

stand

ardiz

ed ho

ur ba

nds)

(S) (

14a)

Annu

al ho

urs w

orke

d per

perso

n (S)

(14b

)

Time-

relat

ed un

dere

mploy

ment

rate

(S) (

15)

Stab

ility a

nd se

curit

y of w

ork

[N

o stat

istica

l indic

ators

sugg

ested

]

Com

bini

ng w

ork a

nd fa

mily

life

[N

o stat

istica

l indic

ators

sugg

ested

]

Equa

l opp

ortu

nity

and

treat

men

t in

empl

oym

ent

Sh

are o

f wom

en in

wag

e emp

loyme

nt in

the no

n-ag

ricult

ural

secto

r (MD

G ind

icator

3.2)

Oc

cupa

tiona

l seg

rega

tion b

y sex

(19)

Fema

le sh

are o

f emp

loyme

nt in

mana

geria

l and

ad

minis

trativ

e occ

upati

ons (

19a)

Meas

ure o

f disp

ersio

n for

secto

ral d

istrib

ution

of m

igran

t wo

rkers

(20)

TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2 25

MDG

targ

ets 1

.B an

d 3.A

Main

dec

ent w

ork i

ndica

tors

(c

andi

date

s for

cons

ider

atio

n)

Ad

ditio

nal d

ecen

t wor

k ind

icato

rs

(can

dida

tes f

or co

nsid

erat

ion)

Sa

fe w

ork e

nviro

nmen

t

Oc

cupa

tiona

l injur

y rate

, fatal

(21)

Oc

cupa

tiona

l injur

y rate

, non

-fatal

(21a

)

Socia

l sec

urity

Pu

blic s

ocial

secu

rity ex

pend

iture

(24)

Shar

e of p

opula

tion a

ged 6

5 and

abov

e ben

efitin

g fro

m a

pens

ion (S

) (25

)

Healt

h-ca

re ex

pend

iture

s not

finan

ced o

ut of

pock

et by

pr

ivate

hous

ehold

s (n.a

.)

Socia

l sec

urity

cove

rage

(pen

sion a

nd/or

healt

h (S)

(25a

)

Socia

l dial

ogue

and

work

ers’

repr

esen

tatio

n

Un

ion de

nsity

rate

(S) (

26)

Nu

mber

of en

terpr

ises b

elong

ing to

emplo

yer o

rgan

izatio

n (2

7)

Co

llecti

ve w

age b

arga

ining

cove

rage

rate

(S) (

28)

Strik

es an

d loc

kouts

/rates

of da

ys no

t wor

ked (

29)

Econ

omic

and

socia

l con

text

for d

ecen

t wor

k

Gr

owth

rate

of GD

P pe

r per

son e

mploy

ed [la

bour

pr

oduc

tivity

] (MD

G ind

icator

1.4)

Ch

ildre

n not

in sc

hool

(% by

age)

(S) (

7)

Es

timate

d % of

wor

king-

age p

opula

tion w

ho ar

e HIV

po

sitive

(31)

Labo

ur pr

oduc

tivity

(GDP

per e

mploy

ed pe

rson,

level

and

grow

th ra

te) (E

1)

Inc

ome i

nequ

ality

(ratio

top 1

0% to

botto

m 10

%, in

come

or

cons

umpti

on) (

E3)

Inf

lation

rate

(CPI

) (E4

)

Emplo

ymen

t by b

ranc

h of e

cono

mic a

ctivit

y/ind

ustry

(a

gricu

lture

, indu

stry,

servi

ces/I

SIC

tabula

tion c

atego

ry)

(E5)

Educ

ation

of ad

ult po

pulat

ion (a

dult l

itera

cy ra

te, ad

ult

seco

ndar

y-sch

ool g

radu

ation

rate)

(S) (

E6)

La

bour

shar

e in G

DP (E

7)

Real

per c

apita

“ear

nings

” [GN

I] (fro

m na

tiona

l acc

ounts

) (E

2)

Fe

male

shar

e of e

mploy

ment

by in

dustr

y (IS

IC ta

bulat

ion ca

tegor

y) (E

5a)

Notes

: S in

dicate

s us

efulne

ss o

f sep

arate

fema

le an

d ma

le va

lues

expr

esse

d as

fema

le-to-

male

ratio

and

/or fe

male–

male

differ

ence

as

appr

opria

te. L

imite

d da

ta av

ailab

ility

for s

epar

ate fe

male

and

male

rates

is lik

ely to

be

apr

oblem

for s

ever

al co

re in

dicato

rs. N

umbe

rs in

brac

kets

refer

to re

feren

ce nu

mber

s use

d in a

ppen

dix ta

bles 1

and 2

. Plea

se se

e ap

pend

ix tab

le 2 f

or a

full d

iscus

sion o

f all i

ndica

tors t

hat h

ave b

een s

ugge

sted i

n the

past.

Sour

ce: IL

O co

mpila

tion.

26 TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2

65. The two sets of main and additional indicators do not preclude further indicators, but serve to prioritize data collection and compilation. In many respects, they are a compromise between what would be desirable and what is feasible in the short run. Even so, the list of main indicators will present challenges in terms of data compilation. Nonetheless, identifying the gaps will help to prioritize these for collaboration with national statistical offices, and to direct resources to improved data collection. The set of decent work indicators should remain open to amendments and the inclusion of better indicators. Two indicators, in particular, are promising candidates for inclusion in the near future: hazardous and worst forms of child labour, and forced labour. Here, data collection efforts are under way and data should become more widely available in a few years. Some of the shortcomings of the statistical indicators can also be compensated by providing information on rights at work and the legal framework for decent work, as discussed in section 8.

66. It is worthwhile to briefly highlight the role of the proposed indicators for the economic and social context for decent work. They describe the background against which progress towards decent work is being made in a country, and include issues such as education and macroeconomic stability that are the primary focus of the work of other international organizations. 13 The context indicators are not listed as main or additional indicators since they are ill-suited in monitoring progress towards decent work. For example, low inflation is an important aspect of a stable macroeconomic environment that allows enterprises to create employment on a sustainable basis. Nonetheless, a fall in the inflation rate does not, in itself, signal that work has become more decent. Similarly, the sectoral distribution of employment is important to understand the challenges a country faces, but for example a shift from industry to services does not automatically imply that working conditions have improved. Further, while rising labour productivity is historically a main factor behind rising wages, wages do not necessarily increase in line with productivity in the short run. Therefore, it is suggested that these and similar indicators are included in the special category of context indicators. The selection draws on the existing compilations, but experts are invited to present proposals that go beyond this, in particular with reference to sustainable enterprises and on environmental sustainability.

67. Major point for debate and guidance: Which decent work indicators does the tripartite meeting of experts recommend for inclusion as (i) main indicators; (ii) additional indicators; (iii) context indicators; and (iv) for inclusion in the future as data become available?

7.3. Data availability

68. Because the rationale behind the development of a common set of statistical indicators is to monitor progress towards decent work at the country level in the near future (i.e. deliver an assessment within a few years), it is important to look into the extent to which national data are available by region. Data availability was investigated in greater detail for four indicators that have been ranked prominently in previous compilations and are strong candidates for inclusion into a consolidated list. They are drawn from different major aspects of decent work:

(i) union density rate;

13 Through the Policy Coherence Initiative, the Office works with other international organizations to achieve greater coherence within the multilateral system and at the country level in these policy areas.

TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2 27

(ii) fatal occupational injury rate;

(iii) public social security expenditure (percentage of GDP);

(iv) employment-to-population ratio.

69. No effort was made to ascertain data quality. Results of this investigation are reported in appendix table 3 for the global total as well as for six country groups. Indicated are number of countries with data, how many these are as a share of all countries in the group, and for how many of the years from 1999 to 2006 countries with data have observations (expressed as a percentage of possible yearly observations). To simplify this exercise, generally only one or two data sources were consulted, and data sets with estimates for all countries were excluded; the main data sources are noted at the bottom of each column in appendix table 3.

70. As expected, data are available for all four indicators for almost all countries in the developed economies. Interestingly, data are also widely available for non-EU countries in Central and Eastern Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), especially for larger countries in this region. Data were available for 50–78 per cent of the countries in this region. In terms of availability of annual data, it was found that data tended to be available most years except for union density, which was available on average about every other year for developed economies and every fifth year for non-EU countries in Central and Eastern Europe and CIS countries.

71. Data availability was more limited for the four developing country regions, especially for sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East and North Africa. This points to the urgency of building capacity at the national level to collect reliable and timely statistics, particularly in Africa where statistical systems are generally weakest and where many countries do not conduct regular labour force surveys. Although, as expected, data availability is a problem in developing countries for the four indicators investigated, it is important to realize that data were available in each developing country region for a sizable number of countries. The combined number of countries in these four regions with data ranged from 30 for the fatal occupational injury rate, to 39 for union density, to 50 for social security expenditures, and to 79 for the employment-to-population ratio. Despite the limitations of the current investigation that drew upon only a few data sources, it seems that data are available for a sufficient number and range of countries to be acceptable for at least the four indicators.

8. Information on rights at work and the legal framework for decent work

8.1. A template for legal framework information

72. A good legal framework for work is essential for decent work; it helps protect workers, working conditions, and workers’ rights. The Decent Work Agenda emphasizes the rights of workers, including those codified in ILS that have been a central part of the ILO’s mandate and activities since its inception. As was argued in section 4 above, to assess progress towards decent work at the country level, it is therefore necessary to know how far national legislation protects workers’ rights, and how far these are respected in practice. Information on the legal framework is often necessary to interpret statistical indicators and it can fill information gaps for aspects of decent work that do not lend themselves to statistical measurement. This would provide a rationale for embedding the statistical indicators discussed in the previous section in a standard template on rights at work and the legal framework for decent work.

28 TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2

73. This section suggests an approach where important aspects of the legal framework for work are identified, relevant information for these is systematically consolidated, and this information is reported in a tabular format. The aim would be to provide information that allows the reader to understand key aspects of the legal framework in a country. Information of a legal nature and on institutional mechanisms is already being compiled by various departments throughout the Office. In the current context, the following databases are of particular importance:

(i) The International Labour Standards Department (NORMES) has built extensive databases on national labour law and the ratification and application of ILS, and in particular, comments made by ILO supervisory bodies. Since 2007, the NATLEX country profiles provide a single portal through which this information can be accessed. 14

(ii) The Conditions of Work and Employment Programme (TRAVAIL) has compiled an extensive database on minimum wage legislation, legal working time limits and maternity protection laws. 15

(iii) The Social Security Department (SECSOC) provides information on social security programmes and mechanisms related to sickness, maternity, old age, invalidity, survivors, family allowances, work injury and unemployment. 16

(iv) The International Programme on the Elimination of Child Labour (IPEC) collects information on national legislation on minimum age for access to employment and work.

(v) The Social Dialogue, Labour Law and Labour Administration Department (DIALOGUE) and the Bureau of Statistics (STAT) gather information on trade unions and collective bargaining that goes far beyond the statistical indicators discussed in the previous section.

(vi) The Bureau for Gender Equality, the Bureau of Library and Information Services, the Employment Sector, and NORMES, are collaborating on a portal (e.quality@work) providing access to legal information and institutional policies on gender equality in the workplace. The portal covers national labour laws, constitutions, ILS and other international instruments, and governmental and company policies. 17

74. Existing sources within the ILO thus cover many substantive aspects of the Decent Work Agenda. These sources can be complemented with information from national sources and be used for decent work country profiles. It will be of particular importance that these profiles do not only provide information on the legislative framework in a country, but also on how far workers’ rights are effective in actual practice.

14 http://www.ilo.org/dyn/natlex/country_profiles.byCountry?p_lang=en.

15 http://www.ilo.org/public/english/protection/condtrav/database/index.htm.

16 The Social Security Database draws on data compiled by the International Social Security Association (ISSA) on the basis of original textual information from the US Social Security Administration. See http://www.issa.int/aiss/Observatory/Social-Security-Databases and http://www.ilo.org/dyn/sesame/IFPSES.SocialDatabase.

17 http://www.ilo.org/public/english/employment/gems/eeo/index.htm.

TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2 29

75. In this respect, the information gathered by the ILO’s supervisory system is a particularly valuable source. A main source of information could be the reports on law and practice under article 19 (non-ratified Conventions and Recommendations) and article 22 (ratified Conventions) of the ILO’s Constitution, and observations of the social partners in application of article 23. Further, the CEACR, the Governing Body, the CFA, ad hoc tripartite Governing Body committees on article 24 representations, article 26 Commissions of Inquiry and the Conference Committee on the Application of Standards review, consider and analyse governments’ reports, information emanating from the social partners and complaints and representations on alleged violations of workers’ rights and violations of workers’ and employers’ freedom of association. Their comments provide authoritative assessments of the actual situation in a country that could be summarized in a way that is accessible to the non-specialist, and linked to the full source. Since 1964, the Committee of Experts has regularly reported on cases of progress (more than 2,300 to date) where member States have made changes in law and practice which improved the application of ratified Conventions. Such cases provide a clear indication that progress has been made on the relevant aspect of decent work. It must be stressed that the suggested approach does not rely on counting the number of cases brought to the ILO’s supervisory system, since this can be a poor gauge to determine the violation of rights. The suggested approach therefore relies on summarizing the substance of complaints and representations and subsequent comments made by the supervisory system.

76. A possible template to organize information on rights at work and the legal framework for decent work is provided in appendix table 4. The table has eight columns: column 1 lists the substantive aspects of the Decent Work Agenda; columns 2–6 are concerned with national level information for each substantive element. One suggestion would be to report on the existence and scope of national laws and, where applicable, policies or institutions (column 2); on the benefit levels and thresholds under national law (column 3); evidence on the effective implementation of rights at work (column 4); and the coverage of workers in terms of the types of workers covered along with a rough approximation of the percentage of workers covered in law (column 5); and in actual practice (column 6). Column 7 is concerned with ratification of relevant ILO Conventions, 18 and column 8 lists main data sources.

77. Columns 5 and 6 require some explanation, because estimation of worker coverage in percentage terms is not straight-forward and is impossible for most countries to do with a reasonably high degree of accuracy. The suggestion to estimate approximate percentage coverage is made with full cognizance that the information needed does not exist for most countries at present, especially developing countries. This suggestion is based on two considerations. First, it is felt that differences in benefits of national laws in different countries is meaningless (and can often be misleading) without some idea about how many workers are covered. Second, it should be possible to make very rough estimates of coverage if broad percentage ranges are used, such as: few (<10 per cent), some (10–32 per cent), about half (33–66 per cent), most (67–89 per cent), virtually all or all (90+ per cent).

78. To produce these rough estimates, a standard estimation routine would need to be developed that combines the information on covered and excluded groups with available data on the distribution of employment (according to sector, employment status, size of establishment, etc.). Therefore, groups of workers covered or excluded in the law would need to be identified under column 2, on which the estimate of the percentage of workers covered in law and in practice can be based (columns 5 and 6). For example, if a minimum-wage law applied to employees outside of the agricultural sector, this fact would

18 Note that all eight fundamental Conventions and all four priority Conventions are covered.

30 TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2

be indicated under the scope of the law in column 2. The percentage of workers theoretically covered by such a minimum wage law would then be estimated using information on the size of the non-agricultural labour force and employment by status in employment in the non-agricultural sector. The resulting rough estimate of coverage would then place the country in one of the broad ranges.

79. It is worthwhile noting that information on rights at work and the legal framework for decent work tends to be complementary with the statistical indicators presented in table 2: where statistical indicators are less complete, legal framework variables tend to be more complete (and vice versa). For example, whereas statistical indicators on social dialogue and workers’ representation in table 2 leave much to be desired, essential information on social dialogue and workers’ representation can be provided in the template outlined in appendix table 4. Whereas there are no suggested statistical indicators for combining work and family life, more complex information on maternity leave entitlements can be provided under the legal framework information. As indicated in column 8, a large share of this information can be drawn from existing sources within the Office.

80. In conclusion, appendix table 4 provides suggestions on how to present information on rights at work and the legal framework for decent work. It suggests that several pieces of information be reported without creating quantitative indicators by drawing on existing data sources, including information gathered by the ILO’s supervisory system. The relevance and practical feasibility of the suggested template for decent work country profiles will have to be tested, and the template further refined on the basis of the experience gained. What appears as important, however, is that a systematic effort is made to adequately reflect the importance of rights at work by including this type of information.

81. Major point for debate and guidance: Is the template presented in appendix table 4 suitable to reflect the importance of rights at work and the legal framework for decent work?

8.2. Possibilities to measure progress on the implementation of fundamental principles and rights at work

82. For the four fundamental principles and rights at work (FPRWs), it may merit discussion to consider whether the template on rights at work and the legal framework should be complemented by additional indicators. Though they may also be based on textual sources, these indicators could also identify the extent to which a country’s laws are in accord with the corresponding ILO Conventions and Recommendations, as well as the actual implementation of such legislation. Indicators would be developed for member countries for a base year, with subsequent changes recorded in periodic updating of the indicators. The aim would be to show both the situation in relation to the FPRWs, and the efforts and progress made in relation to the specific country’s state of affairs. For each of the four FPRWs, these different aspects could make up different components of an overall indicator of compliance.

83. Given the different nature of the four FPRWs and the distinct substance of the underlying Conventions and Recommendations, the components of the indicator for each of the four FPRWs would generally have varying evaluation criteria. These evaluation criteria would need to be clear and sufficiently detailed in order to facilitate countries’ endeavours to improve their compliance. Legislative and judicial texts would serve as the basic source for an evaluation of the legal situation.

84. As for actual implementation, different types of information would be used. As discussed elsewhere in this document, some aspects of actual implementation of FPRWs can be readily addressed with conventional statistics, such as the extent of child or forced labour as well as differences in earnings for different workers. Other aspects of actual

TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2 31

implementation may draw more on textual information from the various ILO supervisory mechanisms. In this way, these additional indicators of FPRWs would make use of much of the information discussed elsewhere in this document. One consideration is that this information would need to be consistently compiled according to the evaluation criteria that would define compliance. Moreover, reviewing the changes of a country’s indicator over time would require a clear sense of what constitutes sufficient change with respect to the different sets of evaluation criteria for the different components of each FPRW indicator.

9. Taking the gender dimension of decent work into account

85. As discussed in section 3.5 above, gender is a cross-cutting concern of the Decent Work Agenda and therefore relevant to all facets of decent work and is critical to achieving decent work. Indeed, the ILO definition of decent work explicitly refers to “opportunities for women and men to obtain decent and productive work in conditions of freedom, equity, security and human dignity”. 19 When monitoring progress towards decent work at the country level, it is thus necessary to measure in how far this progress has been achieved for women and men alike. Moreover, women and men have different opportunities, needs and constraints. Two conclusions were drawn from this insight in the previous discussion: First, that decent work indicators should be measured separately for women and men (implication 7). Second, that the different needs and constraints of women and men workers should be adequately reflected, including the extent of unpaid care work and reproductive work, which is predominately carried out by women and which acts as an important barrier to their participation in the labour market.

86. Based on the first conclusion, almost all statistical indicators discussed in table 2 were marked with an “S” to indicate that they should be reported separately for men and women in addition to the total for all workers. 20 This is useful to detect gender differences in access to decent work that are persistent in all countries. To bridge these gaps, the ILO has long placed particular emphasis on the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation. Two of the fundamental Conventions have established the principles of equal remuneration for men and women workers for work of equal value (Convention No. 100) and of equality of opportunity and treatment in respect of employment and occupation (Convention No. 111). Reporting occupational earnings by sex can give an indication of gender gaps in pay (see indicator 12a); equality of opportunity can be proxied by two different indicators: occupational segregation by sex (indicator 19) or the exclusion of women from high-status occupations (indicator 19a). Finally, there are as yet little data on the distribution of unpaid care work between the two sexes. Women’s ability to enter the labour market is contingent on their domestic care responsibilities, and in every aspect of decent work this limits their choices. 21

19 ILO: Decent work, 1999, op. cit.

20 Unfortunately, however, data availability will limit the extent to which male-female differences can be measured and analysed in practice. The fatal injury indicator provides an example of limited data on female-male differences. Only four developing countries have data on female and male fatality rates in LABORSTA. Even in industrialized countries, only 54 per cent of countries that report a fatal injury rate do so separately for women and men. Countries should therefore be firmly encouraged to develop statistics that are disaggregated by sex.

21 Time use surveys are one possible tool to measure the distribution of unpaid work between the two sexes.

32 TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2

87. In the template on rights at work and the legal framework for work (see appendix table 4), two aspects have a particular relevance for gender: (i) anti-discrimination laws based on the sex of workers reflect how far national legislation and legal practice eliminate gender discrimination in respect of employment and occupation; and (ii) provisions for paid maternity leave that meet a special need of women workers. The inclusion of a similar indicator for paternity leave (and parental leave that can be taken by both women and men) was considered, but the idea was discarded due to the rudimentary nature of the available data. 22 It is also noteworthy that the suggested template does not contain any information about childcare arrangements that facilitate women’s employment. Also missing, for example, are national laws that affect women’s opportunity for entrepreneurship, such as laws that restrict women’s access to credit and restrictions on women’s rights to own land, businesses and bank accounts. This probably implies that further thought is required on how better to reflect gender issues. It is also open to debate how feasible it would be to provide separate estimates for the coverage of female and male workers, both in law and in practice.

88. Major point for debate and guidance: How gender sensitive are the suggested statistical indicators and the template on rights at work and the legal framework for decent work, and how can the proposals be further improved?

22 TRAVAIL is expanding data collection on paternity and parental leave, which should make the inclusion of the indicator feasible in the future.

TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2 33

Part IV

Conclusions and a way forward

89. This paper has been concerned with the measurement of decent work and, more specifically, how progress towards decent work can be monitored at the country level. It began by discussing which implications could be drawn from the nature of the Decent Work Agenda for the measurement of decent work, and emphasized that rights at work are relevant to all aspects of the Decent Work Agenda. On the basis of this discussion, it concluded that two types of information are needed to monitor progress towards decent work at the country level: statistical indicators and information on rights at work and the legal framework for decent work.

90. The paper proceeded by taking stock of several existing suggestions for decent work indicators, and discussed different indicators for the consideration of the Tripartite Meeting of Experts. Furthermore, a possible template for information on rights at work and the legal framework for decent work was presented. The suggestions were driven by the goal to keep the framework parsimonious, and yet reflect the full spectrum of the Decent Work Agenda. They can be seen as a compromise between ambition and what is feasible in the short run.

91. The recommendations made by the Tripartite Meeting of Experts will be conveyed to the 18th ICLS (Geneva, 24 November–5 December 2008). The Office will also use them to amend the set of statistical decent work indicators and refine the template for information on rights at work and the legal framework for decent work. The revised framework will then be used to compile decent work country profiles for at least two pilot countries in order to gain insights into the practical feasibility and meaningfulness of the measurement framework. The draft country profiles will be reviewed by constituents.

92. The Office will report to the Governing Body in November 2008 on the Experts’ meeting and, following country testing, will review progress made and request guidance on the future work of the Office in November 2009.

93. At this stage, three aspects appear to be of particular importance.

(i) First, how the Office should proceed with the compilation of decent work country profiles, and what goals it should set itself in terms of country coverage and the updating of country profiles. One goal could be to cover all member States by 2015 with intermediate objectives of say 60 per cent by 2011 and 80 per cent by 2013.

(ii) Second, how the Office can bridge the measurement gaps identified in this paper through a systematic investment into better data compilation and into indicator development.

(iii) Third, how the Office can assist member States to build capacity at the national level to strengthen national statistical systems and to reinforce analytical capacity to translate statistics into quality analysis that is relevant for, and supportive of, the policy dialogue. The compilation of Decent Work Country Profiles is likely to highlight gaps in information and provoke demands for ILO assistance to help fill the gaps. In a dynamic process in which the ILO identifies the desirable and endeavours to set in motion a process to move from the currently feasible towards the desirable, it will be necessary to establish a means of expanding data collection. 1

1 This is particularly relevant for least developed countries, many of which are in Africa.

34 TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2

94. Such a focus on the measurement of decent work could make a significant contribution towards the implementation of the ILO Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization through the Strategic Policy Framework 2010–15. It would enable the ILO’s constituents and the Office to:

(i) better benchmark, monitor and evaluate progress towards decent work;

(ii) identify cases of best practice and to extract policy lessons; and

(iii) critically evaluate the ILO’s contribution to the attainment of decent work for women and men around the world.

TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2 35

Appe

ndix

tabl

e 1.

Over

view

of p

revio

us co

mpi

latio

ns o

f sta

tistic

al de

cent

wor

k ind

icato

rs

Co

mpi

latio

ns o

f dec

ent w

ork i

ndica

tors

and

relat

ed in

dica

tor l

ists

Subs

tant

ive el

emen

t of t

he D

ecen

t Wor

k Age

nda a

nd

indi

cato

r (♦

deno

tes co

ncep

tually

relat

ed in

dicato

r)

1. Re

port

to th

e 17

th IC

LS

2.

RO A

sia an

d th

e Pac

ific

3.

RO L

atin

Am

erica

an

d th

e Car

ibbe

an

4. RO

Eur

ope

5.

ILO

task

fo

rce (c)

6. MD

G in

dica

tors

7.

Euro

pean

ta

sk fo

rce

Empl

oym

ent o

ppor

tuni

ties

1 La

bour

force

partic

ipatio

n rate

(S)

Ye

s

Yes,

also g

ap by

sex

Yes

Ye

s

No

No

(No)

(a)

2 Em

ploym

ent-t

o-po

pulat

ion ra

tio (S

)

Yes

Ye

s

Yes,

also f

or yo

uth

Ye

s

Yes

Ye

s

(No)

(a)

3 Un

emplo

ymen

t rate

(tota

l) (S)

Yes

Ye

s

Yes

Ye

s

Yes

No

(No)

(a)

3a ♦

Une

mploy

ment

by le

vel o

f edu

catio

n (S)

No

Ye

s

No

No

No

No

(No)

(a)

4 Yo

uth un

emplo

ymen

t rate

(S)

Ye

s

Yes

Ye

s

No

No

No

(N

o) (a

)

4a ♦

Youth

inac

tivity

rate

(S)

No

Yes

Ye

s, sim

ilar

No

No

No

(No)

(a)

4b ♦

Youth

not in

educ

ation

and n

ot in

emplo

ymen

t (S)

No

Ye

s

No

No

Yes

No

(No)

(a)

5 Em

ploym

ent b

y stat

us in

emplo

ymen

t (S)

No

Ye

s

Yes

Ye

s, an

d by t

ype

of co

ntrac

t

Yes

No

(No)

(a)

5a ♦

Shar

e of w

age e

mploy

ment

in

non-

agric

ultur

al em

ploym

ent (

S)

Ye

s

No

No

Yes,

simila

r

No

Ye

s

(No)

(a)

5b ♦

Prop

ortio

n of o

wn-a

ccou

nt an

d con

tributi

ng fa

mily

worke

rs in

total

emplo

ymen

t (S)

No

No

No

No

No

Ye

s

(No)

(a)

6 Inf

orma

l emp

loyme

nt (%

of to

tal em

ploym

ent a

nd

perce

ntage

of no

n-ag

ricult

ural

emplo

ymen

t)

Yes

Ye

s

No

No

Yes

No

(No)

(a)

6a ♦

Emplo

ymen

t in th

e info

rmal

secto

r (S)

No

No

Yes

Ye

s

No

No

(No)

(a)

6b ♦

Num

ber a

nd w

ages

of ca

sual/

daily

wor

kers

(S)

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

(N

o) (a

)

Wor

k tha

t sho

uld

be ab

olish

ed

7 Ch

ildre

n not

in sc

hool

(per

centa

ge by

age)

(S)

Ye

s

Yes

No

Yes

No

No

Inc

lusion

unde

r co

nside

ratio

n

8 Ch

ildre

n [ag

ed 10

–14]

in wa

ge em

ploym

ent o

r se

lf-emp

loyme

nt (p

erce

ntage

by ag

e) (S

)

Yes

Ye

s

No

Ye

s

Yes

No

Inclus

ion un

der

cons

idera

tion

36 TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2

Co

mpi

latio

ns o

f dec

ent w

ork i

ndica

tors

and

relat

ed in

dica

tor l

ists

Subs

tant

ive el

emen

t of t

he D

ecen

t Wor

k Age

nda a

nd

indi

cato

r (♦

deno

tes co

ncep

tually

relat

ed in

dicato

r)

1. Re

port

to th

e 17

th IC

LS

2.

RO A

sia an

d th

e Pac

ific

3.

RO L

atin

Am

erica

an

d th

e Car

ibbe

an

4. RO

Eur

ope

5.

ILO

task

fo

rce (c)

6. MD

G in

dica

tors

7.

Euro

pean

ta

sk fo

rce

Adeq

uate

earn

ings

and

prod

uctiv

e wor

k

9 W

orkin

g poo

r (S)

No

Ye

s

No

No

(but

pove

rty)

Yes

Ye

s

No

10

Low

pay r

ate (p

erce

ntage

of em

ploye

d belo

w on

e half

of

media

n hou

rl y ea

rning

s, or

abso

lute m

inimu

m, w

hiche

ver is

gr

eater

, by s

tatus

in em

ploym

ent)

(S)

Ye

s

No

No

Yes

No

No

Inc

lusion

unde

r co

nside

ratio

n

10a ♦

Rate

of in

adeq

uate

emplo

ymen

t due

to in

suffic

ient

incom

e (S)

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

11

Real

minim

um w

age

No

No

Ye

s

Yes,

as ra

tio to

av

erag

e wag

es

Yes

No

No

12

Aver

age r

eal w

ages

(S)

No

No

No

Yes,

also g

rowt

h ra

te an

d by

gend

er

Ye

s

No

No

12a ♦

Aver

age e

arnin

gs in

selec

ted oc

cupa

tions

(S)

Ye

s

No

No

No (b

ut wa

ge

differ

entia

tion)

No

No

No

12b ♦

Num

ber a

nd w

ages

of ca

sual/

daily

wor

kers

(S)

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

12c ♦

Man

ufactu

ring w

age i

ndex

No

Ye

s

No

No

No

No

No

13

Emplo

yees

with

rece

nt job

train

ing (S

)

Yes

No

No

Ye

s

No

No

No

Dece

nt h

ours

14

Exce

ssive

hour

s (pe

rcenta

ge of

emplo

yed w

ith >

48 us

ual

hour

s per

wee

k and

with

>60

usua

l hou

rs pe

r wee

k) (S

)

Yes

No

(but

hour

band

s)

No

Ye

s

No (b

ut ho

ur

band

s)

No

Inc

lusion

unde

r co

nside

ratio

n

14a ♦

Usu

al ho

urs o

f wor

k (sta

ndar

dized

hour

band

s) (S

)

No

Ye

s

No

No

(but

aver

age

hour

s)

Yes

No

No

14b ♦

Annu

al ho

urs w

orke

d per

perso

n (S)

No

Ye

s

No

No

No

No

No

15

Time-

relat

ed un

dere

mploy

ment

rate

(S)

Ye

s

Yes

Ye

s

No

No

No

No

TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2 37

Co

mpi

latio

ns o

f dec

ent w

ork i

ndica

tors

and

relat

ed in

dica

tor l

ists

Subs

tant

ive el

emen

t of t

he D

ecen

t Wor

k Age

nda a

nd

indi

cato

r (♦

deno

tes co

ncep

tually

relat

ed in

dicato

r)

1. Re

port

to th

e 17

th IC

LS

2.

RO A

sia an

d th

e Pac

ific

3.

RO L

atin

Am

erica

an

d th

e Car

ibbe

an

4. RO

Eur

ope

5.

ILO

task

fo

rce (c)

6. MD

G in

dica

tors

7.

Euro

pean

ta

sk fo

rce

Stab

ility a

nd se

curit

y of w

ork

16

Tenu

re le

ss th

an on

e yea

r (pe

rcenta

ge of

emplo

yed)

(S)

Ye

s

No

No

Yes,

also >

10

year

s

No

No

Yes

17

Temp

orar

y wor

k (pe

rcenta

ge of

emplo

yees

) (S)

Yes

No

No

No

, but

by ty

pe

of co

ntrac

t

No

No

Yes

Com

bini

ng w

ork a

nd fa

mily

life

18

Emplo

ymen

t rate

for w

omen

with

child

ren u

nder

co

mpuls

ory s

choo

l age

, as r

atio t

o emp

loyme

nt ra

te for

all

wome

n age

d 20–

49

Ye

s

No

No

Yes

No

No

Ye

s, sim

ilar

Equa

l opp

ortu

nity

and

treat

men

t in

empl

oym

ent

19

Occu

patio

nal s

egre

gatio

n by s

ex (in

dex a

nd pe

rcenta

ge of

no

n-ag

ricult

ural

wage

emplo

ymen

t in m

ale-d

omina

ted

and f

emale

-dom

inated

occu

patio

ns)

Ye

s

No

No

No

No

No

Inc

lusion

unde

r co

nside

ratio

n

19a ♦

Fema

le sh

are o

f emp

loyme

nt in

mana

geria

l and

ad

minis

trativ

e occ

upati

ons (

perce

ntage

and r

atio r

elativ

e to

female

shar

e of n

on-a

gricu

ltura

l emp

loyme

nt)

Ye

s

No

No

No

No

No

No

19b ♦

Fema

le sh

are i

n emp

loyme

nt

No

Yes,

by IS

CO

class

ificati

on

No

Yes,

by IS

CO

class

ificati

on

Ye

s

No

No

20

Meas

ure o

f disp

ersio

n for

secto

ral d

istrib

ution

of

migr

ant w

orke

rs

No

No

No

No

Ye

s

No

No

Safe

wor

k env

ironm

ent

21

Occu

patio

nal in

jury r

ate, fa

tal

Ye

s

Yes

No

Yes

Ye

s

No

Ye

s

21a

Occu

patio

nal in

jury r

ate, n

on-fa

tal

No

Yes

No

No

No

No

Ye

s

22

Labo

ur in

spec

tion (

inspe

ctors

per 1

00,00

0 emp

loyee

s an

d per

100,0

00 co

vere

d emp

loyee

s)

Yes

No

No

Ye

s

No

No

Inclus

ion un

der

cons

idera

tion

23

Occu

patio

nal in

jury i

nsur

ance

cove

rage

(p

erce

ntage

of em

ploye

es co

vere

d by i

nsur

ance

)

Yes

No

No

Ye

s

No

No

Inclus

ion un

der

cons

idera

tion

38 TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2

Co

mpi

latio

ns o

f dec

ent w

ork i

ndica

tors

and

relat

ed in

dica

tor l

ists

Subs

tant

ive el

emen

t of t

he D

ecen

t Wor

k Age

nda a

nd

indi

cato

r (♦

deno

tes co

ncep

tually

relat

ed in

dicato

r)

1. Re

port

to th

e 17

th IC

LS

2.

RO A

sia an

d th

e Pac

ific

3.

RO L

atin

Am

erica

an

d th

e Car

ibbe

an

4. RO

Eur

ope

5.

ILO

task

fo

rce (c)

6. MD

G in

dica

tors

7.

Euro

pean

ta

sk fo

rce

Socia

l sec

urity

24

Publi

c soc

ial se

curity

expe

nditu

re

(per

centa

ge of

GDP

and p

erce

ntage

of go

vern

ment

expe

nditu

re)

Ye

s

Yes

No

Yes,

also f

or

healt

h car

e

Yes

(% G

DP)

No

Inclus

ion un

der

cons

idera

tion

24a ♦

Publi

c exp

endit

ure o

n nee

ds-b

ased

cash

inco

me su

ppor

t (p

erce

ntage

of G

DP)

Ye

s

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

24b ♦

Bene

ficiar

ies of

cash

inco

me su

ppor

t (pe

rcenta

ge of

po

or) (

S)

Ye

s

No

No

Yes

No

No

No

25

Shar

e of p

opula

tion a

ged 6

5 and

abov

e ben

efitin

g fro

m a

pens

ion (S

)

Yes

No

(see

below

)

No

Ye

s

No

No

No

25a ♦

Socia

l sec

urity

cove

rage

(pen

sion a

nd/or

healt

h) (S

)

No

Ye

s, wa

ge an

d sa

lary e

arne

rs

Yes,

urba

n pop

ulatio

n

No

No

No

Inc

lusion

unde

r co

nside

ratio

n

25b ♦

Shar

e of e

cono

mica

lly ac

tive p

opula

tion c

ontrib

uting

to

a pen

sion f

und (

S)

Ye

s

No

No

Yes

No

No

Inc

lusion

unde

r co

nside

ratio

n

25c ♦

Aver

age m

onthl

y pen

sion (

as pe

rcenta

ge of

me

dian/m

inimu

m ea

rning

s)

Yes

No

No

Ye

s

No

No

Simi

lar un

der

cons

idera

tion

Socia

l dial

ogue

and

work

ers’

repr

esen

tatio

n

26

Union

dens

ity ra

te (S

)

Yes

Ye

s

No

Ye

s

Yes

No

No

27

Numb

er of

enter

prise

s belo

nging

to em

ploye

rs’ or

ganiz

ation

No

Yes

No

Yes

Ye

s

No

No

28

Colle

ctive

wag

e bar

gaini

ng co

vera

ge ra

te

Yes

Ye

s

No

Ye

s

Yes

No

Yes

29

Strik

es an

d loc

kouts

/rates

of da

ys no

t wor

ked

Ye

s

Yes

No

Yes

Ye

s

No

Inc

lusion

unde

r co

nside

ratio

n

30

Free

dom

of as

socia

tion (

ratifi

catio

n C.87

, obs

erva

tions

by

ILO su

pervi

sory

mech

anism

; num

ber a

nd co

ntents

of

comp

laints

; res

trictio

ns on

FoA

)

No

No

No

No

Ye

s, wi

th re

serva

tions

No

No

TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2 39

Co

mpi

latio

ns o

f dec

ent w

ork i

ndica

tors

and

relat

ed in

dica

tor l

ists

Subs

tant

ive el

emen

t of t

he D

ecen

t Wor

k Age

nda a

nd

indi

cato

r (♦

deno

tes co

ncep

tually

relat

ed in

dicato

r)

1. Re

port

to th

e 17

th IC

LS

2.

RO A

sia an

d th

e Pac

ific

3.

RO L

atin

Am

erica

an

d th

e Car

ibbe

an

4. RO

Eur

ope

5.

ILO

task

fo

rce (c)

6. MD

G in

dica

tors

7.

Euro

pean

ta

sk fo

rce

Uncla

ssifi

ed in

dica

tors

31

Estim

ated p

erce

ntage

of w

orkin

g-ag

e pop

ulatio

n who

are

HIV

posit

ive

No

No

No

No

Ye

s

No

No

32

Ratifi

catio

n of IL

O co

re la

bour

stan

dard

s

No

No

Yes,

simila

r

No

Ye

s

No

No

33

Obse

rvatio

ns by

the C

ommi

ttee o

f Exp

erts

No

No

Ye

s

No

Ye

s

No

No

34

Comp

laints

/case

s bro

ught

to lab

our c

ourts

or IL

O

No

Ye

s

No

No

Yes,

to ILO

No

No

Econ

omic

and

socia

l con

text

for d

ecen

t wor

k

E1

Labo

ur pr

oduc

tivity

(GDP

per e

mploy

ed pe

rson,

level

and

grow

th ra

te)

Ye

s (b)

Ye

s

No

Ye

s

No

Ye

s, gr

owth

No

E2

Real

per c

apita

“ear

nings

” (GN

I) (fr

om na

tiona

l acc

ounts

)

No

Ye

s

No

Ye

s, sim

ilar

(GDP

per c

apita

) No

No

No

E3

Incom

e ine

quali

ty (ra

tio to

p 10 p

er ce

nt to

botto

m 10

per

cent,

inco

me or

cons

umpti

on)

Ye

s (b)

No

No

Ye

s

No

No

No

E4

Inflat

ion ra

te (C

PI)

Ye

s (b)

No

No

Ye

s

No

No

No

E5

Emplo

ymen

t by b

ranc

h of e

cono

mic a

ctivit

y/ind

ustry

(a

gricu

lture

, indu

stry,

servi

ces/I

SIC

tabula

tion c

atego

ry)

Ye

s (b)

Ye

s

No

No

No

No

No

E5a ♦

Fema

le sh

are o

f emp

loyme

nt by

indu

stry

(ISIC

tabu

lation

categ

ory)

No

(but

bran

ch b y

se

x)

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

E6

Educ

ation

of ad

ult po

pulat

ion

(adu

lt lite

racy

rate,

adult

seco

ndar

y sch

ool

grad

uatio

n rate

(S)

Ye

s (b)

No

No

Ye

s

No

No

Inclus

ion

unde

r co

nside

ratio

n

E7

Labo

ur sh

are i

n GDP

No

No

No

Ye

s

No

No

No

Notes

: An (

S) in

dicate

s tha

t an i

ndica

tor sh

ould

be re

porte

d sep

arate

ly for

men

and w

omen

in ad

dition

to th

e tota

l. N

umbe

rs 1–

34 an

d E1–

E7 ar

e refe

renc

e num

bers

also u

sed i

n tab

le 2 a

nd A

ppen

dix ta

ble 2.

(a

) Join

t Tas

k For

ce

by th

e UNE

CE, E

uros

tat an

d the

ILO

on th

e Mea

sure

ment

of the

Qua

lity of

Emp

loyme

nt; th

e sco

pe of

mea

sure

ment

thus e

xclud

es ac

cess

to em

ploym

ent o

ppor

tunitie

s and

diffe

rs fro

m the

mea

sure

ment

of de

cent

work.

(b

) Ind

icator

inc

luded

in th

e lon

ger v

ersio

n, pu

blish

ed in

Ank

er et

al. (

2002

), op

. cit.

(c)

Sugg

estio

ns fo

r prio

rity in

dicato

rs ma

de by

the f

our s

ector

s dur

ing th

e wor

k of th

e tas

k for

ce; s

ugge

stion

s by t

he R

O–Ba

ngko

k and

the R

O–Lim

a are

listed

in

colum

ns 2

and 3

.

40 TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2

Appe

ndix

tabl

e 2.

Disc

ussio

n of

stat

istica

l indi

cato

rs an

d su

gges

tions

for i

nclu

sion

as m

ain an

d ad

ditio

nal d

ecen

t wor

k ind

icato

rs

Refe

renc

e num

ber (a

) Po

ssib

le de

cent

wor

k ind

icato

r (S

if ind

icator

shou

ld be

mea

sure

d by s

ex) (b

)

Com

men

ts

Empl

oym

ent o

ppor

tuni

ties

1 – E

Labo

ur fo

rce pa

rticipa

tion r

ate (b

y age

) (S)

(a)

The l

abou

r for

ce pa

rticipa

tion r

ate (L

FPR)

is an

over

all in

dicato

r of th

e lev

el of

labou

r mar

ket a

ctivit

y, an

d its

brea

kdow

n by s

ex an

d age

grou

p give

s a pr

ofile

of ge

nder

and a

ge di

ffere

nces

. (b

) An

incre

ase i

n the

LFPR

show

s tha

t mor

e peo

ple ha

ve en

tered

the l

abou

r for

ce. A

coun

try’s

labou

r for

ce co

nsist

s of tw

o gro

ups:

the em

ploye

d and

the u

nemp

loyed

. An i

ncre

ase i

n the

labo

ur fo

rce ca

n thu

s be d

riven

by m

ore e

mploy

ed pe

rsons

(gen

erall

y sign

als su

cces

sful a

cces

s to e

mploy

ment

oppo

rtunit

ies),

by m

ore u

nemp

loyed

perso

ns (g

ener

ally s

ignals

denie

d acc

ess t

o emp

loyme

nt op

portu

nities

), or

by a

comb

inatio

n the

reof.

It is

thus d

ifficu

lt to m

onito

r pro

gres

s tow

ards

dece

nt wo

rk on

the b

asis

of ch

ange

s in t

he LF

PR.

(c) T

he LF

PR ca

n be c

alcula

ted fr

om th

e emp

loyme

nt-to-

popu

lation

ratio

and t

he un

emplo

ymen

t rate

; it

does

not a

dd an

y new

infor

matio

n if th

e othe

r two

indic

ators

are i

nclud

ed.

(d)

Data

are w

idely

avail

able.

The

gap m

easu

re su

gges

ted by

the R

egion

al Of

fice f

or A

sia an

d Pac

ific

could

be ca

lculat

ed if

data

are r

epor

ted se

para

tely f

or m

en an

d wom

en.

2 – M

Emplo

ymen

t-to-

popu

lation

ratio

(a

ges 1

5–24

, 25–

54 an

d 55–

64, o

r age

s 15+

) (S)

(a)

The e

mploy

ment-

to-po

pulat

ion ra

tio m

easu

res t

he pr

opor

tion o

f the w

orkin

g age

popu

lation

that

is em

ploye

d. It i

s an M

DG in

dicato

r for

Tar

get 1

.B. a

nd ge

nera

lly si

gnals

succ

essfu

l acc

ess t

o em

ploym

ent o

ppor

tunitie

s.

(b)

Howe

ver,

a high

er va

lue do

es no

t nec

essa

rily in

dicate

an ex

pans

ion of

emplo

ymen

t opp

ortun

ities,

but

can a

lso be

drive

n by s

upply

facto

rs (e

.g. gr

eater

econ

omic

hard

ship

can f

orce

peop

le to

acce

pt ina

dequ

ate em

ploym

ent o

ppor

tunitie

s tha

t they

wou

ld ha

ve pr

eviou

sly tu

rned

down

). Th

e ind

icator

co

ntains

no in

forma

tion a

bout

the qu

ality

of em

ploym

ent o

ppor

tunitie

s, an

d the

refor

e nee

ds to

be re

ad

in co

njunc

tion w

ith ot

her d

ecen

t wor

k ind

icator

s. (c)

It is

diffic

ult to

deter

mine

wha

t a “d

esira

ble” le

vel o

f the i

ndica

tor w

ould

be. T

he D

ecen

t Wor

k Age

nda

does

not im

ply th

at all

peop

le of

worki

ng ag

e sho

uld w

ork,

but m

erely

that

those

who

wan

t to w

ork

shou

ld ha

ve ac

cess

to em

ploym

ent o

ppor

tunitie

s. Si

nce s

ome p

eople

will

choo

se no

t to w

ork,

it can

not

be th

e tar

get o

f poli

cy to

reac

h an e

mploy

ment-

to-po

pulat

ion ra

tio of

100 p

er ce

nt. B

eyon

d a ce

rtain

thres

hold,

a fur

ther in

creas

e nee

d not

signa

l pro

gres

s tow

ards

dece

nt wo

rk.

(d)

The u

se of

a co

mmon

age g

roup

incre

ases

comp

arab

ility.

(e)

Data

are w

idely

avail

able

from

natio

nal s

tatist

ical o

ffices

, LAB

ORST

A, th

e OEC

D an

d the

Glob

al Em

ploym

ent T

rend

s Esti

matio

n Mod

el.

TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2 41

Refe

renc

e num

ber (a

) Po

ssib

le de

cent

wor

k ind

icato

r (S

if ind

icator

shou

ld be

mea

sure

d by s

ex) (b

)

Com

men

ts

3 – M

Unem

ploym

ent r

ate (t

otal) (

S)

(a

) Th

e une

mploy

ment

rate

meas

ures

the n

umbe

r of u

nemp

loyed

as a

perce

ntage

of th

e lab

our f

orce

, un

emplo

yed b

eing p

erso

ns w

ithou

t wor

k, no

t eve

n for

one h

our d

uring

the r

efere

nce p

eriod

, cur

rentl

y av

ailab

le for

wor

k and

activ

ely se

eking

wor

k. It m

easu

res d

enied

acce

ss to

emplo

ymen

t opp

ortun

ities,

and t

hus a

decli

ne in

the u

nemp

loyme

nt ra

te ge

nera

lly si

gnals

prog

ress

towa

rds d

ecen

t wor

k.

(b)

In mo

st ind

ustria

lized

coun

tries,

the un

emplo

ymen

t rate

is re

gard

ed as

an im

porta

nt ind

icator

of la

bour

ma

rket p

erfor

manc

e. In

low- a

nd m

iddle-

incom

e cou

ntries

, how

ever

, the s

ignific

ance

and m

eanin

g of

the un

emplo

ymen

t rate

is m

uch m

ore l

imite

d, as

the m

ajority

of w

orke

rs – i

n the

abse

nce o

f un

emplo

ymen

t insu

ranc

e or o

ther p

ublic

relie

f sch

emes

– ca

nnot

survi

ve le

ngthy

spell

s of

unem

ploym

ent a

nd m

ust e

ngag

e in s

ome f

orm

of ec

onom

ic ac

tivity

, how

ever

insig

nifica

nt or

ina

dequ

ate. P

arad

oxica

lly, a

decli

ne in

the u

nemp

loyme

nt ra

te ca

n be c

ause

d by a

wor

senin

g of th

e so

cio-e

cono

mic e

nviro

nmen

t, for

cing m

ore p

eople

to ta

ke up

inad

equa

te em

ploym

ent o

ppor

tunitie

s. Th

e ind

icator

ther

efore

need

s to b

e rea

d in c

onjun

ction

with

othe

r dec

ent w

ork i

ndica

tors a

nd w

ith

conte

xt ind

icator

s. Po

ssibl

e new

mea

sure

s of la

bour

unde

rutili

zatio

n cou

ld in

due c

ourse

prov

ide a

new

way o

f bett

er m

easu

ring l

abou

r mar

ket p

erfor

manc

e. (c)

Data

wide

ly av

ailab

le fro

m na

tiona

l stat

istica

l offic

es an

d sou

rces;

comp

arab

ility i

ssue

s. (d

) If n

o data

with

natio

nal c

over

age a

re av

ailab

le, un

emplo

ymen

t in ur

ban a

reas

can s

erve

as a

subs

titute.

3a –

A

Unem

ploym

ent b

y lev

el of

educ

ation

(S)

(a

) Ind

icator

can i

denti

fy wh

ich gr

oups

are p

artic

ularly

affec

ted by

unem

ploym

ent, a

nd be

used

for p

olicy

for

mulat

ion (e

spec

ially

for sk

ills po

licies

).

(b)

Comp

aring

unem

ploym

ent b

etwee

n wom

en an

d men

of th

e sam

e lev

el of

educ

ation

al att

ainme

nt ca

n he

lp to

identi

fy sy

stema

tic ge

nder

disc

rimina

tion.

(c) I

t is no

t clea

r whic

h cha

nge i

n the

distr

ibutio

n of u

nemp

loyme

nt by

leve

l of e

duca

tion w

ould

signa

l pr

ogre

ss to

ward

s dec

ent w

ork.

4 – M

Youth

unem

ploym

ent r

ate

(age

s 15–

24) (

S)

(a

) Th

e you

th un

emplo

ymen

t rate

mea

sure

s the

numb

er of

unem

ploye

d as a

perce

ntage

of th

e lab

our

force

in th

e age

categ

ory 1

5–24

year

s. It i

s a ta

rgete

d ind

icator

for d

enied

acce

ss to

emplo

ymen

t op

portu

nities

, as y

outh

who e

nter t

he la

bour

mar

ket fo

r the

first

time o

ften f

ace a

partic

ular r

isk of

un

emplo

ymen

t. (b

) If n

o data

with

natio

nal c

over

age a

re av

ailab

le, yo

uth un

emplo

ymen

t in ur

ban a

reas

can s

erve

as a

subs

titute.

4a –

E

Youth

inac

tivity

rate

(S)

(a

) Th

e you

th ina

ctivit

y rate

mea

sure

s how

man

y per

sons

aged

15–2

4 yea

rs ar

e outs

ide th

e lab

our f

orce

; it

can b

e calc

ulated

as 1

minu

s LFP

R for

youth

. Ina

ctive

youth

conta

ins, fo

r exa

mple,

disc

oura

ged

worke

rs (w

ho ha

ve gi

ven u

p loo

king f

or a

job an

d are

thus

no lo

nger

cons

idere

d une

mploy

ed an

d tho

se

in ed

ucati

on (b

ut no

t in em

ploym

ent).

(b

) Un

emplo

yed y

outh

are n

ot pa

rt of

inacti

ve yo

uth, b

ut be

long t

o the

labo

ur fo

rce. T

he in

dicato

r is

there

fore i

ll-suit

ed to

mon

itor d

enied

acce

ss to

emplo

ymen

t opp

ortun

ities.

(c) I

t is un

clear

wha

t a ch

ange

in th

e ina

ctivit

y rate

impli

es fo

r pro

gres

s tow

ards

dece

nt wo

rk: if

it is d

riven

by

a gr

eater

numb

er of

disc

oura

ged w

orke

rs, a

rise w

ould

be ne

gativ

e; if i

t is du

e to i

ncre

ased

scho

ol or

un

iversi

ty att

enda

nce,

it wou

ld alm

ost a

lway

s be p

ositiv

e as i

t impr

oves

huma

n cap

ital.

42 TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2

Refe

renc

e num

ber (a

) Po

ssib

le de

cent

wor

k ind

icato

r (S

if ind

icator

shou

ld be

mea

sure

d by s

ex) (b

)

Com

men

ts

4b –

A

Youth

not in

educ

ation

and n

ot in

emplo

ymen

t (S)

(a)

This

indica

tor ca

pture

s two

grou

ps: (

i) you

th wh

o are

econ

omica

lly in

activ

e for

reas

ons o

ther t

han

partic

ipatio

n in e

duca

tion;

and (

ii) un

emplo

yed y

outh.

Com

pare

d to t

he yo

uth in

activ

ity ra

te, it

is a b

etter

ind

icator

for t

he pr

opor

tion o

f you

th tha

t rem

ains “

idle”

, and

bette

r pro

xies d

enied

acce

ss to

em

ploym

ent o

ppor

tunitie

s.

5 – A

Emplo

ymen

t by s

tatus

in em

ploym

ent (

S)

(a

) Pr

ovide

s info

rmati

on ab

out th

e dist

ributi

on of

emplo

ymen

t und

er th

e Inte

rnati

onal

Clas

sifica

tion b

y St

atus i

n Emp

loyme

nt (IC

SE).

Syste

matic

diffe

renc

es be

twee

n ind

ustria

lized

coun

tries (

with

a high

sh

are o

f emp

loyee

s (an

d dev

elopin

g cou

ntries

(with

a hig

h sha

re of

own-

acco

unt w

orke

rs an

d co

ntribu

ting f

amily

wor

kers

are w

ell do

cume

nted)

. (b

) To

conc

lude w

hethe

r a gi

ven c

hang

e in t

he di

stribu

tion o

f emp

loyme

nt by

statu

s in e

mploy

ment

signa

ls pr

ogre

ss to

ward

s dec

ent w

ork,

assu

mptio

ns ab

out s

ystem

atic d

iffere

nces

in jo

b qua

lity ne

ed to

be

made

. The

se ca

n be p

roble

matic

, as a

give

n cate

gory

can c

ontai

n job

s of v

ery d

iffere

nt qu

ality.

For

ex

ample

, the c

atego

ry “e

mploy

ees”

conta

ins bo

th pa

id em

ploye

es w

ith a

secu

re jo

b-ho

lding

and d

ay

labou

rers

and c

asua

l wor

kers,

who

are o

ften a

mong

the m

ost v

ulner

able

worke

rs.

(c) D

ata w

idely

avail

able.

5a –

A

Shar

e of w

age e

mploy

ment

in no

n-ag

ricult

ural

emplo

ymen

t (S)

(a)

MDG

indica

tor fo

r Goa

l 3 (P

romo

te ge

nder

equa

lity an

d emp

ower

wom

en) u

ses a

varia

nt of

this

indica

tor, n

amely

“Sha

re of

wom

en in

wag

e emp

loyme

nt in

the no

n-ag

ricult

ural

secto

r”.

(b)

The i

ndica

tor w

as su

gges

ted in

the G

ener

al Re

port

to the

17th

ICLS

(c); th

e rati

onale

was

that

non-

agric

ultur

al wa

ge or

salar

y emp

loyme

nt is

the ty

pe of

emplo

ymen

t that

many

wor

kers

seek

. (c)

The

use o

f wag

e emp

loyme

nt as

a pr

oxy f

or de

sirab

le em

ploym

ent o

ppor

tunitie

s is q

uesti

onab

le: w

age

emplo

ymen

t inclu

des c

asua

l/dail

y wor

kers,

who

are o

ne of

the m

ost v

ulner

able

grou

ps, a

nd ex

clude

s em

ploye

rs, w

ho of

ten ha

ve “g

ood”

jobs

. (d

) Re

feren

ce gr

oup i

s tota

l non

-agr

icultu

ral e

mploy

ment;

the e

xclus

ion of

wor

kers

in ag

ricult

ure f

rom

the

calcu

lation

of th

e ind

icator

contr

adict

s the

princ

iple t

hat d

ecen

t wor

k ind

icator

s sho

uld be

base

d on d

ata

for al

l wor

kers.

5b –

M

Prop

ortio

n of o

wn-a

ccou

nt an

d con

tributi

ng fa

mily

worke

rs in

total

emplo

ymen

t (S)

(a)

MDG

indica

tor 1.

7; ca

n be c

alcula

ted fr

om in

dicato

r No.

5 abo

ve.

(b)

Has b

een s

ugge

sted a

s a pr

oxy m

easu

re fo

r “vu

lnera

ble em

ploym

ent”.

How

ever

, it ex

clude

s a

partic

ularly

vulne

rable

grou

p of w

orke

rs, na

mely

day l

abou

rers

and c

asua

l wor

kers

(who

are g

roup

ed

as em

ploye

es).

TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2 43

Refe

renc

e num

ber (a

) Po

ssib

le de

cent

wor

k ind

icato

r (S

if ind

icator

shou

ld be

mea

sure

d by s

ex) (b

)

Com

men

ts

6 – M

Infor

mal e

mploy

ment

(per

centa

ge of

total

emplo

ymen

t and

pe

rcenta

ge of

non-

agric

ultur

al em

ploym

ent)

(S)

(a

) Th

e job

-bas

ed co

ncep

t of in

forma

lity us

es ch

arac

terist

ics of

the j

ob-h

olding

to cl

assif

y wor

kers

into

infor

mal a

nd fo

rmal

worke

rs (se

e ICL

S, 20

03) (c)

. (b

) Inf

orma

l wor

kers

are t

hose

who

lack

the r

ights

and t

he pr

otecti

on th

at ar

e ass

ociat

ed w

ith a

forma

l em

ploym

ent r

elatio

nship

(reg

ardle

ss of

whe

ther t

hey w

ork i

n a fo

rmal

secto

r ente

rpris

e or in

an in

forma

l se

ctor e

nterp

rise)

. The

conc

ept is

appli

cable

to de

velop

ing an

d ind

ustria

lized

coun

tries;

it can

be us

ed

to mo

nitor

incre

asing

infor

maliz

ation

of em

ploym

ent r

elatio

nship

s in i

ndus

trializ

ed co

untrie

s. (c)

The

focu

s on t

he si

tuatio

n of th

e ind

ividu

al wo

rker m

akes

it pa

rticula

rly su

itable

as a

dece

nt wo

rk ind

icator

; a de

cline

in in

forma

l emp

loyme

nt as

a sh

are o

f total

emplo

ymen

t is a

nece

ssar

y (tho

ugh n

ot su

fficien

t) co

nditio

n for

prog

ress

towa

rds d

ecen

t wor

k.

(d)

In the

shor

t-to-

mediu

m ter

m, th

e con

sisten

t coll

ectio

n of d

ata ba

sed o

n the

job-

base

d con

cept

of inf

orma

lity (I

CLS,

2003

) (c) ne

eds t

o be e

xpan

ded t

hrou

gh co

llabo

ratio

n betw

een t

he IL

O an

d nati

onal

statis

tical

office

s. W

here

data

are n

ot ye

t ava

ilable

, othe

r nati

onal

statis

tics (

that a

re of

ten ba

sed o

n dif

feren

t defi

nition

s of th

e info

rmal

secto

r) ca

n be u

sed a

s an i

nterim

mea

sure

to co

mpar

e cha

nges

over

tim

e.

6a –

E

♦

Emplo

ymen

t in th

e info

rmal

secto

r (S)

(a)

Enter

prise

-bas

ed co

ncep

t of in

forma

lity; u

ses c

hara

cteris

tics o

f the p

rodu

ction

unit t

o gro

up w

orke

rs int

o thr

ee ca

tegor

ies (f

orma

l sec

tor en

terpr

ises,

infor

mal s

ector

enter

prise

s and

hous

ehold

prod

uctio

n un

its).

(b)

The i

ndica

tor do

es no

t cap

ture t

he in

forma

lizati

on of

emplo

ymen

t rela

tions

hips.

This

shor

tcomi

ng is

pa

rticula

rly re

levan

t for in

dustr

ialize

d cou

ntries

whe

re th

e vas

t majo

rity of

emplo

ymen

t is in

form

al se

ctor e

nterp

rises

. (c)

Com

para

bility

prob

lems a

rise f

rom

the tr

eatm

ent o

f agr

icultu

re th

at is

some

times

exclu

ded f

rom

the

infor

mal s

ector

, and

some

times

inclu

ded.

This

has a

subs

tantia

l impa

ct in

deve

loping

coun

tries w

ith a

large

agric

ultur

al se

ctor.

(d)

The f

ocus

on th

e pro

ducti

on un

it, ra

ther t

han o

n the

situa

tion o

f wor

kers,

mak

es it

less s

uitab

le to

monit

or pr

ogre

ss to

ward

s dec

ent w

ork t

han t

he jo

b-ba

sed c

once

pt.

6b –

A

♦

Num

ber a

nd w

ages

of ca

sual/

daily

wor

kers

(S)

(a

) Ca

sual/

daily

wor

kers

are u

suall

y a su

bgro

up of

infor

mal w

orke

rs as

they

norm

ally l

ack a

t leas

t one

of

the fo

llowi

ng: (

i) emp

loyer

-fund

ed co

ntribu

tions

to a

pens

ion fu

nd; (

ii) pa

id an

nual

leave

; or (

iii) pa

id sic

k lea

ve.

Othe

rs: N

ot me

asur

ed

Long

-term

unem

ploym

ent; i

nvolu

ntary

part-

time w

ork;

exten

t of

part-

time w

ork.

(a

) Ad

dition

al ind

icator

s tha

t cou

ld be

used

to m

easu

re em

ploym

ent o

ppor

tunitie

s; da

ta av

ailab

ility i

ssue

s.

Wor

k tha

t sho

uld

be ab

olish

ed

7 – C

or E

Child

ren n

ot in

scho

ol (p

erce

ntage

by ag

e) (S

)

(a)

Data

wide

ly av

ailab

le; fr

eque

ntly u

sed a

s a pr

oxy f

or th

e exte

nt of

child

labo

ur. H

owev

er, th

e ind

icator

is

a poo

r pro

xy of

child

labo

ur as

man

y chil

dren

comb

ine w

ork w

ith sc

hool

atten

danc

e, an

d man

y chil

dren

wh

o do n

ot att

end s

choo

l are

not in

emplo

ymen

t. Mor

eove

r, pa

ttern

s var

y betw

een r

egion

s. As

data

on

child

labo

ur ha

ve im

prov

ed, th

e use

of th

e pro

xy m

easu

re “c

hildr

en no

t in sc

hool”

has b

ecom

e dis

pens

able.

44 TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2

Refe

renc

e num

ber (a

) Po

ssib

le de

cent

wor

k ind

icato

r (S

if ind

icator

shou

ld be

mea

sure

d by s

ex) (b

)

Com

men

ts

(b)

The p

erce

ntage

of ch

ildre

n not

atten

ding s

choo

l can

also

be us

ed as

an in

dicato

r in its

own r

ight. I

t ca

pture

s an i

mpor

tant a

spec

t of c

hild w

elfar

e (a g

oal e

ntrus

ted to

the I

LO in

the D

eclar

ation

of

Phila

delph

ia an

d hum

an ca

pital

forma

tion f

or a

coun

try’s

futur

e lab

our f

orce

. As t

his, it

could

be

includ

ed as

a co

ntext

indica

tor.

8 – M

Child

ren i

n wag

e emp

loyme

nt or

self-e

mploy

ment

(S)

(a

) Da

ta on

child

ren i

n wag

e emp

loyme

nt or

self-e

mploy

ment

are i

ncre

asing

ly av

ailab

le fro

m na

tiona

l sta

tistic

al off

ices a

nd fr

om th

e ILO

’s St

atisti

cal In

forma

tion a

nd M

onito

ring P

rogr

amme

on C

hild L

abou

r (S

IMPO

C); d

ata co

llecti

on is

being

expa

nded

. (b

) Us

e of a

comm

on ag

e gro

up in

creas

es co

mpar

abilit

y; su

gges

tions

are 5

–14 y

ears

(cove

red b

y chil

d lab

our s

urve

ys) a

nd 10

–14 y

ears

(also

cove

red b

y som

e chil

d lab

our m

odule

s in l

abou

r for

ce su

rveys

). (c)

Wag

e emp

loyme

nt or

self-e

mploy

ment

cove

rs all

form

s of e

mploy

ment

and i

ndica

tor na

me co

uld be

sim

plifie

d to “

child

ren i

n emp

loyme

nt”. H

owev

er, th

e ter

m em

ploym

ent is

often

misu

nder

stood

to co

ver

only

wage

emplo

ymen

t and

ther

efore

the e

xplic

it refe

renc

e to s

elf-e

mploy

ment

may b

e war

rante

d.

Othe

rs: A

Haza

rdou

s chil

d lab

our (

S)

(a

) Ha

zard

ous c

hild l

abou

r and

othe

r wor

st for

ms of

child

labo

ur ar

e the

focu

s of IL

O C.

182.

Regio

nal a

nd

world

estim

ates a

re av

ailab

le; da

ta co

llecti

on is

being

expa

nded

. (b

) Fo

r labo

ur st

atisti

cs pu

rpos

es, a

disti

nctio

n can

be dr

awn b

etwee

n “Ha

zard

ous c

hild l

abou

r” an

d “Ot

her

worst

form

s of c

hild l

abou

r”, ba

sed o

n the

prev

ailing

situa

tion i

n reg

ard t

o data

colle

ction

and

class

ificati

on;

(c) “

Haza

rdou

s chil

d lab

our”

can b

e use

d as a

n add

itiona

l indic

ator s

ince i

t rela

tes to

child

ren i

n the

5–

17 ye

ars r

ange

and t

he da

ta ma

y be c

ollec

ted an

d clas

sified

with

reas

onab

le ro

bustn

ess.

Othe

rs: F

Othe

r wor

st for

ms of

child

labo

ur (S

)

(a)

See c

omme

nt ab

ove;

“othe

r wor

st for

ms of

child

labo

ur” is

a ca

ndida

te for

futur

e inc

lusion

whe

n bett

er

natio

nal-le

vel e

stima

tion m

ethod

ologie

s bec

ome a

vaila

ble.

Othe

rs: F

Force

d lab

our (

S)

(a

) On

ly re

giona

l and

wor

ld es

timate

s of r

epor

ted ca

ses a

vaila

ble, b

ut no

relia

ble na

tiona

l data

. How

ever

, da

ta co

llecti

on te

chniq

ues a

re cu

rrentl

y und

er de

velop

ment,

whic

h may

mak

e the

inclu

sion o

f the

indica

tor fe

asibl

e in t

he fu

ture.

A pa

rticula

r pro

blem

will b

e to c

onstr

uct r

eliab

le tim

e ser

ies to

disti

nguis

h ch

ange

s in t

he in

dicato

r tha

t res

ult fr

om th

e imp

rove

ment

of me

asur

emen

t tech

nique

s fro

m tho

se du

e to

chan

ges i

n the

actua

l exte

nt of

force

d lab

our.

TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2 45

Refe

renc

e num

ber (a

) Po

ssib

le de

cent

wor

k ind

icato

r (S

if ind

icator

shou

ld be

mea

sure

d by s

ex) (b

)

Com

men

ts

Adeq

uate

earn

ings

and

prod

uctiv

e wor

k

9 – M

Wor

king p

oor (

S)

(a

) MD

G ind

icator

for T

arge

t 1.B

. The

curre

nt ind

icator

is ba

sed o

n abs

olute

pove

rty (p

over

ty lin

e 1 an

d 2

PPP

US$ p

er da

y) an

d data

are o

nly av

ailab

le for

deve

loping

coun

tries.

Cove

rage

could

be ex

pand

ed

to ind

ustria

lized

coun

tries b

y inc

luding

relat

ive po

verty

(i.e.

relat

ive to

the s

tanda

rd of

living

in a

coun

try).

(b

) In

the sh

ort te

rm, th

e data

gap f

or in

dustr

ialize

d cou

ntries

can b

e mitig

ated b

y inc

luding

low

pay

incide

nce a

s an i

ndica

tor (h

ere,

data

are w

idely

avail

able

for in

dustr

ialize

d cou

ntries

). (c)

The

way

that

the IL

O es

timate

s the

numb

er of

wor

king p

oor in

a co

untry

caus

es th

e per

centa

ge of

wo

rkers

who a

re w

orkin

g poo

r to b

e alm

ost p

erfec

tly co

rrelat

ed w

ith th

e Wor

ld Ba

nk po

verty

rate.

No

nethe

less,

the w

orkin

g poo

r is a

usefu

l con

cept

for fo

cusin

g pub

lic at

tentio

n on t

he im

porta

nce o

f low

earn

ings i

n low

-inco

me an

d low

er m

iddle-

incom

e cou

ntries

.

10 –

M

Low

pay r

ate (p

erce

ntage

of em

ploye

d belo

w on

e half

of m

edian

ho

urly

earn

ings,

or ab

solut

e mini

mum,

whic

heve

r is gr

eater

, by

status

in em

ploym

ent)

(S)

(a

) Fo

r man

y peo

ple, th

e mos

t impo

rtant

char

acter

istic

of wo

rk is

pay,

and t

he pr

incipl

e of a

n “ad

equa

te liv

ing w

age”

is m

entio

ned i

n the

Pre

amble

to th

e ILO

Con

stitut

ion. In

the p

rese

nt co

ntext,

low

pay r

ate

is de

fined

as th

e per

centa

ge of

the e

mploy

ed po

pulat

ion w

hose

aver

age h

ourly

earn

ings i

s belo

w ha

lf of

the m

edian

of th

e dist

ributi

on or

an ab

solut

e mini

mum,

whic

heve

r is gr

eater

. (b

) In

many

deve

loping

coun

tries,

the th

resh

old of

one h

alf of

med

ian ho

urly

earn

ings t

o dete

rmine

“low

pay”

would

be m

islea

ding;

it is t

hus n

eces

sary

to inc

lude t

he “a

bsolu

te mi

nimum

” as a

furth

er cr

iterio

n to

deter

mine

whe

ther p

ay is

low.

A m

ethod

ology

to es

timate

living

wag

es is

foun

d in A

nker

(200

5) (d

) ; cu

rrentl

y not

enou

gh da

ta po

ints.

(c) D

ata on

low

pay (

hour

ly ea

rning

s belo

w on

e half

of m

edian

) are

curre

ntly w

idely

avail

able

for

indus

trializ

ed co

untrie

s; it i

s a co

mmon

thre

shold

to id

entify

wag

es th

at ar

e low

relat

ive to

typic

al wa

ges

in ind

ustria

lized

coun

tries.

In the

shor

t term

, the i

ndica

tor is

usefu

l to co

mplem

ent th

e ind

icator

“wor

king

poor

” whe

re da

ta ar

e miss

ing fo

r indu

strial

ized c

ountr

ies.

(d)

The d

efinit

ion of

“low”

as be

low on

e half

of m

edian

hour

ly wa

ges i

s, ho

weve

r, oft

en be

low th

e abs

olute

minim

um in

deve

loping

coun

tries.

It wou

ld thu

s be

misle

ading

to us

e this

thre

shold

, and

the I

LO ha

s the

refor

e und

ertak

en so

me ef

forts

to de

velop

a me

thodo

logy f

or m

easu

ring l

iving

wag

es th

at ar

e co

mpar

able

acro

ss co

untrie

s. Al

thoug

h cou

ntry c

over

age i

s still

low

and f

urthe

r wor

k will

be ne

eded

, thi

s ope

ns up

the p

ossib

ility o

f mea

surin

g the

numb

er of

wor

kers

in a c

ountr

y with

unac

cepta

bly lo

w pa

y in a

cons

isten

t way

.

10a –

E

♦

Rate

of in

adeq

uate

emplo

ymen

t due

to in

suffic

ient in

come

(S)

(a

) Th

e rate

of in

come

-relat

ed in

adeq

uate

emplo

ymen

t inclu

des “

all pe

rsons

in em

ploym

ent w

ho …

wan

ted

or so

ught

to ch

ange

their

curre

nt wo

rk sit

uatio

n in o

rder

to in

creas

e inc

ome …

, and

wer

e ava

ilable

to

do so

.” In

addit

ion, a

n inc

ome t

hres

hold

may a

pply

(ICLS

, 199

8) (e

) . (b

) Th

e con

cept

is the

refor

e mor

e res

trictiv

e tha

n low

pay s

ince e

xclud

es ce

rtain

grou

ps w

ith lo

w pa

y fro

m the

scop

e of it

s defi

nition

. The

refor

e, the

conc

eptua

lly re

lated

indic

ator a

bove

is be

tter s

uited

to

meas

ure a

dequ

ate ea

rning

s.

46 TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2

Refe

renc

e num

ber (a

) Po

ssib

le de

cent

wor

k ind

icato

r (S

if ind

icator

shou

ld be

mea

sure

d by s

ex) (b

)

Com

men

ts

11 –

L

Real

minim

um w

age

(a

) Th

e exis

tence

of m

ultipl

e mini

mum

wage

leve

ls an

d the

exclu

sion o

f cer

tain g

roup

s mak

e the

real

minim

um w

age t

oo co

mplex

for a

stati

stica

l indic

ator;

it can

be in

clude

d und

er th

e leg

al fra

mewo

rk inf

orma

tion.

12 –

E

Av

erag

e rea

l wag

es (S

)

(a)

Avail

able

data

often

cove

r emp

loyee

s only

sinc

e rea

l inco

mes a

re di

fficult

to es

timate

for o

wn-a

ccou

nt wo

rkers.

(b

) Da

ta av

ailab

ility p

oor f

or m

any d

evelo

ping c

ountr

ies.

12a –

A

♦

Aver

age e

arnin

gs in

selec

ted oc

cupa

tions

(S)

(a

) Oc

cupa

tiona

l ear

nings

are u

seful

for c

ompa

ring w

age t

rend

s, an

d wag

e diffe

renti

als be

twee

n diffe

rent

categ

ories

of w

orke

rs, e.

g. be

twee

n men

and w

omen

in th

e sam

e occ

upati

ons,

betw

een w

orke

rs wi

th dif

feren

t skil

l-leve

l occ

upati

ons,

or be

twee

n occ

upati

ons w

ith di

ffere

nt de

gree

s of e

xpos

ure t

o pre

ssur

es

of int

erna

tiona

l trad

e. De

cision

on re

pres

entat

ive oc

cupa

tiona

l gro

ups n

eeds

to be

mad

e. (b

) Da

ta ar

e ava

ilable

from

the I

LO’s

Octob

er In

quiry

for m

any c

ountr

ies; d

ata qu

ality

issue

s.

12b –

A

♦

Num

ber a

nd w

ages

of ca

sual/

daily

wor

kers

(S)

(a

) Co

vers

only

a sub

grou

p of a

ll wor

kers;

contr

adict

s the

princ

iple t

hat d

ecen

t wor

k ind

icator

s sho

uld be

ba

sed o

n data

for a

ll wor

kers.

How

ever

, cas

ual/d

aily w

orke

rs ar

e amo

ng th

e mos

t vuln

erab

le wo

rkers

and t

here

fore t

he in

clusio

n of th

e ind

icator

could

be w

arra

nted.

12c –

A

♦

Man

ufactu

ring w

age i

ndex

(a)

Data

avail

abilit

y for

wag

es in

man

ufactu

ring i

s usu

ally b

etter

than

for o

ther b

ranc

hes o

f the e

cono

my.

(b)

Cove

rs a s

ubgr

oup o

f wor

kers

(nam

ely, e

mploy

ees i

n man

ufactu

ring)

that

is ve

ry sm

all in

some

co

untrie

s. W

age t

rend

s in m

anufa

cturin

g nee

d not

be in

dicati

ve of

over

all w

age t

rend

s in a

n eco

nomy

. (c)

For

coun

tries w

ith a

signif

icant

manu

factur

ing se

ctor (

and p

oor s

tatist

ics on

over

all w

age t

rend

s), th

e ma

nufac

turing

wag

e ind

ex ca

n still

prov

ide us

eful in

sights

on w

age t

rend

s. It c

ould

there

fore b

e inc

luded

as an

addit

ional

indica

tor.

13 –

F

Emplo

yees

with

rece

nt job

train

ing (S

)

(a)

Limite

d data

avail

abilit

y; ca

ndida

te for

inclu

sion w

hen b

etter

data

beco

me av

ailab

le.

Dece

nt h

ours

14 –

M

Exce

ssive

hour

s (p

erce

ntage

of em

ploye

d with

>48

and p

erce

ntage

with

>60

hour

s pe

r wee

k) (S

)

(a

) Ex

cess

ive an

d atyp

ical h

ours

of wo

rk ar

e a th

reat

to ph

ysica

l and

men

tal he

alth,

inter

fere w

ith th

e ba

lance

betw

een w

ork a

nd fa

mily

life, a

nd of

ten si

gnal

an in

adeq

uate

hour

ly pa

y. Ex

cess

ive ho

urs o

f wo

rk als

o red

uce p

rodu

ctivit

y. In

line w

ith IL

O Co

nven

tion N

o. 1 w

hich s

pecif

ies th

at ho

urs o

f wor

k per

we

ek sh

ould

not e

xcee

d 48,

the ex

cess

ive ho

urs i

ndica

tor is

defin

ed he

re as

the p

erce

ntage

of

emplo

yed p

erso

ns w

hose

usua

l hou

rs of

work

in all

jobs

are m

ore t

han 4

8 hou

rs pe

r wee

k car

ried o

ut for

econ

omic

reas

ons.

(b

) Th

e qua

lifier

“eco

nomi

c rea

sons

” is in

tende

d to s

epar

ate th

is ph

enom

enon

from

long

hour

s of w

ork f

or

volun

tary r

easo

ns su

ch as

ambit

ion or

pass

ion fo

r wor

k, or

invo

luntar

y rea

sons

such

as na

ture o

f wor

k, co

rpor

ate no

rms,

or ex

cepti

onal

circu

mstan

ces.

Howe

ver,

while

conc

eptua

lly va

lid, th

e exc

lusion

of

those

who

wor

k exc

essiv

e hou

r for

non-

econ

omic

reas

ons i

s ofte

n unfe

asibl

e.

TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2 47

Refe

renc

e num

ber (a

) Po

ssib

le de

cent

wor

k ind

icato

r (S

if ind

icator

shou

ld be

mea

sure

d by s

ex) (b

)

Com

men

ts

(c) H

ours

of wo

rk sh

ould

be m

easu

red i

n ter

ms of

usua

l hou

rs of

work.

The

TRA

VAIL–

STAT

datab

ase

exist

s for

year

s ca.,

1995

, ca.,

2000

and c

a., 20

05.

(d)

A de

cline

in th

e pro

portio

n of w

orke

rs wh

o wor

k exc

essiv

e hou

rs sig

nals

prog

ress

towa

rds d

ecen

t wor

k. (e

) Ca

n be m

atche

d with

lega

l fram

ewor

k info

rmati

on on

max

imum

wor

king h

ours

legisl

ation

.

14a –

A

Us

ual h

ours

worke

d (sta

ndar

dized

hour

band

s) (S

)

(a)

Data

on th

e pro

portio

n who

wor

k exc

essiv

e hou

rs ca

n be c

omple

mente

d with

data

for th

e enti

re

distrib

ution

, usin

g stan

dard

ized h

our b

ands

.

14b –

A

An

nual

hour

s wor

ked p

er pe

rson (

S)

(a

) Da

ta re

liabil

ity is

sues

.

15 –

A

Time-

relat

ed un

dere

mploy

ment

rate

(S)

(a

) Fo

r virtu

ally a

ll wor

kers,

earn

ings a

re ad

equa

te on

ly if a

suffic

ient n

umbe

r of h

ours

can b

e wor

ked.

Wor

king f

ewer

hour

s tha

n des

ired i

s ter

med “

time-

relat

ed un

dere

mploy

ment”

and i

s defi

ned i

n ter

ms of

pe

rsons

in em

ploym

ent w

ho ar

e “wo

rking

less

than

a thr

esho

ld pe

riod”

, and

are “

willin

g” an

d “av

ailab

le”

to wo

rk ad

dition

al ho

urs (

see I

CLS,

1998

) (e) . T

ime-

relat

ed un

dere

mploy

ment

rate

is the

ratio

of th

e nu

mber

of pe

rsons

in tim

e-re

lated

unde

remp

loyme

nt to

the to

tal nu

mber

of pe

rsons

emplo

yed.

(b)

Limite

d data

avail

abilit

y; KI

LM in

clude

s data

on tim

e-re

lated

unde

remp

loyme

nt for

only

12 de

velop

ing

coun

tries.

Othe

rs: no

t mea

sure

d

Irreg

ular a

nd/or

asoc

ial ho

urs t

hat c

onflic

t with

fami

ly re

spon

sibilit

ies.

(a

) Lim

ited d

ata; ir

regu

lar ho

urs c

an be

favo

urab

le wh

en vo

luntar

y.

Stab

ility a

nd se

curit

y of w

ork

16 –

E

Tenu

re le

ss th

an on

e yea

r (pe

rcenta

ge of

emplo

yed)

(S)

(a

) Jo

b ten

ure w

as in

itially

sugg

ested

as a

prox

y for

job s

ecur

ity, g

iven t

he di

fficult

y of m

easu

ring a

pr

obab

ility t

o los

e one

’s job

rathe

r tha

n an a

ctual

even

t. It is

an in

dicato

r of p

ast e

mploy

ment

stabil

ity,

defin

ed as

the p

erce

ntage

of em

ploye

d per

sons

who

have

held

their m

ain jo

b/wor

k for

less

than

one

year

. (b

) Th

e ind

icator

is co

unter

cycli

cal; t

he va

lue ris

es w

ith ec

onom

ic up

turn a

s mor

e new

wor

kers

are h

ired.

It is

there

fore d

ifficu

lt to a

sses

s pro

gres

s tow

ards

dece

nt wo

rk on

the b

asis

of the

indic

ator.

(c)

Cou

ld be

repo

rted b

y age

or on

ly for

wor

kers

aged

25 ye

ars a

nd ab

ove b

ecau

se va

lues a

re m

uch

highe

r for

youn

ger w

orke

rs.

(d)

Limite

d data

avail

abilit

y for

deve

loping

coun

tries.

17 –

E

Temp

orar

y wor

k (pe

rcenta

ge of

emplo

yees

) (S)

(a)

For e

mploy

ees,

a per

mane

nt or

inde

finite

job i

s usu

ally m

ore s

ecur

e tha

n an e

xplic

itly te

mpor

ary j

ob.

The p

erce

ntage

of em

ploye

es w

ho ha

ve te

mpor

ary j

obs i

s the

refor

e pro

pose

d as a

seco

nd in

dicato

r of

job se

curity

. (b

) Co

mpar

abilit

y pro

blems

to m

easu

re te

mpor

ary p

ositio

ns. C

ounte

r cyc

lical;

value

rises

with

econ

omic

uptur

n as n

ewer

wor

kers

hired

. Data

may

be lim

ited.

48 TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2

Refe

renc

e num

ber (a

) Po

ssib

le de

cent

wor

k ind

icato

r (S

if ind

icator

shou

ld be

mea

sure

d by s

ex) (b

)

Com

men

ts

Com

bini

ng w

ork a

nd fa

mily

life

18 –

E

Emplo

ymen

t rate

for w

omen

with

child

ren u

nder

comp

ulsor

y sc

hool

age,

as ra

tio to

emplo

ymen

t rate

for a

ll wom

en ag

ed 20

–49

(a)

The i

ndica

tor w

as in

itially

prop

osed

as an

indir

ect m

easu

re fo

r the

degr

ee to

whic

h wor

kplac

es ar

e ac

comm

odati

ng to

fami

ly ne

eds.

A hig

her v

alue c

an re

flect

how

far in

stitut

ional

arra

ngem

ents

enab

le wo

men t

o com

bine w

ork a

nd fa

mily

resp

onsib

ilities

. How

ever

, a hi

gh em

ploym

ent r

ate of

moth

ers c

an

also b

e due

to ec

onom

ic ha

rdsh

ip tha

t force

s wom

en to

carry

a do

uble

burd

en of

fami

ly re

spon

sibilit

ies

and e

mploy

ment.

The

refor

e, a h

igher

value

does

not n

eces

sarily

indic

ate pr

ogre

ss to

ward

s dec

ent

work.

(b

) It i

s pro

blema

tic to

fram

e the

issu

e of c

ombin

ing w

ork a

nd fa

mily

life as

a pr

oblem

that

affec

ts wo

men

only.

How

ever

, in re

ality

it is o

ften w

omen

’s ac

cess

to em

ploym

ent th

at su

ffers

as a

resu

lt of th

e une

ven

distrib

ution

of ch

ildca

re re

spon

sibilit

ies.

(c) L

imite

d data

avail

abilit

y.

Othe

rs: L

Mater

nity l

eave

.

(a)

Detai

led in

forma

tion o

f leng

th of

mater

nity l

eave

, amo

unt o

f mate

rnity

leav

e and

sour

ce of

mate

rnity

lea

ve be

nefits

can b

e inc

luded

unde

r lega

l fram

ewor

k info

rmati

on.

Othe

rs: no

t mea

sure

d

Labo

ur fo

rce pa

rticipa

tion r

ate (L

FPR)

for w

omen

in m

ain

repr

oduc

tive a

ges.

(a

) Se

e com

ments

unde

r No.

1 and

unde

r No.

18.

Othe

rs: no

t mea

sure

d

Child

care

arra

ngem

ents

(a

) To

o com

plex f

or a

statis

tical

indica

tor; li

mited

data

avail

abilit

y.

Equa

l opp

ortu

nity

and

treat

men

t in

empl

oym

ent

19 –

M

Oc

cupa

tiona

l seg

rega

tion b

y sex

(inde

x and

perce

ntage

of

non-

agric

ultur

al wa

ge em

ploym

ent in

male

-dom

inated

and

female

-dom

inated

occu

patio

ns)

(a

) Oc

cupa

tiona

l sex

segr

egati

on (o

r hor

izonta

l seg

rega

tion)

is a

comm

only

used

prox

y ind

icator

for

equa

lity of

oppo

rtunit

y in e

mploy

ment

and o

ccup

ation

. The

inde

x of d

issim

ilarity

mea

sure

s the

tend

ency

of

labou

r mar

kets

to be

segm

ented

on th

e bas

is of

gend

er. M

ore d

irect

indica

tors m

easu

re th

e exte

nt to

which

labo

ur m

arke

ts ar

e sep

arate

d into

“male

” and

“fem

ale” o

ccup

ation

s, e.g

. the p

erce

ntage

of

female

(or m

ale) n

on-a

gricu

ltura

l emp

loyme

nt in

a fem

ale-d

omina

ted (o

r male

-dom

inated

) occ

upati

on,

or to

the t

otal n

on-a

gricu

ltura

l emp

loyme

nt in

a gen

der d

omina

ted oc

cupa

tion.

(b)

The i

ndica

tor re

flects

dire

ct an

d ind

irect

discri

mina

tion i

n acc

ess t

o emp

loyme

nt op

portu

nities

prior

to

and o

utside

the l

abou

r mar

ket (

i.e. in

educ

ation

and t

raini

ng, p

erce

ived s

uitab

ility o

f jobs

to fe

male

roles

), at

entry

and w

ithin

the la

bour

mar

ket (

i.e. r

ecru

itmen

t, on-

the-jo

b tra

ining

oppo

rtunit

ies,

prom

otion

, job c

hang

e dur

ing up

grad

ing).

Crow

ding o

f wom

en in

occu

patio

ns w

ith lo

w wa

ges e

xplai

ns

a big

part

of dif

feren

ces i

n ear

nings

betw

een m

en an

d wom

en. T

he in

dicato

r can

also

refle

ct dif

feren

ces i

n occ

upati

onal

prefe

renc

es be

twee

n gen

ders.

(c)

Com

para

bility

prob

lems a

ssoc

iated

with

diffe

rent

levels

of de

tail in

natio

nal o

ccup

ation

al cla

ssific

ation

s ne

ed to

be ta

ken i

nto ac

coun

t.

TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2 49

Refe

renc

e num

ber (a

) Po

ssib

le de

cent

wor

k ind

icato

r (S

if ind

icator

shou

ld be

mea

sure

d by s

ex) (b

)

Com

men

ts

19a –

M

♦

Fema

le sh

are o

f emp

loyme

nt in

mana

geria

l and

admi

nistra

tive

occu

patio

ns (p

erce

ntage

and r

atio r

elativ

e to f

emale

shar

e of

non-

agric

ultur

al em

ploym

ent)

(a

) Th

is ind

icator

was

initia

lly su

gges

ted to

mea

sure

s the

exten

t to w

hich w

omen

are e

xclud

ed fr

om

posit

ions o

f auth

ority

and d

ecisi

on-m

aking

, and

thus

of ve

rtical

gend

er se

greg

ation

in la

bour

mar

kets.

(b

) Int

erpr

etatio

n iss

ues w

ith re

spec

t to “r

atio r

elativ

e to f

emale

shar

e of n

on-a

gricu

ltura

l emp

loyme

nt”: T

he

ratio

rises

whe

n wom

en ar

e exc

luded

from

non-

agric

ultur

al em

ploym

ent in

gene

ral, a

nd no

t only

from

ma

nage

rial a

nd ad

minis

trativ

e occ

upati

ons.

Howe

ver,

this w

ould

not s

ignal

prog

ress

towa

rds d

ecen

t wo

rk.

(c) S

cope

of “m

anag

erial

and a

dmini

strati

ve oc

cupa

tions

” is am

bivale

nt. C

ould

be re

strict

ed to

fema

le sh

are i

n the

sum

of IS

CO–8

8 gro

up 11

(legis

lator

s and

senio

r offic

ials)

and g

roup

12 (c

orpo

rate

mana

gers)

. (d

) Fe

male

shar

e in t

hese

high

-statu

s occ

upati

ons i

s a co

ncep

t that

can b

e und

ersto

od ea

sily b

y the

lay

perso

n, an

d is m

ore i

ntuitiv

e tha

n an i

ndex

of di

ssim

ilarity

(indic

ator 1

9).

19b –

E (s

ee 2

and 5

a)

♦ Fe

male

shar

e in e

mploy

ment

(a)

Emplo

ymen

t-to-

popu

lation

ratio

would

be re

porte

d sep

arate

ly for

men

and w

omen

; rep

ortin

g the

fema

le sh

are i

n emp

loyme

nt ad

ds lit

tle ex

tra in

forma

tion.

20 –

A

Meas

ure o

f disp

ersio

n for

secto

ral d

istrib

ution

of m

igran

t wor

kers

(a

) Da

ta av

ailab

le for

appr

oxim

ately

30 co

untrie

s fro

m the

OEC

D; co

vera

ge in

comp

lete.

See 5

a

Fema

le sh

are o

f non

-agr

icultu

ral w

age e

mploy

ment

[Gro

uped

unde

r emp

loyme

nt op

portu

nities

.]

See 1

2a

Fe

male-

to-ma

le pa

y rati

o for

selec

ted oc

cupa

tions

[Gro

uped

unde

r ade

quate

earn

ings.]

Othe

rs: no

t mea

sure

d

Fema

le pr

ofess

ional

and t

echn

ical w

orke

rs

(a

) Fe

male

shar

e of p

rofes

siona

l and

tech

nical

worke

rs no

t inclu

ded b

ecau

se w

omen

are m

ainly

in on

ly tw

o suc

h occ

upati

ons,

nurse

s and

teac

hers.

Othe

rs: no

t mea

sure

d

Disc

rimina

tion o

n the

basis

of ra

ce, c

olour

, reli

gion,

politi

cal

opini

on, n

ation

al ex

tracti

on or

socia

l orig

in.

(a

) Inc

luded

in th

e sco

pe of

Con

venti

on N

o. 11

1; da

ta av

ailab

ility p

roble

ms.

Othe

rs: no

t mea

sure

d

Equa

lity of

oppo

rtunit

y and

trea

tmen

t for d

isable

d men

and

wome

n wor

kers.

(a)

Focu

s of C

onve

ntion

No.

159;

data

avail

abilit

y pro

blems

.

Safe

wor

k env

ironm

ent

21 –

M

Oc

cupa

tiona

l injur

y rate

, fatal

(a)

The f

atal in

jury r

ate is

prop

osed

as a

safe

work

indica

tor ra

ther t

han t

he no

n-fat

al inj

uries

rate,

beca

use

the re

portin

g of fa

talitie

s is b

eliev

ed to

be m

ore c

omple

te an

d has

fewe

r defi

nition

al pr

oblem

s com

pare

d to

non-

fatal

injur

ies (i.

e. a f

atal in

jury c

an be

relat

ively

easil

y ide

ntifie

d as s

uch)

. (b

) Da

ta no

rmall

y cov

er th

e for

mal s

ector

only;

admi

nistra

tive r

ecor

ds ar

e ofte

n an i

nade

quate

data

sour

ce;

data

quali

ty iss

ues d

ue to

unde

r-rep

ortin

g.

21a –

A

Oc

cupa

tiona

l injur

y rate

, non

-fatal

(a)

Data

norm

ally c

over

the f

orma

l sec

tor on

ly; ad

minis

trativ

e rec

ords

are o

ften a

n ina

dequ

ate da

ta so

urce

; da

ta qu

ality

issue

s due

to un

der-r

epor

ting n

orma

lly ev

en m

ore s

ever

e tha

n for

fatal

occu

patio

nal in

jury

rate.

50 TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2

Refe

renc

e num

ber (a

) Po

ssib

le de

cent

wor

k ind

icato

r (S

if ind

icator

shou

ld be

mea

sure

d by s

ex) (b

)

Com

men

ts

22 –

E or

L

Labo

ur in

spec

tion (

inspe

ctors

per 1

00,00

0 emp

loyee

s and

per

100,0

00 co

vere

d emp

loyee

s)

(a)

The n

umbe

r of la

bour

insp

ector

s per

100,0

00 em

ploye

es or

cove

red e

mploy

ees w

as su

gges

ted as

an

indica

tor of

the S

tate’s

capa

city t

o enfo

rce sa

fe wo

rk pr

incipl

es, la

ws an

d reg

ulatio

ns, h

ence

a pr

oxy

meas

ure o

f pre

venti

on ef

forts.

(b

) Lim

ited d

ata av

ailab

ility.

Data

do no

t indic

ate ef

fectiv

enes

s of la

bour

insp

ectio

ns, a

nd a

highe

r num

ber

of lab

our in

spec

tors p

er 10

0,000

emplo

yees

does

not n

eces

sarily

indic

ate pr

ogre

ss to

ward

s dec

ent

work.

(c)

Refe

renc

e cate

gory

is em

ploye

es, r

ather

than

all w

orke

rs as

wou

ld be

desir

able

for D

ecen

t Wor

k Ind

icator

s.

(d)

Avail

able

infor

matio

n can

be in

clude

d und

er le

gal fr

amew

ork.

23 –

L

Occu

patio

nal in

jury i

nsur

ance

cove

rage

(%

of em

ploye

es co

vere

d by i

nsur

ance

)

(a)

Data

only

refer

to a

subg

roup

of w

orke

rs (e

mploy

ees).

(b

) Av

ailab

le inf

orma

tion c

an be

inclu

ded u

nder

lega

l fram

ewor

k.

Othe

rs: no

t mea

sure

d

Wor

k stre

ss, s

ickne

ss an

d inv

alidit

y.

(a)

Often

perce

ived a

s a gr

owing

prob

lem an

d link

ed to

wor

k inte

nsific

ation

. Data

colle

ction

curre

ntly

inade

quate

.

Socia

l sec

urity

24 –

M

Publi

c soc

ial se

curity

expe

nditu

re

(per

centa

ge of

GDP

and p

erce

ntage

of go

vern

ment

expe

nditu

res)

(a

) Da

ta av

ailab

le for

over

100 c

ountr

ies fr

om E

uros

tat, O

ECD

and t

he IL

O So

cial S

ecur

ity In

quiry

, and

es

timate

s bas

ed on

IMF

and W

HO da

ta.

(b)

Data

can b

e rep

orted

eithe

r as a

total

, or d

isagg

rega

ted in

to he

alth a

nd no

n-he

alth s

ocial

secu

rity

expe

nditu

re.

(c) P

ublic

socia

l sec

urity

bene

fit ex

pend

iture

could

be pr

esen

ted no

t only

as a

perce

ntage

of G

DP, b

ut als

o as

a ra

tio to

the t

otal g

ener

al go

vern

ment

expe

nditu

re to

refle

ct the

situa

tion i

n cou

ntries

with

relat

ively

“small

” gov

ernm

ents

(in te

rms o

f pub

lic fin

ance

s). N

omina

tors a

nd de

nomi

nator

s sho

uld pr

efera

bly be

ex

pres

sed i

n nati

onal

curre

ncy u

nits,

curre

nt pr

ices.

(d)

Expe

nditu

re da

ta ca

n ser

ve as

a us

eful p

roxy

for s

ocial

secu

rity co

vera

ge, b

ut da

ta ne

ed to

be

inter

prete

d with

care

. For

exam

ple, h

igher

unem

ploym

ent w

ill pu

t upw

ard p

ress

ure o

n spe

nding

whil

e thi

s doe

s not

nece

ssar

ily si

gnal

prog

ress

towa

rds m

eetin

g the

Dec

ent W

ork A

gend

a.

24a –

E

♦

Publi

c exp

endit

ure o

n nee

ds-b

ased

cash

inco

me su

ppor

t (p

erce

ntage

of G

DP)

(a

) Lim

ited d

ata av

ailab

ility.

24b –

E

♦

Bene

ficiar

ies of

cash

inco

me su

ppor

t (pe

rcenta

ge of

poor

) (S)

(a)

Limite

d data

avail

abilit

y.

25 –

M

Shar

e of p

opula

tion a

ged 6

5 and

abov

e ben

efitin

g fro

m a p

ensio

n (S

)

(a)

Data

avail

able

for ap

prox

imate

ly 30

deve

loping

coun

tries i

n new

ILO

Socia

l Sec

urity

Inqu

iry an

d fro

m a

pilot

proje

ct tha

t allo

ws es

timate

s for

deve

loped

coun

tries;

data

colle

ction

is be

ing ex

pand

ed by

SE

CSOC

. (b

) Us

e of c

ommo

n age

rang

e inc

reas

es in

terna

tiona

l com

para

bility

.

TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2 51

Refe

renc

e num

ber (a

) Po

ssib

le de

cent

wor

k ind

icato

r (S

if ind

icator

shou

ld be

mea

sure

d by s

ex) (b

)

Com

men

ts

25a –

A

♦

Socia

l sec

urity

cove

rage

(pen

sion a

nd/or

healt

h) (S

)

(a)

Sugg

ested

cove

rage

is “w

age a

nd sa

lary e

arne

rs” (R

O–Ba

ngko

k, ind

icator

15b)

or “u

rban

popu

lation

” (R

O–Lim

a); c

ould

be ex

pand

ed to

total

popu

lation

(add

itiona

l data

avail

abilit

y pro

blems

).

(b)

Data

partly

over

laps w

ith th

e ind

icator

abov

e; re

strict

ing in

dicato

r to p

ensio

n sim

plifie

s data

pr

esen

tation

. (c)

Defi

nition

of co

vera

ge in

term

s of a

ctual

bene

ficiar

ies (a

s in i

ndica

tor 25

) or p

rosp

ectiv

e/pote

ntial

cove

rage

(indic

ator 2

5b) n

eeds

to be

clar

ified.

25b –

F

♦

Shar

e of e

cono

mica

lly ac

tive p

opula

tion c

ontrib

uting

to a

pens

ion fu

nd (S

)

(a)

Data

on ac

tive c

ontrib

utors

(and

/ or a

ffiliat

ed) t

o a pe

nsion

sche

me ar

e cur

rentl

y ava

ilable

for a

roun

d 20

coun

tries,

but d

ata co

llecti

on th

roug

h the

ILO

Socia

l Sec

urity

Inqu

iry is

being

expa

nded

. Can

didate

for

inclu

sion w

hen d

ata ar

e mor

e wide

ly av

ailab

le.

25c –

E

♦

Aver

age m

onthl

y pen

sion (

as %

of m

edian

/mini

mum

earn

ings)

(a

) Da

ta on

aver

age m

onthl

y pen

sions

are c

urre

ntly a

vaila

ble fo

r aro

und 2

0 cou

ntries

, but

data

colle

ction

thr

ough

the I

LO S

ocial

Sec

urity

Inqu

iry is

being

expa

nded

. Pre

requ

isite

is be

tter d

ata co

llecti

on by

na

tiona

l stat

istica

l offic

es th

at co

uld be

expa

nded

with

in the

fram

ewor

k of D

ecen

t Wor

k Cou

ntry

Prog

ramm

es. C

andid

ate fo

r inclu

sion w

hen d

ata ar

e mor

e wide

ly av

ailab

le.

Othe

rs: M

Healt

h-ca

re ex

pend

iture

s not

finan

ced o

ut of

pock

et by

priva

te ho

useh

olds (

perce

ntage

of he

alth-

care

expe

nditu

res a

nd

perce

ntage

of G

DP)

(a

) Su

gges

ted by

ILO’

s Soc

ial S

ecur

ity D

epar

tmen

t as a

prox

y of a

fford

able

acce

ss to

healt

h pro

tectio

n. (b

) Ut

ilizes

avail

able

WHO

data

that r

efer t

o the

perce

ntage

of to

tal (p

ublic

and p

rivate

) hea

lth-ca

re

expe

nditu

re co

vere

d eith

er by

gene

ral g

over

nmen

t or b

y pre

paid

priva

te ins

uran

ce, b

y emp

loyer

s or

NGOs

.

Socia

l dial

ogue

and

work

ers’

repr

esen

tatio

n

26 –

M

Union

dens

ity ra

te (S

)

(a)

Need

s to b

e rea

d in c

onjun

ction

with

infor

matio

n on r

ights

at wo

rk an

d the

lega

l fram

ewor

k for

dece

nt wo

rk to

take i

nto co

nside

ratio

n whe

ther u

nions

are f

ree o

f stat

e inte

rfere

nce.

(b)

Major

data

colle

ction

effor

t und

er w

ay by

DIA

LOGU

E an

d STA

T to

colle

ct av

ailab

le da

ta fro

m lab

our

minis

tries a

nd st

atisti

cal o

ffices

. (c)

Adju

sted D

ensit

y Rate

(ADR

) sug

geste

d by D

IALO

GUE:

ADR

= (m

embe

rship

– reti

red,

stude

nt an

d un

emplo

yed m

embe

rs)/(w

age a

nd sa

laried

emplo

yees

– ine

ligibl

e gro

ups).

27 –

M

Numb

er of

enter

prise

s belo

nging

to em

ploye

r org

aniza

tion

(a

) Do

es no

t con

sider

numb

er of

wor

kers

cove

red.

Howe

ver,

the in

dicato

r can

still

prov

ide in

forma

tion o

f the

asso

ciatio

nal s

treng

th of

emplo

yers’

orga

nizati

ons a

nd of

their

subs

eque

nt ro

le in

labou

r mar

ket

gove

rnan

ce.

28 –

M

Colle

ctive

wag

e bar

gaini

ng co

vera

ge ra

te (S

)

(a)

Major

data

colle

ction

effor

t und

er w

ay by

DIA

LOGU

E an

d STA

T to

colle

ct av

ailab

le da

ta fro

m lab

our

minis

tries a

nd st

atisti

cal o

ffices

. (b

) Ad

justed

Cov

erag

e Rate

(ACR

) sug

geste

d by D

IALO

GUE:

ACR

= co

vere

d emp

loyee

s/(wa

ge an

d sa

laried

emplo

yees

– ine

ligibl

e gro

ups).

The

categ

ory “

cove

red e

mploy

ees”

includ

es th

ose w

ho ar

e co

vere

d by e

xtens

ion.

52 TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2

Refe

renc

e num

ber (a

) Po

ssib

le de

cent

wor

k ind

icato

r (S

if ind

icator

shou

ld be

mea

sure

d by s

ex) (b

)

Com

men

ts

29 –

A

Strik

es an

d loc

kouts

/rates

of da

ys no

t wor

ked

(a

) Int

erpr

etatio

n iss

ues:

a low

strik

e rate

can e

ither

mea

n tha

t the s

ocial

dialo

gue p

roce

ss w

orks

so w

ell

that d

ispute

s are

reso

lved w

ithou

t rec

urre

nce t

o strik

es or

that

the go

vern

ment

seve

rely

repr

esse

s tra

de

union

s. It i

s thu

s diffi

cult t

o dete

rmine

wha

t a “d

esira

ble” le

vel fo

r the

indic

ator w

ould

be fr

om th

e sta

ndpo

int of

the D

ecen

t Wor

k Age

nda,

and w

hethe

r a de

cline

wou

ld sig

nal p

rogr

ess t

owar

ds de

cent

work.

(b

) Lim

ited d

ata fo

r dev

elopin

g cou

ntries

; com

para

bility

issu

es.

30 –

L

Free

dom

of as

socia

tion (

ratifi

catio

n Con

venti

on N

o. 87

, ob

serva

tions

by IL

O su

pervi

sory

mech

anism

; num

ber a

nd

conte

nts of

comp

laints

; res

trictio

ns on

FoA

).

(a

) Pr

oblem

atic a

s a st

atisti

cal in

dicato

r; inc

lude u

nder

lega

l fram

ewor

k info

rmati

on.

Uncla

ssifi

ed in

dica

tors

31 –

C

Estim

ated p

erce

ntage

of w

orkin

g-ag

e pop

ulatio

n who

are H

IV

posit

ive

(a

) W

hile a

low

HIV

prev

alenc

e rate

is de

sirab

le, a

decli

ne in

the H

IV pr

evale

nce r

ate ne

ed no

t sign

al pr

ogre

ss. It

can b

e driv

en by

denie

d acc

ess t

o anti

retro

viral

drug

s, lea

ding t

o a hi

gh m

ortal

ity ra

te am

ong t

hose

who

are H

IV po

sitive

. This

prob

lem co

uld be

mitig

ated b

y res

trictin

g the

indic

ator t

o you

th (a

s in M

DG in

dicato

r 6.1)

. (b

) Al

terna

tive i

ndica

tors t

o mon

itor p

rogr

ess c

ould

eithe

r mea

sure

the s

ucce

ss of

prev

entio

n (e.g

. rate

of

new

infec

tions

) or h

ealth

-care

cove

rage

for t

hose

living

with

HIV

/AID

S (e

.g. ac

cess

to an

tiretro

viral

drug

s).

(c) C

ould

be in

clude

d as a

n ind

icator

for t

he ec

onom

ic an

d soc

ial co

ntext

of de

cent

work.

(d

) Da

ta wi

dely

avail

able;

estim

ation

issu

es.

32 –

L

Ratifi

catio

n of IL

O co

re la

bour

stan

dard

s

(a)

Prob

lemati

c as a

stati

stica

l indic

ator;

includ

e und

er le

gal fr

amew

ork i

nform

ation

.

33 –

L

Obse

rvatio

ns by

the C

ommi

ttee o

f Exp

erts

(a

) Pr

oblem

atic a

s a st

atisti

cal in

dicato

r; inc

lude u

nder

lega

l fram

ewor

k info

rmati

on.

34 –

L

Comp

laints

/case

s bro

ught

to lab

our c

ourts

or IL

O

(a)

Prob

lemati

c as a

stati

stica

l indic

ator;

includ

e und

er le

gal fr

amew

ork i

nform

ation

.

Econ

omic

and

socia

l con

text

for d

ecen

t wor

k

E1 –

C

La

bour

prod

uctiv

ity (G

DP pe

r emp

loyed

perso

n, lev

el an

d gr

owth

rate)

(a)

MDG

indica

tor.

(b)

In the

long

run,

wage

incre

ases

are u

nsus

taina

ble w

hen l

abou

r pro

ducti

vity d

oes n

ot inc

reas

e.

E2 –

C, ad

dition

al

Real

per c

apita

“ear

nings

” [GN

I] (fr

om na

tiona

l acc

ounts

)

(a)

The u

se of

“ear

nings

” for

GNI

by R

OAP

make

s the

indic

ator v

ulner

able

to mi

sund

ersta

nding

s: GN

I is

total

factor

inco

me (i.

e. lab

our a

nd ca

pital

incom

e), b

ut ea

rning

s hav

e bee

n defi

ned b

y the

ICLS

(197

3)

as “r

emun

erati

on in

cash

and i

n kind

paid

to em

ploye

es” (

i.e. la

bour

inco

me).

(b)

Cons

ider u

sing G

DP in

stead

, to al

ign in

dicato

r to M

DG in

dicato

r abo

ve.

E3 –

C

Incom

e ine

quali

ty (ra

tio to

p 10 p

er ce

nt to

botto

m 10

per c

ent,

incom

e or c

onsu

mptio

n)

(a

) Ine

quali

ty is

a foc

us of

the D

eclar

ation

of P

hilad

elphia

and,

more

rece

ntly,

the D

eclar

ation

on S

ocial

Ju

stice

for a

Fair

Glob

aliza

tion.

Inequ

ality

is als

o see

n as i

ncom

patib

le wi

th su

staina

ble en

terpr

ise

deve

lopme

nt. T

his pr

ovide

s a st

rong

ratio

nale

to inc

lude a

mea

sure

for in

equa

lity as

a co

ntext

indica

tor.

TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2 53

Refe

renc

e num

ber (a

) Po

ssib

le de

cent

wor

k ind

icato

r (S

if ind

icator

shou

ld be

mea

sure

d by s

ex) (b

)

Com

men

ts

E4 –

C

Inflat

ion ra

te (C

PI)

(a

) Hi

gh in

flatio

n can

erod

e the

purch

asing

powe

r of w

ages

and c

an m

ake e

nterp

rises

unsu

staina

ble. T

his

prov

ides a

stro

ng ra

tiona

le to

includ

e infl

ation

as a

conte

xt ind

icator

.

E5 –

C

Emplo

ymen

t by b

ranc

h of e

cono

mic a

ctivit

y/ind

ustry

(agr

icultu

re,

indus

try, s

ervic

es/IS

IC ta

bulat

ion ca

tegor

y)

(a)

Chan

ges i

n the

secto

ral d

istrib

ution

of em

ploym

ent a

re no

clea

r indic

ator f

or pr

ogre

ss to

ward

s dec

ent

work

(wor

k can

be de

cent

and n

on-d

ecen

t in al

l eco

nomi

c sec

tors),

and t

hus i

ll-suit

ed as

a De

cent

Wor

k Ind

icator

. (b

) Ho

weve

r, the

secto

ral d

istrib

ution

of em

ploym

ent c

an pr

ovide

impo

rtant

infor

matio

n for

the c

halle

nges

fac

ed by

a co

untry

in ac

hievin

g dec

ent w

ork,

and c

ould

thus b

e inc

luded

as a

conte

xt ind

icator

.

E5a –

C, a

dditio

nal

♦

Fema

le sh

are o

f emp

loyme

nt by

indu

stry

(ISIC

tabu

lation

categ

ory)

(a

) Se

e com

ments

unde

r E5.

(b)

Howe

ver,

the di

stribu

tion o

f fema

le wo

rkers

acro

ss in

dustr

ies (o

r the

crow

ding i

n a fe

w ind

ustrie

s) ca

n oft

en pr

ovide

impo

rtant

infor

matio

n abo

ut ge

nder

ineq

ualiti

es.

E6 –

C

Educ

ation

of ad

ult po

pulat

ion (a

dult l

itera

cy ra

te, ad

ult

seco

ndar

y-sch

ool g

radu

ation

rate)

(S)

(a

) If r

epor

ted se

para

tely f

or w

omen

and m

en, th

e ind

icator

prov

ides i

nform

ation

on th

e equ

ality

of ed

ucati

onal

oppo

rtunit

y (co

ncer

n of th

e Dec

larati

on of

Phil

adelp

hia).

(b)

Prov

ides i

mpor

tant in

forma

tion a

bout

the hu

man c

apita

l end

owme

nt of

a cou

ntry’s

wor

king-

age

popu

lation

.

E7 –

C

Labo

ur sh

are i

n GDP

(a)

Dece

nt wo

rk les

s sus

taina

ble w

hen l

abou

r sha

re is

low.

Also

affec

ts ine

quali

ty, th

e foc

us of

the

Decla

ratio

n of P

hilad

elphia

and,

more

rece

ntly,

the D

eclar

ation

on S

ocial

Justi

ce fo

r a F

air

Glob

aliza

tion.

Notes

: Bas

ed o

n the

var

ious

comp

ilatio

ns o

f dec

ent w

ork

indica

tors

pres

ented

in a

ppen

dix ta

ble 1

. (a

)Th

e fol

lowing

sym

bols

were

use

d: M

= ca

ndida

te for

inclu

sion

as m

ain in

dicato

r; A

= ca

ndida

te for

inclu

sion

as a

dditio

nal

indica

tor; C

= ca

ndida

te for

inclu

sion a

s con

text in

dicato

r; E

= ca

ndida

te for

exclu

sion f

orm

indica

tor lis

t; F =

cand

idate

for in

clusio

n in t

he fu

ture.

(b) S

indic

ates u

seful

ness

of se

para

te fem

ale an

d male

value

s exp

ress

ed as

fema

le-to-

male

ratio

and

/or a

s fem

ale–m

ale d

iffere

nce

as a

ppro

priat

e. Lim

ited

data

avail

abilit

y for

sepa

rate

female

and

male

rates

is lik

ely to

be

a pr

oblem

for s

ever

al co

re in

dicato

rs.

(c) 17

th IC

LS, G

enev

a, 24

Nov

embe

r–3

Dece

mber

20

03.

(d) R

. Ank

er: A

new

met

hodo

logy f

or e

stim

ating

inte

rnat

ionall

y com

para

ble p

over

ty lin

es a

nd liv

ing w

age

rate

s, Int

egra

tion W

orkin

g Pap

er N

o. 72

(Gen

eva,

ILO, 2

005)

. (e

) 16th

ICLS

, Gen

eva,

6–15

Octo

ber 1

998.

54 TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2

Appe

ndix

tabl

e 3.

Data

avail

abilit

y by r

egio

n of

selec

ted

sugg

este

d m

ain d

ecen

t wor

k ind

icato

rs

Dece

nt w

ork s

tatis

tical

indi

cato

r of w

orkin

g co

nditi

ons

Regi

on

Unio

n de

nsity

rate

Fa

tal o

ccup

atio

nal in

jury

rate

So

cial s

ecur

ity ex

pend

iture

(% G

DP)

Em

ploy

men

t-to-

popu

latio

n ra

tio

Deve

lope

d ec

onom

ies

Numb

er of

coun

tries w

ith da

ta

3532

36

36

As pe

rcenta

ge of

coun

tries i

n the

regio

n

97%

92%

10

0%

100%

Perce

ntage

of ye

ars w

ith da

ta (co

untrie

s with

data)

52

%84

%

80%

97

%

Cent

ral a

nd E

aste

rn E

urop

e (no

n-EU

) and

CIS

Numb

er of

coun

tries w

ith da

ta

149

13

14

As pe

rcenta

ge of

coun

tries i

n reg

ion

78

%50

%

72%

78

%

Perce

ntage

of ye

ars w

ith da

ta (co

untrie

s with

data)

17

%89

%

59%

48

%

Asia

and

the P

acifi

c

Numb

er of

coun

tries w

ith da

ta

138

18

19

As pe

rcenta

ge of

coun

tries i

n reg

ion

38

%24

%

53%

56

%

Perce

ntage

of ye

ars w

ith da

ta (co

untrie

s with

data)

33

%81

%

39%

55

%

Latin

Am

erica

and

the C

arib

bean

Numb

er of

coun

tries w

ith da

ta

710

13

29

As pe

rcenta

ge of

coun

tries i

n reg

ion

20

%29

%

37%

83

%

Perce

ntage

of ye

ars w

ith da

ta (co

untrie

s with

data)

14

%67

%

60%

58

%

Sub-

Saha

ran

Afric

a

Numb

er of

coun

tries w

ith da

ta

157

10

20

As pe

rcenta

ge of

coun

tries i

n reg

ion

32

%15

%

21%

43

%

Perce

ntage

of ye

ars w

ith da

ta (co

untrie

s with

data)

19

%35

%

47%

28

%

Midd

le Ea

st an

d No

rther

n Af

rica

Numb

er of

coun

tries w

ith da

ta

45

9 11

As pe

rcenta

ge of

coun

tries i

n reg

ion

21

%26

%

47%

58

%

Perce

ntage

of ye

ars w

ith da

ta (co

untrie

s with

data)

14

%83

%

52%

39

%

TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2 55

Dece

nt w

ork s

tatis

tical

indi

cato

r of w

orkin

g co

nditi

ons

Regi

on

Unio

n de

nsity

rate

Fa

tal o

ccup

atio

nal in

jury

rate

So

cial s

ecur

ity ex

pend

iture

(% G

DP)

Em

ploy

men

t-to-

popu

latio

n ra

tioW

orld

Numb

er of

coun

tries w

ith da

ta

8872

99

12

9

As pe

rcenta

ge of

coun

tries i

n the

wor

ld

47

%38

%

52%

68

%

Perce

ntage

of ye

ars w

ith da

ta (co

untrie

s with

data)

33

%77

%

68%

61

%

Sour

ces

Main

sour

ce

ILO

IFP–

SES

and

LABO

RSTA

LABO

RSTA

IMF

LA

BORS

TA

Seco

nd so

urce

EU

Se

e note

(a)

OE

CD

OE

CD

Third

sour

ce

OE

CD

EU

ROST

AT

LM

IL

ILO S

ocial

Sec

urity

Inqu

iry

Se

e note

(b)

Notes

: Per

centa

ges a

re ro

unde

d to

the n

eare

st pe

rcenta

ge.

(a) N

ote th

at the

num

ber o

f fata

lities

is e

stima

ted fo

r all c

ountr

ies in

ILO

Intro

ducto

ry Re

port:

Dec

ent W

ork –

Safe

Wor

k (Ge

neva

, 200

5).

(b) N

ote th

at em

ploym

ent-t

o-po

pulat

ion ra

tes ar

e esti

mated

for a

ll cou

ntries

in IL

O, K

ILM, fi

fth ed

ition (

Gene

va, 2

008)

.

56 TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2

Appe

ndix

tabl

e 4.

Tem

plat

e for

info

rmat

ion

on ri

ghts

at w

ork a

nd th

e leg

al fra

mew

ork f

or d

ecen

t wor

k

1

2

3 4

5

6 7

8

Na

tiona

l leve

l In

tern

atio

nal le

vel

Ma

in d

ata s

ourc

es

La

w, p

olicy

or i

nstit

utio

ns

Be

nefit

leve

ls

and

thre

shol

ds

Evid

ence

of i

mpl

emen

tatio

n ef

fect

ivene

ss

Cove

rage

of w

orke

rs

Ratif

icatio

n of

ILO

Conv

entio

ns

Subs

tant

ive el

emen

t of

the D

ecen

t Wor

k Age

nda

In

law

(a)

In

pra

ctice

(a)

Empl

oym

ent o

ppor

tuni

ties

Gove

rnme

nt co

mmitm

ent

to ful

l emp

loyme

nt

Exist

ence

and s

cope

of

natio

nal la

w or

state

d go

vern

ment

polic

y?

nr

D

id ful

l emp

loyme

nt co

mmitte

e mee

t las

t yea

r?

Repo

rts un

der a

rticles

19 an

d 22.

nr

nr

C.12

2 Na

tiona

l sou

rces;

NATL

EX C

ountr

y Pr

ofiles

Unem

ploym

ent in

sura

nce

Ex

isten

ce an

d sco

pe of

na

tiona

l law.

Numb

er of

wee

ks,

repla

ceme

nt lev

el.

Rou

gh

perce

ntage

of

worke

rs

Ro

ugh

perce

ntage

of

worke

rs

C.

102

SECS

OC da

tabas

e (f)

Wor

k tha

t sho

uld

be ab

olish

ed

Child

labo

ur

Ex

isten

ce an

d sco

pe of

na

tiona

l mini

mum

age l

aw.

Mi

nimum

age b

y typ

e of w

ork.

R

epor

ts un

der a

rticles

19

and 2

2; co

mplai

nts an

d re

pres

entat

ions r

eceiv

ed by

the I

LO (c)

; ob

serva

tions

by IL

O su

pervi

sory

syste

m an

d cas

es of

prog

ress

.

See s

tatist

ical

indica

tors

C.

138;

C.18

2 IP

EC da

tabas

e; NA

TLEX

Cou

ntry

Profi

les

Force

d lab

our

Exis

tence

of na

tiona

l acti

on pl

an th

at sig

nal g

over

nmen

t com

mitm

ent.

Repo

rts un

der a

rticles

19 an

d 22;

comp

laints

and r

epre

senta

tions

re

ceive

d by t

he IL

O (c)

; obs

erva

tions

by

ILO su

pervi

sory

syste

m an

d cas

es of

pr

ogre

ss.

nr

nr

C.29

; C.10

5 DE

CLAR

ATIO

N;

NATL

EX C

ountr

y Pr

ofiles

TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2 57

1

2

3 4

5

6 7

8

Na

tiona

l leve

l In

tern

atio

nal le

vel

Ma

in d

ata s

ourc

es

La

w, p

olicy

or i

nstit

utio

ns

Be

nefit

leve

ls

and

thre

shol

ds

Evid

ence

of i

mpl

emen

tatio

n ef

fect

ivene

ss

Cove

rage

of w

orke

rs

Ratif

icatio

n of

ILO

Conv

entio

ns

Subs

tant

ive el

emen

t of

the D

ecen

t Wor

k Age

nda

In

law

(a)

In

pra

ctice

(a)

Adeq

uate

earn

ings

and

prod

uctiv

e wor

k

Statu

tory m

inimu

m wa

ge.

Ex

isten

ce an

d sco

pe of

na

tiona

l law:

mini

mum-

wage

fix

ing m

echa

nism;

mini

mum

wage

fixing

leve

l (n

ation

al, et

c.); e

xclud

ed

categ

ories

of w

orke

rs.

Le

vel o

f mon

thly

minim

um w

age (

in loc

al cu

rrenc

y and

US

$; po

ssibl

y also

as

perce

ntage

of

media

n wag

e). (d

)

R

ough

pe

rcenta

ge

of wa

ge an

d sa

lary

earn

ers/o

r of

all w

orke

rs?

Ro

ugh

perce

ntage

of

wage

and

salar

y ea

rner

s/or o

f all

wor

kers?

C.

131

TRAV

AIL d

ataba

se;

NATL

EX C

ountr

y Pr

ofiles

Dece

nt h

ours

Maxim

um ho

urs o

f wor

k

Exist

ence

and s

cope

of

natio

nal la

w.

Ma

ximum

wee

kly

hour

s lim

it (in

cludin

g ov

ertim

e);

alter

nativ

ely:

norm

al we

ekly

hour

s lim

it.

R

ough

pe

rcenta

ge

of wo

rkers

Se

e stat

istica

l ind

icator

s

C.1

TRAV

AIL d

ataba

se;

NATL

EX C

ountr

y Pr

ofiles

Socia

l sec

urity

Pens

ion

Ex

isten

ce an

d sco

pe of

na

tiona

l law

and p

ensio

n sy

stem.

Re

place

ment

rate;

no

rmal

retire

ment

age a

t full p

ensio

n (fe

male

and m

ale,

if diffe

rent

legal

retire

ment

age)

.

Rep

orts

unde

r artic

les 19

and 2

2; co

mplai

nts an

d rep

rese

ntatio

ns

rece

ived b

y the

ILO

(c); o

bser

vatio

ns by

ILO

supe

rviso

ry sy

stem

and c

ases

of

prog

ress

.

Rou

gh

perce

ntage

of

worke

rs

Se

e stat

istica

l ind

icator

s

C.10

2 SE

CSOC

da

tabas

e (f); N

ATLE

X Co

untry

Pro

files

58 TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2

1

2

3 4

5

6 7

8

Na

tiona

l leve

l In

tern

atio

nal le

vel

Ma

in d

ata s

ourc

es

La

w, p

olicy

or i

nstit

utio

ns

Be

nefit

leve

ls

and

thre

shol

ds

Evid

ence

of i

mpl

emen

tatio

n ef

fect

ivene

ss

Cove

rage

of w

orke

rs

Ratif

icatio

n of

ILO

Conv

entio

ns

Subs

tant

ive el

emen

t of

the D

ecen

t Wor

k Age

nda

In

law

(a)

In

pra

ctice

(a)

Incap

acity

for w

ork d

ue

to sic

knes

s

Exist

ence

and s

cope

of

natio

nal la

w.

Le

gal re

place

ment

rate

(cash

bene

fits

as pe

rcenta

ge of

ea

rning

s); du

ratio

n.

Rep

orts

unde

r artic

les 19

and 2

2; co

mplai

nts an

d rep

rese

ntatio

ns

rece

ived b

y the

ILO

(c); o

bser

vatio

ns by

ILO

supe

rviso

ry sy

stem

and c

ases

of

prog

ress

.

Rou

gh

perce

ntage

of

worke

rs

Ro

ugh

perce

ntage

of

worke

rs

C.

102

SECS

OC

datab

ase (f)

; NAT

LEX

Coun

try P

rofile

s

Incap

acity

for w

ork d

ue

to inv

alidit

y

Exist

ence

and s

cope

of

natio

nal la

w.

Mi

nimum

leve

l of

(per

mane

nt)

incap

acity

for w

ork

to be

eligi

ble;

dura

tion a

nd le

vel

of be

nefits

.

Rep

orts

unde

r artic

les 19

and 2

2; co

mplai

nts an

d rep

rese

ntatio

ns

rece

ived b

y the

ILO

(c); o

bser

vatio

ns by

ILO

supe

rviso

ry sy

stem

and c

ases

of

prog

ress

.

Rou

gh

perce

ntage

of

worke

rs

Ro

ugh

perce

ntage

of

worke

rs

C.

102

SECS

OC

datab

ase (f)

; NAT

LEX

Coun

try P

rofile

s

Equa

l opp

ortu

nity

and

treat

men

t in

empl

oym

ent (e

)

Anti-d

iscrim

inatio

n law

ba

sed o

n sex

of w

orke

r

Exist

ence

and s

cope

of

natio

nal la

w.

nr

C

ourt

case

s in c

ountr

y/nati

onal

mech

anism

s. Co

mplai

nts an

d rep

rese

ntatio

ns

rece

ived b

y the

ILO

(c); o

bser

vatio

ns by

ILO

supe

rviso

ry sy

stem

and c

ases

of

prog

ress

.

nr

nr

C.10

0, C.

111

NATL

EX C

ountr

y Pr

ofiles

; NOR

MES

files o

n C.10

0 and

C.

111

Anti-d

iscrim

inatio

n law

ba

sed o

n rac

e, eth

nicity

, re

ligion

or na

tiona

l orig

in

Ex

isten

ce an

d sco

pe of

na

tiona

l law.

nr

Cou

rt ca

ses i

n cou

ntry/n

ation

al me

chan

isms.

Repo

rts un

der a

rticles

19 an

d 22;

comp

laints

and r

epre

senta

tions

re

ceive

d by t

he IL

O (c)

; obs

erva

tions

by

ILO su

pervi

sory

syste

m an

d cas

es of

pr

ogre

ss.

nr

nr

C.10

0, C.

111

NATL

EX C

ountr

y Pr

ofiles

; NOR

MES

files o

n C.10

0 and

C.

111

TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2 59

1

2

3 4

5

6 7

8

Na

tiona

l leve

l In

tern

atio

nal le

vel

Ma

in d

ata s

ourc

es

La

w, p

olicy

or i

nstit

utio

ns

Be

nefit

leve

ls

and

thre

shol

ds

Evid

ence

of i

mpl

emen

tatio

n ef

fect

ivene

ss

Cove

rage

of w

orke

rs

Ratif

icatio

n of

ILO

Conv

entio

ns

Subs

tant

ive el

emen

t of

the D

ecen

t Wor

k Age

nda

In

law

(a)

In

pra

ctice

(a)

Com

bini

ng w

ork a

nd fa

mily

life

Mater

nity l

eave

Exist

ence

and s

cope

of

mater

nity p

rotec

tion l

aw.

Le

n gth

of ma

ternit

y lea

ve; le

vel o

f ma

ternit

y lea

ve

bene

fits (b

) ; sou

rce

of ma

ternit

y lea

ve

bene

fits

R

ough

pe

rcenta

ge

of wo

men

worke

rs

Ro

ugh

perce

ntage

of

wome

n wo

rkers

C.

183

TRAV

AIL d

ataba

se;

NATL

EX C

ountr

y Pr

ofiles

Safe

wor

k env

ironm

ent

Occu

patio

nal s

afety

and

healt

h ins

uran

ce

Ex

isten

ce an

d sco

pe of

na

tiona

l OSH

insu

ranc

e sy

stem.

Mi

nimum

leve

l of

perm

anen

t inc

apac

ity gi

ving

entitl

emen

t to

comp

ensa

tion (

%);

cash

bene

fits fo

r pe

rman

ent

incap

acity

(%)

(max

imum

ca

lculat

ion ra

te for

be

nefits

, usu

ally

earn

ings-r

elated

); ca

sh be

nefits

for

tempo

rary

incap

acity

(%)

(max

imum

ca

lculat

ion ra

te for

be

nefits

, usu

ally

earn

ings-r

elated

)

Exis

tence

and e

ffecti

vene

ss of

OSH

Bo

ard.

Repo

rts un

der a

rticles

19 an

d 22;

comp

laints

and r

epre

senta

tions

re

ceive

d by t

he IL

O (c)

; obs

erva

tions

by

ILO su

pervi

sory

syste

m an

d cas

es of

pr

ogre

ss

Rou

gh

perce

ntage

of

worke

rs

Ro

ugh

perce

ntage

of

worke

rs

C.

155,

C.10

2 Na

tiona

l sou

rces;

NATL

EX C

ountr

y Pr

ofiles

; SEC

SOC

datab

ase (f)

60 TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2

1

2

3 4

5

6 7

8

Na

tiona

l leve

l In

tern

atio

nal le

vel

Ma

in d

ata s

ourc

es

La

w, p

olicy

or i

nstit

utio

ns

Be

nefit

leve

ls

and

thre

shol

ds

Evid

ence

of i

mpl

emen

tatio

n ef

fect

ivene

ss

Cove

rage

of w

orke

rs

Ratif

icatio

n of

ILO

Conv

entio

ns

Subs

tant

ive el

emen

t of

the D

ecen

t Wor

k Age

nda

In

law

(a)

In

pra

ctice

(a)

Labo

ur in

spec

tion

Ex

isten

ce an

d sco

pe of

na

tiona

l labo

ur in

spec

tion

syste

m.

nr

D

ifficu

lt to a

sses

s effe

ctive

ness

. If

avail

able,

infor

matio

n on n

umbe

r of

labou

r insp

ector

s per

100,0

00 w

orke

rs an

d on n

umbe

r of in

spec

tions

carri

ed

out.

Rou

gh

perce

ntage

of

worke

rs

Ro

ugh

perce

ntage

of

worke

rs

C.

81, C

.129

SAFE

WOR

K;

natio

nal s

ource

s; NA

TLEX

Cou

ntry

Profi

les

Stab

ility a

nd se

curit

y of w

ork

Prox

ied by

infor

mal

emplo

ymen

t (no

indic

ator

sugg

ested

)

Socia

l dial

ogue

and

work

ers’

repr

esen

tatio

n

Free

dom

of as

socia

tion

and r

ight to

orga

nize

Na

tiona

l law

limitin

g righ

t to

freed

om of

asso

ciatio

n?

Exclu

ded g

roup

s, re

quire

ment

of pr

ior

autho

rizati

on, e

tc.

nr

L

imita

tions

on ty

pe of

union

allow

ed;

inter

feren

ce by

publi

c auth

oritie

s. Re

ports

unde

r artic

les 19

and 2

2; co

mplai

nts an

d rep

rese

ntatio

ns

rece

ived b

y the

ILO

(c); o

bser

vatio

ns by

ILO

supe

rviso

ry sy

stem

and c

ases

of

prog

ress

.

Rou

gh

perce

ntage

of

worke

rs wh

o ar

e elig

ible t

o joi

n tra

de

union

s

Se

e stat

istica

l ind

icator

C.87

DI

ALOG

UE

datab

ase;

NATL

EX

Coun

try P

rofile

s

Colle

ctive

barg

aining

right

Exist

ence

and s

cope

of

natio

nal la

w; ex

clude

d gr

oups

. Ins

titutio

ns fo

r coll

ectiv

e ba

rgain

ing (le

vel o

f coll

ectiv

e ba

rgain

ing; d

egre

e of

coor

dinati

on);

exten

sion o

f CB

agre

emen

ts.

nr

S

uppo

rt for

colle

ctive

barg

aining

(e.g.

dis

pute

reso

lution

servi

ces).

Re

ports

unde

r artic

les 19

and 2

2; co

mplai

nts an

d rep

rese

ntatio

ns

rece

ived b

y the

ILO

(c); o

bser

vatio

ns by

ILO

supe

rviso

ry sy

stem

and c

ases

of

prog

ress

.

Rou

gh

perce

ntage

of

worke

rs wh

o ar

e elig

ible t

o ba

rgain

co

llecti

vely

Se

e stat

istica

l ind

icator

C.98

DI

ALOG

UE

datab

ase;

NATL

EX

Coun

try P

rofile

s

TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2 61

1

2

3 4

5

6 7

8

Na

tiona

l leve

l In

tern

atio

nal le

vel

Ma

in d

ata s

ourc

es

La

w, p

olicy

or i

nstit

utio

ns

Be

nefit

leve

ls

and

thre

shol

ds

Evid

ence

of i

mpl

emen

tatio

n ef

fect

ivene

ss

Cove

rage

of w

orke

rs

Ratif

icatio

n of

ILO

Conv

entio

ns

Subs

tant

ive el

emen

t of

the D

ecen

t Wor

k Age

nda

In

law

(a)

In

pra

ctice

(a)

Tripa

rtite c

onsu

ltatio

ns

Ex

isten

ce of

natio

nal tr

ipartit

e co

nsult

ation

mec

hanis

m.

nr

F

requ

ency

of m

eetin

gs of

natio

nal

tripar

tite co

nsult

ation

mec

hanis

m;

scop

e of tr

ipartit

e con

sulta

tions

Re

ports

unde

r artic

les 19

and 2

2; co

mplai

nts an

d rep

rese

ntatio

ns

rece

ived b

y the

ILO

(c); o

bser

vatio

ns

by IL

O su

pervi

sory

syste

m an

d ca

ses o

f pro

gres

s.

nr

nr

C.14

4 Re

ports

by th

e CE

ACR;

NOR

MES

files o

n C.14

4

Notes

: nr i

ndica

tes n

ot re

levan

t; C

indic

ates I

LO C

onve

ntion

. (a

) Cov

erag

e of

worke

rs sh

ould

be re

porte

d us

ing b

road

size

categ

ories

only

, suc

h as

: <10

per

cent

(relat

ively

few),

10–3

2 pe

r cen

t (so

me),

33–6

6 pe

r cen

t (ab

out

half),

67–

89 p

er ce

nt (m

ost),

90+

(virtu

ally a

ll or a

ll), w

ith th

e sp

ecific

categ

ories

to b

e de

termi

ned

later

afte

r som

e ex

perie

nce.

To m

ake

a ro

ugh

estim

ate fo

r a co

untry

, one

wou

ld ne

ed ro

ugh

estim

ates o

f for

exa

mple

emplo

ymen

tby

emp

loyme

nt sta

tus, e

mploy

ment

by s

ector

, and

emp

loyme

nt by

size

of e

stabli

shme

nt. N

on-a

gricu

ltura

l wag

e em

ploye

es w

ill oft

en b

e a

reas

onab

le ba

se p

opula

tion.

Sepa

rate

value

s for

wom

en a

nd m

en sh

ould

be e

stima

tedwh

enev

er p

ossib

le. In

this

way,

gend

er d

iffere

nces

betw

een

men

and

wome

n co

uld b

e me

asur

ed, a

lthou

gh in

pra

ctice

this

will o

ften

be d

ifficu

lt. (b

) ILO

Conv

entio

n No

. 183

on

mater

nity l

eave

spec

ifies t

wo-th

irdsr

eplac

emen

t pay

as

the

minim

um a

ccep

table.

(c)

Com

plaint

s and

repr

esen

tation

s rec

eived

by t

he IL

O ar

e bia

sed

in pa

rticula

r sinc

e tra

de u

nions

from

less

dem

ocra

tic co

untrie

s are

ofte

n les

s like

ly to

make

repr

esen

tation

s to

the IL

O. R

ather

than

sta

ting t

he nu

mber

of co

mplai

nts an

d rep

rese

ntatio

ns re

ceive

d, the

ir sub

stanc

e sho

uld be

repo

rted

and a

link t

o the

origi

nal s

ource

be pr

ovide

d. (d

) In co

untrie

s with

mult

iple m

inimu

m wa

ges,

it wou

ld be

usefu

l to re

port

a ran

ge of

va

lues a

s well

as s

ome

of the

mos

t impo

rtant.

Impo

rtanc

e co

uld b

e jud

ged

base

d on

num

ber o

f wor

kers

cove

red

and/o

r on

repr

esen

tation

of t

ypica

l low

wage

wor

kers.

(e

) Miss

ing h

ere

are

other

nati

onal

laws t

hat a

ffect

gend

er

equit

y and

refle

ct dis

adva

ntage

s for

wom

en w

orke

rs. F

or e

xamp

le in

some

coun

tries,

wome

n do

not h

ave

equa

l opp

ortun

ity

for e

ntrep

rene

ursh

ip, a

s wom

en d

o no

t alw

ays h

ave

equa

l righ

ts to

land

and

busin

ess o

wner

ship,

ban

k ac

coun

ts, a

cces

s to

credit

, etc.

Alth

ough

this

is an

impo

rtant

area

of g

ende

r ine

quali

ty, it

is n

ot inc

luded

in th

is tab

le be

caus

e it

would

requ

ire c

onsid

erab

le ne

w eff

orts

to co

llect

requ

ired

infor

matio

n. (

f) Th

e So

cial S

ecur

ity

Datab

ase

draw

s on

data

com

piled

by

the In

terna

tiona

l Soc

ial S

ecur

ity A

ssoc

iation

(ISS

A) o

n the

bas

is of

origi

nal t

extua

l infor

matio

n fro

m the

US

Socia

l Sec

urity

Adm

inistr

ation

. See

http

://www

.issa

.int/a

iss/O

bser

vator

y/Soc

ial-

Secu

rity-D

ataba

ses a

nd ht

tp://w

ww.ilo

.org/d

yn/se

same

/IFPS

ES.S

ocial

Datab

ase.

Measurement of decent work...2 TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2 contained a detailed section on...

Documents

Transcript of Measurement of decent work...2 TMEMDW-R-[2008-08-0062-1]-En.doc/v2 contained a detailed section on...