Labour rights indicators: a new resource for better understanding of labour rights in the world

by Mark Anner, David Kucera, Dora Sari

Is compliance with international labour standards good for economic development, or does non-compliance give countries a competitive advantage? Are we faced with a ‘race to the bottom’ with respect to labour standards? And how might the answers depend on a country’s level of development as well as on the particular industries and labour standards in question? In the absence of clear-cut answers, debates about the impact of labour standards on economic development have only intensified with the rapid expansion of preferential trade agreements including labour provisions as well as debates over such contested mega-regional trade agreements as the now defunct Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which have generated heated discussions in a number of high-level policy forums.

As old as these questions are, we still lack anything like definitive answers to them. Knowing the answers should not call into question the objective of improving compliance with international labour standards, but rather inform the strategy by which this is pursued. In spite of there being a fair amount of research, a key bottleneck in moving forward is adequate measures for many international labour standards, particularly for freedom of association and collective bargaining (FACB) rights which are intrinsically difficult to measure. To address this gap, new labour rights indicators and an accompanying dataset, both focusing on FACB rights, have been launched by the Center for Global Workers’ Rights at Penn State University together with the Global Labour University.

Outcomes of the 19th ICLS on Work Statistics: What counts as a Job?

Grant Belchamber

Sylvain Schetagne

A few months back, we raised issues regarding the revision by the International Conference of Labour Statisticians (ICLS) - organised by the ILO - on what counts as a job and the re-consideration and reset of guidelines to measure work and the labour force[1]. This debate came about because of the need to better provide policy makers with accurate information on the state of work and the labour markets. This debate was further fueled by the stagnant key labour market indicators. 

Thirty years ago, the main objective of employment statistics was to measure labour inputs in production, to calculate GDP and measure economic growth. The lens for measuring employment and unemployment was constructed to meet the needs of producing the National Accounts. Today, policy makers want to know about labour market trends, the effectiveness of labour market programs, labour underutilization, the participation of different sub-groups of the population and the engagement with the market economy.

What counts as a Job?

Grant Belchamber

Sylvain Schetagne

When key labour market indicators barely move while millions suffer from the deepest economic crisis in decades, it is time to revise them.

Poor indicators make for poor public policy. The global crisis highlights the compelling need to set clear and relevant international standards to collect labour statistics and measure labour market trends.

This job falls to the International Conference of Labour Statisticians (ICLS), which is convened by the International Labour Organisation (ILO) every five years in Geneva. In October this year the 19th ICLS will re-consider and re-set the guidelines for measurement of Work and the Labour Force.

Different times, different needs
Today’s standards date from the 13th ICLS in 1982[1]. Thirty years ago the main objective of statistics on employment was to measure labour inputs in production, to calculate GDP and measure economic growth, and the lens for measuring employment and unemployment was constructed to meet the needs of producing the National Accounts.