A CHARTBOOK OF HARTBOOK OF

INTERNATIONAL NTERNATIONAL

LABOR COMPARISONS

OMPARISONS

THE AMERICAS MERICAS  ASIA-PACIFIC  E

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR  JANUARY 2008
Material contained in this document is in the public 

domain and may be reproduced, fully or partially, without permission of the Federal Government. Source credit is requested.This document is available on the Internet at: http://www.dol.gov/asp/welcome.html.
A CHARTBOOK OF HARTBOOK OF

INTERNATIONAL NTERNATIONAL

LABOR COMPARISONS

OMPARISONS

THE AMERICAS MERICAS  ASIA-PACIFIC  EU

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR  JANUARY 2008
FOREWORD

All countries have unique cultures, histories, economies, and challenges. Yet despite these differences, the economies of the world are becoming increasingly interrelated as technology and world trade grow. As a result, local economies are increasingly affected by changes in worldwide markets.For the United States to continue to succeed in the global economy and create more jobs at home, it is important to understand the economic relationships that are transforming the world. U.S. workers have long enjoyed one of the highest standards of living in the world—thanks to technology, the flexibility of our nation’s workforce, and the remarkable productivity of America’s workers. To preserve these advantages, it is critical that U.S. workers have the skills necessary to compete in the worldwide economy of the 21st century.By understanding how the United States compares with other advanced and emerging economies, our nation will be better prepared to take the steps necessary to ensure that America’s workforce and America’s economy continue to thrive and prosper. Therefore, this Chartbook of International Labor 

Comparisons provides a comparative labor market 

perspective—including employment levels, jobless rates, hours worked, labor costs, and productivity trends.

As the charts reveal, the United States In other cases, our nation’s trading partnprogress. This information provides a sUnited States stands today in relation to rest of the world. It can assist policy ancharting a course that will help prepare ofor the challenges of tomorrow. I hope yo

both relevant and informative.Elaine L. ChaoSecretary of Labor

ii | Foreword
PREFACE

This chartbook focuses on the labor market situation in selected countries in the 1996-2006 period. Charts in sections 1 through 4 and section 6 include countries in North America (the United States, Canada, and Mexico) and selected Asian-Pacific and European economies. Weighted aggregates for 15 European Union countries (EU-15) are shown on most charts. These represent European Union member countries prior to the expansion of the European Union to 25 countries on May 1, 2004 and to 27 countries on January 1, 2007. The EU-15 countries are Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. It should be noted that the selected economies are not representative of all of Europe and the Asian-Pacific region; rather, they tend to be the more industrialized economies in these regions. In section 5, several indicators are presented for five large emerging economies: Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, and the Russian Federation. Due to the lack of suitable data, some of the countries do not appear on all charts. The appendix describes the definitions, sources, and methods used to compile the data in the chartbook. For some series, the appendix provides cautions about the exact comparability of the measures. Section 1, on Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, shows charts that portray overall measures of comparative living standards. Section 2 highlights the state of the labor market by comparing major labor force, employment, and unemployment indicators. Section 3 examines the competitive position of the United States in the global marketplace by comparing hourly compensation costs in manufacturing, trends in manufacturing labor productivity and unit labor costs, and manufacturing output as a percent of world manufacturing output. Section 4 includes charts that compare public expenditures on labor market programs, regulation measures on labor and product markets, taxes on labor, and 

foreign trade in goods. Section 5 presents nine for large emerging economies. In section 6, thon disability indicators. This is the first osupplemental sections that highlight topics of poccasional data availability. The charts are color coded as follows: North blue, Asian-Pacific economies are red, and yellow. A different color scheme is used, howthan one chart-bar per country, and additionaemerging economies charts in section 5. The chartbook was a cooperative effort of Department of Labor: the Bureau of Internatiothe Office of the Assistant Secretary for Policy of Labor Statistics (BLS). Since 1960, BLS ha

market data of foreign countries to improve thedata. The chartbook is representative of the program of international labor comparisons. In and indicator coverage, BLS data are supplemOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Dother international organizations. A team led by Marie-Claire Sodergren of the Labor Statistics (DFLS) in cooperation with KSarah Gormly of the ILAB Division of Economprepared the chartbook. The following persteam: Apinait Amranand, Aaron Cobet, Rich Mubarka Haq, Wolodar Lysko, Jennifer RayConstance Sorrentino, Chief of DFLS, and RoSwirsky of OASP provided overall guidance. 
CONTENTS

iv | Contents

Section 1. Gross Domestic Product Per Capita 11.1 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, 2006 21.2 Average annual growth rates for real GDP per capita, 1996-

2006 3

Section 2. Labor Market Indicators 52.1 Size of the labor force, 2006 62.2 Average annual growth rates for the labor force, 1996-2006 72.3 Labor force participation rates by sex, 2006 82.4 Labor force participation rates for youth, 2006 92.5 Labor force participation rates for older workers, 2006 102.6 Employment as a percent of the working-age population, 

2006 11

2.7 Average annual growth rates for employment, 1996-2006 12 2.8 Average annual growth rates for full-time and part-time 

employment, 1996-2006 13

2.9 Annual hours worked per employed person, 1996 and 2006 142.10 Unemployment rates, 2006 152.11 Unemployment rates for youth, 2006 162.12 Ratio of youth to adult unemployment rates, 2006 172.13 Persons unemployed one year or longer, 2006 182.14 Ratio of unemployment rate of persons without high school 

degrees to that of persons with college or university degrees, 2005 19

2.15 Educational attainment of the adult population, 2005 20 

Section 3. Competitiveness IndicatManufacturing 3.1 Hourly compensation costs, 2005 3.2 Average annual growth rates for hourly c

1995-2005 

3.3 Employer social insurance expenditures 

taxes as a percent of hourly compensatio

3.4 Average annual growth rates for manufa

1996-2006 

3.5 Average annual growth rates for manufa

hours worked, 1996-2006 

3.6 Average annual growth rates for manufa

costs in U.S. dollars, 1996-2006 

3.7 Manufacturing output as a percent of wo

output, 2006 

Section 4. Other Economic Indicato4.1 Public expenditures on labor market prog

of GDP, 2005-06 

4.2 Measures of regulation on labor and prod4.3 Share of labor costs taken by tax and so

contributions, 2006 

4.4 Dependency ratios, 2005 and projections 4.5 Trade in goods as a percent of GDP, 200 
Section 5. Indicators for Large Emerging Economies 355.1 World population distribution, 2005 365.2 Age composition of the population, 2005 375.3 Dependency ratios, 2005 and projections to 2025 385.4 GDP per capita, 2005 395.5 GDP per employed person, 1996 and 2005 405.6 Labor force participation rates by age, 2006 415.7 Employment as a percent of the working-age population by 

sex, 2006 42

5.8 Trade in goods as a percent of GDP, 2005 435.9 Manufacturing output as a percent of world manufacturing 

output, 2006 44

Section 6. Disability indicators 456.1 Persons with disabilities as a percent of the working-age 

population 

46

6.2 Employment as a percent of the working-age population 476.3 Persons receiving disability benefits as a percent of the 

working-age population, 1990 and 1999 48

6.4 Labor market status of persons receiving disability benefits 49

Appendix. Definitions, Sources, and Methods A1

Gross

Domestic

Product

Per Capita

Gross D

SECT

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capiU.S. dollars using Purchasing Power Pmost widely used income measucomparisons of living standards. It shouincome measures do not capture a affecting economic well-being, such as safety, and cultural resources.PPPs are the number of foreign currency goods and services in a foreign country ebe bought with one dollar in the United Stto equalize the purchasing power of differare used instead of exchange rates becarates do not necessarily reflect the relativdifferent currencies. Charts 1.1 and 1.2 compare the level of Gand the trend from 1996 to 2006 in 21 shown on various charts in this chartbookare also included. Data were not available capita for Taiwan. 
44.2

35.9

11.5

35.0

38.1

31.9

23.6

26.7

32.7 32.2

36.1 36.0

31.7 32.0

41.9

29.3

37.1

53.1

0

102030405060

U.S. CanadaMexico Australia Hong Kong SARJapan Korea, Rep. of New Zealand SingaporeEU-15Austria DenmarkFrance GermanyIreland Italy NetherlandsNorway Portugal

NOTE: Hong Kong SAR stands for Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China. Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) is the number 

required to buy goods and services in a foreign country equivalent to what can be bought with one dollar in the United States.

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics and World Bank.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, 2006converted at PPP rates

2 | Gross Domestic Product Per Capita

Thousands of U.S. dollars

 Norway, the United States, and Ireland were the countries with the highest GDP per capita. The other economies showed levels of GDP per capita between 86 percent (Hong Kong SAR) and 

(Mexico) of the U.S. level.

CHART 1.1
NOTE: Hong Kong SAR stands for Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China. 

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, including special tabulations using data from the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Dev

and national sources.

2.1

2.5 2.4 2.3

3.5

0.9

3.7

1.8

3.1

1.8 1.8 1.8 1.7

1.4

1.1

2.0 2.1

5.5

0123456

U.S. CanadaMexico Australia

Hong Kong SARJapan Korea, Rep. of New Zealand SingaporeEU-15Austria DenmarkFrance GermanyIrelandItaly Netherlands Norway Portugal

Average annual growth rates for real GDP per capita, 1

Gross D

CHART 1.2

 In most of the 21 economies, real GDP per capita grew during the decade at an average rate of 1

per year; the U.S. growth rate was in the middle of the range, at 2.1 percent per year.

 Ireland registered the greatest increase in real GDP per capita, by far, followed by the Republic of 

Kong SAR, and Singapore; Japan and Italy had the smallest increases.

Percent

Labor Market

Indicators

SECT

Charts 2.1 through 2.15 show comparisoemployment, unemployment, and related of the labor force is shown in chart 2.1(chart 2.2) sums up changes in bounemployment over the period. Labor fo(charts 2.3-2.5) express the extent to whiceither working or unemployed. Here compsex and for four selected age groups relatworkers.Employment and unemployment are kfunctioning of labor markets both within Charts 2.6-2.9 compare the proportion population employed, employment growttime and part-time employment, and annemployed person. Charts 2.10-2.15 erates, long-duration unemployment, abetween unemployment rates and levels oAll charts cover 19 or 20 countries. In ashown on all but three of the charts. Comindicators were not available for Taiwan and some indicators were not available fo
5

2.4 8.4

24.4

2.1

41.3

27.2

4.1 2.9

182.0

2.2 2.2

24.0

66.0

10.7

43.2

17.4

151.4

0

4080

120160200

U.S. CanadaMexico AustraliaJapan

Korea, Rep. of New Zealand SingaporeEU-15Austria DenmarkFrance GermanyIreland Italy Netherlands Norway Portugal

Millions

Size of the labor force, 2006

6 | Labor Market Indicators

CHART 2.1

 The U.S. labor force was the largest, by far. The EU-15 countries combined had a larger labor force than the United States.

NOTE: 2005 for the EU-15. 2004 for Singapore.SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and International Labor Office.
1

0.9

1.2

0.7

3.4

0.5

0.9

0.3

0.7

0.9

2.5

1.7

1.2

-0.1

1.6

2.0

1.7

1.2

-1

01234

U.S. CanadaMexico AustraliaJapan

Korea, Rep. of New Zealand SingaporeEU-15Austria DenmarkFrance GermanyIreland Italy Netherlands Norway Portugal

Percent

Average annual growth rates for the labor force, 1996

CHART 2.2

 U.S. labor force growth outpaced that of the EU-15 average; in Europe, labor force growth was st

Spain, and Portugal than in the United States.

 Singapore, the other North American countries, New Zealand, and Australia also recorded higher 

rates than the United States. 

NOTE: 1996-2005 for the EU-15. 1996-2004 for Singapore.SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and International Labor Office.
73.5 72.8

77.0

73.0 73.0 71.5 74.9 76.2

64.6 66.7

70.4

62.4

65.7

72.7

60.6

71.1 69.5 69.

60.3

56.4

38.1

52.5 50.9 51.2

60.8

51.9

48.7

54.9

60.7

50.6 47.9

58.4

42.9

62.1 59.4

0

20406080

100

U.S.

CanadaMexico AustraliaJapan

Korea, Rep. of New Zealand SingaporeEU-15Austria DenmarkFrance GermanyIreland Italy Netherlands Norway Portugal

Men Women

Labor force participation rates by sex, 2006

 Across countries, women’s labor force participation rates varied more than men’s rates. In Canad

countries, New Zealand, and Australia, women participated in the labor force at about the same hwomen. Italian and Mexican women had the lowest participation rates.

 Participation rates for men were at least 70 percent in 12 out of 20 countries; the lowest rates for 

Italy and France.

8 | Labor Market Indicators

Percent

CHART 2.3

NOTE: 2005 for the EU-15. 2004 for Singapore.SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and International Labor Office.
17

43.2

58.6

11.8

30.4 26.6

12.4

59.8

43.3

28.7

54.8

7.5 16.5

59.9

36.5

53.7 43.7

0

255075

100

U.S.

CanadaMexico AustraliaJapan

Korea, Rep. of New ZealandEU-15Austria DenmarkFrance GermanyIreland Italy NetherlandsNorway Portugal

Percent Persons ages 15 or 16 to 19

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Labor force participation rates for youth, 2006 

CHART 2.4

 Labor force participation rates varied widely for teenagers, ranging from 7.5 percent (the Republic 

percent (Australia).

 Persons ages 20 to 24 participated in the labor market to a much greater extent than teenagers, w

participation rates in Australia and the Netherlands.

63

74.6

51.6

70.8 74.4

54.4

74.5 65.5 76.1

54.6

69.6 61.3 74.6 78.6 82.1 79.4 80.1

0

255075

100

U.S. CanadaMexico AustraliaJapan

Korea, Rep. of New ZealandEU-15Austria DenmarkFrance GermanyIreland Italy NetherlandsNorway Portugal

Percent Persons ages 20 to 24
63.7 58.7 55.9 57.5 67.3 60.7 71.8 48.8

36.8

63.2

43.6

55.3 54.7

33.4

49.1

68.2

53

0

255075

100

U.S. CanadaMexico AustraliaJapan

Korea, Rep. of New ZealandEU-15Austria DenmarkFrance GermanyIreland Italy NetherlandsNorway Portugal

Persons ages 55 to 64 Percent

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Labor force participation rates for older workers, 2006 

10 | Labor Market Indicators

CHART 2.5

 Persons ages 55 to 64 participated in the labor market far less in Italy and Austria than in the rem Participation rates for persons ages 65 and over varied widely from 1.1 percent (France) to about 

Republic of Korea and Mexico); the U.S. rate was nearly four times higher than the EU-15 averag

15.4 8.2

29.0

7.9

19.8

30.5

12.7 4.0 3.6 5.2 1.1 3.5 8.7 3.3 4.6 14.0 18

0

255075

100

U.S. CanadaMexico AustraliaJapan

Korea, Rep. of New ZealandEU-15Austria DenmarkFrance GermanyIreland Italy NetherlandsNorway Portugal

Persons ages 65 and over Percent
5

62.6 61.0

45.5

59.8

50.9 52.2

62.8

56.2

51.7

61.8 65.0

57.5 58.9 62.5 57.5 63.1 63.6

0

20406080

100

U.S.

CanadaMexico AustraliaJapan

Korea, Rep. of New Zealand SingaporeEU-15Austria DenmarkFrance GermanyIreland Italy Netherlands Norway Portugal

NOTE: 2005 for the EU-15. 2004 for Singapore. The working-age population is defined as persons ages 15 or 16 and over.SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and International Labor Office.

Employment as a percent of the working-age populatio

Percent

CHART 2.6

 New Zealand, Canada, and the United States had the highest percentages of the working-age po In Italy, less than half of the working-age population was employed.
1.3

2.1

2.3

2.0

-0.2

1.1

1.9

2.2

1.3

0.6 0.6

1.1

0.4

4.3

1.2

1.4

1.1

1

-1

012345

U.S. CanadaMexico AustraliaJapan

Korea, Rep. of New Zealand SingaporeEU-15Austria DenmarkFrance GermanyIreland Italy NetherlandsNorway Portugal

Percent

Average annual growth rates for employment, 1996-2

12 | Labor Market Indicators

CHART 2.7

 Spain and Ireland had the highest growth rates in employment. Employment declined only in Jap U.S. employment growth, although identical to the EU-15 average, outpaced that of 8 of the 12 Eu

the remaining countries recorded higher employment growth than the United States, except for Ja

Republic of Korea.

NOTE: 1996-2005 for the EU-15. 1996-2004 for Singapore. SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and International Labor Office.
NOTE: 1996-2004 for Mexico. Full-time employment is defined as persons usually working over 30 hours per week in their main job. U

salary workers only. Data for other countries refer to total employment, which includes wage and salary workers, self-employed persons

workers. SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

1.5

2.2 2.4

1.7

-0.6

0.5

1.9

0.7

-0.4

0.4

1.0

-0.5

2.5

0.6 0.9 1.1

1.5

1.5

0.3

2.5 2.7

0.9

8.4

1.6

2.9

5.1

1.4

0.4

4.4

6.7

4.7

3.8

0.8

1

-3-1

13579

11

U.S. CanadaMexicoAustraliaJapan

Korea, Rep. of New ZealandEU-15Austria DenmarkFrance GermanyIreland Italy NetherlandsNorwayPortugal

Full-time Part-time

Average annual growth rates for full-time and part-timemployment, 1996-2006

Percent

CHART 2.8

 Full-time employment grew faster than part-time employment in six countries, including the United  Average annual growth rates for full-time employment were highest in Spain, followed by Ireland, 

Canada. 
SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Annual hours worked per employed person, 1996 and 

1840 1784 19021777 1892

2648

18331664

1495 16551518

1882 1873

1421 1483

1848 

17

1407 1391

1800 1640

143 15 6 64 1577 16 17 55 87

2305

1784 1738 1804 18831714 

0

100020003000

U.S.

CanadaMexico AustraliaJapan

Korea, Rep. of New ZealandAustria DenmarkFrance GermanyIreland Italy NetherlandsNorway Portugal

1996 2006

14 | Labor Market Indicators

Hours

CHART 2.9

 In both years, Koreans worked the most hours annually. The Republic of Korea and Ireland experienced the largest reductions in annual hours worked per 
7

3.5

4.4

6.9

4.4

10.4

3.9

9.7

4.7

7.4

4.8

3.8

3.5

4.2

4.8

3.6

5.5

4.6

02468

1012

U.S.

CanadaMexico AustraliaJapan

Korea, Rep. of New Zealand SingaporeEU-15Austria DenmarkFrance GermanyIreland Italy Netherlands Norway Portugal

NOTE: 2004 for Singapore. SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and International Labor Office.

Percent

Unemployment rates, 2006

CHART 2.10

 Most of the European countries had higher unemployment rates than the United States. The Republic of Korea, Norway, and Mexico had the lowest unemployment rates.
Unemployment rates for youth, 2006

15.4 14.8

6.8

14.7

9.6

10.7

13.7

20.0 19.7

11.9

10.4

30.9

14.2

11.8

33.2

10.1

11.6

25

6.8

5.2

19.6

7.3

13.7

22.1

5.3 6.3 7.5

14.6

6.4

9.9

7.8 6.7

5.7

8.2 8.2

0

10203040

U.S.

Canada

Mexico

Australia

Japan

Korea, Rep. of

New Zealand

Singapore

EU-15

Austria

Denmark

France

Germany

Ireland

Italy

Netherlands

Norway

Portugal

Persons ages 15 or 16 to 19 Persons ages 20 to 24 Percent

16 | Labor Market Indicators

CHART 2.11

 Italian teenagers had the highest unemployment rate, followed by their counterparts in Sweden an Unemployment rates for teenagers were higher than those for 20- to 24-year-olds in all countries.

NOTE: 2004 for Singapore. SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and International Labor Office.
NOTE: 2004 for Singapore. Youth are defined as persons ages 15 or 16 to 24. Adults are defined as persons ages 25 and over. 

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and International Labor Office.

Ratio of youth to adult unemployment rates, 2006

2.9

2.3

2.6 2.8

2.1

3.5

3.9

2.0

2.4 2.2 2.3

3.0

1.4

2.3

3.9

1.9

3.3

2

012345

U.S. CanadaMexico AustraliaJapan Korea, Rep. of New Zealand SingaporeEU-15Austria DenmarkFrance GermanyIreland Italy Netherlands Norway Portugal

Ratio

CHART 2.12

 In most countries, unemployment rates were two to three times higher for youth than for adults.  The ratios of youth to adult unemployment rates were highest in Sweden, New Zealand, and Italy

lowest in Germany.
 Long-duration unemployment was least prevalent in the Republic of Korea and Mexico.

 The EU-15 countries combined had a relatively high percentage of persons unemployed one year 

than half of the unemployed were without work for at least one year in Germany, Italy, and Portug

Persons unemployed one year or longer, 2006as a percent of total unemployment

51

14.1

45.2

52.9

34.3

57.2

44.0

20.4

27.3

44.2

7.1

1.1

33.0

17.8

2.5

8.7

10.0

0

10203040506070

U.S. CanadaMexico AustraliaJapan

Korea, Rep. of New ZealandEU-15Austria DenmarkFrance GermanyIreland Italy Netherlands Norway Portugal

Percent

18 | Labor Market Indicators

CHART 2.13

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
Ratio of unemployment rate of persons without high schoo

that of persons with college or university degrees, 2005

2.6

1.5

3.2

4.6

3.3

3.6

5.0

2.3

0.7

2.7

2.1 2.2 2.1

1.6

2.4

1.6

1.3 

1.7

1.4

1.8

1.6 1.7

2.6

0.6

2.0

3.2 

2.8

3.1 3.2

1.6

0.8

1.4

0246

U.S.

Canada

Mexico 

Australia

Japan

Korea, Rep. of

New Zealand 

Austria 

Denmark 

France 

Germany 

Ireland

Italy

Netherlands

Norway

Portugal 

Ratio Men Women

NOTE: 2004 for Austria. 2003 for Japan. The unemployment rates used to calculate these ratios are for men and women ages 25 to 6

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

CHART 2.14

 Unemployment rates were higher for persons without high school degrees, except for men and wo

and for women in the Republic of Korea.

 The unemployment rates of persons without high school degrees were at least three times those o

college or university degrees for men in Norway and Austria, and for both men and women in Ger

United Kingdom, and the United States. 
49 39

6

33

44

44 52 63

49

41

58

36

39

42

45

13

39 46

15

32

40

32 27

18

34

25 25 29

12

30 33

13

74

22

28

49

35

17

34

17 24 21 19 16

35

79

12 15

0

20406080

100

U.S.

Canada Mexico Australia Japan Korea, Rep. of New Zealand Austria Denmark France GermanyIreland Italy NetherlandsNorway Portugal

Below upper secondary Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary 

NOTE: 2003 for Japan. The adult population is defined as persons ages 25 to 64. Below upper secondary education is equivalent to le

Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education is equivalent to high school and also includes trade school. Tertiary educat

higher education provided by a college or university.SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Educational attainment of the adult population, 2005by highest level of education attained

20 | Labor Market Indicators

CHART 2.15

 More than one-third of the adult population has tertiary (university) education in Canada, Japan, th

and Denmark.

 In Mexico, Portugal, and Spain, more than half of the adult population has less than upper second

Percent
Competitiveness

Indicators for

Manufacturing

Competitiveness Ind

SECT

Relative levels and changes in mcompensation costs and relative changlabor productivity (output per hour) and uused to partially assess international comdata are available on a comparative manufacturing sector. Charts 3.1 and 3and trends of hourly compensation costs fin manufacturing. The data are adjustmarket exchange rates. Changes over tcosts denominated in U.S. dollars renational wage and benefit trends mcurrencies, as well as frequent and somein currency exchange rates. The hourly in U.S. dollars provide comparative measucosts; they do not provide comparativpurchasing power of worker incomes. employer social insurance expenditures aas a percent of hourly compensation costsCharts 3.4 through 3.7 provide comparisproductivity growth rates, the composition in terms of changes in output and hours wlabor costs, and shares of world manufalabor costs are defined as the cost of labunit of output. Changes in unit labor costof changes in hourly worker compenproductivity. Unit labor costs rise when corises faster than labor productivity. productivity rises faster than hourly comcosts decline.The compensation costs indicators providcoverage in this chartbook. Twenty-two EU-15 are shown on those charts. Forelated indicators, the coverage is limiteChart 3.7 on world manufacturing output and the EU-15.
 Eight European countries, as well as Australia and Canada, had higher hourly compensation cost

States.

 Hourly compensation costs were well under $10 in Mexico, Hong Kong SAR, Taiwan, Portugal, an

Hourly compensation costs, 2005for production workers in manufacturing in U.S. dollars

39.14

31.81

21.05 22.76

33.00

24.63

35.47

29.42

27.52

6.38 7.66

14.97 13.56

21.76

5.65

24.91

2.63

23.65 23.82

0

1020304050

U.S. CanadaMexico Australia

Hong Kong SARJapan Korea, Rep. of New Zealand SingaporeTaiwanEU-15Austria DenmarkFrance GermanyIreland Italy Netherlands Norway Portug

NOTE: Hong Kong SAR stands for Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China. SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

U.S. Dollars

22 | Competitiveness Indicators for Manufacturing

CHART 3.1
3.3

3.7

4.5

4.9

1.6

-0.8

6.4

3.8

0.1

0.6

3.1

1.5

3.4

2.5

0.9

5.2

3.0 2.8

4.7

-2

02468

U.S. CanadaMexico Australia

Hong Kong SARJapan Korea, Rep. of New Zealand SingaporeTaiwanEU-15Austria DenmarkFrance GermanyIreland Italy NetherlandsNorway Portu

Average annual growth rates for hourly compensation costs, 1for production workers in manufacturing in U.S. dollars

Competitiveness Ind

Percent

NOTE: Hong Kong SAR stands for Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China. SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

CHART 3.2

 Growth in hourly compensation costs in U.S. dollars was similar for the United States and the EU- Only Japan had a decrease in hourly compensation costs over the period.
22.5

19.4

10.9

20.3

8.5

17.0

21.7

4.5

14.0

12.1

23.5

27.1

10.3

31.2

22.6

12.7

30.9

21.5 20.0 

0

10203040

U.S. CanadaMexico Australia

Hong Kong SARJapan Korea, Rep. of New Zealand Singapore TaiwanEU-15Austria Denmark France GermanyIrelandItaly Netherlands Norway Portug

Percent

24 | Competitiveness Indicators for Manufacturing

Employer social insurance expenditures and other labor taxes of hourly compensation costs, 2005for production workers in manufacturing

NOTE: Hong Kong SAR stands for Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of China. SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

CHART 3.3

 Employer social insurance costs as a percent of hourly compensation costs were similar for the U

the EU-15 as a whole, but U.S. costs were higher than in all of the non-European economies.

 In Europe, social insurance costs as a percent of total hourly compensation costs ranged widely: 

had higher costs than the United States, while Denmark and Ireland had much lower costs.
5.4

2.3 2.5

3.4

8.8

5.6

3.1

4.3

3.8

-0.1

3.3 3.0

1

-2

02468

10

U.S.CanadaAustralia Japan

Korea, Rep. ofTaiwanDenmark FranceGermany Italy NetherlandsNorway Spain

Percent

Competitiveness Ind

Average annual growth rates for manufacturing produ1996-2006 CHART 3.4

 The Republic of Korea had, by far, the largest increase in manufacturing labor productivity, followe

Taiwan, and the United States. 

 Manufacturing labor productivity declined on average only in Italy. 

NOTE: Productivity is defined as output per hour worked.SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics.
3.3

2.6

1.4 1.3

5.3

2.4 2.6

0.0

2.0 1.8

3.0

-2.0

-1.1

-2.0

-1.2

-0.3

-1.3

-1.8

-1.2 -1.3 -1.1 

1.7

7.5

0.4

0.0

-4-2

02468

10

U.S.CanadaAustralia Japan

Korea, Rep. ofTaiwanDenmarkFranceGermany Italy NetherlandsNorway Spain

Output Hours worked

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Percent

26 | Competitiveness Indicators for Manufacturing

Average annual growth rates for manufacturing outpuworked, 1996-2006 CHART 3.5

 Average annual growth rates for manufacturing output were highest in the Republic of Korea, Swe The United Kingdom, the United States, and Japan had the largest percentage declines in hours w

worked increased only in Spain and Canada.
 Unit labor costs (ULC) are a component of total production costs and product prices. Declines in 

an economy is becoming more cost-competitive.

 ULC declined over the period in almost half of the economies, including the United States.

-3.2 -3.2

-4.7

-1.6

-1.9

2.5

0.1

2.0

0

0.1

1.5

2.6

-0.7

-6-4-2

024

U.S.

CanadaAustralia Japan

Korea, Rep. ofTaiwanDenmarkFranceGermany Italy NetherlandsNorway Spain

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Percent

Competitiveness Ind

Average annual growth rates for manufacturing unit laU.S. dollars, 1996-2006 CHART 3.6
20.5

2.5 1.6 1.0

11.1

2.6

0.2 0.7 0.4

3.3

7.4

0.6

3.7

1.0 0.5 0.3 

25.6

05

1015202530

U.S. CanadaMexico AustraliaJapan

Korea, Rep. of New ZealandEU-15Austria DenmarkFrance GermanyIreland Italy Netherlands Norway Portugal

Manufacturing output as a percent of world manufactu2006

28 | Competitiveness Indicators for Manufacturing 

Percent

CHART 3.7

 The United States is, by far, the world’s leading producer of manufactured goods.  The EU-15 countries’ combined share of world manufacturing output surpassed that of the United 

SOURCE: United Nations.
SECT

Other

Economic

Indicators

O

Charts 4.1 through 4.5 show indicators oand population issues, some of these in t4.1-4.3 compare the following policy isslabor market programs, the extent of laboregulations, and the level of taxation on laChart 4.4 shows dependency ratios. Than overall measure of the dependence elderly on people of working age. Howevshow the age composition of a populaeconomic dependency. Some children apart of the labor force and some working-aChart 4.5 compares data on trade in gGDP. This indicator shows an economy’s The number of countries covered in this sto 20. EU-15 data were available only for 
2.0

1.6

3.4

1.4 1.5

3.3

2.5

4.3

2.1

0.8

0.4

0.7

1.1

0.4

1.0

012345

U.S.

CanadaAustraliaJapan

Korea, Rep. of New ZealandAustria DenmarkFrance GermanyIreland Italy NetherlandsNorwayPortugalS

Percent

Public expenditures on labor market programs as a peGDP, 2005-06

30 | Other Economic Indicators

NOTE: 2005 for the Republic of Korea, Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, a2005 for the United Kingdom. Fiscal year 2006 for the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, and New Zealand.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

CHART 4.1

 Expenditures on labor market programs were less than 1 percent of GDP in the United States, the 

Korea, Japan, the United Kingdom, and New Zealand.

 The highest relative expenditures were in Denmark, the Netherlands, and Germany.
1.1

1.3

2.4

0.7

1.8

2.3

1.5 1.3

1.8

2.6

2.0

2.5

2.2

2.9

3.5

3.2

1.0 

1

1.5 1.4

1.9

1.1 1.2

1.4

1.7

1.1

1.4

1.1

1.5 1.3

0.9

2.2

0123456

U.S. CanadaMexico AustraliaJapan

Korea, Rep. of New ZealandAustria DenmarkFrance GermanyIrelandItaly NetherlandsNorway PortugalS

Labor market Product market

Measures of regulation on labor and product markets, 

O

CHART 4.2

 Regulations on market activity were least restrictive in the United States and the United Kingdom.  Portugal and Mexico were characterized by more restrictive labor markets, followed by Spain and 

product markets were most pronounced in Mexico and Italy. 

Scale 0-6 from least to most restrictive

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.
32.1

15.0

28.1 28.8

18.1

20.9

42.6

48.1

41.3

50.2

52.5

23.1

45.2 44.4

37.3 36

28.9

0

102030405060

U.S. CanadaMexico AustraliaJapan

Korea, Rep. of New ZealandEU-15Austria DenmarkFrance GermanyIrelandItaly Netherlands Norway Portugal

NOTE: Data refer to single persons without children at the income of the average worker.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Percent 

32 | Other Economic Indicators

Share of labor costs taken by tax and social security co2006 CHART 4.3

 For the average single worker, the combined employer-employee tax burden was lower in the Uni

all European countries except Ireland.

 The combined employer-employee tax burden was higher in the United States than in all non-Euro

except Canada. 
Dependency ratios, 2005 and projections to 2025

 In 2005, Mexico had the highest dependency ratio, while the Republic of Korea had the lowest. Only Mexico’s dependency ratio is expected to decrease by 2025; Japan is expected to have the 

dependency ratio.

0.58 0.57 0.59

0.68

0.47

0.57

0.59

0.56

0.60

0.62

0.60

0.51

0.59 0.60 0.59

0.49

0.44

0.58

0.48

0.51

0.39

0.51 0.50

0.47

0.51

0.53

0.50

0.47

0.51

0.48

0.52

0.48

0.47

0

0.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.8

U.S.

Canada

Mexico

Australia

Japan

Korea, Rep. of

New Zealand

EU-15

Austria

Denmark

France

Germany

Ireland

Italy

Netherlands

Norway

Portugal

2005 2025

O

Ratio

CHART 4.4

NOTE: The dependency ratio is the ratio of dependents (persons ages 14 and under and persons ages 65 and over) to the working-age 

(persons ages 15 to 64).SOURCE: United Nations.
SOURCE: World Bank.

Trade in goods as a percent of GDP, 2005

21

61 58

32 24

69

44

83

62

46

63

88

43

123

54 54 

368

0

50

100150200250300350400

U.S. CanadaMexico AustraliaJapan Korea, Rep. of New Zealand SingaporeAustria DenmarkFrance GermanyIreland Italy Netherlands Norway Portugal

Percent

34 | Other Economic Indicators

CHART 4.5

 This indicator shows the relative importance of trade in goods to an economy; the United States a

lowest ratios.

 The relatively high figures for Singapore and the Netherlands reflect their status as platforms for r

trans-shipments.
Indicators for

Large Emerging

Economies

Indicators for La

SECT

Charts 5.1 through 5.9 provide a broaeconomic indicators for the United Semerging economies. These emerging included in the other charts in this chlimitations.Charts 5.1-5.3 show population data in world population distribution, age composand dependency ratios. Gross Domcomparisons are shown in chart 5.4 (GDP 5.5 (GDP per employed person). Chart 5participation rates by age and chart population ratios by sex. Chart 5.8 compaa percent of GDP. Chart 5.9 shows manpercent of world manufacturing output.All of these charts include the United Statreference point, and five large emerging China, India, Indonesia, and the Russian F
India

17%

Rest of the World

50%

Indonesia

3%

Russian Federa

2%

China

20%

Brazil

3%

U.S.

5%

World population distribution, 2005 

SOURCE: United Nations.

36 | Indicators for Large Emerging Economies

CHART 5.1

 The five large emerging economies—Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, and the Russian Federation—

percent of the world’s population.

 China and India together made up well over one-third of the world’s population.
Age composition of the population, 2005

66.9

66.0

70.7

62.0 66.1

12.3

6.1 7.7 5.0 5.5

20.8

27.8

21.6

33.0 28.4

0

102030405060708090

100

U.S. Brazil China India Indonesia 

Ages 14 and under Ages 15 to 64 Ages 65 and over

SOURCE: United Nations.

Indicators for La

Percent

CHART 5.2

 The Russian Federation had the highest proportion of persons ages 65 and over and the lowest p

and under.

 India had the largest proportion of persons ages 14 and under, accounting for about one-third of t

population.
 In 2005, India had the highest dependency ratio; however, between 2005 and 2025, India’s ratio is 

experience the largest decline. 

 Although the United States and Indonesia had similar dependency ratios in 2005, it is expected th

U.S. dependency ratio will have risen to become the highest and Indonesia the lowest. 

Dependency ratios, 2005 and projections to 2025

0.49

0.51

0.41

0.61

0.51

0.58

0.49

0.46

0.48

0.43

0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.7

U.S. Brazil China India Indonesia 

2005 2025

NOTE: The dependency ratio is the ratio of dependents (persons ages 14 and under and persons ages 65 and over) to the working-age 

15 to 64). SOURCE: United Nations.

38 | Indicators for Large Emerging Economies

Ratio

CHART 5.3
NOTE: Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) is the number of foreign currency units required to buy goods and services in a foreign country 

bought with one dollar in the United States.SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics and World Bank.

GDP per capita, 2005converted at PPP rates

42.0

8.7

6.6

3.5 3.8

0

1020304050

U.S. Brazil China India Indonesia 

Thousands of U.S. dollars

Indicators for La

CHART 5.4

 Among the five large emerging economies, the Russian Federation and Brazil had the highest GD

quarter to one-fifth of the U.S. level; India and Indonesia had the lowest, at less than one-tenth of 

 China was in the middle of the group, with a GDP per capita at nearly 16 percent of the U.S. level
 Among the five large emerging economies, GDP per employed person was highest in the Russian 

Brazil.

 China had the largest increase in GDP per employed person from 1996 to 2005, with an average 

of 7.5 percent.

NOTE: Purchasing Power Parity (PPP) is the number of foreign currency units required to buy goods and services in a foreign country bought with one dollar in the United States.SOURCE: International Labor Office.

GDP per employed person, 1996 and 2005in 1990 U.S. dollars converted at PPP rates

14.9

5.1 4.5

8.3

52.6

9.0

6.6

9.8

14.7

63.0

0

10203040506070

U.S. Brazil China India Indonesia 

Thousands of 1990 U.S. dollars 1996 2005

40 | Indicators for Large Emerging Economies

CHART 5.5
 Youth and both groups of older workers (persons ages 55 to 64 and persons ages 65 and over) h

participation rates in the Russian Federation. 

 The participation rate for youth was highest in China, while the rates for older workers, particularly 

and over, were highest in Indonesia. 

Labor force participation rates by age, 2006

60.6 61.0

69.0

44.7

52.8

78.8

70.0

91.0

79.9

82.9

66.2

55.4 55.8 55.4

63.7

41.4

30.1

17.2

22.9

15.4

0

20406080

100

U.S. Brazil China India Indonesia 

Ages 15 or 16 to 24 Ages 25 to 54 Ages 55 to 64 Ages 65 a

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics and International Labor Office.

Percent

Indicators for La

CHART 5.6
NOTE: The working-age population is defined as persons ages 15 or 16 and over.

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics and International Labor Office.

56.6

49.8

66.8

32.2

44.3

70.1

73.0

78.9 77.7 77.5

0

102030405060708090

U.S. Brazil China India Indonesia 

Men Women

Employment as a percent of the working-age populatio2006

Percent

42 | Indicators for Large Emerging Economies

CHART 5.7

 China had the highest percentage of employed working-age men and working-age women.  Less than one-third of the female working-age population was employed in India.
Trade in goods as a percent of GDP, 2005

56.1

29.6

63.4

21.3 22.2

0

10203040506070

U.S. Brazil China India Indonesia 

SOURCE: World Bank.

Percent

Indicators for La

CHART 5.8

 This indicator shows the relative importance of trade in goods to an economy. China had the highest proportion of trade in goods to GDP, followed by Indonesia and the Russia

United States had the lowest proportion.
U.S.

21%

Brazil

3%

China

13%

Russian Federat

2%

Indonesia

1%

Rest of the World

58%

India

2%

Manufacturing output as a percent of world manufactu2006

44 | Indicators for Large Emerging Economies

CHART 5.9

 The U.S. share of world manufacturing output was equal to the combined share of the large emer Among the large emerging economies, China had the largest share of world manufacturing output

SOURCE: United Nations.
Disability

Indicators

SEC

In recent years, governments have deresources and attention to tackling chroamong persons with disabilities and makieveryone. This one-time section looks at benefit recipiency rates, and emploympersons with disabilities.Chart 6.1 illustrates the prevalence of pewhile chart 6.2 compares their employmeto those of persons without disabilities. present the prevalence of persons receivand their labor force status. All charts covInterpreting international statistics on perand disability benefit recipients is chreasons. At the forefront, a universal sdisability is not available and therefore icollection. Differences in survey instrumsampling further reduce the comparabiladdition, the precise mix of disability benvary by country, as do the eligibility requipopulation. Charts 6.1, 6.2, and 6.4 ahousehold surveys, which do not covepopulation. For charts 6.1 and 6.2determined by self-reports of a long-tdisability, or disease in combination with rto carrying out daily activities. For chart 6benefits is also self-reported. Charadministrative records on benefit recipientrefer to the appendix for a more cominternational comparability. 
10.7

16.1

7.0

12.8 13.0

18.6

15.8

18.1

7.1

18.8

16.7

19.0

1

05

10152025

U.S. (1996) Canada (FY 1999) Mexico (1996) Australia (1998) Austria (1997) Denmark (1997) France (1997) Germany (1996) Italy (1997) Netherlands (1997) Norway (1998) Portugal (1997) Spain (1997) Sw

NOTE: The working-age population is defined as persons ages 20 to 64.SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 

Persons with disabilities as a percent of the working-apopulation CHART 6.1

 Mexico and Italy had the lowest percentage of persons reporting that they have disabilities, follow

States and Spain.

 The greatest prevalence of persons reporting disabilities was in Sweden, Portugal, the Netherland

Percent

46 | Disability Indicators
NOTE: The working-age population for each reference group is defined as persons ages 20 to 64. 

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

83.9

78.4

61.1

76.6

71.8

79.4

66.6 69.0

53.8

67.0

85.8

74.0

22.1

43.9

61.7

39.9

32.1

46.1 48.2 47.9

43.4

47.2

41.9

48.6

56.3

0

20406080

100

U.S. (1996)

Canada (FY 1999) Mexico (1996) Australia (1998) Austria (1997) Denmark (1997) France (1997) Germany (1996) Italy (1997) Netherlands (1997) Norway (1998) Portugal (1997) Spain (1997) 

Persons with disabilities Persons without disabilities

Employment as a percent of the working-age populatiofor persons with disabilities and persons without disabilities

Percent

CHART 6.2

 Persons reporting disabilities were much less likely to be employed than persons without disabiliti More than half of the working-age population reporting disabilities were employed in Norway, Can

In contrast, less than one-third were employed in Spain and Italy.
NOTE: Benefits include contributory and non-contributory disability benefits, periodic cash payments of industrial injury benefits, and wa

working-age population is defined as persons ages 15 to 64.SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

6.3

4.9 4.9

2.3

3.5

1.9

6.7

4.8

3.9

7.2

3

3.9

7.6

2.8

4.4 4.6

6.4

1.5

4.0

3.6

1.7

5.6

4.4

4.1

02468

10

U.S.CanadaAustralia New Zealand Austria JapanDenmark FranceGermany Ireland Netherlands Spain

1990 1999

Persons receiving disability benefits as a percent of thage population, 1990 and 1999

48 | Disability Indicators

Percent

CHART 6.3

 Only Austria, the Netherlands, and Germany experienced a decline between 1990 and 1999 in the 

persons receiving disability benefits.

 The Netherlands had the highest rate of persons receiving disability benefits in both years.
4

6

9

5

19

69

38

87

65

49

71

59

80

61

85

62

29

11 14

30

42

24 22 21

37

13

2

2

3 2

82

0

20406080

100

U.S. (1996) Mexico (1996) Australia (1998) Austria (1997) Denmark (1997) France (1997) Italy (1997) Netherlands (1997) Norway (1998) Portugal (1997) Spain (1997) Swed

Employed Unemployed Not in the labor force

CHART 6.4 Labor market status of persons receiving disability ben

 For most countries, the largest share of persons who reported receiving disability benefits was no Sweden and Mexico had the highest proportions of employed disability benefit recipients, while Au

and Austria had the lowest.

Percent

NOTE: Labor market status for persons ages 20 to 64. For Mexico and Norway, unemployed persons are combined with persons not in SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. 

Definitions,

Sources, and 

Methods

Definition

App

Introduction 

This chartbook is based partially upon the o

Labor Statistics (BLS) program of internationa

force, compensation, and productivity. In order indicator coverage, BLS data are supplemeOrganization for Economic Cooperation and Deother organizations. BLS adjusts foreign statistics to a common thereby aiding users in making meaningful intComparability issues arise due to, for exdefinitions, time periods, and population 

descriptions of the BLS comparative series are detailed information can be found in the sowhich are available on the BLS foreign labohttp://www.bls.gov/fls/. BLS publications aavailable free of charge by contacting the DivStatistics, 2 Massachusetts Avenue, NE, RoD.C. 20212-0001, phone (202) 691-5654, FAX (To increase country coverage for some of thlabor market indicators charts (sections 1 asupplemented by data mainly from OECDInternational Labor Organization’s InternationWorld Bank, and national sources. The data sources are judged reasonably comparable witotherwise noted. The charts on hourly compein manufacturing (charts 3.1-3.6) have not been 
A2 | Definitions, Sources, and Methods

sources; data are from the BLS series. To provide other indicators of interest, 26 of the charts (charts 2.4, 2.5, 2.8, 2.9, 2.13-2.15, 3.7, and all charts in sections 4, 5, and 6) are based on statistics compiled by other organizations, mainly OECD, but also the United Nations, World Bank, and ILO. Discussion of the data from the non-BLS sources is included below. Although some adjustments may have been made by the source organizations to enhance comparability, these data generally are not considered fully comparable across countries. Where applicable, some caveats concerning comparability are noted. Country coverage varies by indicator. Coverage in sections 1, 2, and 4 varies from 18 to 21 countries. In addition, weighted aggregates for 15 European Union countries (EU-15) are shown on most charts. These represent European Union member countries prior to the expansion of the European Union to 25 countries on May 1, 2004 and to 27 countries on January 1, 2007. The 15 countries are Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. It should be noted that some countries for which data are available are not included on the charts for analytical or presentation purposes. Fourteen countries appear on all charts in the first four sections: the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. In addition, data for Mexico, New Zealand, Austria, Ireland, and Portugal appear on almost all charts in sections 1-4; data for Hong Kong SAR, Singapore, and Taiwan were only available for some charts. For section 3, coverage ranges from 15 economies on the productivity charts to 22 economies on the hourly compensation charts. Section 5 covers the United States, which is used as a reference point, and five large emerging economies: Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, and the Russian Federation. Coverage in the final section varies from 13 to 15 countries. 

In most cases, 2006 is the latest year that dacharts. All data are either annual averages There are some breaks in the historical continemployment data for trends from 1996 onwabreaks is documented in the source publicationdo not substantially affect the trends depicted. In the descriptions that follow, some charts are while others warrant individual treatment. 

Gross Domestic Pro

(charts 1.1, 1.2, 5.4, and 

A country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 

value added by all producers in that country. Vof the gross output of producers less the value and services used in production. It is generalsize of an economy. However, it should necessarily measuring the wealth and well-bethat country. A better measure of the latter is GGross National Income (GNI), which was pNational Product (GNP), measures the total domadded claimed by residents. It includes GD

primary income from non-resident sources, whdefined as compensation of employees and 

many countries, the inflows and outflows of pbalance out, leaving little difference between Gfor some countries, the difference can be subGDP was 15 percent higher than GNI in IrelanPower Parities (PPPs) are currency conversioin different currency units to be expressed in a 
Definition

A PPP is the ratio between the number of units of a country's currency 

and the number of U.S. dollars required to purchase an equivalent

basket of goods and services within each respective country. 

GDP per capita (charts 1.1, 1.2, and 5.4) 

GDP per capita converted at PPP rates (charts 1.1 and 5.4). The comparisons shown in charts 1.1 and 5.4 are based on measures of GDP converted at PPP rates and on population size. Measures for chart 1.1 are taken from the data underlying a periodic report published by BLS for the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. For the remaining countries, the measures are based on data published by the World Bank. For chart 5.4, BLS data are used for the United States while the comparisons shown for the emerging economies are based on World Bank data. 

Source: BLS, "Comparative Real Gross Domestic Product Per Capita and Per Employed Person, Sixteen Countries, 1960–2006," July 11, 2007, <http://www.bls.gov/fls/>; and World Bank, World Development Indicators Database, <http://www.worldbank.org/>. Average annual growth rates for real GDP per capita (chart 1.2). Real 

GDP is GDP that has been adjusted for overall price changes over time, in order to remove the effects of inflation. Change in real GDP per capita over time is the result of changes in both a country's real GDP and in its population. For chart 1.2, the estimates of real GDP are based on data from BLS, OECD, and national sources. Measures are taken from the data underlying a periodic report published by BLS for the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, the Republic of Korea, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Data for Hong Kong are from the Hong Kong Census and Statistics 

Department; for Singapore, from Statistics Sremaining countries, from OECD. 

Source: BLS, "Comparative Real Gross Domestic PEmployed Person, Sixteen Countries, 1960–2<http://www.bls.gov/fls/>; OECD, STAN DatabasHong Kong Census and St<http://www.info.gov.hk/censtatd/>; and <http://www.singstat.gov.sg/>. GDP per employed person (chart 5.5

This indicator gives GDP measured in 1990 UPPP rates divided by the number of emploextensive discussion of the indicator, incconstruction and some limits to comparabdocument. The use of employed persons in the denominanot standardize sufficiently the measure of labo

hours worked, on average, by each emplomarkedly across countries and over time. This indicator may be viewed as giving the amoon average to each employed person, working inputs or factors of production. Source: ILO, Key Indicators of the Labor Market s

2007, table 18a, <http://www.ilo.org/kilm>. 
A4 | Definitions, Sources, and Methods

Labor market indicators

(charts 2.1-2.15 and 5.6-5.7) 

Charts in section 2 depict aspects of the labor force. Charts 2.1-2.3, 2.6, 2.7, and 2.10-2.12 contain BLS comparative data on labor force, employment, and unemployment and are supplemented by data from OECD and ILO. This comprises the first set of charts discussed in this section. Charts 2.4, 2.5, 2.8, 2.13, 2.14 also show data on labor force, employment, and unemployment, but data are from OECD, so these are discussed as a second set. Chart 2.9, annual hours worked per employed person, and chart 2.15, educational attainment of the adult population, are discussed individually. Finally, charts 5.6 and 5.7, which present labor market indicators for large emerging economies, are discussed as a set at the end of the section. 

Labor force, employment, and unemployment (charts 2.1-2.3, 2.6, 2.7, 2.10-2.12) BLS comparative measures of the civilian labor force, employment, unemployment, and related indicators are used for the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Other organizations provided the data for Mexico, the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Singapore, the EU-15, Austria, Denmark, Ireland, Norway, Portugal, and Spain. In the BLS comparisons program, adjustments are made to each country's published data, if necessary and where possible, to provide measures approximately consistent with U.S. definitions. The data are adjusted to the U.S. concepts used in the Current Population Survey (CPS), the official source of U.S. labor force data. To adjust the data, BLS employs data from several sources, including data obtained by special request from the central statistical offices of the foreign countries. There is no upper age limit and lower age limits vary slightly. Further information on the nature of the adjustments for each country 

can be found in the BLS source document csection. The labor force is the sum of the employed p

unemployment rate is the ratio of the unempIn the United States, the unemployed are available for work in the reference week, and athe past 4 weeks. Those persons waiting to 

need not be seeking work to be classified employed are those persons who during the rfor at least 1 hour as paid employees, worked profession, or on their own farm, or worked 15 hworkers in an enterprise operated by a fatemporarily absent from work but who had jobs to are also counted as employed. The labor fis the ratio of the labor force to the population oand over in the United States and ages 15 or 1countries); the employment-to-population ra

employed to the population of working age. The BLS data are supplemented in charts 2.1-2.12 with data mainly from OECD; data for SThe OECD and ILO data are generally from lare based on the ILO guidelines for measurememployment, and unemployment. These guidthe Internet at http://www.ilo.org/public/english/bureau/stat/dowThe ILO guidelines have become standardconsequently, definitions used in labor force s

similar in outline and purpose if not in all of guidelines facilitate cross-country comparisoncountries toward a common conceptual framOECD and ILO data are reasonably comparab
Definition

BLS data, although some adjustments for comparability that are made by BLS are not made by OECD or ILO. OECD produces a series of "standardized unemployment rates" (SURs) that are adjusted to ILO concepts. In recent years, the OECD series yielded unemployment rates closely comparable to the BLS comparative series of unemployment rates for the countries common to both programs, except for Canada and Germany. ILO produces a series of "ILO-comparable" measures of unemployment rates that are adapted to ILO concepts. This series is also reasonably comparable with the results from the BLS and OECD comparisons programs. The OECD unemployment series are used to broaden the coverage of the unemployment data on chart 2.10. The unemployment rates for the following countries are obtained from the OECD SURs: the Republic of Korea, New Zealand, the EU-15, Austria, Denmark, Ireland, Norway, Portugal, and Spain. The ILO-comparable series is the source of the unemployment rate for Singapore. The unemployment rate for Mexico is not from the OECD SURs or ILO-comparable series; it is the figure from Mexico’s labor force survey as published by the OECD and it is not comparable to the other rates shown. The OECD data used to broaden the country coverage of charts 2.1-2.3, 2.6, 2.7, 2.11, and 2.12 are not adjusted by OECD for comparability to the extent that the SURs are adjusted; OECD does not publish standardized labor force and employment figures or standardized unemployment figures for subgroups. Data for Singapore on these charts are from the ILO-comparable series and include the armed forces. For a full discussion of comparability issues regarding the BLS, OECD, and ILO series, see Constance Sorrentino, "International unemployment rates: how comparable are they?" Monthly Labor 

Review, June 2000, pp. 3-20. This article is avahttp://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2000/06/art1full.pdf

Source: BLS, "Comparative Civilian Labor Force 1960-2006," October 12, 2007, <http://www.bls.gov/

and Labour Market Statistics Database, <http://wLABORSTA ILO-Comparable Estimates Database, <

Labor force, employment, and unem(charts 2.4, 2.5, 2.8, 2.13, and 2.14) The charts discussed below are derived from Oare used because the BLS labor force comparprovide indicators for participation rates by agfull-time and part-time employment (cha

unemployment (chart 2.13), or unemployattainment (chart 2.14). Labor force participation rates (charts 2.4 and rate for a given age group is defined as the force for the age group as a share of the popuTwo age groups are charted for youth in chart 216 to 19 and persons ages 20 to 24. Two age older workers in chart 2.5: persons ages 55 to 6and over. Data for charts 2.4 and 2.5 are generally derived from labor force surveys. attempt to standardize these data to inAccording to OECD, international comparisons made with caution. In countries where young into the armed forces, their measured particconsiderably according to whether the figures armed forces. Differences in the lower agcomparability of the data. 
A6 | Definitions, Sources, and Methods

Source: OECD, Employment and Labour Market Statistics Database, 

<http://www.oecd.org/>. 

Rates of growth in full-time and part-time employment (chart 2.8). OECD has adjusted full-time and part-time employment to a common conceptual basis, insofar as possible. Full-time employment is 

defined as persons usually working over 30 hours per week in their main job. Part-time employment is defined as persons usually 

working 30 or fewer hours per week in their main job. Data are obtained from labor force surveys and are generally limited to persons declaring usual hours worked. Coverage includes persons ages 15 or 16 and over, except for Norway and Sweden, where the data refer to persons ages 16 to 74 and 16 to 64, respectively. Except for the United States, the data relate to total employment. For the United States, the data cover wage and salary employment only. This difference should not materially affect the comparisons because paid workers account for more than 90 percent of total U.S. employment. Data for Japan are not comparable to those of the other countries for two reasons: (1) the Japanese data are based on "actual hours worked" rather than "usual hours worked," and (2) part-time employment in Japan is defined as working fewer than 35 hours per week. Thus, the Japanese data should not be used for comparisons of the level of full-time and part-time work. They are included in chart 2.8 to track the broad trends in full-time and part-time work. For Australia and the Republic of Korea, data also are based on “actual hours worked” rather than “usual hours worked.” Source: OECD, Employment and Labour Market Statistics Database, 

<http://www.oecd.org/>. 

Persons unemployed one year or longer unemployment (chart 2.13). The OECD 

unemployment represent the length of time thhave been looking for work. The OECD standardized, but they are all from labor force s

to persons ages 15 or 16 and over, except fowhere the data refer to persons ages 16 respectively. Source: OECD, Employment Outlook, 2007 Ed., ParRatio of unemployment rate of persons without that of persons with college or university Because educational systems vary widely acadopted a broad classification system based Standard Classification for Education (ISCED) dNations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural OOECD summarizes the UNESCO categories attainment groupings—ISCED 0 to ISCED 6—education. The OECD grouping "below upincludes ISCED 0 through 2, corresponds tdegrees." The grouping "tertiary-type A aprograms," a subset of ISCED 5, corresponuniversity degrees." The data on unemplostandardized, but they are all from labor force sto persons ages 25 to 64. Source: OECD, Education at a Glance: OECD In

September 2007, table A8.2a; and OECD, EmployParis, June 2007, table D. 
Definition

Annual hours worked per employed person(chart 2.9) The concept used is the total number of hours actually worked over the year divided by the average number of persons in employment. Data are generally intended for comparisons of trends over time. Annual hours worked per employed person are affected by legislation and agreements on normal and overtime hours. They also are influenced by factors such as the proportion of part-time workers and selfemployed, who work fewer and longer hours, respectively. In addition, data sources and methods of estimation vary by country. The ILO standard definition for hours actually worked includes hours actually worked during normal periods of work; time worked in addition to the normal periods and generally paid at higher rates; time spent at place of work in preparation, repair, and record keeping; time spent at place of work on stand-by basis or under a guaranteed work contract; and time corresponding to short rest periods, including tea or coffee breaks. Hours actually worked should exclude hours paid for but not worked, such as: annual leave, public holidays, paid sick leave, meal breaks, and time spent on travel between home and work. Comparative data on annual hours worked based precisely on this ILO definition are not available. The comparisons shown in chart 2.9 are the published OECD data series on annual hours actually worked per employed person, which include some adjustments towards the above definition for each country. The data generally cover all persons in employment, including both full-time and part-time workers. Data sources include labor force surveys, establishment surveys, and administrative data. Annual estimates are based on actual or usual weekly hours worked from labor force and establishment surveys, or from normal hours worked from survey or administrative data. Hours data reported from establishment surveys or administrative sources exclude unpaid overtime. Hours 

data reported from labor force surveys are subjMethods of estimation include direct estimasource, component estimates using more than combination of survey-based data and adminformation. Data are consistent with national accounts coAustralia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, FrancRepublic of Korea, Norway, and Sweden. Only New Zealand and the United Kingdom, directly worked with a continuous labor force survey, w

week of the year and avoids the need to adjusdays lost. Hours data for Australia, Austria, CanIreland, Mexico, the Netherlands, Portugal, anvarying degrees to account for effective weeks hours not worked due to annual leave and underreporting of hours lost due to illness and are on a per employed person basis except where data are on a per job basis. Data for the United States are OECD estimateunpublished BLS statistics of annual hours wofrom the Current Employment Statistics Survey adjusts these unpublished BLS statistics for mdata from the CPS to produce estimates of anemployed person. Source: OECD, Employment and Labour Ma<http://www.oecd.org>. 
A8 | Definitions, Sources, and Methods

Educational attainment of the adult population(chart 2.15) As discussed for chart 2.14, OECD uses UNESCO categories for 

seven educational attainment groupings. In chart 2.15, these are grouped into three broad categories. The grouping “below upper secondary” includes early childhood education (ISCED 0), primary level of education (ISCED 1), and lower secondary level of education (ISCED 2). The grouping “upper secondary and post-secondary nontertiary” includes upper secondary level of education (ISCED 3) and post-secondary non-tertiary level of education (ISCED 4). The grouping “tertiary” includes the first stage of tertiary education (ISCED 5) and advanced research qualification (ISCED 6). The data refer to persons ages 25 to 64. 

Source: OECD, Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators, 2007 Ed., Paris, 

September 2007, tables A1.1a and A1.3a. 

Labor market indicators for large emerging economies (charts 5.6 and 5.7) The charts discussed below are derived from BLS and ILO. Data for the United States are from BLS and data for the five large emerging economies are from ILO. Data from ILO are used because the BLS labor force comparisons program does not cover large emerging economies. Chart 5.6 presents labor force participation rates by age. The participation rate for a given age group has been previously defined in this section. Chart 5.6 shows four age categories: youth (persons ages 15 or 16 to 24), prime working-age (persons ages 25 to 54), and two groups of older workers (persons ages 55 to 64 and persons ages 65 and over). The ILO series is harmonized using an econometric model to account for differences in national data and scope of coverage, 

collection and tabulation methodologies, and factors such as military service requirements. on the methodology used to harmonize estidocument. Chart 5.7 displays employment-to-population defined as the ratio of the employed for a given population for that sex. The working-age podefined as persons ages 15 or 16 and over. series is derived from nationally reported dalabor force data used to calculate labor fodescribed previously. Nationally reported dathey meet strict criteria in terms of internatigeographic coverage. Model estimates are usare not available or satisfactory. Limitationdescribed more fully in the source document. 

Source: BLS, Labor Force Statistics from the C

<http://www.bls.gov/data/>; and ILO, Key Indicatosoftware, 5th Ed., Geneva, 2007, tables 1 and 2, <http

Competitiveness indi

for manufacturin

(charts 3.1-3.7 and 5.9

Section 3 focuses on several key labo

competitiveness in world markets for goods: manufacturing hourly compensation costs, treunit labor costs, and manufacturing output manufacturing. The manufacturing sector pro

such comparisons, and the BLS indicators prehave been adjusted to a common conceptual 
Definition

comparisons. Nevertheless, it should be noted that these indicators allow only for a partial assessment of international competitiveness of economies. The aggregate (all manufacturing) nature of the indicators may mask important variations in competitiveness of manufacturing sub-sectors. In addition, competitiveness relationships in manufacturing may not be the same as the relationships in services, a growing sector for trade flows. Although competitiveness is heavily dependent on labor costs, there are many other factors that also influence competitiveness, including the quality of the product, the timeliness of its delivery, after-sales service, and the flexibility needed to respond to changes in customers' requirements. Note that the hourly compensation costs indicators in charts 3.1-3.3 show levels and trends, whereas the productivity and unit labor costs indicators in charts 3.4-3.6 are limited to trend comparisons. Hourly compensation costs for production workers in manufacturing (charts 3.1-3.3) These charts present data on comparative hourly compensation costs for manufacturing production workers in order to assess international differences in employer labor costs. Comparisons based on the more readily available average earnings statistics published by many countries can be very misleading—national definitions of average earnings differ considerably, average earnings do not include all items of labor compensation, and the omitted items of compensation frequently represent a large proportion of total compensation. The compensation measures are computed in national currency units and are converted into U.S. dollars at prevailing commercial market currency exchange rates. The foreign currency exchange rates used in the calculations are the average daily exchange rates for the reference period. They are appropriate measures for comparing levels of employer labor costs. They do not indicate relative living standards of workers or the purchasing power of their income. 

Hourly compensation costs include (1) hoemployer social insurance expenditures and otdirect pay includes all payments made directpayroll deductions of any kind, consisting of (and (b) other direct pay. Pay for time worked piece rates plus overtime premiums, shift differand bonuses paid regularly each pay peadjustments. Other direct pay includes pay (vacation, holidays, and other leave, except s

irregular bonuses and other special paymallowances, and the cost of payments in kinexpenditures and other labor taxes expenditures for legally required insurance proand private benefit plans and (d) other labor texpenditures include employer expendituredisability pensions, health insurance, income gsick leave, life and accident insurance, occupacompensation, unemployment insurance, aOther labor taxes includes taxes on payroreductions to reflect subsidies), even if they dthat directly benefit workers, because such taxecosts. The BLS definition of hourly compensation costILO definition of total labor costs. Hourly cominclude all items of labor costs. The costs of training, and plant facilities and services—smedical clinics—are not included because da

most countries. The labor costs not included a4 percent of total labor costs in any country available. Production workers generally include thosengaged in fabricating, assembly, and rela
A10 | Definitions, Sources, and Methods

handling, warehousing, and shipping; maintenance and repair; janitorial and guard services; auxiliary production (for example, power plants); and other services closely related to the above activities. Working supervisors are generally included; apprentices and other trainees are generally excluded. Total compensation is computed by adjusting each country's average earnings series for items of direct pay not included in earnings and for employer expenditures for legally required insurance, contractual and private benefit plans, and other labor taxes. For the United States and other countries that measure earnings on an hours-paid basis, the figures are also adjusted in order to approximate compensation per hour worked. Earnings statistics are obtained from surveys of employment, hours, and earnings or from surveys or censuses of manufactures. Adjustment factors are obtained from periodic labor cost surveys and 

interpolated or projected to non-survey years on the basis of other information for most countries. The information used includes tabulations of employer social security contribution rates provided by the International Social Security Association, information on contractual and legislated fringe benefit changes from ILO and national labor bulletins, and statistical series on indirect labor costs. For other countries, adjustment factors are obtained from surveys or censuses of manufactures or from reports on fringe-benefit systems and social security. For the United States, the adjustment factors are special calculations for international comparisons based on data from several surveys. The statistics are also adjusted, where necessary, to account for major differences in worker coverage; differences in industrial classification systems; and changes over time in survey coverage, sample benchmarks, and frequency of surveys. Nevertheless, some differences in industrial coverage remain, and in many countries other 

than the United States, the data exclude ver(less than 5 employees in Japan and less than 

other countries). For the United States, the mthe results, differ somewhat from those of othcompensation costs. Hourly compensation costs are converted to average daily exchange rate for the reference rates used are prevailing commercial markpublished by either the U.S. Federal Reserve BMonetary Fund. The hourly compensation figures in U.S. dollaprovide comparative measures of employer laprovide inter-country comparisons of the purchincomes. Prices of goods and services vary gand the commercial market exchange rates uselabor costs do not reliably indicate relative Purchasing Power Parities (defined previously Product section) must be used for mcomparisons of the relative purchasing power oTotal compensation converted to U.S. dollars Parities would provide one measure for compaof labor income. It should be noted, however, includes employer payments to funds for the addition to payments made directly to workersfunds provide either deferred income (for retirement funds), a type of insurance (for unemployment or health benefit funds), or curexample, family allowances), and the relationpayments and current or future worker benefits 

hand, excluding these payments would under
Definitions

income derived from work because they substitute for worker savings or self-insurance to cover retirement, medical costs, etc. Total compensation, because it takes account of employer payments into funds for the benefit of workers, is a broader income concept than either total direct earnings or direct spendable earnings. An even broader concept would take account of all social benefits available to workers, including those financed out of general revenues as well as those financed through employment or payroll taxes. Source: BLS, “International Comparisons of Hourly Compensation Costs of Production Workers in Manufacturing, 2005,” November 30, 2006, Department of Labor News Release USDL 06-2020, <http://www.bls.gov/fls/>. Manufacturing productivity and unit labor costs (charts 3.4-3.6) The productivity estimates refer to labor productivity, defined as real 

output per hour worked. It is based on the manufacturing output produced in each country and the total labor input in the form of hours worked. Output is defined as the real (deflated) GDP produced in the 

manufacturing sector of the economy. GDP has been defined previously (see Gross Domestic Product section). The output data are published as part of each country's national accounts. Hours worked in manufacturing include the hours of all persons engaged in the manufacturing process, including the self-employed. For some countries, the data on the number of hours worked in manufacturing are also published with the national accounts. For other countries, BLS constructs its own estimates of aggregate hours worked, multiplying employment figures published with the national accounts by estimates of average annual hours worked. Manufacturing unit labor costs are defined as the cost of labor compensation per unit of output. Because labor costs are frequently a 

major factor in total production costs, changes 

the prices of manufactured products. Labor compensation includes employer exrequired insurance programs and contractual ain addition to all payments made in cash employees. Data on labor compensation are countries' national accounts. When data for thavailable, total compensation is estimated bhourly compensation for self-employed and empChanges in a country's unit labor costs, expresestimated by combining changes in the unit leach nation's currency with changes in the country's currency against the U.S. dollar. Source: BLS, "International Comparisons of ManuUnit Labor Cost Trends 2006," September 27, 20

News Release USDL 07-1456, <http://www.bls.gov/fl

Manufacturing output as a percent manufacturing output (charts 3.7 and Manufacturing output is defined as the manufacturing sector of each country. Each country's manufacturing value added in 2dollars, is divided by world manufacturing vaadded series are converted to U.S. dolcorresponding 2006 exchange rates, as reporMonetary Fund (IMF). Reported rates are aexchange rates communicated to the IMF by theach member country. 
A12 | Definitions, Sources, and Methods

While exchange rates are the most appropriate conversion method, one must keep in mind that they are volatile by nature and can change suddenly and significantly, leading to sharp realignments of the comparative levels shown in the charts. For example, if a country's currency is relatively "undervalued," the share of world manufacturing output shown on the chart for that country will be relatively low. If the currency were to strengthen, the country's share (in U.S. dollars) would rise, even if its manufacturing output (in local currency units) remained unchanged. Source: United Nations, National Accounts Main Aggregates Database, 

<http://unstats.un.org/>.

Public expenditures on labor market 

programs as a percent of GDP 

(chart 4.1) 

Public expenditures on labor market programs include the following programs, although not all countries have all programs: public employment services and administration; training; employment recruitment and maintenance incentives; integration of the disabled; direct job creation; business start-up incentives; out-of work and income maintenance and support, including unemployment compensation; and early retirement incentives. The data presented refer to 2005 for Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, the Republic of Korea, Spain, and Sweden. For the United Kingdom, the data refer to fiscal year 2005, which begins on April 1st. For the remaining countries, the data refer to 

fiscal year 2006, which begins on April 1st for Canada and Japan; on July 1st for Australia and New Zealand; and on October 1st for the 

United States. GDP has been defined previously (see Gross Domestic Product section). 

Source: OECD, Social Expenditures Database, <http

Measures of regula

on labor and product m

(chart 4.2) 

The measure of labor market regulation 

regulations governing the hiring and firing of employment protection legislation. It is a sranges from 0 (no restrictions) to 6 (very resfactors are considered: the extent of procedemployers must follow in individual or collective severance pay requirements, and the degtemporary forms of employment. The measure of product market regulation average of indicators for seven industries, wherfrom 0 (no restrictions) to 6 (very restrictive). electricity, postal and courier activities, tetransport, railways, and road freight. Dependfollowing factors are considered: barriers to emarket structure, vertical integration, and price cBoth indicators are constructed by OECD frosources as well as from multi-country surveythese summary measures involves difficult cand weighting. For further information on tsource documents. 

Source: OECD, Employment and Labour MarkeConway, P., V. Janod and G. Nicoletti, "Product MCountries, 1998 to 2003," OECD Economics Depa419, 2005, <http://www.oecd.org/>. 
Definitions

Share of labor costs taken

by tax and social security contributions 

(chart 4.3) 

This series measures the difference between the salary cost of an average worker to their employer and the amount of disposable income (net wage) that they receive. Labor costs are gross wages plus 

employer social security contributions and payroll taxes. The taxesincluded are income taxes paid by the employee, employee social security contributions, employer social security contributions, and, where in effect, payroll taxes. The types of taxes included in the measure are fully comparable across countries, as they are based on common definitions agreed upon by all OECD countries. Because income taxes and access to work-related cash benefits vary by family status and in complex ways in nearly all countries, simple cross-country comparisons require a restriction to workers with a common family status. The figures presented in chart 4.3 pertain to single persons without children at the income of the average worker. The information on the average worker income level is supplied by the ministries of finance in all OECD countries and is based on national statistical surveys. The amount of taxes paid by the worker is calculated by applying the tax laws of the country concerned. Thus, the tax rates are the result of a modeling exercise rather than direct observation of taxes actually paid. 

Source: OECD, Taxing Wages Database, <http://www.oecd.org/>. 

Population

(charts 4.4 and 5.1-5.3

Population estimates are based on the most reavailable for each country and reflect the de fac1st of the year indicated. Standard demograph

to estimate population for the base year (2005national population censuses are the main sofrequency and quality vary by country. Mocomplete enumeration no more than once a dcensus estimates are interpolations or exdemographic models. Surveys conducorganizations, such as the Demographic and Hare often the source of the most recent demo

developing countries. Data for charts 4.4 and 5.1-5.3 are from International comparability of population indifferences in the concepts, definitions, data coestimation methods used by national statisticorganizations that collect population data. Fualways reported accurately, particularly in develThe dependency ratio (charts 4.4 and 5.3) is 

(persons ages 14 and under and persons agworking-age population (persons ages 15 to ratio is an overall measure of the dependencelderly have on people of working age. Wheshow the age composition of a population, t

show economic dependency. Some children apart of the labor force and some working-age peData for 2025 are projected by applying assumtrends in fertility, mortality, and migration. 
A14 | Definitions, Sources, and Methods

cannot be known with certainty, a number of projection variants are produced by the United Nations. Data in charts 4.4 and 5.3 are based on the medium variant. For further information on the assumptions for the medium variant, see the source document. The world population distribution (chart 5.1) shows each country’s share of the total world population. Total population of an economy includes all residents regardless of legal status or citizenship—except for refugees not permanently settled in the country of asylum, who are generally considered part of the population of their country of origin. The total population presents one overall measure of the potential impact of the country on the world and within its region. The age composition of the population (chart 5.2) refers to the percentage of the total population that constitutes each specific age group. Three age groups are presented in chart 5.2: persons ages 14 and under, persons ages 15 to 64, and persons ages 65 and over. Source: United Nations, World Population Prospects: The 2006 Revision Population Database, <http://esa.un.org>. 

Trade in goods as a percent of GDP 

(charts 4.5 and 5.8) 

Trade in goods as a percent of GDP is the sum of merchandise exports and imports divided by GDP, all of which are valued in current U.S. dollars. The value taken by the indicator does not give the share of GDP generated by imports and exports; rather, it indicates that the value of imports and exports is equivalent to the resulting percentage of GDP. GDP has been defined previously (see Gross Domestic Product section). 

Source: World Bank, World Developmen

<http://www.worldbank.org>. 

Disability indicato

(charts 6.1-6.4) 

Section 6 is a special one-time section that focuand benefit recipiency status of persons with illustrates the prevalence of persons with discompares their employment-to-population ratwithout disabilities. Charts 6.3 and 6.4 pre

persons receiving disability benefits and their laDisability data presented in charts 6.1, 6.2 through household surveys, and in most cadetermined by self-reports of a long-term healtdisease, in combination with resulting impedimeactivities. A description of the precise me

persons with disabilities through household survthe source document. Caution should be taken when interpreting presented in these charts for several reasostatistical definition of disability is not availabcountry comparability; self-reported disability household surveys is used as an alternative. the institutionalized population, and consedisabilities who require hospitalization or other inot included in the sample. Second, differenceand methods further reduce the comparabilitminimized for European countries that use the Household Panel (ECHP), which employs a co
Definitions

all countries surveyed. This applies to European countries with the exception of Germany and the United Kingdom, which stopped using the common questionnaire in 1996. Finally, the same year of data is not available for all countries, and observations range from 1996 to 2000. Charts 6.2 and 6.4 present employment as a percent of the workingage population for persons with disabilities and persons without disabilities (chart 6.2) and the labor market status of persons receiving disability benefits (chart 6.4). Labor market status, including employment, is self-reported and collected through household surveys. The caveats described above therefore apply to these charts; the exclusion of the institutionalized population is particularly worthy of emphasis. That is, since persons who are institutionalized as a result of disability are likely to experience severe disability and therefore unlikely to be in the labor force, charts 6.2 and 6.4 may not be representative of the labor force distribution of the entire population with disabilities. Data for chart 6.3 are based on research from the Netherlands Economic Institute (NEI) conducted on behalf of the Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment (SZW). The resulting database from this research is often referred to as the NEI-SZW database. The underlying data are collected from administrative records, whereas charts 6.1, 6.2, and 6.4 are based on household survey data. Furthermore, the working-age population in this chart is defined as persons ages 15 to 64, whereas it is defined as persons ages 20 to 64 in the other section 6 charts. For these reasons, the population depicted in chart 6.3 may differ significantly from those in the other section 6 charts. Indicators for persons receiving disability benefits, a sub-group of all persons with disabilities, are presented in charts 6.3 and 6.4. Chart 6.3 covers persons receiving contributory and non-contributory disability 

benefits, regular cash industrial injury bene

payments, whereas chart 6.4 covers persreceiving benefits in a household survey. The persons who report a disability do not report rmay be explained in part by differences betwassessed disability status and disability berequirements. For both charts, data are not direcountries, as the precise mix of disability benefby country, as do the eligibility requirements and 

description of the disability benefits recorded found in the source documents. 

Source: OECD, Transforming Disability into Ability, 3.7, and table A1.1; OECD, Employment Outlook 

4.A1.1.