A CHARTBOOK OF HARTBOOK OF

INTERNATIONAL NTERNATIONAL

LABOR COMPARISONS

OMPARISONS

THE AMERICAS MERICAS  ASIA  EURO

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR  JUNE 2006
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.
A CHARTBOOK OF HARTBOOK OF

INTERNATIONAL NTERNATIONAL

LABOR COMPARISONS

OMPARISONS

THE AMERICAS MERICAS  ASIA  EURO

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR  JUNE 2006

FOREWORD

All countries are unique and their cultures, histories, economies, and the challenges they face can be very different. Yet despite these differences, the economies of theworld 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 workforce, and the remarkable productivity ofour workers. To preserve these advantages, it is critical thatU.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 our workforce and our economy continue to thrive and prosper. Therefore, this Chartbook of International Labor Comparisonsprovides 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 trading partners have This information provides a snapshot States stands today in relation to key ecothe world. It can assist policy and decisia course that will help prepare our natiochallenges of tomorrow. I hope you find 

relevant and informative.Elaine L. ChaoSecretary of Labor

PREFACE

This chartbook focuses on the labor market situation in selected countries in the 1994-2004 period. Each chart in sections 1 through 4 includes countries in North America (the United States, Canada, and Mexico) and selected Asian-Pacific (hereafter referred to as Asian) and European countries. 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.The EU-15 countries are Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Due to the lack of suitable data, some of the countries do not appear on all charts. It should be noted that the selected countries are not representative of all of Europe and Asia; rather, they tend to be the more industrialized economies in these regions. In a final section, several indicators are presented for five large emerging economies: Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, and the Russian Federation. 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. Charts in section 3 examine several features of the competitive position of the U.S. in foreign trade of goods by comparing hourly compensationcosts in manufacturing and trends in manufacturing labor productivity and unit labor costs. Section 4 includes charts that compare public expenditures on labor market programs, regulation measures on 

labor and product markets, taxes on labogoods as a percent of GDP. Section 5 prese

large emerging economies. The charts are color coded as follows: North blue, Asian countries are red, and European 

different color scheme is used, however, wone chart-bar per country, and additional cemerging economies charts in section 5. The chartbook was a cooperative effort of Department of Labor: the Bureau of Inte(ILAB), the Office of the Assistant Secretary the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Since selected labor market data of foreign coucomparability with U.S. data. The chartbook main output of BLS’s program of internationaorder to increase country and indicator covesupplemented by data from the OrganCooperation and Development (OECD) aorganizations. A team led by Marie-Claire Guillard of the BLabor Statistics (DFLS) in cooperation wKenneth Swinnerton, and Rebecca Dillender 

Foreign Economic Research and Lisa Stuart chartbook. The following persons comprised Fleck, Erin Lett, Wolodar Lysko, Joyanna MConstance Sorrentino, Chief of DFLS, aStephanie Swirsky of OASP provided overall 

CONTENTS

Section 1. Gross Domestic Product Per Capita 11.1 Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, 2004 2 1.2 Average annual growth rates in real GDP per capita, 1994-2004 3Section 2. Labor Market Indicators 52.1 Size of the labor force, 2004 6 2.2 Average annual growth rates in the labor force, 1994-2004 7 2.3 Labor force participation rates by sex, 2004 8 2.4 Labor force participation rates by age, 2004 9 2.5 Employment as a percent of the working-age population, 2004 10 2.6 Average annual growth rates in employment, 1994-2004 11 2.7 Average annual growth rates in full-time and part-time employment, 

1994-2004 12 

2.8 Annual hours worked per employed person, 1994 and 2004 13 2.9 Unemployment rates, 2004 14 2.10 Youth unemployment rates, 2004 15 2.11 Ratio of youth to adult unemployment rates, 2004 16 2.12 Persons unemployed one year or longer, 2004 17 

2.13 Ratio of unemployment rate of persons without high school 

degrees to that of persons with college or university degrees, 2003 18 

2.14 Educational attainment of the adult population, 2003 19 

 

Section 3. Competitiveness Indicators for Manufacturing 21

3.1 Hourly compensation costs, 2004 22 3.2 Average annual growth rates in hourly compensation costs, 

1994-2004 23 

3.3 Employer social insurance expenditures and 

percent of hourly compensation costs, 2004 

3.4 Average annual growth rates in manufacturin

1994-2004 

3.5 Average annual growth rates in manufacturin

worked, 1994-2004 

3.6 Average annual growth rates in manufacturin

1994-2004 

 

Section 4. Other Economic Indicators 4.1 Public expenditures on labor market program

GDP, 2003-04 

4.2 Measures of regulation on labor and product 4.3 Share of labor costs taken by tax and social s

2004 

4.4 Dependency ratios, 2004 4.5 Trade in goods as a percent of GDP, 2003  

Section 5. Indicators for Large Emerg5.1 World population distribution, 2004 5.2 Age composition of the population, 2003 5.3 Dependency ratios, 2003 5.4 GDP per capita, 2004 5.5 GDP per employed person, 1994 and 2003 5.6 Labor force participation rates by sex, 2003 5.7 Trade in goods as a percent of GDP, 2003 Appendix. Definitions, Sources, and M

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 U.S. equalize the purchasing power of differeare used instead of exchange rates becarates do not necessarily reflect the relative different currencies. Charts 1.1 and 1.2 compare the level of Gand the trend from 1994 to 2004 in 21 shown on various charts in this chartbookare also included. Data were not available capita for Taiwan. 
39.9

31.9

9.8

29.6 30.8 29.8

21.0

22.9

27.3

28.6

31.8 31.6

29.6 28.4

40.1

27.7

31.1

38.8

05

1015202530354045

U.S. CanadaMexico Australia

Hong Kong SARJapanKorea 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 U.S.SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics and World Bank.

Gross Domestic Product (GDP) per capita, 2004converted at PPP rates

2 | Gross Domestic Product Per Capita

Thousands of U.S. dollars

 Ireland, the U.S., and Norway were the countries with the highest GDP per capita among the 21 e

compared.

 The other economies showed levels of GDP per capita between 80 percent (Canada and Austria) 

(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.

2.2 2.3

1.2

2.6

2.2

1.1

4.2

2.3

2.6

2.0 1.9 1.7 1.8

1.3

6.6

1.4

1.8

2.2 

02468

U.S.

CanadaMexico Australia

Hong Kong SARJapanKorea New Zealand SingaporeEU-15Austria DenmarkFrance GermanyIrelandItaly Netherlands Norway Portugal

Average annual growth rates in 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 a rate of 1.7 to 2.6 p

the U.S. growth rate was in the middle of the range.

 Ireland and Korea registered the greatest increases in real GDP per capita; Japan’s increase was 

Percent

Labor Market

Indicators

SECT

Charts 2.1 through 2.14 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 and 2.4) express the extent to are either working or unemployed. Hshown by sex and for two selected age grand older workers.Employment and unemployment are kfunctioning of labor markets both within Charts 2.5-2.8 compare the proportion population employed, employment growttime and part-time employment, and annemployed person. Charts 2.9-2.14 exrates, 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
147.4

17.0

42.6

10.2

65.8

23.4

2.1 2.2

179.5

3.9 2.9

26.9

39.8

1.9

24.1

8.5 2.4 5

0

4080

120160200

U.S. CanadaMexico AustraliaJapanKorea New Zealand SingaporeEU-15Austria DenmarkFrance GermanyIreland Italy Netherlands Norway Portugal

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

Size of the labor force, 2004

6 | Labor Market Indicators

CHART 2.1

 The U.S. labor force was the largest by far among the 20 countries compared. The EU-15 countries combined had a larger labor force than the U.S.
1.

1.1

1.7

0.6

3.0

0.2

0.9

0.4

0.2

0.8

2.8

1.7

1.4

0.0

1.6

2.4

1.7

1.2

01234

U.S. CanadaMexico AustraliaJapanKorea

New Zealand SingaporeEU-15Austria DenmarkFrance GermanyIreland Italy Netherlands Norway Portugal

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

Average annual growth rates in the labor force, 1994-

CHART 2.2

 The other North American countries and the Asian countries, except for Japan, recorded higher la

rates than the U.S. 

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

Spain, the Netherlands, and Portugal than in the U.S.
69.5 69

74.2

61.1

70.8

63.3 63.9

70.9

65.5 65.5

76.2 73.8

71.2

73.2 72.7

81.9

73.2 73.3

61.7

59.2

40.3

57.0

47.6 49.8

59.1

54.9

48.8 50.0

60.4

49.6 49.4

38.2

57.0 59.8

51.1

0

20406080

100

U.S.

CanadaMexico AustraliaJapanKorea New Zealand SingaporeEU-15Austria DenmarkFrance GermanyIreland Italy Netherlands Norway Portugal

Men Women

Labor force participation rates by sex, 2004

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

and the Scandinavian countries, women participated in the labor force at about the same high rate 

Italian and Mexican women had the lowest participation rates.

 Participation rates for men were 70 percent or higher in most countries; the lowest rates were foun

and Germany.

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

8 | Labor Market Indicators

Percent

CHART 2.3
61.1 67.0

48.3

67.2

44.2

34.7

62.6

48.2 56.1

66.4

37.5

47.5 48.8

35.6

72.0

61.6

43

0

255075

100

U.S. CanadaMexico Australia Japan Korea 

New Zealand EU-15Austria DenmarkFrance Germany Ireland Italy Netherlands Norway Portugal

Youth participation rates Percent

NOTE: Youth are defined as persons under age 25 and over age 14 or 15. Older workers are defined as persons ages 55 to 64.SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Labor force participation rates by age, 2004 for youth and older workers

CHART 2.4

 Youth in Canada and the U.S. participated in the labor market to a much greater extent than youth 

Mexico, and most of Europe.

 Older persons in non-Scandinavian European countries were less likely to remain in the labor forc

counterparts in North America and Asia.

62.3 57.4 55.7 53.8 66.0 59.7 68.9

44.6

28.7

65.5

39.6 44.2 50.7 31.8 46.3

68.8

53

0

255075

100

U.S. CanadaMexico Australia Japan Korea 

New Zealand EU-15Austria DenmarkFrance Germany Ireland Italy Netherlands Norway Portugal

Older workers participation rates Percent
57

62.4 61.6

45.1

57.3

51.3 50.9

61.8

54.6 52.1

61.8 63.7

57.1 58.3 61.2 58.1 62.3 63.4

0

20406080

100

U.S. CanadaMexico AustraliaJapanKorea New Zealand SingaporeEU-15Austria DenmarkFrance GermanyIreland Italy Netherlands Norway Portugal

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

Employment as a percent of the working-age populatio

10 | Labor Market Indicators

Percent

CHART 2.5

 New Zealand, Canada, the Netherlands, and the U.S. had the highest percentages of the working

employed.

 In Italy and Spain, less than half of the working-age population was employed.
1.2

2.0

2.4

2.0

-0.2

1.3

2.2

2.5

1.1

0.1

0.7

1.1

0.0

4.2

0.9

1.9

1.2

1

-1

012345

U.S. CanadaMexico AustraliaJapanKorea New Zealand SingaporeEU-15Austria DenmarkFrance GermanyIreland Italy Netherlands Norway Portugal

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

Average annual growth rates in employment, 1994-20

CHART 2.6

 Ireland and Spain had the highest growth rates in employment. U.S. employment growth outpaced that of 7 of the 12 European countries; the remaining countries

Japan, recorded higher employment growth than the U.S.
1.2 1.3 1.0

0.5

3.6

-0.9

1.0 0.8

-0.9

0.9

2.1

0.8

-0.8

1.5

2.8

2.1

1.5 

0.9

3.9

5.1

7.8

3.9

0.6

0.9

3.4 3.1

2.7

7.7

1.5 1.5

2.9

0.7

1.8

-2

02468

10

U.S. CanadaMexico AustraliaJapanKorea New ZealandEU-15Austria DenmarkFrance GermanyIreland Italy NetherlandsNorwayPortugal

Full-time Part-time

NOTE: 1995-2004 for Mexico and Austria. Full-time employment is defined as persons usually working over 30 hours per week in their to employees only. Data for other countries refer to total employment, which includes employees, self-employed persons, and unpaid faSOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Average annual growth rates in full-time and part-time employment, 1994-2004

12 | Labor Market Indicators

Percent

CHART 2.7

 Six countries, including the U.S., saw full-time job growth surpass part-time job growth. In the ma

part-time jobs were the main or sole source of job growth.

 Full-time job growth was strongest in Ireland, followed by Spain and Mexico, but Ireland and Spain 

rapid growth in part-time jobs.
NOTE: 1995 for Mexico and Austria. 2003 for Austria. Korean data refer to employees only. Data are per job for some countries. 

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Annual hours worked per employed person, 1994 and 

1864

1749 1863 1875 1898

2471

1851

1587 1495 1582 1536 182416071362 1432 1744 

1443 164215851357 1363 16

14 1441 15 54 50 1826 18481816 17 1789 51 1824

2380

0

100020003000

U.S. CanadaMexico AustraliaJapanKorea New ZealandAustria DenmarkFrance GermanyIreland Italy Netherlands Norway PortugalS

1994 2004

Hours

CHART 2.8

 In 2004, annual hours worked per employed person in European countries, except Spain, were lo

North American and Asian countries. Koreans worked the highest number of annual hours, by far

 Ireland and France experienced the largest reductions in annual hours worked per employed pers

France have reduced the normal work week to 35 hours for businesses with more than 20 employ
6

4.4

4.7

8.1

4.5

9.9

5.4

9.8

4.8

8.1

4.8

3.9 3.7

4.8

5.5

3.0

6.4

5.5

02468

1012

U.S. CanadaMexico AustraliaJapanKorea

New Zealand SingaporeEU-15Austria DenmarkFrance GermanyIreland Italy Netherlands Norway Portugal

NOTE: The rate for Mexico is understated in relation to U.S. concepts.SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, and International Labor Office.

Percent

Unemployment rates, 2004

14 | Labor Market Indicators

CHART 2.9

 Half of the European countries had much higher unemployment rates than the U.S., while some o

European countries – Ireland and Norway – had unemployment rates well below the U.S. rate.

 All but one of the Asian countries had lower unemployment rates than the U.S.
NOTE: The rates for Mexico are understated in relation to U.S. concepts. Teenagers are defined as persons under age 20 and over ag

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

Youth unemployment rates, 2004

21.

16.7

10.9

34.4

12.1

8.7

26.5

7.0

13.4

18.4 20.0

12.6 13.4 12.0

15.8

7.0

17.0 17.1

9.4 9.6

5.9

8.5 9.1 9.5

6.9

15.8

7.8

6.3

8.5

20.4

13.3

6.9

21.0

6.9

9.0

0

10203040

U.S.

CanadaMexico AustraliaJapanKorea New Zealand SingaporeEU-15Austria DenmarkFrance GermanyIreland Italy Netherlands Norway Portugal

Percent Teenagers 20- to 24-year-olds

CHART 2.10

 Italian teenagers had the highest unemployment rate, followed by their counterparts in Spain and  Unemployment rates of teenagers were higher than those of 20- to 24-year-olds in all countries ex

and Germany.
NOTE: Youth are defined as persons under age 25 and over age 14 or 15. 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, 2004

2.7

2.3

3.1

2.8

2.3

3.6 3.4

2.0

2.2 2.3

1.6

2.6

1.3

2.2

3.6

2.1

3.6

2.7

01234

U.S. CanadaMexico AustraliaJapanKorea New Zealand SingaporeEU-15Austria DenmarkFrance GermanyIreland Italy Netherlands Norway Portugal

Ratio

16 | Labor Market Indicators

CHART 2.11

 Unemployment rates were higher for youth than for adults. The ratio of youth to adult unemploym

highest in the U.K., Korea, Italy, and Norway.

 There were relatively small differences in the unemployment rates for youth versus adults in Denm
 Long-duration unemployment was least prevalent in Mexico and Korea.

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

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

Persons unemployed one year or longer, 2004as a percent of total unemployment

43.

9.2

32.5

49.7

34.3

51.8

41.6

22.6 24.5

42.4

11.7

1.1

33.7

20.7

1.1

9.5

12.7

0

204060

U.S. CanadaMexico AustraliaJapanKorea New ZealandEU-15Austria DenmarkFrance GermanyIreland Italy Netherlands Norway Portugal

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Percent

CHART 2.12
Ratio of unemployment rate of persons without high schoo

that of persons with college or university degrees, 2003

2.6

1.0

1.4

1.9

3.8

2.2

1.8 

1.5

2.8

1.6 1.6

4.7

1.6

4.7

2.6

0.6

2.0

3.0

2.8

3.2

1.2

1.5

1.9 1.9

2.3

1.8

1.5

0.6

1.4

3.0

0.6

0246

U.S.

Canada 

Mexico 

Australia 

Japan 

Korea 

New Zealand

Austria 

Denmark

France 

Germany

Ireland 

Italy

Netherlands 

Norway

Portugal

S

Men Women Ratio

NOTE: NA = not available. 2002 for Italy and the Netherlands. The unemployment rates used to calculate these ratios are for men and 

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

CHART 2.13

 Unemployment rates were higher for persons without high school degrees, except in Mexico and  The unemployment rates of persons without high school degrees were at least three times that of 

college or university degrees for men in Austria, Germany, the U.K., and the U.S. and for women 

Austria, and Australia.

18 | Labor Market Indicators

NA
49 40

6

31

47

44 47

64

50

41

59

35

36

42

56

12

38 44

15

31 37 29 31

15

32

23 24 26

10

24 31

11

77

13

34

54

38

17

35

18

27 22 21 16

38

79

12 16

0

20406080

100

U.S.

Canada Mexico Australia JapanKorea New Zealand Austria Denmark France GermanyIreland Italy NetherlandsNorway Portugal 

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

NOTE: 2002 for Italy and the Netherlands. The adult population are persons ages 25 to 64. Below upper secondary education is equivschool. Upper secondary and post-secondary non-tertiary education is equivalent to high school and also includes trade school. Tertiarto higher education provided by a college or university.SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Educational attainment of the adult population, 2003by highest level of education attained

CHART 2.14

 More than one-third of the adult population have tertiary (university) education in Canada, the U.S

Sweden.

 In Mexico, Portugal, Spain, and Italy, more than half of the adult population have less than upper 

education.

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 inter-country purchasing power of worker incomes. employer social insurance expenditures aas a percent of hourly compensation costsCharts 3.4-3.6 provide comparisons productivity growth rates, the composition in terms of changes in output and hours wunit labor costs. Unit labor costs are dlabor compensation per unit of output. Ccosts reflect the net effect of changecompensation and in labor productivity. when compensation per hour rises productivity. Conversely, if labor producthourly compensation, unit labor costs declThe compensation costs indicators providcountry coverage in this chartbook. Twand the EU-15 are shown on those chartscoverage is limited to 14 economies.
 Eight countries, all of which are in Europe, had higher hourly compensation costs than the U.S.

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

Hourly compensation costs, 2004for production workers in manufacturing in U.S. dollars

34.64

30.76

20.48 21.94

32.53

23.89

33.75

28.29 27.17

5.97 7.45

12.89 11.52

21.90

5.51

23.09

2.50

21.42

23.17

0

10203040

U.S.

CanadaMexico Australia

Hong Kong SARJapanKorea New Zealand Singapore TaiwanEU-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
2.8

3.3

5.0

0.4

1.8

0.4

1.9

1.0

3.8

2.8

4.8

3.4

2.5

5.8

2.9

4.0

4.9 

6.1

4.1

012345678

U.S. CanadaMexico Australia

Hong Kong SARJapanKorea New Zealand SingaporeTaiwanEU-15Austria DenmarkFrance GermanyIreland Italy NetherlandsNorway Portug

Average annual growth rates in hourly compensation costfor 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

 Hourly compensation costs in U.S. dollars grew faster than in the U.S. in all but three of the Europ

with the highest growth in the U.K. 

 Growth in compensation costs was slowest in Mexico and Japan.
22.9

18.1

10.8

19.4

8.5

17.0

24.1

4.5

15.2

12.0

23.6

27.1

10.6

31.2

22.8

12.7

30.9

21.5

17.3

0

10203040

U.S.

Canada Mexico Australia

Hong Kong SARJapanKorea New Zealand Singapore TaiwanEU-15Austria Denmark France Germany IrelandItaly Netherlands Norway Portug

Percent

24 | Competitiveness Indicators for Manufacturing

Employer social insurance expenditures and other labor taxes of hourly compensation costs, 2004for 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 about the same 

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

 In Europe, social insurance costs ranged widely: France and Italy had higher costs than the U.S.

and Ireland had much lower costs.
2.3 2.5

0.5

3.2

4.2

1.7

5.7

9.1

4.8

2.9

2.5

5.6

02468

1012

U.S.

CanadaAustralia Japan Korea TaiwanDenmark FranceGermany Italy NetherlandsNorway

PercentSOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Competitiveness Ind

Average annual growth rates in manufacturing produc1994-2004 CHART 3.4

 Korea had, by far, the largest increase in manufacturing labor productivity, followed by Sweden, T Italy and Denmark recorded the lowest gains in manufacturing labor productivity.
3.5 3.6

1.8

2.3

7.7

4.9

0.9

2.6

1.5

0.7

1.5 1.2

-2.0

1.1

-1.1

-2.4

-1.2

-0.7 -0.8

-1.5 -1.6

-1.0 -1

0.2 

-4-2

02468

10

U.S.CanadaAustralia Japan Korea TaiwanDenmark FranceGermany Italy NetherlandsNorway

Output Hours worked

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics.Percent

26 | Competitiveness Indicators for Manufacturing

Average annual growth rates in manufacturing output worked, 1994-2004 CHART 3.5

 Manufacturing output increases were highest in Korea and Sweden; the lowest were in the U.K., I The U.S. showed the third largest decline in hours worked; hours worked increased only in Canad
 Unit labor costs (ULC) are a component of total production costs and product prices. Declines in 

a country is becoming more cost-competitive.

 ULC declined in the U.S. and three Asian economies while increasing in most European countries

-4.1

-3.5

-4.7

-0.7

0.0

2.8

1.4

2.9

2.4

2.0

0.5

-1.0

-6.0-4.0-2.0

0.02.04.06.0

U.S.CanadaAustralia Japan KoreaTaiwanDenmark FranceGermany Italy NetherlandsNorway

SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Percent

Competitiveness Ind

Average annual growth rates in manufacturing unit labor costin U.S. dollars CHART 3.6

SECT

Other

Economic

Indicators

O

Charts 4.1 through 4.5 show indicators of and 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 compares dependency ratios. is an overall measure of the dependence elderly have on people of working age. Hratios show the age composition of a popueconomic dependency. Some children apart of the labor force and some working-aChart 4.5 presents data on trade in goods This indicator shows an economy’s degree The number of countries covered in this sto 20. EU-15 data were available only dependency ratios.
2.0

1.7

3.9

2.1

3.5

2.9

4.4

2.0

1.3

0.4

0.8

1.1

0.5

1.1

012345

U.S.

CanadaAustraliaJapanKorea New ZealandAustria DenmarkFrance GermanyIreland NetherlandsNorwayPortugalSpai

Percent

Public expenditures on labor market programs as a peGDP, 2003-04

30 | Other Economic Indicators

NOTE: 2003 for Austria, Denmark, France, Germany, Ireland, Portugal, and Sweden. 2004 for Korea, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sp

the remaining countries.SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

CHART 4.1

 Expenditures on labor market programs were less than 1 percent of GDP in Korea, the U.S., Japa The highest relative expenditures were by Denmark, the Netherlands, and Germany.
NOTE: NA = not available. 2003 for labor market. 1998 for product market.

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Measures of regulation on labor and product markets

O

1.1

3.2

1.5

1.8 2.0

1.3

2.2

1.8

2.9

2.5

1.3

2.4 2.3

2.6

3.5

0.7

1.6

4.

2.5

3.0

4.3

4.0

2.4

3.9

2.9

3.2

1.4

2.9

2.4

1.4

0123456

U.S. CanadaMexico AustraliaJapanKorea

New ZealandAustria DenmarkFrance GermanyIrelandItaly NetherlandsNorway PortugalS

Labor market Product market

NA NA

CHART 4.2

 Regulations on market activity were least restrictive in the U.S. and the U.K.  Portugal and Mexico were characterized by more restrictive labor markets, followed by Spain and 

product markets were most pronounced in Italy, Portugal, Ireland, and France.

Scale 0-6 from least to most restrictive
43.6 45.7 47.4 44.9

20.7

32.6

36.9

23.8

50.7

41.5

16.6

26.6 28.6

15.4

32.3 29.6

0

102030405060

U.S. CanadaMexico AustraliaJapanKorea New ZealandAustria DenmarkFrance GermanyIreland Italy Netherlands Norway PortugalS

NOTE: Data refer to a single worker who earns the income of the average production worker.SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Percent 

32 | Other Economic Indicators

Share of labor costs taken by tax and social security co2004 CHART 4.3

 For a single production worker, the combined employer-employee tax burden was lower in the U.S

one of the European countries.

 The combined employer-employee tax burden was higher in the U.S. than in all non-European co

Canada. 
NOTE: The dependency ratio is the ratio of dependents (persons under age 15 or above age 64) to the working-age population (person

SOURCE: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development.

Dependency ratios, 2004

0.48

0.53

0.48 0.50 0.47 0.51

0.54

0.51

0.47

0.50 0.51

0.39

0.49 0.50

0.60

0.45

0.49

0

0.10.20.30.40.50.60.7

U.S.

CanadaMexico AustraliaJapanKorea New ZealandEU-15Austria DenmarkFrance GermanyIreland Italy Netherlands Norway Portugal

O

Ratio

CHART 4.4

 Korea had a significantly lower dependency ratio than the other countries compared. Mexico had the highest dependency ratio, mainly because it had a larger proportion of persons un

all other countries compared.
SOURCE: World Bank.

Trade in goods as a percent of GDP, 2003

19

60 55

31 20

62

44

298

77

59

44 56

95

40

109

48 52 

0

50

100150200250300350

U.S.

CanadaMexico AustraliaJapanKorea 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 U.S. and Japan 

ratios, at about 20 percent of GDP.

 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 5.7 provide a broaeconomic indicators for large emerging ecCharts 5.1-5.3 show population data in world population distribution, age composand dependency ratios. Gross Domcomparisons are shown in charts 5.4 (chart 5.5 (GDP per employed person). Chforce participation rates by sex. Chart 5goods as a percent of GDP.All of these charts include the U.S., reference point, and five large emerging China, India, Indonesia, and the Russian F
India

17%

Rest of the World

50%

Indonesia

3%

Russian Feder

2%

China

20%

Brazil

3%

U.S.

5%

World population distribution, 2004 

SOURCE: World Bank.

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 comprised well over one-third of the world’s population.
Age composition of the population, 2003

66.6

67.1

69.1

62.5 65.4

12.4

5.4 7.3 5.1 4.9

21.0

27.5 23.6 32.4 29.7

0

102030405060708090

100

U.S. Brazil China India Indonesia 

Under age 15 Ages 15 to 64 Over age 64

SOURCE: World Bank.

Indicators for La

Percent

CHART 5.2

 The Russian Federation had the highest proportion of persons over age 64 and the lowest propor India had the largest proportion of children under age 15, comprising almost one-third of their tota
Dependency ratios, 2003

0.50 0.49

0.45

0.60

0.53

0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.7

U.S. Brazil China India Indonesia 

NOTE: The dependency ratio is the ratio of dependents (persons under age 15 or above age 64) to the working-age population (personSOURCE: World Bank.

38 | Indicators for Large Emerging Economies

Ratio

CHART 5.3

 India had a much higher dependency ratio than the U.S. and the other large emerging economies The Russian Federation had the lowest dependency ratio.
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 U.S.SOURCE: Bureau of Labor Statistics and World Bank.

GDP per capita, 2004converted at PPP rates

3.6 3.1

5.5

8.3

39.9

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 14 percent of the U.S. level.
 Among the five large emerging economies, GDP per employed person was highest in Brazil and t

Federation.

 China had the largest increase in GDP per employed person from 1994 to 2003, with an average 

of 6.3 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 U.S.SOURCE: International Labor Office.

GDP per employed person, 1994 and 2003in 1990 U.S. dollars converted at PPP rates

51.7

13.9

4.8 4.0

7.4

8.4

5.8

8.4

14.5

61.7

0

10203040506070

U.S. Brazil China India Indonesia 

Thousands of 1990 U.S. dollars 1994 2003

40 | Indicators for Large Emerging Economies

CHART 5.5
Labor force participation rates by sex, 2003

80.7

87.1 88.8 86.6 84.7

59.5

45.2

79.2

46.9

70.2

0

20406080

100

U.S. Brazil China India Indonesia 

Men Women

NOTE: Participation rates are for the working-age population (persons ages 15 to 64).

SOURCE: World Bank.

Percent

Indicators for La

CHART 5.6

 China had the highest labor force participation rates for both men and women. The participation rates for women were below 50 percent in Brazil and India.
Trade in goods as a percent of GDP, 2003

18.5

25.1

60.1

21.1

44.9

0

10203040506070

U.S. Brazil China India Indonesia 

SOURCE: World Bank.Percent

42 | Indicators for Large Emerging Economies

CHART 5.7

 This indicator shows the relative importance of trade in goods to an economy. China had the highest percentage of trade in goods, followed by the Russian Federation and Indo

had the lowest proportion.
Definitions,

Sources, and 

Methods

Definition

App

Introduction 

This chartbook is based partially upon the 

Labor Statistics (BLS) program of internationforce, compensation, and productivity. In orand indicator coverage, BLS data are supplemOrganization for Economic Cooperation and and other organizations. BLS adjusts foreign statistics to a common thereby aiding users in making mecomparisons. Comparability issues arise differences in definitions, time periods, and coverage. Summary descriptions of the BLS provided below. More detailed informatiosource documents listed, which are availablabor statistics Website at http://www.bls.govand releases also are available free of chDivision of Foreign Labor Statistics, 2 MassRoom 2150, Washington, D.C. 20212-0001, FAX (202) 691-5679. To increase country coverage for some of tlabor market indicators charts (sections 1 supplemented by data mainly from OECInternational Labor Organization’s InternatioWorld Bank, and national sources. The datsources are judged reasonably comparablunless otherwise noted. The charts on hoproductivity (charts in section 3) have not other sources. All the data charted are from 
A2 | Definitions, Sources, and Methods

indicators. To provide other indicators of interest, 18 of the charts (charts 2.4, 2.7, 2.8, 2.12-2.14, and all charts in sections 4 and 5) are based on statistics compiled by other organizations, mainly OECD, but also the 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. Twenty-two economies appear on the hourly compensation charts (charts 3.1-3.3); while 14 economies are included on the productivity and unit labor costscharts (charts 3.4-3.6). Coverage in the remaining charts varies from 17 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.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.Twelve countries appear on all charts in the first four sections: the United States, Canada, Australia, Japan, Korea, Denmark, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. In addition, data for Mexico, New Zealand, Austria, Ireland, Portugal, and Spain appear on almost all of these charts; data for Hong Kong SAR, Singapore, and Taiwan were only available for some 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. 

In most cases, 2004 is the latest year that dcharts. All data are either annual averages oThere are some breaks in the historical cont

employment data for trends from 1994 onwbreaks is documented in the source pubgenerally do not substantially affect the trendIn the descriptions that follow, some chargroup, while others warrant individual treatme

Gross Domestic Pro

(charts 1.1, 1.2, 5.4, 5

A country's Gross Domestic Product (GDP) 

value added by all producers in that countrvalue of the gross output of producers less tgoods and services used in production. measure the size of an economy. Howinterpreted as necessarily measuring the wthe residents of that country. A better measuNational Income. Gross National Income (GNI), which useNational Product (GNP), measures the totavalue added claimed by residents. It includeof primary income from non-resident soincome" is defined as compensation of eincome. For many countries the inflows aincome tend to balance out, leaving little dand GNI. However, for some countries, 
Definition

substantial. For example, GDP was 17 percent higher than GNI in Ireland in 2001.  Purchasing Power Parities (PPPs) are currency conversion rates that allow output in different currency units to be expressed in a common unit of value. A PPP is the ratio between the number of units of a country's currency and the number of dollars required to purchase an equivalent basket of goods and services within each respective 

country. 

GDP per capita (charts 1.1, 1.2, 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, Korea, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. For the remaining countries, the measures are based on data published by the World Bank. The comparisons shown for the emerging economies in chart 5.4 also are based on World Bank data. The U.S. data are from BLS. 

Source: BLS, "Comparative Real Gross Domestic Product Per Capita and 

Per Employed Person, Fifteen Countries, 1960–2004," July 22, 2005, 

<http://www.bls.gov/fls/>; and World Bank, World Development Indicators 

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

Average annual growth rates in 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, OECDsources. Measures are taken from the data underpublished by BLS for the United States, CaKorea, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, FraNetherlands, Norway, Sweden, and the Unremaining countries, a variety of sources are 2004 population data; OECD for all GDP daZealand, Hong Kong, and Singapore, and data except Hong Kong and Singapore. Gfrom the Irish Central Statistics Office; for 

Reserve Bank of New Zealand; for Hong KoCensus and Statistics Department; and for SSingapore. Population data for 1994 for Ho

are from the U.S. Census Bureau's Internatio

Source: BLS, "Comparative Real Gross Domest

Per Employed Person, Fifteen Countries, 196<http://www.bls.gov/fls/>; World Bank, World 

Database, <http://www.worldbank.org/>; OECD, 

Database, <http://www.oecd.org>; OECD, MaSeptember Volume 2005, Issue 9, Paris, Septe

National Accounts of OECD Countries: Main Agg2003, 2005 Ed., Paris, January 2005, part I; 

Statistics Department, <http://www.info.gov.hk/ce

Statistics Office, Statistical Yearbook of Ireland 20

table 7.2; Reserve Bank of New Zealand, Statistics Singapore, <http://www.singstat.gov.sBureau, International Data Base, <http://census.go

GDP per employed person (chart 5

This indicator gives GDP measured in 1990 UPPP rates divided by the number of emplextensive discussion of the indicator, in
A4 | Definitions, Sources, and Methods

construction and some limits to comparability, see the source document. The use of employed persons in the denominator of the indicatordoes not standardize sufficiently the measure of labor input. The number of hours worked, on average, by each employed person canvary markedly across countries and over time. This indicator may be viewed as giving the amount of GDP attributable on average to each employed person, working in tandem with all other inputs or factors of production. Source: ILO, Key Indicators of the Labor Market, 4th Ed., Geneva, 2005, 

table 17a. 

Labor market indicators 

(charts 2.1-2.14) 

Most charts in section 2 depict aspects of the labor force. Charts 

2.1-2.3, 2.5, 2.6, and 2.9-2.11 contain BLS comparative data onlabor force, employment, and unemployment and are supplemented by data from OECD and ILO. This is the first set of charts discussed in this section. Charts 2.4, 2.7, 2.12, and 2.13 also show data on labor force, employment, and unemployment but are derived solely from OECD data. These are discussed as a separate group. Chart 2.8, annual hours worked per employed person, and chart 2.14, educational attainment of the adult population, are discussed individually at the end of this section. 

Labor force, employment, and un

(charts 2.1-2.3, 2.5, 2.6, 2.9-2.11) BLS comparative measures of the labounemployment, and related indicators are useCanada, Australia, Japan, France, GermanySweden, and the United Kingdom. Other orgdata for Mexico, Korea, New Zealand, Austria, Denmark, Ireland, Norway, Portugal, In the BLS comparisons program, adjustmcountry's published data, if necessary, approximately consistent with U.S. definiadjusted to the U.S. concepts used in the Cu(CPS), the official source of U.S. labor forcdata, BLS employs data from several sobtained by special request from the central foreign countries. Further information oadjustments for each country can be foudocument cited at the end of this section. 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, anin the past 4 weeks. Those persons waitlayoff need not be seeking work to be classifiemployed are those persons who during the rfor at least 1 hour as paid employees, workeprofession, or on their own farm, or workeunpaid workers in an enterprise operated Those temporarily absent from work but who to return to are also counted as employparticipation rate is the ratio of the labor fo
Definition

working age (ages 16 and over in the United States and ages 15 or 16 and over in the other countries); the employment-to-population ratio is the ratio of the employed to the population of working age.

The BLS data are supplemented in charts 2.1-2.3, 2.5, 2.6, and 2.9-2.11 with data mainly from OECD; data for Singapore are from ILO. The OECD and ILO data are generally from labor force surveys that are based on the ILO guidelines for measurement of the labor force, employment, and unemployment. These guidelines are available on the Internet at http://www.ilo.org/public/english/120stat/res/ecacpop.htm. The ILO guidelines have become standards for many countries; consequently, definitions used in labor force surveys are now broadly similar in outline and spirit if not in all of their details. The ILO guidelines facilitate cross-country comparisons because they serve to draw countries toward a common conceptual framework. The charted OECD and ILO data are reasonably comparable to the corresponding BLS data, although some adjustments for comparability that are made by BLS are not made by OECD and ILO. OECD produces a series of "standardized unemployment rates" (SURs) that are adjusted to ILO concepts. In recent years, theOECD series yielded unemployment rates virtually identical to the BLS comparative series of unemployment rates for the countries in common to both programs, except for Canada. ILO produces a series of "ILO-comparable" measures of unemployment rates that are adapted to ILO concepts. This series is closely 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 2.9. The unemployment rates for the following countries are obtained from the OECD SURs: Korea, 

New Zealand, the EU-15, Austria, DenmPortugal, and Spain. The ILO-comparable the unemployment rate for Singapore. The 

Mexico is not from the OECD SURs or ILO-the figure from Mexico’s labor force surveOECD. It is not comparable and is somewhato U.S. concepts according to special BLS stuThe OECD labor force and employment broaden the country coverage of charts 2.1-2.11. These data are not adjusted by OECD extent that the unemployment rates (SURsdoes not publish standardized labor force aData for Singapore on these charts are froseries. For a full discussion of comparability issuOECD, and ILO series, see Constance Sunemployment rates: how comparable are 

Review, June 2000, pp. 3-20. This article is 

at http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2000/06/art1fu

Source: BLS, "Comparative Civilian Labor Force 

1960-2004," May 13, 2005, <http://www.bls.g

Database, <http:/www.bls.gov/data/home.htm>; Statistics 1994-2004, 2005 Ed., Paris, August 20

Labor Market Statistics Database, <http://wwLABORSTA ILO-Comparable Estimates DatabaseLabor force, employment, and un(charts 2.4, 2.7, 2.12, 2.13) The charts discussed below are derived ssources. Data from OECD are used becaucomparisons program does not provide ind
A6 | Definitions, Sources, and Methods

rates by age (chart 2.4); full-time and part-time employment (chart 2.7); duration of unemployment (chart 2.12), and unemployment by educational attainment (chart 2.13). Labor force participation rates by age (chart 2.4). The participation 

rate for a given age group is defined as the ratio between the total (or civilian) labor force for the age group divided by the total (or civilian) population for the age group. Two age groups are charted: youth (ages 15 or 16 to 24) and older workers (ages 55 to 64). The data are generally derived from labor force surveys. OECD has made no attempt to standardize these data to international definitions. According to OECD, international comparisons of these data must be made with caution. In countries where young people are conscripted into the armed forces, their measured participation rates will differ considerably according to whether the figures include or exclude the armed forces. Differences in the lower age limit also affect the comparability of the data. 

Source: OECD, Employment Outlook, 2005 Ed., Paris, July 2005, table C. Rates of growth in full-time and part-time employment (chart 2.7). 

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 arelimited to persons declaring usual hours worked. 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. The data are obtained from labor force surveys andrefer to persons ages 15 or 16 and over, except for Norway and 

Sweden, where the data refer to persons age

respectively. Data for Japan are not comparable to those otwo reasons: (1) the Japanese data are bworked" rather than "usual hours workeemployment in Japan is defined as working f

week. Thus, the Japanese data should not bof the level of full-time and part-time work. 2.7 to track the broad trends in full-time an

Korea, data also are based on “actual hou“usual hours worked.” 

Source: OECD, Labor Market Statistics DatabasePersons unemployed one year or longer unemployment (chart 2.12). The OECD 

unemployment represent the length of time thhave been looking for work. The OECD standardized, but they are all from labor forefer to persons ages 15 or 16 and over, Sweden, where the data refer to persons agerespectively. 

Source: OECD, Employment Outlook, 2005 Ed., PRatio of unemployment rate of persons withoto that of persons with college or universitBecause educational systems vary widely aadopted a broad classification system based Standard Classification for Education (ISCUnited Nations Educational, Scientific, and (UNESCO). OECD summarizes the UNESCeducational attainment groupings—ISCED 0 
Definition

to completed education. The OECD grouping "below upper secondary," which includes ISCED 0 through 2, corresponds to "without high school degrees." The grouping "tertiary-type A and advanced research programs," a subset of ISCED 5, corresponds to "with college or university degrees." The data on unemploymenthave not been standardized but they are all from labor force surveys. The data refer to men and women ages 25 to 64. Source: OECD, Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators, 2005 Ed., Paris, 

September 2005, table A8.2a; OECD, Employment Outlook, 2005 Ed., Paris, 

July 2005, table D; and OECD, Employment Outlook, 2004 Ed., Paris, July 

2004, table D. 

Annual hours worked per employed person (chart 2.8) The concept used is the total number of hours worked over the year divided by the average number of persons in employment. Annualhours 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. 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 2.8 are the series on annual hours actually worked per einclude some adjustments towards the abov

generally cover all persons in employment, and part-time workers. OECD states that primarily for comparisons of trends over 

average annual hours levels for a given because of differences in data sources and Data sources include labor force surveys, and administrative data. Hours data reporsurveys or administrative sources exclude udata reported from labor force surveys are error. Methods of estimation include diresurvey source, and component estimates survey source or a combination of suadministrative or legislative information. Sowith national accounts concepts. The source of hours and employment data vaestimates are based on actual or usual welabor force and establishment surveys, or frofrom survey or administrative data. Only two Zealand and the United Kingdom, directly worked with a continuous labor force survevery week of the year and avoids the neeand other days lost. OECD adjusts natioIreland, Italy, Mexico, the Netherlands, and effective weeks worked during the year; thehours not worked due to annual leave and underreporting of hours lost due to illness anestimate for the Netherlands excludes all ovedata are from an establishment survey and co
A8 | Definitions, Sources, and Methods

Data for the United States are OECD estimates. They are based on unpublished BLS statistics of annual hours worked per job estimated from the Current Employment Statistics Survey and the CPS. OECD adjusts these unpublished BLS statistics for multiple jobholding using data from the CPS to produce estimates of annual hours worked per employed person. Data for most of the countries charted are on a per employed person basis. Source: OECD, Labor Market Statistics Database, <http://www.oecd.org>. Educational attainment of the adult population (chart 2.14) As discussed for chart 2.13, OECD uses UNESCO categories for seven educational attainment groupings. In chart 2.14, these are grouped into three broad categories. The grouping “below uppersecondary” 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 non-tertiary” 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, 2005 Ed., Paris, 

September 2005, table A1.1a. 

Competitiveness ind

for manufacturi

(charts 3.1-3.6) 

Section 3 focuses on several key labo

competitiveness in world markets for goods: manufacturing hourly compensation costs, aand unit labor costs. The manufacturing sdata for such comparisons, and the BLS been adjusted to a common conceptual comparisons. Nevertheless, it should be notallow only for a partial assessment of internof countries. The aggregate (all manufaindicators may mask important variations manufacturing sub-sectors. In addrelationships in manufacturing may not relationships in services, a growing sector focompetitiveness is heavily dependent on laboother factors that also influence competiquality of the product, the timeliness of service, and the flexibility needed to recustomers' requirements. The following two hourly compensation costs and productivitindicators. Note that the hourly compensatiolevels and trends, whereas the productivitindicators are limited to trend comparisons. 

Hourly compensation costs for prin manufacturing (charts 3.1-3.3) These charts present data on comparativcosts for manufacturing production workeinternational differences in employer labor based on the more readily available aver
Definition

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 indicaterelative living standards of workers or the purchasing power of their income. Hourly compensation costs include (1) hourly direct pay and (2) employer social insurance expenditures and other labor taxes. Hourly direct pay includes all payments made directly to the worker, before payroll deductions of any kind, consisting of (a) pay for time worked (basic time and piece rates plus overtime premiums, shift differentials, other premiums and bonuses paid regularly each pay period, and cost-of-living adjustments) and (b) other direct pay (pay for time not worked (vacations, holidays, and other leave, except sick leave), seasonal or irregular bonuses and other special payments, selected social allowances, and the cost of payments in kind). Social insurance expenditures and other labor taxes include (c) employer expenditures for legally required insurance programs and contractual and private benefit plans (retirement and disability pensions, health insurance, income guarantee insurance and sick leave, life and accident insurance, occupational injury and illness compensation, unemployment insurance, and family allowances) and, for some countries, (d) other labor taxes (other taxes on payrolls or employment (or reductions to reflect subsidies), even if they do not finance programs that directly benefit workers, because such taxes 

are regarded as labor costs). For consis

measured on an hours-worked basis for everThe BLS definition of hourly compensation cthe ILO definition of total labor costs. Hourly not include all items of labor costs. The 

employee training, and plant facilities acafeterias and medical clinics—are not incl

not available for most countries. The laaccount for no more than 4 percent of total lafor which the data are available. Production workers generally include thosengaged in fabricating, assembly, and relhandling, warehousing, and shipping; majanitorial and guard services; auxiliary prpower plants); and other services closely activities. Working supervisors are generaland other trainees are generally excluded. Total compensation is computed by adjusting earnings series for items of direct pay not infor employer expenditures for legally requireand private benefit plans, and other labor 

States and other countries that measure eabasis, the figures are also adjusted in compensation per hour worked. Earnings from surveys of employment, hours, and earn

censuses of manufactures. 

Adjustment factors are obtained from periodic 

interpolated or projected to non-survey year

information for most countries. The infotabulations of employer social security contri
A10 | Definitions, Sources, and Methods

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 industrialclassification systems; and changes over time in survey coverage, sample benchmarks, or frequency of surveys. Nevertheless, somedifferences in industrial coverage remain and in many countries other than the United States the data exclude very small establishments (less than 5 employees in Japan and less than 10 employees in most other countries). For the United States, the methods used, as well as the results, differ somewhat from those for other BLS series on U.S. compensation costs. Hourly compensation costs are converted to U.S. dollars using the average daily exchange rate for the reference period. The exchange rates used are prevailing commercial market exchange rates as published by either the U.S. Federal Reserve Board or the International Monetary Fund. The hourly compensation figures in U.S. dollars shown in the tables provide comparative measures of employer labor costs; they do not provide inter-country comparisons of the purchasing power of worker incomes. Prices of goods and services vary greatly among countries, and the commercial market exchange rates used to compare employer labor costs do not reliably indicate relative differences in prices. Purchasing Power Parities (defined previously in the Gross Domestics Product section) must be used for 

meaningful international comparisons of tpower of worker incomes. Total compensation converted to U.S. dolla

Parities would provide one measure for compof labor income. It should be notedcompensation includes employer payments to 

workers in addition to payments made directlinto these funds provide either deferred payments to retirement funds), a type of ipayments to unemployment or health benefit benefits (for example, family allowances)between employer payments and current or indirect. On the other hand, excluding understate the total value of income derived substitute for worker savings or self-insuranmedical costs, etc. Total compensation, because it takes accouninto funds for the benefit of workers, is a bthan either total direct earnings or direct speven broader concept would take accounavailable to workers, including those finrevenues as well as those financed through taxes. Source: BLS, “International Comparisons of Hou

Production Workers in Manufacturing,” NovembeLabor News Release USDL 05-2197, <http://www
Definitions

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 on 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 includes 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 in unit labor costs affect the prices of manufactured products. Labor compensation includes employer expenditures for legally required insurance programs and contractual and private benefitplans, in addition to all payments made in cash or in kind directly to employees. Data on labor compensation are usually taken from the countries' national accounts. When data for the self-employed are not available, total compensation is estimated by assuming the same hourly compensation for self-employed and employees. 

Changes in a country's unit labor costs expreestimated by combining changes in the unit 

each nation's currency with changes in the country's currency against the U.S. dollar. 

Source: BLS, "International Comparisons of Man

Unit Labor Cost Trends, 2004," February 15, 20

News Release USDL 06-268, <http://www.bls.gov

Public expenditures on la

programs as a percen

(chart 4.1) 

 Public expenditures on labor market programprograms, although not all countries have 

employment services and administration; recruitment and maintenance incentives; intedirect job creation; business start-up incenincome maintenance and support, inccompensation; and, early retirement incentivrefer to 2003 for Austria, Denmark, FranPortugal, and Sweden. The data refer tNetherlands, Norway, and Spain. For the rdata refer to fiscal year 2004, although thcountry: for Canada, Japan, and the United 

begins on April 1st; for Australia and New Ze

1st; and for the United States, on October 1st. 

previously (see Gross Domestic Product sect

Source: OECD, Employment Outlook, 2005 Ed., P
A12 | Definitions, Sources, and Methods

Measures of regulation

on labor and product markets 

(chart 4.2) 

 The measure of labor market regulation gauges the extent of regulations governing the hiring and firing of workers—often termed employment protection legislation. It is a summary measure that 

ranges from 0 (no restrictions) to 6 (very restrictive). The following factors are considered: the extent of procedural requirements that employers must follow in individual or collective dismissals, notice and severance pay requirements, and the degree of regulation oftemporary forms of employment. The measure of product market regulation is based on a simple average of indicators for seven industries, where each industry is rated from 0 (no restrictions) to 6 (very restrictive). The industries are gas, electricity, postal and courier activities, telecommunications, air transport, railways, and road freight. Depending on the industry, the following factors are considered: barriers to entry, public ownership, market structure, vertical integration, and price controls. Both indicators are constructed by OECD from a variety of national sources as well as from multi-country surveys. The construction of these summary measures involves difficult choices of quantification and weighting. For further information on these choices, see the source documents. 

Source: OECD, Employment Outlook, 2004 Ed.,, Paris, July 2004, table 

2.A2.4; and OECD, Employment Outlook, 2002 Ed., Paris, July 2002, table 

5.A.3. 

Share of labor costs 

by tax and social security c

(chart 4.3) 

This series, taxes on a single production difference between the salary cost of a sinworker to their employer and the amount of wage) that they receive. Labor costs are gro

social security contributions and payroll taxe

are income taxes paid by the employee, econtributions, employer social security contreffect, payroll taxes. The types of taxes inclufully comparable across countries, as they definitions agreed by all OECD countries. (Tchart 3.3, which covers only employer-paid taBecause income taxes and access to worvary by family status and in complex ways simple cross-country comparisons require with a common family status. The figures pertain to a single full-time production worksector who earns the wage of the average proThe information on the average production supplied by the ministries of finance in all based on national statistical surveys. The athe single production worker is calculated by 

the country concerned. Thus, the tax ratmodeling exercise rather than direct observpaid. Source: OECD, Taxing Wages: 2003/2004, 200

table II.5. 
Definitions

Population

(charts 4.4, 5.1-5.3) 

Population estimates are usually based on national population censuses, but the frequency and quality of these vary by country. Most countries conduct a complete enumeration no more than oncea decade. Pre- and post-census estimates are interpolations orextrapolations based on demographic models. The dependency ratio (charts 4.4 and 5.3) is the ratio of dependents 

(persons under age 15 or above age 64) to the working-age population (persons ages 15 to 64). The dependency ratio is anoverall measure of the dependence that children and the elderlyhave on people of working age. However, dependency ratios showthe age composition of a population, not necessarily economic dependency. Some children and elderly people are part of the labor force and some working-age people are not. 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 is in specific age groups. 

Three age groups are presented in chart 5.2: persons under age 15, persons ages 15 to 64 (often referred to as the working-age population), and persons above age 64. Data for chart 4.4 are from OECD. Data shown in charts 5.1 to 5.3 are from the World Bank. 

International comparability of population idifferences in the concepts, definitions, data and estimation methods used by national sother organizations that collect population dare not always reported accurately, parcountries. 

Source: OECD, Labor Force Statistics: 1984-200

2005, part I; World Bank, World Development Ind

2005, table 2.1; and World Bank, World Develop

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

Trade in goods as a perc

(charts 4.5 and 5.7

 Trade in goods as a percent of GDP is thexports and imports divided by GDP, all current U.S. dollars. The value taken by the 

the share of GDP generated by imports indicates that the value of imports and expresulting percentage of GDP. GDP has been Gross Domestic Product section). 

Source: World Bank, World Development Indi

2005, table 6.1.